IMDb reviews From IMDb
★ 1 / 10
**A film made to make money off the
Filipe Manuel Neto
**A film made to make money off the success of its predecessor, but which has nothing to do with it.** Anyone who saw the movie “The Mask” with Jim Carey, from…
**A film made to make money off the success of its predecessor, but which has nothing to do with it.**
Anyone who saw the movie “The Mask” with Jim Carey, from 1994, cannot remain indifferent. It's one of those family comedies that marked the 90's and that strongly contributed to the meteoric rise of the comic actor's career. It was a film that, in my opinion, did not need a sequel, but that, if it came to exist, would have to have the same crew and a similar cast (that is, keeping, at least, Carey and some other actors). Unfortunately, this movie does everything it shouldn't have done.
In fact, any comparison between the first movie and this crap is pointless. It is not the first time that I see that there are sequels made to profit from great successes and that have virtually no connection with the preceding films. This is just one more example. Jim Carey was right not to want to associate himself with a project that failed at the outset, not least because most of the cast that associated with the film did not manage to take advantage of it beyond the financial inflow.
The film is clearly expensive and stupid. It had a high budget, which was invested in a range of CGI assets and massive and sometimes impressive visual effects, but everything else is lacking. And the film's biggest flaw couldn't be any other: the script is so amateurish and idiotic that it seems to have been written by ten-year-old children. Ideas are bad, there are a number of situations in which we feel that the public is being mocked, and our intelligence is being mocked too.
Another problem with this film is the total lack of humor. The movie was supposed to be funny and make us laugh, but we couldn't find anything funny. Much of what is shown was already done – and better – in the first film, and what has been introduced as new is a series of scatological or gross jokes that, I think, could have been cut. Even children's audiences might not be very interested in seeing this, if you think about it.
The cast does what they can, but they can't do much. Deep down, the actors end up being the least to blame for the fact that the film is rubbish. Alan Cumming turns out to be the best actor present and is the only one worth seeing work. He's an effective villain and his comedic streak is interesting, but totally wasted here. Bob Hoskins makes an appearance, but it is innocuous and adds nothing to the film. Jamie Kennedy is bad, he does a bad job, and surely he must be sorry he got into this movie. The rest is basically a bunch of extras, even when they have to talk.
Read full review
★ 4 / 10
Just as awful as I had anticipated. With
r96sk
Just as awful as I had anticipated. With that said, it's nothing so bad that it offended me - it's simply totally and utterly bad, to the point I kinda find it…
Just as awful as I had anticipated. With that said, it's nothing so bad that it offended me - it's simply totally and utterly bad, to the point I kinda find it hard to hate on it because I just don't have any thoughts on it. It is, without question, undoubtedly worse than 1994's 'The Mask' in every conceivable way though.
Jamie Kennedy's version of this Dark Horse Comics character is truly dreadful, especially visually, though thankfully the film doesn't actually give that much air time to Kennedy as The Mask; like, he's there but it's predominantly the dog and the son that get much of the screen time alongside Alan Cumming's Loki - to slightly better effect too, the way the kid is animated kinda nearly works... it doesn't, but almost.
Ryan Reynolds, according to Kennedy himself, possibly wanted this role. It's lucky Reynolds didn't get his way, or he'd be stuck with a green ghoul in his past. Oh, wait!
4/10 is probably generous on my part, though there are far worse films out there that actually annoy me - 'Son of the Mask' honestly doesn't. It kinda just exists and I'm almost nonplussed about it.
Read full review
★ 1 / 10
p-a-r-t-y. Why? no seriously....why was this movie made?
flashbeagle
Eleven years ago, Stanley Ipkiss released his true inner self and became the hero of Edge City by finding and wearing the Norse god of mischief, Loki's mask.…
Eleven years ago, Stanley Ipkiss released his true inner self and became the hero of Edge City by finding and wearing the Norse god of mischief, Loki's mask. The Mask helped bring Jim Carrey to the forefront of comedy and reached a very popular status for its originality and just pure fun. Everyone knew how to spell party. P-A-R-T-Y. Why? Cuz I gotta! Now, eleven years later, it seems to me that the same philosophy has been applied to the new movie "Son of the Mask." Someone asked director Lawrence Guterman why are you making this? And he responds "Cuz I gotta!" Unfortunately, that answer doesn't cover it because after seeing Son of the Mask I still left the theatre thinking, "Good Lord, Why?" Guterman and the rest of the people involved in the blasphemous film need to realize that the response given to why are you making this film should not be as simple as the answer to the debate on whether or not to party.The Son of the Mask begins with Otis the dog finding the infamous mask and bringing it back to his owner Tim Avery, a clear homage to legendary Loony Toons creator Tex Avery. Tim, played by Jamie Kennedy, is a struggling animator who is stuck working as a turtle tour guide for the animation company he aspires to one-day draw for. On the night of the company Halloween party, Tim puts on the mask and transforms into the mischievous, insane character that we all expect. After the party Tim goes home, mask still on and conceives a child with his wife. Nine months later mayhem ensues as the baby born of the mask has remarkable cartoonish powers. Otis the dog, jealous of the baby's attention, puts on the mask and partakes in Tom and Jerry type mayhem to out the baby. Meanwhile, Loki, played by Alan Cumming, is in search for his mask at the orders of his father, Odin.First off, ill admit that I do respect the fact that this film pays so much homage to the classic cartoons such as Tom and Jerry and Loony Toons, with its Wile E. Coyote type contraptions and the infamous dancing frog type plot. However, this reverence cannot save the film and makes it less respectful and more of a waste of time.The premise of the movie becomes increasingly silly. Silly is not always a bad thing, but in this movie, the silliness gets to the point of just plain annoying. The characters are not fun to watch, and what's worse, they're not funny. The dullness of the characters can also be attributed to the fact that so much CGI was used. One of the greatest things about the original is that while, obviously computer animation was used, so much relied on Jim Carrey and his exuberant style of just being. Jim Carrey, we were convinced, was an actual cartoon. Jamie Kennedy just doesn't have that kind of ability, a fact that is clear when you watch him wear the mask and his facial features rarely shift. The baby and dog were mostly completely animated which became increasingly distracting throughout the movie. The side story of Loki searching for the mask just became more and more stupefying.The son of the Mask is a sad sad state of affairs. What I suggest is you go rent or buy the original the Mask and thank the Norse gods, or whoever, for bringing it to us. And will consider seeing the sequel my sacrifice as I continue to ask the infamous question "WHY?" The son of the Mask gets one star, although that star should be divvied up between the classic creators of Loony Toons and Jim Carrey, who will always be, in my book, the mask.
Read full review
More reviews on IMDb ↗
♡ Thanks for supporting YTS Supporter badges recognize people who help keep YTS running.
6%
TOMATOMETER
· 102 reviews
16%
AUDIENCE
· 25K ratings
2.3/10
62.8K
•••
Thank you for uploading the movie