I don't get the hate, this one is my favorite.
Anyone else liked this one at least?
shareI LOVE this one.
share
MovieChat Forums > Scary Movie 2 (2001) Discussion > I don't get the hate, this one is my fav...
I think this is funnier than the first.
Rest in Peace Lee Thompson Young. An angel gone too soon.
Disagree. This is probably the worst of them. It was all over the place, wasn't very funny and dragged. Yeah, it's weird that an 85 minute movie, felt like it dragged.
The only things that kept it from being a total disaster were Cindy & Brenda. The characters played by Tori Spelling & Kathleen Robertson, were totally unnecessary. In fact, most of the actual funny bits, were cut out of the movie!! Watch the deleted scenes in the special features section of the DVD.
My favorite deleted moments: Cindy and the What Lies Beneath bathtub spoof, Cindy & Brenda at the school campus (Brenda gets her scholarship money and government cheese, then has the nerve to ask for butter!), Brenda freaks out while poor Tim Currey is trying to explain the history of the mansion.
I actually thought the Tori Spelling part was funny.
shareI only like the first 3, and this one is by far my favorite.
shareNowhere near as good as Scary Movie 1, but still much better than every 'parody' movie that followed.
Especially, Cindy. Anna Faris really commits to every scene.
It's not my favorite, but the the cast and random vibe of the movie.
shareObviously, nothing beats the first 'Scary Movie'. It's such a well-written, funny classic, that doesn't even bow down to the misandry that permeates the modern matriarchy that we all live in. A guy punches a girl, and it's meant to be funny for the audience (and it is). How many movies can you see this scene in?
It's always the reverse - girl punches a guy, and audience is supposed to find it funny (or more popularly; kicks a guy in the nuts).
The third and fourth ones are entertaining and pretty funny, nothing wrong with them.
This second attempt, however, leaves a lot to be desired. It tries to be funny, but doesn't always manage to do so. I was ready to laugh at many points, but the timing was a little off, and the jokes weren't actually that funny.
Lots of 'disgusting' going on, but that doesn't equal 'funny'.
The 'cat fight' scene was well done and enjoyable, but somehow, not as funny as it could've been. The 'if we lived in TRULY equal world'-scenes, where the guy treats the girl exactly as he would another guy, is refreshing, because we don't often get to see that -- but then the whole thing is killed off by making the girl punch a guy, who can't do the same back "because she's a girl". What the.. again back to inequality and preferential treatment?
Some of the jokes 'drag' - they go on for too long. The basketball 'Nike commercial' (I think) bit is one of those.
The last mistake they made with this second one was repetition of old jokes.
I'd say this is more of a 'fun movie' than 'funny movie' - and the ending didn't know what to do with itself. The whole weelchair fight is just boring and lacks a proper climax, and thus becomes completely pointless as well.
The third and fourth movies are better thought-out, they have better timing, funnier jokes and more interesting and varying visuals. (The whole 'ghost-effect' looked like a guy with white flour poured on him put through an unskilled effects-artist's computer - awful-looking and boring)
All in all, the first is of course an untouched classic, but the rest .. I'd say the Scary Movie 2 is the worst of all of them, although it's still relatively entertaining (and none of them are bad movies).
I love this one too, I don't know why people didn't like it.
shareWell, speaking as a hater I'll hopefully help you understand it.
In general, spoof movies tend to age badly. Rewatching it now, the original Scary Movie feels very dated, though interestingly less so than its sequels. We have extended parodies of movies popular at the time like Scream (1996), Titanic (1997), The Matrix (1999) and The Blair Witch Project (1999). While these movies have become classics and are still widely remembered, we also get spoofs and references to movies such as; I Know What You Did Last Summer (1997), Amistad (1997), Kazaam (1996) and Election (1999), as well as the ‘Wazzup’ Budweiser commercials. Stuff that nobody born after the early-90s will remember. That being said, the first movie is still somewhat of a guilty pleasure of mine. What makes the movie still work for me is that it focuses much of its humour on horror tropes, so anyone with even a passing familiarity with the horror genre will get most of the jokes.
Scary Movie 2 is much worse at it. They overdosed on the pop culture references to the point that it’s almost embarrassingly dated to 1998-2001. There are a lot of spoofs of adverts and music videos from 2000—2001 (which are much less likely to be remembered than films), such an extended parody of The Weakest Link and an advert for Nike shoes. At the time, when the commercial was still ubiquitous on TV this gag was dated; now it just feels awkward. I had to strain to remember what they were parodying. It doesn’t help that (unlike in the first movie), most of the films being spoofed in II were terrible and quickly faded to irrelevancy. Anyone here actually remember The Haunting (1999), Paulie (1998), Save the Last Dance (2001), What Lies Beneath (2000), Thirteen Ghosts (2001), or Hollow Man (2000) ? Then we have 5 minute spoofs of Mission Impossible 2’s (2000) climatic motorcycle fight and Charlie's Angels (2000) – leaving aside the fact that these aren't horror movies; sure these movie were a big hit at the box office, but how many people remember or talk about them now?
And there's just the fact that Scary Movie II is just terribly unfunny. They overdid the gross-out stuff and the jokes felt lazy and poorly constructed.
