Cube²: Hypercube (2002) Poster

User Reviews

Add a Review
225 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
6/10
Cube 2: Hypercube: 6/10
movieguy10215 July 2004
I've never really thought about it this way, but I suppose in most cases, it's an honor to have a sequel. Although no one liked the sequel, I'm sure Jonathon Lynn is proud that The Whole Nine Yards got a sequel somehow. And that seems like the case with Cube 2: Hypercube, a sequel to the cult hit Cube. But then one wonders how there can be a sequel to a movie that was basically all filmed in one 14x14x14 set? Well, Cube 2 is the answer-but not really the best one. It shows what Cube would have been if it had had a bigger budget, but it also showed what it didn't want to become.

Strangers are thrown together into a series of interconnecting cubes yet again, but this time they're more high-tech. They're not different colors, and there's no booby traps. Instead, some rooms have a cube that attacks you (don't ask), some have gravity reversed, and time means nothing. There seems to be no pattern, like in the first one, so how are these people supposed to get out?

This is all one big rehash of the first. There's the wandering around, talking about the past, and speculation of why they're in the cube. I guess that's for people who see sequels before the originals. The characters are all more broadly drawn, the dialogue is cheesier, and it looks faker. In the first, you barely knew anything about the giant cube they were in. Here, it seems like everyone was involved somehow. The ending, which was vague in the first, explained some more, which I was angry yet happy about. It's hard to explain. But then they left it in the air yet again. Maybe it's for the prequel, Cube Zero (due out sometime this year) to describe.

But one positive difference between the two is that this one seemed to be overall scarier. It's not claustrophobia, but the idea of anything happening in a hypercube. Because they don't exist, everything goes wild here, allowing for some things to happen. It's all quite creepy. And although the random crazy psycho killer is more random here than the first, I liked him more, and he was great as he was going through the hypercube. Cube was an original, interesting, and disorienting movie. Cube 2 is the exact same thing, except not as good.

My rating: 6/10

Rated R for language, some violence and brief nudity.
88 out of 113 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Going no where fast...
aleinss-21 March 2003
Warning: Spoilers
(* Includes Spoilers *)

After seeing the original Cube, this movie is pretty bad. The people in the first movie actually all had to work together to get out of the Cube. And each one had a specific talent that made up the puzzle in getting out of it (i.e. no one person could get out alone). In this new movie the concept is the same but is never developed! People are just mindlessly roaming from room to room with no plan. The older woman supposedly has superior mathematical ability that should be able to decipher what the number 60659 means in each room, but she is too senile to do so! She's also quite annoying and adds nothing to the movie.

The blind girl was suppose to blow the whistle on the whole thing, but is found out before doing so, so she escapes into the Hypercube. Never mind the fact that even though she can barely move from room to room due to her blindness, she has miraculously waltzed into the Hypercube!

Traps have no logic to them, other then the eye candy factor.

The ending: very weak and it doesn't make sense.

Overall, a very disappointing movie to the first.

Rating: 3/10
32 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Hypercube. The title should have given it away!
DeviousMrBlonde19 August 2002
Hypercube. That title is terrible but I placated myself with the idea that a Hypercube is actually a real theoretical mathematical construct. That it wasn't some misjudged attempt at a catchy title. It is just telling it how it is. The first one was called Cube and was set in a Cube, this one is called Hypercube and is set in a Hypercube. How wrong I was. Everything - absolutely everything - in this movie is designed to be "Bigger, Better, Faster"! And that is why it fails miserably.

I loved the original Cube because of it's simplicity. It was what one might call a pseudo Science Fiction movie. It was a psychological thriller trying on the Science Fiction coat, and it worked to perfection. You thought, this is crazy BUT it could bloody well happen. It was (apparently) set in the here and now and everything in it was eerily possible. It would have cost an awful amount of money but it was possible, it was after all just a big mechanical Cube. Even the booby-traps were deceptively simple. The real beauty for me was that you never knew or got to know the why, where, or who in the first movie. The goal was simply to get out in one piece and each person had their individual skill to help achieve that goal.

Cube2 enters the full realm of Science Fiction and immediately trips and falls flat on it's face. None of the simplicity is left. The `captors' in this new cube must deal with time shifting, gravity shifting, alternate realities, some weird killer time thingy that moves through the rooms and one of the crew who turns a bit psycho... just like the policeman character from the first movie, except (you guessed it) he's even a BIGGER psycho. On top of that the story tries to put a face on who is behind these experiments: The Izon Military Corp. (or something along those lines). This movie therefore is what 2010 was to 2001, albeit on a more modest level. And in the same way it just doesn't work

Also, character development is practically nonexistent. For example one pair of characters disappear and are never seen again. Just like that, gone for no real reason except maybe to show the vastness of the Hypercube although another character seems adept at meeting the multiple instances of two other characters in particular. In the end you absolutely do not care for any of them or whether they can escape or not. The story gives you no reason to care for them. The idea of the Hypercube itself is too vast to make you care. As one character points out, the amount of possible rooms in a Hypercube is infinite. Therefore there is no real goal. The characters don't need each other to escape. There is no exit door in a Hypercube! So why bother at all?

And as for the one-liners. The pain, oh the pain.

The worst bit however is reserved for the end. The Über-Military guy's comments on the phone make it sound like they are really contemplating a Cube3. Spare us, please!
109 out of 161 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Fails on many levels
DrLex12 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Cube 2 is in many respects just a clone of the original Cube movie. Suppose you haven't seen that movie yet and consider watching this more recent version, which would probably be cooler because it has a larger budget and CGI... don't! Watch the original instead. If you like it, watch Cube Zero afterwards. Don't watch this one unless you really ache for more Cube- stuff.

