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.
Filipe Manuel Neto
Aug 10, 2022
1/10
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.