I get what this person is saying. The thing with the Haunting (1999), though, is it is memorable because of the original 1963 version. So people should be aware of it unless they don't like classic horror of course. Which would just be sad. If that is the case hey have other serious issues than just liking this movie.
shareThis is a great comedy and the score it ahs on IMDB is a hilarious joke, itself.
shareTo add to what I said earlier, the problem with this movie is that it's UNEVEN.
It's very, very uneven. There is some absurd hilarity that spoofs horror movies and mocks the tropes, and the 'tiny-handed handyman' is usually absolutely ball-bouncingly funny. The only place where 'gross' is funny (it usually fails), is when the handyman is serving the dinner, I can't watch that without laughing even nowadays. How gross it is, IS so darn funny.
If the whole movie was funny on the level of THAT scene, this could be the best of all of them and rival Airplane!.
But there's so much 'almost-funny' stuff and that horrible hag that wasn't meant to be seen on ANY screen - not TV, let alone a movie screen - just takes the cake. She is the living embodiment of how ugly nepotism really can be. Her face looks exactly like the face of nepotism would, if it had a face.
I can't believe some horny kid has written the typical movie board "[This ugly or plain hag] is HOT"-type post about _HER_.
Really? She's even uglier than the most ugly hollyweird hags of all time, from the Shining hag to Rocky's wife to Sickhorny Fever that some people, for some reason, still seem to find 'tolerable-looking' despite her horrible manface and manvoice and awful hair and features. Didn't you see her in 'Alien'? Have you ever seen a young, asian beauty?
Go visit Asia and look at the women there, THEN come back and tell me she or Face-of-Nepotism are somehow "HOT"! I bet 100 bucks you can't do it (at least if you are honest).
The only reason for this really weird phenomenon, besides some idiotic teenage hormones that I can think of, is that american people see 'typical american wide loads' every day, so when they see someone that's not MORBIDLY JABBA-THE-HUTT-LEVEL-OBESE-AND-SLIMY (I think George Carlin was WAY too kind when he was describing americans and their ugly bodies), it SEEMS somehow attractive by contrast.
I also hate that people use the word 'HOT' every time (capitalized, too).
Aren't there ANY other terms people could be used? Why is it always that word, and why is it almost always capitalized, and is it REALLY supposed to mean something, when your pénis types for you, and you don't even think to be ashamed of how embarrassing your ridiculously short and meaningless post is?
You type: "[This ugly hag] is HOT" and think you have contributed something meaningful to the vast Universe, the size of which you are not even capable of comprehending?
Is that how it works? I could write that about so many women, but do you see me writing that kind of tiny post? These boards are meant for DISCUSSION, why do people write these ridiculous, minuscule non-posts anyway? It's like they're not even being human beings, they let their animal side control what they do in life. They connect to the internet, the miracle of modern network communications, that enables them to express their most interesting thoughts for everyone to see, and ALL they can think of is how some ugly hag made their balls tingle?
REALLY?
What the hell is wrong with people.. the abundance of these non-posts is actually scary, because it tells me there are SO many people that are not being human beings, or more importantly, are not CAPABLE of probably ever being human beings..
Could people like this just keep their horniness inside of them? WHY do they think we want or need to hear about it or know it? What's the point of just saying 'someone is hot'? What does that generate, what purpose does it create? What sort of contemplative contribution does it add to the world's philosophical archives?
PLEASE think before you post "[This ugly hag] is hot". Sorry, meant to say, "[This ugly hag] is HOT!"
First, she's not. You are just horny.
Second, expand your mind and visuals enough, and you'll realize she's actually pretty ugly.
Third, if you must say something this stupid and simpy, AT LEAST choose the right women to talk about. I wouldn't mind if someone said Claudia Wells is HOT.
I wouldn't mind if someone said young Abe Natsumi is HOT (though she really isn't, she's just 'cute', but only when she's smiling, and even then, the smile has some kind of esoteric 'deep-friendly'-quality that's hard to explain, it has a deep effect, and it's not just the visuals of the smile, there's something weird in there).
I wouldn't mind if someone said that about relatively young versions of: Maeda Atsuko, Dana Wheeler-Nicholson, Vanessa Marquez, Laura San Giacomo, Glynis Barber, Christina Applegate, Francesca Gonshaw, Cynthia Rhodes, Victoria Principal, Hiep Thi Le, Joey Wong, or even Fran Drescher, Jane Seymour or Mila Kunis, Catherite Zeta-Jones or EVEN Gabrielle Glaister (she's a Leo, just like Mila Kunis, so they both have an extra 'glow' about them).
Heck, I would be silent even if you said it about things like young Charlene Tilton, Alicia Silverstone or Debra Messing (another Leo-effect)!
But the hags people USUALLY say this about, are NOWHERE NEAR the charm or 'interesting-face' or 'interesting Leo-effect' of the women on this small list. It's always some repulsive man-face with a dull, ugly, bulgy-eyed face or masculine qualities.
Are these people secretly gay, when no one ever says this about Claudia Wells, but numerous morons say this about the 'Alien' hag that should have BEEN one of the aliens (or one of the ghosts in 'Ghostbusters')?
I don't get it.. I just don't get it, and it makes me lose all hope for any humanity that could've existd on this planet. These posts make it clear no such thing has existed on this wretched mudrock for aeons.