Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
SON OF THE MASK discussion
#1
After seeing this movie last night, I have mixed feelings about it. Here's my "review". You all know how dedicated I am, so be warned, I'm going to devote some attention to Jamie Kennedy.

Son of the Mask attempts something very difficult, which is to meld cgi cartoon characters and cartoon effects (with reference to Looney Tunes) with live action. It is difficult to succeed in this endeavor because audiences can get annoyed very quickly when the resulting anarchy doesn't relate to real life; that is, when the cartoons just push people around for the sake of slapstick.

I saw Who Framed Roger Rabbit years ago, and I found it excruciatingly uncomfortable. I thought that SOTM succeeded partly. The first third of the movie is disjointed, the actors look a little uncomfortable, and there's a weird musical scene. Then, once Tim Avery's wife leaves him with the baby for a week, it comes together, and here's why: the ensuing torture for Time Avery, the baby's discovery of his powers, and the strange effects actually compliment each other to a very unusual effect. The nightmarish aspect suddenly works with the story and gains momentum. I thought Kennedy's acting was right on in all the scenes after this point, especially his scenes with the baby. He is very good at combining comedy with horror.

I thought Alan Cumming's underlying embarrassment actually made sense in the context of the story, in which he has an abusive father. As for the role of the baby, I thought he was handled really well, no problem there for me.

Now, here are some of my other feelings after seeing this movie: When Jamie Kennedy put the mask on, and took on a low voice, I reeled back. A few other people I chatted with who like him had exactly the same reaction . The musical scene, especially, freaked the hell out of us. I'm still scratching my head over it. I just don't know what to make of it. It wasn't romantic in intent, like in the original movie. I am now curious to watch it again, just to try to get a feel for the mask character he plays.

I found it maddening, concerning the Time Avery mask role, that the movie threw this image at us, but never focused on it for more than a few seconds at a time. I made a point to watch the original The Mask a few nights ago on dvd, and in it, I noticed that Jim Carrey looked horrible too, but it focused on him, so that we got to watch him discover his alternate persona and get a feel for it. I think this movie made a mistake that is ironically timid by skirting around Tim Avery's mask persona instead of focusing on it.

I was a little stunned over the reviews on the Rotten Tomatoes site, (5% fresh). I think the studio took a huge risk making a sequel to a movie in which the public perceives Jim Carrey as owning any role that wears the mask, and that Jamie Kennedy took an incredible risk, as an actor.

There, those are my thoughts.
Reply
#2
Cobwebs.

Alot of tumbleweeds passing through, but only cobwebs remain.

It's not a good feeling to be left hanging, so comment if you've seen the movie.
Reply
#3
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anne

It's not a good feeling to be left hanging, so comment if you've seen the movie.

I think this answers why no one is commenting.
Reply
#4
your review is as close as I'll get to seeing this, so I appreciate the effort of your writing it.
Reply
#5
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anne

I saw Who Framed Roger Rabbit years ago, and I found it excruciatingly uncomfortable.

Credibility: gone.
Reply
#6
I'm curious as to how this film plays out, but I have no desire to see it. How does the baby get the wacky powers without having the mask on? Does Jamie Kennedy sleep with his wife in 'Mask Mode,' giving the baby genetically inherient powers? Does he toss that side away when he learns his wife is pregnant? Are there any other references to the previous film other than Ben Stien's character?
Reply
#7
Quote:

Originally Posted by suttytx

your review is as close as I'll get to seeing this, so I appreciate the effort of your writing it.

Thank you. It was an effort for me! I was scared. I thought I should be smart and let someone else start a discussion thread, and if no one did, then take that as a sign and leave it be. But I wanted to give my opinion of the movie outside of the disaster thread, so here you have it.

I am not sure about credibility. I am not a good writer. I do want to be myself, even if you all don't share my feelings about JK. I can take it!
Reply
#8
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anne

I saw Who Framed Roger Rabbit years ago, and I found it excruciatingly uncomfortable.

Jessica Rabbit turned you on too, huh?
Reply
#9
Quote:

Originally Posted by Cigam Retah

I'm curious as to how this film plays out, but I have no desire to see it. How does the baby get the wacky powers without having the mask on? Does Jamie Kennedy sleep with his wife in 'Mask Mode,' giving the baby genetically inherient powers? Does he toss that side away when he learns his wife is pregnant? Are there any other references to the previous film other than Ben Stien's character?

The baby is born with the powers of the mask because his parents conceive while dad is wearing the mask. The movie is called son of the mask, I am guessing, in reference to the baby, the "son". However, audiences don't see it that way at all, because they only think of seeing a replacement for Jim Carrey. That might be why the movie so strangely glosses over Time Avery's mask persona. It's pretty chaotic, and not clear sometimes what the story is about, especially when the dog puts the mask on. That part is a great idea, I think, and it's where the movie tries most closely to refer to Looney Tunes, but it doesn't flow, or whatever, into the story for some reason. That's why I liked the whole part of the movie that focuses on Tim Avery feeling that he is going insane, with the baby, because it really worked.

Good question about does he toss away the mask when he finds out his wife is pregnant. He doesn't, the dog steals and hides it.


That was kind of like a discussion.
Reply
#10
Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles B

Jessica Rabbit turned you on too, huh?

Actually, she was a turn on. She had a fantasy body, I'm sure you agree. I don't remember anything else.
Reply
#11
Quote:

Originally Posted by Straxboy - An Anthony Hickox Film

Credibility: gone.

Seconded, thirded and approved.
Reply
#12
Daft, perhaps, insincere, no.
Reply
#13
I'm reporting you for gross misuse of commas.
Reply
#14
I loves me my commas, don't I?


Bless you for lightening things up a bit, Agent Helix. I mean, Jeez. Now everybody grab a banana.
Reply
#15
No, seriously. Government stormtroopers will be by to kick your teeth in shortly.
Reply
#16
good stuff, Anne. you just keep on with that.
Reply
#17
Fred Topel's interview is very good. He got into it, and it offers insight. What is his email address?

I read that Jamie Kennedy never gets enough sleep, which might explain why he seemed "out of it", even while engaged in the inerview.
Reply
#18
I read that he has to eat a live human baby during every full moon.
Reply
#19
I laughed at the Exorcist gag. A lot.

The less said about the rest, the better.
Reply
#20
Quote:

Originally Posted by Anne

Fred Topel's interview is very good. He got into it, and it offers insight. What is his email address?

I read that Jamie Kennedy never gets enough sleep, which might explain why he seemed "out of it", even while engaged in the inerview.

Replace 'sleep' with 'amphetamines.'
Reply
#21
Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles B

Replace 'sleep' with 'amphetamines.'

I'm leaning towards horse tranquilizers myself. His interviews for this film approach a level of spaciness previously reserved for Matthew Perry.

Must have been a tough shoot.
Reply
#22
This movie can be summed up in one word - SHIT
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)