IMDb > Son of the Mask (2005) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Son of the Mask
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Son of the Mask More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 25:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]
Index 244 reviews in total 

251 out of 330 people found the following review useful:

This film spoils the classic's image of the 'The Mask'

1/10
Author: Kc Brady from United Kingdom
14 February 2005

This film has made e mad. I believe the original of this film ,'The Mask', was an awesome film, worth buying and watching a lot. I strongly believed that they should make a sequel, but when i saw this, i thought again.

This film has spoilt the whole idea of 'The Mask'. Mask mode? A baby flying around in a room? My little brother who is seven didn't even laugh, and he is into these childish movies, but this was worse. A load of crap!! I am telling you now, please do not watch this film, it is a waste of money and a waste of time. Instead you could actually be having fun! Watch 'The Mask', but do not, I repeat do NOT, watch this hunk of junk. Thank you.

Was the above review useful to you?

189 out of 247 people found the following review useful:

Terrible, awful, extremely bad, horrible, etc, etc....

1/10
Author: dataphasia from United States
19 February 2005

Mr. Kennedy should stop ExPeRiMeNtIng with bad movie scripts. What WAS he thinking? This is a movie that should not have passed the "hey, I've got an idea, let's make a sequel" stage of inception. If there was a ZERO rating, I'd give it, but I guess I'll settle for a generous 1. It seems these days that if there is a buck to be made, movie execs will dig up an old hit and run it by a set of writers and see what turns up. (Hey, I said "hit and run"! Kinda describes how I felt when this movie ended!) How THIS piece of trash ever saw the light of day is beyond me. It is filled with unpleasant humor, strange animation and jokes that don't quite take you anywhere besides a state of confusion. If you are being dragged to this movie, and someone is paying for you....fine.... but its still going to be more painful than a brick in the forehead. However, if you're planning on paying your own hard-earned money, search out a better alternative.

Was the above review useful to you?

174 out of 238 people found the following review useful:

Don't waste Your time (and money)!

1/10
Author: vega-15 from Poland
15 February 2005

What the hell is this movie about? Well, if I didn't know that "son of the Mask" is categorized as comedy, I would never have a clue! A comedy? A tragedy, that's the right genre for this yet-another-so-called-sequel.

Yes I've watched "Dumb and Dumber" but I never believed somebody will ever make it's title real in Hollywood. Yes, You watch "Son of the Mask" and You think.. 5 minutes - Dumb... 10 minutes - Dumber... 15 - minutes Dumbest... And then, after 16 minutes there is only one thing to say :/ I'm out of here...

Sorry, my nominee for Comedy Crap of The Year 2005.

Was the above review useful to you?

127 out of 158 people found the following review useful:

p-a-r-t-y. Why? no seriously....why was this movie made?

1/10
Author: alexander zeier (flashbeagle) from milwaukee
21 February 2005

Eleven years ago, Stanley Ipkiss released his true inner self and became the hero of Edge City by finding and wearing the Norse god of mischief, Loki's mask. The Mask helped bring Jim Carrey to the forefront of comedy and reached a very popular status for its originality and just pure fun. Everyone knew how to spell party. P-A-R-T-Y. Why? Cuz I gotta! Now, eleven years later, it seems to me that the same philosophy has been applied to the new movie "Son of the Mask." Someone asked director Lawrence Guterman why are you making this? And he responds "Cuz I gotta!" Unfortunately, that answer doesn't cover it because after seeing Son of the Mask I still left the theatre thinking, "Good Lord, Why?" Guterman and the rest of the people involved in the blasphemous film need to realize that the response given to why are you making this film should not be as simple as the answer to the debate on whether or not to party.

The Son of the Mask begins with Otis the dog finding the infamous mask and bringing it back to his owner Tim Avery, a clear homage to legendary Loony Toons creator Tex Avery. Tim, played by Jamie Kennedy, is a struggling animator who is stuck working as a turtle tour guide for the animation company he aspires to one-day draw for. On the night of the company Halloween party, Tim puts on the mask and transforms into the mischievous, insane character that we all expect. After the party Tim goes home, mask still on and conceives a child with his wife. Nine months later mayhem ensues as the baby born of the mask has remarkable cartoonish powers. Otis the dog, jealous of the baby's attention, puts on the mask and partakes in Tom and Jerry type mayhem to out the baby. Meanwhile, Loki, played by Alan Cumming, is in search for his mask at the orders of his father, Odin.

First off, ill admit that I do respect the fact that this film pays so much homage to the classic cartoons such as Tom and Jerry and Loony Toons, with its Wile E. Coyote type contraptions and the infamous dancing frog type plot. However, this reverence cannot save the film and makes it less respectful and more of a waste of time.

