I know it's a cliche and worn out as hell, but what I'm saying is true.
If you don't like this movie it means that all the satire went above your head.
In short, this movie is supposed to be dumb, and it does it well!
---
Mouthal smell is a form of sensory input. See, if you listen carefully, you can hear the mouth.
?
Sooo . . . I should give this movie a higher rating . . . bc . . . it achieved it's goal of being completely 'dumb' ie; bad?
The continous contradictory-banter prevalent in this movie was not lost on you, ey?
In the words of Mugato '. . . that is SO stupid . . .'
btw, you'd think after 15 years the sequel would've improved -
I can't wait for Redbox to ask me to rate the movie after it's returned . . .
I wish they had a rating lower than 1 . . .
Redbox has ratings now?
shareKyle Mooney was a perfect satire but guess what, it still wasn't funny. The only stuff that was funny, was the zany over the top stuff and stupidity. This movie felt more like a poor version of Mission Impossible with boring action sequences and no point.
shareOk so you understood the satire but didn't like it.
I can work with that.
-----------
I sell butane and potato accessories.
Dumb doesn't always equal bad
shareI thought it was hilarious too. The crypt keeper joke had me balling.
shareMy low opinion is about basic storytelling. If you need five minutes of taking-to-the-camera exposition, your plot is probably too complicated, and for comedies that's a major problem. The whole thing was too disjointed, aimless, and therefore, ultimately, pointless. Not in that "having no point is the point" sort of way, it simply did not know what it was doing. It was too scattered.
shareI see.
It actually seems to me that new movies seem to be made in the same way. All new movies I've seen carry this "disjointed" quality. Like the scene succession is slightly jumbled.
When you say five minutes of talking-to-the-camera exposition, are you referring to any specific moment in the movie?
That being said, you did not address the inherent comedic elements of the movie. Did you like the comedy of Zoolander 2? The visual gags? The celebrity cameos? The absurdity? The satire?
-----------
I sell butane and potato accessories.
The disjointed quality I refer to is not about the scene succession. I'm referring to how there are too many subplots to keep the narrative focused. I am unsure what the focus of the plot is supposed to be; is it Derek trying to get his son back, Hansel trying to work out his father issues, trying to stop celebrity murders, the ancient myth, etc?
It comes across as though there were all these ideas, and instead of choosing one for the main plot and maybe one subplot, they stuffed it all in there. The first film has Derek becoming obsolete because of Hansel and retiring, Mugatu needing Derek to come back in order to brainwash into an assassin, and then Derek and Hansel joining forces to defeat Mugatu: simple, straight, focused.
The exposition I'm recalling is the seemingly endless succession of CG animation framed news clips that go on about all the disasters that occurred after the first movie's happy ending. I found myself drifting as I became unsure as to why I needed all this information, and why it was being spoon fed to me instead of worked into the dialogue.
As for the comedic elements, I really don't like when comedy sequels recycle jokes from the first movie. Part of the humor of a good comedy is that you can't see the punchline coming, and it's well timed. Usually the recycled, sequel version of a joke is not only obvious as to what the punchline will be, but is also usually timed out slower giving the audience a nudge, nudge, wink, wink, you remember liking this joke the first time, dullness. 2oolander falls apart brimming with this kind of crap as most comedy sequels do. It comes across as though the creators don't have any new ideas.
The jokes about Derek and Hansel being old and out of date all came across as "oh those crazy kids with their long hair and hippie music" type of humor that wasn't funny in the sixties with the Rat Pack crowd. It wasn't funny in the eighties with the anti-Mtv hippie crowd, and it's not funny now with the anti-millenial dad crowd.
The cameos were the only parts I laughed at, but even those got tiring as the plot lines drifted around, and I wondered why I was even still watching as I had lost any connection to the characters at all. By the last half hour I was just waiting for the Will Ferrel scenes, and was bored in between them. His Mugatu still reads as fresh as the first film (minus, of course, the few recycled jokes they made him do as well)(and the good visual joke they ruined by making it a central part of the trailer).
All valid points, and my conclusion is thusly:
People seem to focus on different things, and I personally didn't "tune in" to the same stuff that you did.
I agree with your sentiments (or rather I can see how you viewed the movie and I can't say that you seem too dumb to "get it") and it has made me think that maybe I didn't "understand" the movie so much as interpret it, in a way that was to my liking.
-----------
I sell butane and potato accessories.
I liked most of it, but there were some areas that were just cringeworthy ... ok there were a few in the original Zoolander as well. So in a nutshell, I think it delivered as well as the first, and I'm glad I rented it.
share