There are many things about Hypercube that don't work. Overall, it feels like a bad remake of an old classic. This is not surprising because that's exactly what it is, except for the fact that the original isn't really 'old' yet, it only predates this movie by 5 years. 'Cube 2' is populated by almost exactly the same characters as the first movie. The premise is also the same, even though they added an extra 'dimension' (literally).

Of course it also differs from the original Cube in some ways. First, the complexity of the way in which the original 'cube' could be solved, is replaced by a simple concept which is made to look complex by means of cool-sounding terminology and random mathematical formulas. In the original movie, someone familiar with mathematics could follow the lines of thought of the characters, and people unfamiliar with maths could still feel that there was something substantial to it. In Cube 2, nobody understands what's happening, and this seems to include the makers of the movie themselves. Next, the original movie featured some gruesome yet inventive ways in which many of the characters died, involving traps with wires, fire, acid and so on. In 'Cube 2', characters are killed by computer graphics -- literally. If you expect more of the visceral gore like in Cube, you'll be heavily disappointed. Moreover, the effects looks cheap and dated. They're so obviously synthetic that it's distracting. Finally, there's a whole set of fresh actors. Unfortunately, the acting is rather bad. Unlike in the original 'Cube', I didn't care about any of the characters. Some even irritated me to such a degree that I wanted them to die quickly.

'Cube 2: Hypercube' feels as if somebody thought the original 'Cube' could be improved by throwing a bigger budget to it, and a crew which is skilled and has good tools, but has no clue of what made the original so good. It's a bit as if they just learned about the concept of a hypercube and found it so cool, that they thought a movie mostly based on this concept would be equally cool.
26 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Very Disappointing Sequel
patrickoneill4 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This is a truly bad sequel to the inventive and imaginative 'Cube'. It just feels like a made-for-TV, straight to the DVD bargain bin rehash of the first film. It doesn't have any atmosphere - getting rid of the dark metal and coloured lighting makes it look more like a trendy wine bar than a twisted death machine! Plus, why are the characters so unafraid? Kate (the psychotherapist) constantly smiles and acts like they're on some kind of office team-building event. It almost seems like waking up in a cube is not a new or frightening experience for them, "oh, right, we're in a cube again, how boring".

Another major problem with the film lies in the main 'psycho' of the group Simon. He is basically a replica of Quentin the cop from the first Cube, but without any of the character development or motive. In the first film it does seem a little extreme when Quentin starts murdering people but at least he's had a few arguments with them first. Simon just starts killing people for fun - you can't kill an old woman because her Alzheimer's annoys you!! The film disappointed from the start. In the original there was a gruesome death scene within 2 minutes of the start. In 'Hypercube' the intro sequence is a boring overhead shot of people lying in hospital beds and then you have to wait an hour for the first death. Overall the film feels like a bigger budget, lower impact remake/rip-off of the original with no excitement, enthusiasm or interest.
26 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Hyperdense Hypercube. What is the plot again?
Serata2 May 2005
So the math took a backseat to the first movie. This one, however, is all about the completely ridiculous result of what happens when you build a hypercube. Where did the simplicity go? Where's the magical screen writing that made the first so excellent? Fans of the first one absolutely should see this movie, you'll be pleasantly surprised at the new things Hypercube throws at you. Literally throws at you, in fact. And throws at the seven new characters.

But where did it go wrong? The opening sequence is nothing short of the greatest moment the Cube series has ever seen. Draws you straight into the action, even if the first actor is bad at falling... up. From that point on, the characters take a seat and move along with a poor attempt at additional plot. We don't ever get any insight into character motive, as we did in the first movie. This person goes insane... wait, explain that one again? In addition to no character motive, the characters are completely static. Unless you had seen the first movie and were actually expecting focus on character archs, you would find yourself thinking how terribly predictable the characters are. Even more, the Cube's logical image has been destroyed, replaced by this machine gone horribly wrong in the fourth dimension.

The best part of the film is how it continually keeps you on your feet, long after you've seen it. What gave me hope for Lion's Gate was the frightening beginning and the fantastic ending. I'm still plagued by social, theoretical and mathematical problems posed in this second installment, and the ending will not disappoint. However, for those looking for intelligent theoretical sci-fi, I would look to the first, and watch it perhaps a second time.
43 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
I expected so much after Cube. Luckily, Hypercube isn't bad.
tenten764 February 2003
First off, don't bother seeing this until you've seen Cube. You wouldn't miss much if you did, but you won't appreciate & enjoy it nearly as much. I heard this was more of a remake than a sequel, but actually it's a straight-out sequel.

Again, a seemingly random group of people are abducted and imprisoned in a possibly enormous matrix of anonymous Cube-shaped rooms, with doors in all six surfaces, and a number of fiendish & deadly booby traps (and scary noises). Hypercube (moving on from Cube) adds gravity, time and parallel universe traps into the mix.

It's good because: it's broadly similar to Cube, which was excellent. You're not immediately sure who will be standing at the end. The special effects are a bit 'clean' looking, but very smart. And there are some funny moments in this one.

But it's not brilliant because: the plot is a little too clear (and simple), whereas Cube really worked because it was unexplained and ambiguous. The characters seemed to fit the same sort of roles as in the first movie. And there's a fair bit of hammy over-acting, deliberate comedy, and a curious lack of desperation & fear (whereas Cube was superb in all these respects).