The premise of the movie becomes increasingly silly. Silly is not always a bad thing, but in this movie, the silliness gets to the point of just plain annoying. The characters are not fun to watch, and what's worse, they're not funny. The dullness of the characters can also be attributed to the fact that so much CGI was used. One of the greatest things about the original is that while, obviously computer animation was used, so much relied on Jim Carrey and his exuberant style of just being. Jim Carrey, we were convinced, was an actual cartoon. Jamie Kennedy just doesn't have that kind of ability, a fact that is clear when you watch him wear the mask and his facial features rarely shift. The baby and dog were mostly completely animated which became increasingly distracting throughout the movie. The side story of Loki searching for the mask just became more and more stupefying.

The son of the Mask is a sad sad state of affairs. What I suggest is you go rent or buy the original the Mask and thank the Norse gods, or whoever, for bringing it to us. And will consider seeing the sequel my sacrifice as I continue to ask the infamous question "WHY?" The son of the Mask gets one star, although that star should be divvied up between the classic creators of Loony Toons and Jim Carrey, who will always be, in my book, the mask.

Was the above review useful to you?

127 out of 165 people found the following review useful:

Bad-Bad-Bad!

Author: Bill Persell (billntwrk@yahoo.com) from San Diego, California
14 February 2005

An Abomination before the Film Gods. Why is it that producers need to spew out garbage like this. Absolutely no spoilers follow. It is impossible to offer spoilers since the movie has no plot, no credible acting, bad effects etc. In fact, the movie spoiled my evening. 3 hours wasted. I am offering this so that you will not waste your time unless you like pre teen fart jokes, bad humor and no plot. If this is the kind of stuff you like, then it is possible you will like this movie. This assumes you are under the age of 11 years old. Son of the Mask is clear and positive proof that Hollywood will just keep cranking out crap as long as we will buy thickets. My only reward is in knowing that this film, when released on DVD, will end up in the bargain bin for 5.99 or less.(A rip off at that!)

Was the above review useful to you?

129 out of 176 people found the following review useful:

Who green lighted this?

1/10
Author: Jason from Canada
12 February 2005

I can just picture how this movie came to be:

"So how else can we screw up our careers?"

"I know! Let's take a film that was wildly successful and make a sequel out of it!

"Perfect! We'll get B-grade actors who have half the charisma and want only 10% of Carrey's original salary. We'll save millions and rake in a massive profit, never mind the fact nobody wants to see a second rate sequel with none of the original actors that made it popular in the first place! We as executives still honestly believe a movie was popular based on the name and story, not the actors who made it so in the first place!"

"Brilliant! Let's put a massive budget and get the cheapest actors we can find!"

And really, that's what Son Of The Mask can be described as. Just a simple B-grade movie that attempts to suck the life out of it's original classic.

Nevertheless, if the movie didn't contain the words the mask, or anything to do with the mask, it would be a nice kids movie. For all it's massive flaws and horrible acting, this really will appeal to kids. It's a good natured flick that really wants to scream out "like me!" but only those 8 and younger will truly enjoy it.

Jamie Kennedy is the only worthwhile mention in this movie. He clearly is trying to make the material work, playing the desperate dad but the script is so poor, the only thing that spews out that is worthwhile was my drink after seeing this. The character of Loki also deserves a mention, as he was the most enjoyable character and really one of the only reasons for older adults to see this film. It's too bad the character is wasted on this film, I would have really liked to have seen the character take on the true mask. Instead, we are reduced to fart jokes and toilet humor near the end.

The plot is so much by the books, I won't bother to mention it here. It's all so clearly obvious that even a Disney exec would be green with envy.

Save your money, this one is heading to DVD in three months from the looks of it. Shame on the studios for once again smearing a decent film with a horrible sequel. Didn't dumb and dumberer teach them anything?

Was the above review useful to you?

127 out of 183 people found the following review useful:

A complete pile of hyperactive vulgar crap

1/10
Author: James Roykirk from Canada
12 February 2005

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

My wife received tickets for our family to attend the premier of this movie from her employer for free. I only regret the price of the popcorn and the two hours of my life wasted on this garbage film.

I own the DVD of the original Mask, and quite enjoyed it. I expected a remake nowhere near the original in production values or writing.. but wasn't prepared for this vulgar pile of trash. Weak acting, poor plot, a bad CGI baby passing gas and urinating in hyper "mask mode".. a woman turned into a giant nose, spewing mucous.. Fun huh? My eight year old son loves movies like Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Star Wars. After this was over I asked him what he thought. His exact words; "I hated it. It's like the Scooby Doo movie. They take something good and have to put all that gross stuff in." My twelve year old daughter and wife hated it as well. My wife later told me that my son asker her twice during it if we could leave. He's never done that before. I'm proud of him. Lest you think I'm some kind of puritan, from the groans, and lack of laughter I heard in the theater, I think most of the patrons agreed with me.