There are a lot of well-intentioned sequels which (by their very nature) cannot string you along with the same 'fear of the unknown' in the original, and this is the case here. I also believe that having access to a bigger budget for a sequel is often a bad thing, since it's easier to go for flashy special effects at the expense of story, acting & dramatic tension - as in this case. (brilliant opening credits though)

But Hypercube - although not as good as Cube - does work as 'next step' sort of sequel. I was just surprised I laughed so often, without it ruining the film for me.

If they make a third one (the ending does indicate that they could), they should spend the vast part of the budget on a really good concept/script & director, get really-good-but-unknown STAGE actors (Hypercube came across as more of a soap-opera level of acting), and go back to the ingeniously wicked & creative traps a la Cube - because the CGI route does not look like a road worth following any further..
73 out of 119 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
You still have to watch it!
red_zebra231 July 2003
Since most reviews here are damningly negative of Cube 2, I feel I have to post one opposing view, just so that possible fans won't skip this film altogether. Yes, the characters are rather stereotypical, and basically imported directly from Cube 1, but there is enough mystery about some of them to make you wonder about their real motives and/or origins. I personally think the effects and visuals (the cube) look wonderful. But maybe it's just cos I was brought up on things like Doctor Who and Blakes 7!

The mathematics and physics behind the cube remain intriguing throughout the film, as you gradually learn how the work in the cube. My interest was retained despite the fact that I was already very familiar with the concept of a 4-dimensional cube (`hypercube') and some theories about how they might `appear' to someone inside them. On the other hand, maybe this is why I was intrigued - to see how they translated these theories into a film (answer: very intelligently). I think that the script writers managed very well to combine interesting evolving inter-personal dynamics with the bizarre realities of physics (time and 4 dimensions).

Although the film was very similar in some ways to Cube 1, it was cunningly different in others. For example, the numbers identifying the rooms, vital to the progression of the first film, were in some ways a red herring in the second. I am somewhat ambivalent about the ending. I think it was acceptable, if you caught what happened exactly (I've only seen one review here (Sareji's) which seemed to actually catch what happened at the end), but as others have pointed out, it lacks the much deeper and fascinating metaphorical meaning about society and individual responsibility.

Although slightly flawed, this is an intelligent and unusual film, and, I think, deserves to be seen, but only after Cube 1, because it plays with some of the viewers expectations, and extends on many of the ideas of the first film.
21 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Not too bad, but part 1 is still far better
Katatonia17 May 2003
I am a big fan of the first Cube movie and have seen it at least 15 times. I had high hopes for Hypercube but i didn't expect it to be as good or better than the first. I think people would enjoy it more if they didn't expect unreasonable expectations for this one.

Hypercube has some flaws, but it is still entertaining. If you love Science and Physics (like i do), then you will love some of the questions this film proposes.

I liked the darker feel of the first film more so than Hypercube. The "Cubes" in this one are basically very bright white and it is sometimes very intrusive to the eyes. I also would have liked less characters in this one. One thing that worked so well in Cube 1 were the interesting characters and the fact that there were not many in the film at all. This doesn't always work in most films, but it worked perfectly in Cube 1.

If there was one thing which i really did not like in Hypercube, it would have to be the ending. It was very cheesy and way over the top. It seemed like an episode of The X Files, which works just fine for a Sci-fi TV series, but it just didn't work here.

So, is Hypercube worth viewing? Yes it is, simply because some viewers will like it more than others. It is still a better movie than most of the Sci-fi movies that have been released lately. If you love the original Cube you should check out Hypercube, if only to watch it one time...
33 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Weak entry, could've been better
slayrrr66618 February 2007
"Cube 2: Hypercube" is a weak and confusing entry after such a great original.

**SPOILERS**

Waking up alone, Kate Filmore, (Kari Matchett) Simon Grady, (Geraint Wynn Davies) Sasha, (Grace Lynn Kung) Max Reisler, (Matthew Ferguson) Jerry Whitehall, (Neil Crone) Tom McGuire, (Bruce Gray) and Mrs. Paley, (Barbara Gordon) each find themselves trapped in a large structure together. Trying to determine a way out of the structure, they find it is a series rooms with weird numbers scratched all over the walls. Discovering that they are in a hypercube, which has four dimensions across it and can fold back in on itself, which forces them to believe that an alternate reality is inside, as well as their self. Forced to take action, they try to solve the riddle of the cube and escape before they're killed off.

The Good News: There isn't a whole lot here to really like. The hyper-dimensionality allows for a lot of fascinating ideas to play around with. Gravity operates at a different angle in some rooms, time operates at a different pace in other rooms so that at time, they see other people alternately sped up or slowed down, and of course, doors open up into alternate realities and points in time, which allows them to constantly meet different versions of themselves. In one simply fascinating scene, one of the characters opens a door and sees them-self staring back. Reaching out to grasp the hand, another character appears from behind, kills the parallel version before being wiped out by a wall of crystalline shapes. It's a compulsively fascinating moment that works quite effectively for it's creativity. Another scene shows on of them stabbing a character in the eye, only to then turn around and encounter them on the other side of the room a moment later, having aged several years and seeking revenge. Outside of these great ideas, the film is pretty hollow.