This film represents everything bad about children's entertainment today, and any positive reviews MUST be from people financially connected with the film.

Was the above review useful to you?

134 out of 199 people found the following review useful:

Why isn't this direct-to-DVD???

1/10
Author: SONNYK_USA from NYC
11 February 2005

IS there any reason to revive characters 10 years after the fact when the only reason they worked the first time was due to the actors playing them.

Who can replace Jim Carrey or Cameron Diaz -- or better yet, who can replace them at cut-rate prices since most studios know that sequels don't bring in the same amount of revenue as the originals so they cut corners from the get-go.

Where are the good movies going to play if powerful Hollywood studios can clog up 3,000 theaters opening weekend with whatever turds they feel like the general public can be suckered into.

Enough's enough people, this sequel-itis has got to stop and the Hollywood people need to start getting their act together or start distributing the much-better foreign product that's floating in limbo.

Wake up Hollywood, cause the people HAVE woken up and they aren't buying it just cause it's new and shiny. Give us the good stuff and send the rest to the DVD shelves, cause we are taking back the theaters once and for all!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

23 out of 38 people found the following review useful:

It depends on what you expect

7/10
Author: dwashbur from United States
28 February 2006

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

If you're expecting a true sequel to the original movie "The Mask" with Jim Carrey, don't watch this movie. If you can't watch it on its own terms for what it is, don't watch this movie. If you insist on comparing it to the first movie instead of letting it speak for itself, don't watch this movie.

On the other hand, if you like pure silliness, especially the Looney Tunes kind, where anything can happen as long as it's as goofy as humanly possible, and you don't mind some effects that are less than perfect (especially the CGI baby; ILM did their best but I wasn't even a little bit convinced) because you just like nonstop slapstick gags that don't have to have a point, watch this movie. I tend to suspect that the folks who have panned it so badly and nominated it for the Razzies are trying too hard to make it a sequel. It's not a sequel, get that through your heads, folks. It's another movie that makes use of the mask, and frankly the similarity ends there. This is a movie about what happens when a BABY, got it? a BABY, and a vindictive dog, get the ridiculous powers that the mask conveys. Taken on its own, it will keep you laughing yourself sick as long as you have a good sense of the absurd. From the first time the baby blew into his thumb and turned his head into a balloon, I was hooked.

The only part I really didn't like was when Avery, wearing the mask, went to the party. That struck me as trying too hard to make a link with the first movie. Don't do it. Let this one stand on its own. It's worth the effort.

And if you can get your hands on the old Looney Tunes cartoon with the singing and dancing frog and watch it before you watch this movie, so much the better. Be prepared for something that's silly purely for silliness' sake and you'll have fun. If you're the kind who takes yourself too seriously, watch something else. You deserve it.

Was the above review useful to you?

27 out of 46 people found the following review useful:

Excellent production values, great for kids

7/10
Author: douglaswilson from Naples, Florida
25 December 2005

This is a fine movie, for the right demographic, namely the same kids who liked the "Spy Kids" movies and for exactly the same reasons: outstanding production values, lots of cartoon-like action, lots of imagination in all of that, and good work from the actors. Jamie Kennedy has got what it takes for natural, charming, comedic acting. Natalie Traylor was more vivacious and cute in this movie than she has been since she took over the sidekick role in the "Monk" TV series. The dialogue has some pretty zippy stuff in it, and the plotting is competent and a good springboard for the hot visual effects.

The only negative thing I can say about the production itself was that the voice of the masked Tim was surprisingly subdued. It needed to be much more out there, distinctive and penetrating, even annoying, but definitely more audible and spooky that what we got.

Still, this is a great movie for kids from 5 to 15. Surprisingly, it totally tanked at the box office (in Hollywood terms -- it lost big money, though it grossed $17 million). This must have been because it was not marketed for kids. In fact, I don't remember much marketing at all on this movie, which is strange for a flick that cost almost a hundred million dollars to make.

But it's too good a movie not to have legs with the nippers in the years to come, if someone will just tell them about it. As we move steadily into the era of DVD importance in viewing habits, greater revenues for initially neglected movies like this one will start to materialize. Sort of like the mask in this movie, they will hang there for a while and then, when the right person touches them, will come to life.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 25:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Parents Guide Official site
Plot keywords Main details Your user reviews
Your vote history