The Bad News: There's a lot here that doesn't work. As a whole, this is a mess of a movie. It differs so much from the original that it's almost in a different series, with only the main premise and the cube structure remaining. Gone are the numerous, and quite cool, traps from the original, replaced here with a trap that will spring only if too much time is spent in a room rather than being the structure of the room itself, and in their place is a much too talky, confused, and poorly written movie. Not once does it fall together so that a simply answer can be arrived at that will explain everything, and instead, it just chooses to get more and more incoherent ending up being way too complicated for its own good. Even the traps that do spring up aren't that great, being simply a multiplying square that morphs into a spinning shape, not at all that creative or impressive. The laser-wall isn't that bad, but otherwise, the traps in here are barely worth mentioning, not being that great at all and nowhere near the inventiveness or cruelty of the originals. The extreme amount of down-time in here is also a problem, since it takes nearly forever for the film to get going. After introducing themselves, it takes nearly forty minutes before the first trap is sprung, and that's far too long to be standing around arguing with each other. That's the main gist of the middle of the film, long sequences of everyone arguing about what each clue supposedly means or where each person came from. This is a downer and makes the middle seem like it takes forever, and coupled with the weak, confusing story and lack of inventive traps, really brings this down.

The Final Verdict: With a couple of decent scenes and ideas thrown in, this is a really hard movie to recommend to anyone. Fans of the original might like it, but it only has to be the most forgiving fans to do so. If you want to really watch it, watch it before seeing the original or not back-to-back, the differences will be quite startling.

Rated R: Graphic Language, Graphic Violence and Brief Nudity
25 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
not a stinker but a mixed bag
Eggo1 August 2002
My name is Moritz Eggert (no need for a pseudonym here), and I live in Munich, Germany, home of the original Fantasy Film Fest. Just a few minutes ago I and some 200 fellow geeks were the very first people seeing an official copy of "Hypercube", the sequel to "Cube", one of my most loved films (the date of today's premiere was 7/31/0:30 a.m.). At least that was what we were told by the organizers - apparently the copy was flewn over from Toronto fresh from the printers (and there were 2 failed attempts to do so - it seems the film was not ready the first time, the second time they sent the wrong film - this is why the originally announced premiere 4 days ago didn't happen). The copy we saw just now seemed to be the final version - sound, picture and editing were pristine - but doubts remain: for example the program book of the festival shows a picture of a character clearly taken from the film....and he doesn't appear in it! Hm, not the first time they cut somebody out AFTER releasing the pictures.... About the film...well, I try to be short, it is really late right now (but I wanted to be first...). Like "Blair Witch", the original "Cube" is in itself a pretty perfect film which doesn't really scream for a sequel. And like "Blair Witch 2" "Hypercube" really tries to be different...and fails to impress in the end. Like "Blair Witch 2" "Hypercube" is not really bad - in fact there are many good ideas in it, there is excitement, the timing is good....it is just not as good as "Cube", which is, for a sequel, simply not good enough. It says a lot that the original director of "Cube" was not involved in this project - instead we have Andrzej Sekula, apparently also a newcomer.

I will try to describe the film without giving away too much.... "Hypercube" starts out very differently from the first film. First of all we see the bodies of the people later to be trapped in the cube - they are on stretchers, and wrapped up in plastic bags. There is also some high-tech computer generated graphics mumbo jumbo and some effective and haunting music (phased and echoed - which makes sense after seeing the film. The sound design is really fantastic, by the way!). We also see some kind of flashback, a young woman working at a computer, then turning around....blackness... Sekula tries here, and also later in the film - to make "hypercube" different by showing snippets of the "life before the cube", which is at first fascinating, but takes away the allegorical dimension of the first film. We now actually see the people in the moments before they are abducted. The first scene is actually a variation of the first film, a girl wakes up (the girl from the flashback scene), wanders around a little, she opens a hatch, and wham...she's gone. Not spectacularly diced and killed like the poor guy in "cube" but simply...gone. Ok, ok, she appears again later...in a really shocking "twist" scene... The film then follows the different characters waking up in different rooms. The stereotypes are there again: there is - like in the first film, an agressive bully type , a caring, sympathetic blonde, a young carefree-type, an older sure-of-himself-type, a mentally challenged (here confused) type etc. A new twist comes in the person of a sexy lawyer (in red party dress!) and a blind girl. The design of the cube is like a less interesting version of the first film: the rooms are white and pretty bland. The hatches on all 6 sides work similarly to the first film, but automatically, by touch. There are also, at least at the beginning, no traps. Instead our heroes very soon find out that this cube is really a "hypercube" - it is like a tesseract, a 4-dimensional object. This is discovered in a succession of very neat and clever scenes - particularly in one very shocking one which I won't give away- and is actually pretty mind-boggling. There are time-paradoxes, parallel universes, gravity shifts...all in all a worthy successor to the first cube, I'd say.

The story itself unfolds pretty much like in the first film, but with some surprising twists - not all is like it seems! Of course everybody has a reason why s/he is in the cube, but this time it is pretty straightforward. Whereas it came as a real shock in the first film to find out that one of the prisoners was actually the architect, this time around pretty much everybody of the bunch was involved in the construction of the cube one way or another... There is some digital SFX - not outstanding, but ok. The acting seems competent, but not really convincing, especially in the case of "Larry" (.."the laffer"?), who is simply very, very annoying. It all comes to a conclusion which actually take us outside the cube and shows us ...other people! But don't worry - the ending does try it's best to confuse the hell out of everybody. Whereas the first film's ending was simply poetic, open and beautiful, this one seems like the final season of the "X-Files" : posing more questions than answering them... As you can tell my feelings are very mixed about this one. It is not a stinker - you can tell that a lot of creative effort went into this one, and a surprising amount of ambition for a sequel as well. But basically it is - after all - a sequel to "Cube" - a film which should definitely not have a sequel. "Cube" was a SF/Twilight Zone inspired variant of "huit clos" by Sartre, and like "huit clos" it cannot really have a sequel, as there are only two options: continue/explain the story of the first film (bad!) or repeat the situation of the first film with some new twists (also bad!). "Hypercube" sort of tries both at the same time, and ends in a kind of limbo: it won't bore you, but it want excite you as much as the first film (actually the ending might p*** some people off badly...). Simply put: "Cube" was weird, but deeply logical and philosophical, like a paradox that is solved in the end, for the solution's sake only. "Hypercube" is simply....weird. That's all. But the strange thing is: I would like to see it again, even though it was unsatisfactory. At least to have a clue who the hell "Darcy" is (you will know what I mean after seeing it...). Best regards from Moritz
31 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
An approach to the fourth dimension like this could equally be summed up in four letters
jacksonbannear28 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
A well paced film, regrettably destitute of adequate substance to justify its pacing in the first place. The film appears 'clinical' by all aesthetic inspections, but it's just bright light. Boring bright light. Sadly this film trails distantly upon the heels of its infamous predecessor, "Cube", and fails to deliver a single morsel of the miasma and inspiration that is, simply put, the result of hard working frustrated budget film making.

The cast is forgettable, the effects are so prosaic and ordinary they barely register, and do well to accommodate the actors' approach to the script, that swiftly descends into a flat-lining melodrama. Another one for the video stores, but worth seeing simply for sake of bewilderment. Insincere performances plague the story that is otherwise undoubtedly fascinating to those inclined to logic and suspended logic: an old woman with a probable vat of (evil) all-knowing masquerading as a mental disorder; a ruffian Sgt Barnes with a big fist and an even bigger attitude; a fourteen year old blind girl who happens to be God; a horny whiz kid; a seductress in a red dress; and all the rest have thankfully escaped memory.

It has the simplicity of a cartoon, posturing above the radical theorising of the tesseract and fourth dimensional travel. By the middle of the film, all universal laws of the three dimensional human world are broken, as parallel universes flood the hypercube with a deluge of characters believed to be already dead. If it's a revelation of morality you're after, this might not be quite the thing as it undermines and subverts all basic tenets of value and goodness to the possibilities of near infinity – a pitfall into a mirror room of conscienceless murder, romance and panic. However, this idea is barely heeded in the excess of rather short-sighted visual horrors that do more to ridicule than to stun. And to add insult to already monolithic injury, Hypercube's final scene epitomises everything "Cube" intentionally set out to avoid.

While the hypercube itself exists in a place well and truly beyond the three dimensions of the world as we know it, the cast and the story's realisation barely manage to make it in to the first.
19 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
"A ripping good yarn" - Dick Cedric
nickfyson22 April 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Can we ask what actually happened in this film? Let's review...

They were in a HYPERCUBE?! There were 5 characters that had no bearing on the plot whatsoever! There is no reason why anyone would be put into a cube, again.

The characters were exactly the same as the first one.

What happened to the first cube? How was the first cube fair? and What was the reason for the first cube (c.f. scene with the colonel).

How the heck was the physicist trying to calculate what was going on.

How the heck did the writer get a sex scene in.

How the heck did all the watches show the same time? Despite being a bunch of mathematicians and physicists from Cambridge, we still find it hard to make head or tail of what was actually happening, never mind how the actors ever worked again.
13 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Here is a film that didn't need to be made
rjpurves4 April 2003
Warning: Spoilers
This film sucks. It's is one of the most pointless movies i've ever seen. The original Cube was intended as a low budget one off ... Cube 2 is merely a high budget sequel that doesn't make sense.

POTENTIAL SPOILER ALERT.

Sure, the physics seem to stand up from my rather limited knowledge but the characters truely just bug me. No, they IRRITATE me and as a result not only do I not care about whether they get out ... i'm actually waiting for them to die.

I have major problems with certain early scenes where everyone seems to be yelling at once. It's dull to watch and painful to listen to. The dialogue is really bad in places ... just listen to some of the rubbish that they say and wonder who in their right mind actually speaks that way in real life. It's totally unrealistic.

I have major problems dealing with a later scene where two of the characters "get it on". If I was stuck in a life or death situation i'm sure that sex would be the last thing on my mind. Nah, not for this film. Instead we're treated to an effects laden sex scene which appeared to be almost entirely for titillation.

In the original film, not only did the characters each have an individual skill to contribute so that they could get out, but their character names reflected actual prison names too. Not so here, we've got a doctor, a senile mathmatician, a computer games designer, a lawyer and a P.I. Hmmm, I don't think that this motley crew could find their way out of a paper bag.

The character introductions feel artificial and forced. It seems the scriptwriter couldnt think of a good way to do it. He/She might as well have had the actors turn to the camera and introduce themselves!

However, the sound and effects design are pretty good. I don't think the music gives the same feel as the excellent score for the original but i'd still listen to it.

This still doesn't stop bad script and bad acting making this a real turkey.
14 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
A 4-dimensional turd
movieman_kev20 December 2004
Hey, guys, let's do a sequel to an above-average sci-fi film. But this time why don't we completely throw everything that made the original good out the window. Let's get that screenwriter of "Halloween: Resurrection" to do this. Sure that movie was horrid too, but it made money. Ka-Ching!! Yes, I'm writing this in a joking tone, but I'm not that far off from the truth. The fact of the matter is Cube did NOT need a continuation. The original writer did NOT want to ever say where the mysterious Cube ever came from. This film lacks any logic or coherence. Skip it.

Lions Gate DVD Extras:Commentary by Producer ErnieBarbaresh and Editor Mark Sanders; Making Of Cube 2: Hypercube documentary; 7 Deleted Scenes; Storyboards; Stills Gallery; Theatrical and Iternational Trailer; and trailer for "Cube"

My Grade: D-
71 out of 139 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Convoluted script, poorly acted, and no character development
fmcchris17 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This film made no sense to me and I have to question the sanity of the people who made it. The cube is a death trap but we don't care if the characters die off because we never really get to know these people. The acting in this film was poor, but I think the fault lies mainly with the nonsensical script. The original "Cube" was better, but even so we never learn why the characters are in the cube and how they got there in the first place. The characters are just so much fodder for the cube's booby traps. Some people may find this mystery compelling storytelling, but I find it a serious flaw. And to have the sole survivor get her head blown off at the end of the film was cruel and pointless, and perfectly suited to the overall mood of this convoluted mess of a movie.
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
People, you miss the point of the serial low budget series films
Spunkmeyer-225 September 2004
I saw the first film and loved it. Although some of the dialogue was... well, insert word. The point of the second one is not so much about the cube, but the organization behind it. Questions that remain about who they are, what they're doing and the rest of the 5 W's.

If you like films that leave you with questions instead of answer, this second cube only adds to the general intrigue and I suspect that they may be more to come.

It's not for everyone. It's not for most of the population, but those who've gone a little more to the cinematic edge may still appreciate it.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Cube - again
Jexxon13 January 2005
Virtually a scene-by-scene remake of the original Cube, Hypercube offers little that's new. We still have a bunch of people stuck inside identical looking rooms trying to get out.

The actors feel slightly more professional this time, but the characters are carbon copies of the previous ones - so what's the point really? To make matters worse, they've got rid of what made Cube fun to watch, i.e. the traps. Instead we get some increasingly dodgy rantings about forth dimensions.

There are attempts at trying to explain more about the cube and its purpose, but in the end no-one's any wiser. And to add injury to insult - there are some really bad computer effects in this one, the kind that just takes you right out of the film. The fascinating premise from the first film still saves this from being a complete disaster, but if you've seen the original there's really no need to see this one. [2/10]
32 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Trapped
tedg16 May 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Spoilers herein.

By now, you already know that this is inferior to the original. As well, you've heard from we appreciators of the original that the mystery of the first is `explained' in the remake and that the explanations are stupid.

The problem is that once again a film about hacking and math is made by goofy artistic types who have some notions based on old movies but no concept of the amazing depths of the real world. But this movie was fun in two ways: keeping up with the errors and at the same time thinking about how this could have been done right.

The original had a collection of cubes that moved against each other mechanically by sliding. This is NOT the Rubik's cube motion suggested by others here, which is a rotation (to match surfaces on the cube). Some cubes had special properties associated with and denoted by numbers. The remake has a muddle of transformations, all incorrect mathematically and even inconsistent with each other. The big `clue' is a notation of time that is even profoundly mistaken, sometimes as a point in time, sometimes as a duration; sometimes it is denoted in base ten, sometimes in octal, sometimes in minutes and seconds.

I have some experience with these matters, so let's think about how we would make such a film.

First off, it would be for a black (that is: unacknowledged) agency, not a `weapons firm.' It might torture (unlikely) or test humans but never, ever those involved in its creation. It would have lots of internal controversy in the team between engineers and scientists which would be readily apparent from how it is built and what tradeoffs were made. The technical features wouldn't look cool, and few elements (like doors) would be user friendly.

It would surely not be based on a multidimensional cube. Cubes make sense in three dimensions, but nowhere else. Almost certainly we would use Shoen surfaces which are visually way cool. They are curved weaves of cells that divide the world in half: the `outside' space is identical to the `inside.' The three D expression is like sculpted soap bubbles, visually hypnotic. Transitioning from one side to another would signal/cause a shift.

The underlying theory would be geometric rather than probabilistic, which means no Nobel laureate is going to be remotely involved. Some odd thinkers from across the globe would be recruited, and not for nationalistic reasons which means that all sorts of extra and secondary things will be implemented. The location would not be North America or Europe for legal reasons. One visionary programmer will be the implementor, heading a small interdisciplinary team including a logical topologist, cognitive group theorist, situation theory linguist, an Islamic morphologist, 2 category evolutionists (molecular and anthropology) and three warring semioticians.

Coding will be in a language derived from Haskell and supported by an open source project masquerading as something else. One notation will be musical, possibly sexual. One user interface will be collaborative string figures (Cat's cradle). The support team would be rather large but primarily concerned with keeping the primary players happy, healthy and motivated; presumably, this would include various means for them to play with their creation. The logic will be `soft,' and no relevant notation will look like recognizable equations. `Movements' will use all three symmetry operations (translation, rotation, reflection) rather than the simple translation of the first films. Symmetry transforms will be essential, as well as dimensional ones. The Lattice will have a semantic mapping to individual cognitive history. (At least `The Matrix' got this right more or less.) Primary visualization would be through hyperstereograms.

Such a film might look a lot like `Prospero's Books,' meets `Gummo' with shifts between the action `in' the cube and `of' the cube. It would all be about folding and would necessarily bring into question the folding of film and audience. It would be visually rich, terrifying and change lives. For some, it would create a cinematic religion but surely it would affect how we think about ourselves and governments.

On the performance side, since the budget (of the film) will be constrained, it won't use the three successful actresses (Cate, Kate and Julianne) who understand this sort of thing. Instead we'd use Sarah Polley, Clare DuVall and Alicia Witt on the female side. The male side would matter less, but PS Hoffman would be an asset.

Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 4: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.
13 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
4/10
Hyper-boob. Cube 2. This time its bore....
Rob_Taylor10 August 2004
Warning: Spoilers
In the beginning there was Cube. And the Gods of Hollywood looked upon Cube and saw that it was good. And the Gods said "Let there be a sequel". And lo! There came to be Hypercube. And the Gods smiled, and thought of the money they would make from Hypercube, and they pronounced it good. <spoilers ahead, oh yeah!>

In fact, Hypercube is crap. It's an almost identical clone of Cube, but without the originality. People are trapped in a cube and must find a way out. Except, and here's the cool plot device the writers came up with, there isn't a way out! Gasp then, as our motley collection of people struggle pointlessly to escape the Maze of Doom (tm). Swoon as they avoid death narrowly in one scene, only to die horribly in the next. Frown as they reappear out of another dimension like the shopkeeper from Mr Ben. Wonder futilely at the ridiculous traps and why they exist at all. Scratch thine head as you wonder what the Hell is the point of any of it.

I'm afraid it's not a film I'll be watching again any time soon. At least in the first film they had a chance of solving the cube and escaping. Here there is no solution, just an endless parade of overacted paranoia and techno-drivel. I can't have been the only viewer trying hard to figure out the "60659" clue along with the trapped inhabitants, only to find out the "shocking" truth near the end. Shocking that is, in its dire un-imaginativeness.

Top marks to the set-designer team though. They must have been laughing all the way to bar with all the free time they had after designing one room.

This film did teach me one very valuable lesson, however. If your screensaver ever escapes from your PC it'll mince you into pieces so tiny you won't even leave a bloodstain!

Why I watched to the end I'll never know. And even then, right at the end, the shocks keep on coming. The sole survivor of the whole sorry mess gets offed casually. Way to get me to watch another one! Not!

The over-riding impression of this film is a rip-off sequel designed to get fans of the original back in the seats. There's no originality and precious little entertainment value. Nearly all of the characters are irritating to a greater or lesser extent and the final scenes are awful, full of Lawnmower Man quality graphics and stupidity. And the ending is deeply annoying even for one such as myself who has an intense dislike of Hollywood happy endings.

Avoid it. You'll thank me.
14 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
a Rubix Cube is more fun than this crap.
wmlansford20 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is basically a cheesier version of the first film. I loved the first Cube, and any sci-fi fan should definitely check it out. It had a dark, gritty look to it and the storyline and the characters were solid. In Hypercube it's just the opposite. It looks like a Sci-Fi channel movie of the week, and the storyline and acting (except for Simon) are laughable. The only cool parts are when Simon does what he does best: killing annoying morons. ie: When the old lady sees herself getting killed (which was never explained), and when the depressing Asian broad gets her neck snapped like a chicken (by far the best part of the movie). But alas, I have more questions than answers.....

1. Why did Simon have a knife?

2. What triggered the traps?

3. What the hell WERE the traps?

4. How did the nerd and the hooker die?

5. Why did the razor-ball look plastic?

6. Why did Simon turn into a mass murderer?

7. Why would the Asian broad (who was a genius) go hide from "them" in a place where she KNEW she would be killed?

8. What was the trinket on the Asian broad's necklace?

9. Why did "they" kill the shrink after she successfully got out AND got the trinket for them? (that's cold)

10. Why did this movie blow?...........oh yeah, it's a rip-off of an original film: Cube.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
Worst movie ever.
z-2316 June 2003
I wasn't impressed by the first Cube. It had bad acting, but at least it was a mildly interesting puzzle to think about. In this version of Cube, which, in terms of characters, is a direct remake (apparently they picked character archetypes out of a hat), there are all the bad things from the original Cube, AND the puzzle itself is on WAY shakier ground (at least the first puzzle was conceptually plausible). Also, the end was truly bad and pointless to the film. It was a complete waste for this film to even have been made.
13 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Hyperbad
view_and_review20 February 2016
Hyper is a prefix meaning "over". It has a common meaning of the extreme of a thing. So, if "Cube" was good then "Hypercube" should be great. Right? Wrong.

Everything was wrong with this. All of the things that made "Cube" endearing were totally lacking in "Hypercube". This time there were ten people in the cube except they only focused on six of them. There was the misplaced alpha male, Simon (Geraint Wyn Davies), who is only there to create conflict. The ultra-protective nurturing doctor, Kate (Kari Matchett), who's there to help everybody. Two handicapped persons, Sasha (Grace Lynn Kung) and Mrs. Paley (Barbara Gordon), both whom were typical burdens until their function was revealed. Two engineer types, Max (Matthew Ferguson) and Jerry (Neil Crone), both whom were unwitting participants in the creation of the cube. I think that covers the very same characters that were in the first version. There were a few other ancillary characters thrown in there but their purposes were insignificant and more-or-less a diversion. Ten cube captives in all and ten terrible actors.

The cube itself was a suped up version of its predecessor and it wasn't any better. It was like the classic car that's stripped of its original parts and replaced with a bunch of gaudy upgrades. It may look shinier and newer but it doesn't hold the same value. This cube was a CGI nightmare. Now it moved silently and had a bunch of cartoonish ways of killing the cube members. I know that CGI was still a relatively new toy in 2002 but it cheapened the movie and made it less likable.

Even the story was a sham. They tried to give us a little more information while still leaving us guessing. It did nothing to enhance the plot.

If I were to run down a checklist grading this movie here's what it would look like:

Acting: exaggerated version of all the characters in part one, all more terrible.

Story: More convoluted than the first.

The cube: Hyperized. In attempts to make it more uncrackable they made it more absurd.

My math isn't good enough to get me out of a cube but I know when things don't add up. Poor acting, poor story and a cheap set equals bad movie.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
So Frustratingly Disappointing !!!
jon-5106 July 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Cube 2 is one thing, Frustrating. It's frustrating because it has so many elements that are available to build something brilliant with ... and it just lets them go. Its like watching a child playing with a puzzle that is 2 year levels below its capabilities, and going "Come on, that piece goes there...yeeees, no! no! THAT piece goes there! Oh come onnnnnnn....". Were the director and writers both suffering strokes, or in some other way severely retarded ??

SPOILERS WARNING (applies to both films!)

Really Nice Elements:

* The ghostly clean white rooms and sexy doors.

* The 'stalactite'-like qualities (and sound) of the traps and the idea that they were some kind of 'quantum effect' rather than physical.

* That heart-pump moment when the nutty woman looks through the floor door and we at first think she is looking into a mirror - THAT was the point where I sat up and thought "Wow, this movie might end up being really good!" - More Fool Me.

* The music, which was _perfect_.

* The time effects.

* The idea that it is some kind of quantum construct, and therefore the background thought that perhaps they could just _damage_ their way out of it was out of the question (I really think that in the real world the first Cube would have lasted about 24 hours tops, before the crew bashed their way out of the bottom of it ripping off bits of system and trap to help them build tools - but of course thats not the POINT of the first story!).

* The idea that it was generated from this vast pool of water somehow - it was beautiful, like it really was a 'place' of some kind, just 'offset' from this world.

Things That Wrecked It Utterly:

* The appallingly disgustingly crap ending. YOU DO NOT just kill off a major character right at the end!! Go ask any crime writer. You CANNOT do it and get away with it. It will guarantee that nobody will buy your next book - they will borrow it off a friend just to find out of that character really is dead or not and if that character IS dead, goodbye writing career its been nice knowing you. After the revelation of the water pool, after that beautiful display of the 'wainscoting' of the world, a view behind the scenes, and just before that the great sequence of the cube collapsing, SUDDENLY there is this pathetic X Files lets get depressing because we can bit - RIGHT AT THE END !!!!! Shoot director. Shoot writers. Destroy film. Start again. Just on that point alone.

* The traps. What is going on here ??? And they're _intelligent_ now ??? GIVE ME A BREAK. The whole premise in the first cube is that the traps were blind, but completely unforgiving, and diabolically, ingeniously different so you never knew what to look for. The second cube's traps are pathetic. They look gorgeous, but you can outrun them!! And that spinning cube thing.

Give it up guys, save the money, it didn't save the film, in fact it did the opposite - it was arbitrary, stupid and pointless, which was such a shame because the way it formed and dissolved was rather beautiful. Idiot kid with puzzle frustration abounds here.

* The fact this cube could not be solved. Yes OK the joke was that all you had to do was wait in the first room that you were safe in (a reference to the first film), in fact any room would do, but ... arg! sorry its just not ENOUGH. There needed to be something that they had to solve, some deeper structure that had to be unravelled. There had to be some outside chance that they could compromise the thing, or fight back, that ever present glimmer of hope that is one of the most disturbing things about the first film.

* The hypercube pseudo-maths. Yes OK they explained a hypercube/tesseract. Big deal, it had pretty much NOTHING to do with the structure of the Cube. The repeating room in different time lines idea was very nice, but it had nothing to do with hypercubes unfortunately. This really disappointed me, when your realize that a film that seems to be hard headed is actually full of techno waffle it pretty much destroys it.

* The total lack of character development. The characters, including the cube itself, _were_ the first film. When you only have one set, ie. you have a stage play basically, you have to develop the characters, the widgets and wadgets aren't enough.

* The nutty professor - I wanted her to die horribly in about the first minute she turned up. By the time she did she had already battered me into appallingly bad acting numbness.

* The 'nice guy' - ditto.

* The fact that nobody just KO'd simon in the back of the head rather than put up with his crap (actually this annoyed me with respect to Quentin - who was MUCH better played incidentally! - in the first film, though Worth finally takes action)

* The fact that the plot stopped halfway before the end. Its the idiot child with the puzzle thing again.

In Short - go back and try again kiddies. You made a very nice palette but then you painted a finger-painting with it, and since you were trying to honour a modernist, minimalist masterpiece (the first film), this is simply Not Good Enough. 2 out of 10.
10 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
1/10
dont waste your life on this film
rick-udell14 July 2003
Worst Film for as long as I can remember, The acting absolutely stinks, the old lady is the most annoying actress I have ever seen, It was so bad I fell asleep through parts and had to keep rewinding the film to see what happened, avoid this film at all costs, I feel really sorry for people who pay to watch this.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews