Son of the Mask (2005) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
249 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
p-a-r-t-y. Why? no seriously....why was this movie made?
flashbeagle21 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.
133 out of 164 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This film spoils the classic's image of the 'The Mask'
kc_22069214 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.
259 out of 339 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Terrible, awful, extremely bad, horrible, etc, etc....
dataphasia19 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.
195 out of 254 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An absolute disgrace
mjplysaght23 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
First of all, like a bunch of other people, I loved the original Mask film with Jim Carrey. It was funny, it was cheeky, it was risqué, and it was entertaining overall.

An then over a decade later, this trainwreck comes to our screens. Literally the only returning cast member from the film is Ben Stein (the therapist from the last film; the teacher from Ferris Bueller's Day Off). Apart from him, there's no Jim Carrey, no Cameron Diaz, no Richard Jeni (.....oh wait), so most of the appeal of the first film was immediately thrown out the window.

Instead we're introduced to Jamie Kennedy, who is a whiny manchild who works in an animation studio, who comes across the mask picked up by his dog (presumably a different Jack Russell Terrier, RIP Milo) He wears the mask and impregnates his girlfriend/wife, apparently giving his child mask powers? It's ridiculous.

So Odin and Loki get involved (nope, not from the MCU because that would be awesome) and try to eliminate the child.

The child is eventually born, the dog gets jealous and tries to kill it, and Loki goes around creepily as well. OK, apart from some of these scenes having the most horrific and poorly handled CGI I've ever seen, this film really has a problem with which audience it's catering to. The characters are too exaggerated, the visuals are legitimately traumatizing, so the kids won't enjoy it. And the same thing will apply for adults because the acting is horrendous, Jamie Kennedy is a horrible replacement for Jim Carrey, and the script may as well have been written by a six-year-old. Plot holes and red herrings dominate the story, with there literally being no rhyme or reason for this film for existing.

This film is desperate to extract any reaction from its audience, and this includes reactions of trauma, horror, anger, boredom and frustration. Avoid this film like the plague.
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Don't waste Your time (and money)!
vega-1515 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.
176 out of 242 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Who green lighted this?
swordoftheshogun12 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?
130 out of 177 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A complete pile of hyperactive vulgar crap
trithart-112 February 2005
Warning: 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.
129 out of 185 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Why isn't this direct-to-DVD???
SONNYK_USA11 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!!!
138 out of 203 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
not even so bad that it's good
andup-7236721 February 2016
i have a really stretched sense of humor, and can find humor in almost anything. so here's how Son of the Mask is so bad. when it was in theatres, i worked in a theatre and saw any movie for free. i was 16 and so you can guess where i spent a lot of my free time. i even watched movies that i didn't wanna see, simply because they were free. but this one was different. it was SOOO lame that i couldn't even laugh at how lame it was. i only lasted 20 minutes before i left. thats how terrible this movie is. there was no shitty acting or scripting to laugh at, it was simply bad bad bad bad bad. unlike the other movies i initially didn't want to see but had turned out okay, this one was bland and i couldn't keep watching. it's been over 10 years now and i don't remember specifics. i just know that i don't want to attempt to watch it ever again.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Even Odin's magic couldn't save them
jose_antonio-141275 May 2017
It's so ridiculous and bland that I would not know where to start. This boring film is more directed to kids than the original from 1994, and the proof is that the magic of Jim Carrey movie here has completely disappeared. The director of the 1994 film, Chuck Russell, is conspicuously absent, and his position is usurped here by Lawrence Guterman, the same man over the helm in the intolerable "Cats & Dogs". The script was original, could be polished a lot, the concept of keeping in mind the very Loki was striking. But the role of the Mask is greatly ridiculed. The abuse of digital effects is CRIMINAL, it apparently beat Star Wars I, or go there I think. The main character is so stupid that I do not fall that ends well, one ends up preferring Loki and that he is the bad guy. Loki have good costumes, good makeup, good actor, perfect in appearance and look, but the rest of the story is a mess. The role of Odin rests with a veteran, who shows only pure rage and no expression. The baby and the dog play a supposed humor role:

1. The dog's jealousy towards the baby; Is so original that it is a shame that it was ruined by the type of movie that turned out to be.

2. The baby is the product of an error, and his computer image is as false as the charisma of the film.

But some scenes of these two entities are memorable, it's a shame that they have been utterly overshadowed by this failed commercial sequel attempt. One of the worst movies of 2005.

P.D. For all the reviewers that said that this movie is good because is targeted to kids, or praise this director by two reasons: he is Canadian and/or he did a comedy with cats; go watch the animated TV series "Kid vs. Kat" (pardon with the pun), instead. This cartoon show is more funny than this movie, and also beats this monstrosity.
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Trailer, The Nostalgia Critic, and the General Public Are How I Can Tell This Is One Of The Worst Movies Ever Made!
benaboo24 August 2017
I have never sat down and watched Son Of The Mask but I can tell it's a very scary, disgusting, horrendous piece of crap because I have seen the trailer, bits and pieces and the Nostalgia Critic's review which showed me more than I should have seen. And after hearing about a vomiting scene I knew that I should stay away from this. From what I have seen this movie is very creepy and ugly. The baby is disturbing to watch. The dog has creepy imagery written all over him. And I wonder why they chose Jamie Kennedy to play the lead role. Seriously, I would approach Robin Williams, Adam Sandler, Will Ferrell and Dave Coulier before approaching him. I have a hard time eating when I think about this movie. It gives me a bad taste in the mouth. You know you made a bad movie when the poster leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Why is Bob Hoskins in this? Was he missing the days of Roger Rabbit or something? If I was in something like this I would be ashamed to show my family. I hope a true sequel to The Mask (a great movie) happens someday and if it does it should totally make of this movie similar to how Deadpool made fun of Green Lantern I will never sit and watch this movie as long as I live. Are there any movies that are worse than this piece of crap?
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Bad Sequel
tonygarcia223 November 2017
Son of the Mask feels empty and without a Jim Carrey cameo, this feels a huge waste of time watching it in the movie theater or even on DVD.

Steven Wright, the king of deadpan comedy, feels like Droopy the dog than a boss of an animation company.

Dr. Ben Stein, the only cast member of the Mask 1994 movie, was okay on there even though it was forced.

The late great actor, Bob Hoskins, who was known in movies like Who Framed Roger Rabbit, The Long Good Friday, Brazil, and Hook, unfortunately, has been in two movies this one as Odin where he had the talking head treatment from Superman and Super Mario Bros where he was drunk.

And Alan Cumming is atrocious even though he's good.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
One of the worst sequels ever
wonkertuzz18 February 2017
Warning: Spoilers
There is little to nothing good about this movie. The acting is terrible, the CGI is not so great, and the story misses a LOT of chances of being good. What really sucks is that The Mask with Jim Carrey was fantastic. I never would've thought that this is what would follow it. When it comes to hit and miss, the story mostly misses. It's all over the place in this film. First, you think it's gonna be kind of like the first film with Jim Carrey, but then it turns into a badly acted, terrifyingly animated freak show that makes little to no sense at all. I'm immensely disappointed with this film. One reason is that I was hoping for a continuation of the Mask with Jim Carrey. However, I could have looked past that. What really made this movie truly terrible was everything else. I can't recommend this film to anyone to be honest. If you're a fan of the first Mask film, stay away from this film. I just hope one day that there will actually be a good sequel to the 1994 original.
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
NO COMPARISON! However the kids loved it.
robertsons2 April 2005
It would be a serious mistake to compare this movie with the original movie the MASK. I do not consider this a sequel. This movie stands alone and seemingly is aimed at a younger crowd than the first. I watched this with my two sons who are 7 and 8 and they did not stop laughing. They absolutely loved it and told me to rate this movie a 9 out of 10. I admit the acting was poor but the animation was outstanding and extremely funny. My expectations going in to the movie was to laugh a lot. This was achieved even though the movie itself was a bit strange and nothing like I expected. So if you want to see your kids laugh go to see this one. If your a big Jim Carrey or Cameron Diaz fan this is not for you (Note - They are not in it). It is funny that the MASK helped make both of them into superstars and now the budget for the sequel could not even come close to affording them.
24 out of 38 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It depends on what you expect
dwashbur28 February 2006
Warning: 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.
23 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Excellent production values, great for kids
douglaswilson25 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.
27 out of 47 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I don't care what the critics say, I really found this movie entertaining
DarkVulcan2922 February 2005
I was reading most of the reviews on the IMDb, And I know not everybody is gonna like this movie. I really didn't care for the first one to much. Watching this movie made me realized, how much I did not miss Jim Carrey from the first one. The effects are incredible, and the funny performances by Alan Cumming and Jamie Kennedy seem to make this movie worth wild. The story starts out with Tim Avery, an out of luck cartoonist who can't seem to catch a break, his dog finds the mysterious mask, and Tim thinks it is a Halloween mask, but when he puts on the mask. He becomes the life of the party, When he gets home, he then makes love to his wife, while still wearing the mask. The couple soon realize there gonna have a baby. And when the baby is born, the baby seems to possess incredible super powers. During this time, a mysterious god of mischief named Loki, is trailing the mask. Call me insane, but I like this movie.
32 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Am I from a different planet? Maybe I should conjure Odin
BrandtSponseller19 May 2005
Series note: As this is not a direct, chapter-like continuation of The Mask (1994), one can easily watch either film first.

If I ever needed proof that I'm looking for something different in a film than most folks, here it is. While I don't think Son of the Mask is flawless, the only flaw I can really see is that the flow of the story doesn't quite make it as enrapturing or emotionally impactful as, say, Schindler's List (1993) or The Shawshank Redemption (1994). Two factors mitigate that lack. One, Son of the Mask isn't shooting for the same compelling emotional intensity as a film like Schindler's List. Two, Son of the Mask's other outstanding artistic qualities enable it to largely transcend any problems it has with achieving a spellbinding plot.

Of course, related to point one above, it's not that every film needs to have a paradigm-shattering plot to succeed. The Godfrey Reggio/Philip Glass trilogy of Koyaanisqatsi (1983), Powaqqatsi (1988) and Naqoyqatsi (2002) all receive scores of 9 or 10 from me, and debatably they have no plots, even if they make many cogent, often philosophical, "arguments" about culture.

But it's not that Son of the Mask's story isn't good. The plot is set in the same location--the fictional Edge City--as the first Mask (as well as John Arcudi and Doug Mahnke's comic books, upon which both films are based). The story could take place either before or after the beloved Jim Carrey film. Tim Avery (Jamie Kennedy) lives in the bucolic countryside that's ironically only two miles outside of Edge City (it seems almost like a northeastern New Jersey, Westchester County or southwestern Connecticut joke). The mask of Loki, the "God of mischief" in Norse mythology, comes floating down a stream, to be found by Tim's dog, Otis (in an alliterative reference to Odin, Loki's father, and a pun on Milo and Otis). Tim puts it on just in time for a Halloween party, which enables him to get in the good graces of both his boss, played by comedian Steven Wright, and his wife, Tonya (Traylor Howard). Prior to this, Tim was having trouble at work as a struggling animator relegated to giving studio tours dressed up as a giant tortoise, and his wife was nagging him about having a baby.

Meanwhile, we get to meet Loki himself (played by Alan Cumming) in a fabulous prologue set in a museum. It seems that he's lost his mask (of course) and Odin (an almost unrecognizable Bob Hoskins) is nagging him to find it. Tim's masked persona enables him to get a promotion and procreate, but the baby just may metaphysically be the son of Loki, and Loki exploits this fact to try to find his mask.

Although it sounds complex, perhaps, that's a more than attractive story to me. It actually trumps the first Mask film in a way by bringing the source of the mask into the proceedings. It's highly fantastical and surreal, and it enables a great number of deeper themes and subtexts. To a large extent, Son of the Mask is a film about fatherhood. It explores the fears and foibles that many fathers and fathers-to-be experience. The resolution to the film's dilemmas--and director Lawrence Guterman adeptly maintains two primary dilemmas throughout--hinge on learning how to be a better father. But there are other important themes and subtexts, including the importance of personal assertiveness (carried over from the themes of the first film), the quandaries of dual career families, "sibling" rivalry, child development issues, and maybe even the beginnings of an Oedipal complex.

Not that this is primarily a serious film, but it's not meant to be only or primarily a laugh-out-loud comedy, either. Guterman is much more concerned with achieving a thoroughgoing surrealism than he is with trying to make you laugh. I love surrealism, so I'm a prime candidate to love this film. In fact, I can't imagine anyone with a taste for surrealism not appreciating the film, at least to an extent.

The production design--including things like the sets, matte paintings, costumes, and the ubiquitous cgi--is simply amazing. The surreal action sequences are even better. Perhaps even more than the first film, Son of the Mask realizes a "live action" cartoon.

Tex Avery is again a strong reference (made obvious by Kennedy's character being named "Tim Avery" and working as an animator), as is classic Warner Brothers animation in general. A long section in the middle is a clever spoof on Chuck Jones' One Froggy Evening (1955), and there is another long section that is straight out of the Roadrunner cartoons (involving Otis first drawing up blueprints then trying to execute an elaborate, almost Rube Goldbergian "elimination contraption").

The funniest aspect of the movie for me, perhaps, was a kind of "suspended absurdity", made most clear when Tonya returns from her business trip and finds her home (which was subtly modeled after cartoon homes circa the 1940s and 1950s) still in shambles from the cartoonish events that preceded--the piano is still hanging from the top of the stairs, the giant boxing glove is still engaged, and so on.

But the performers have many funny moments, too. Although Kennedy has a couple moments of Jim Carrey-like mannerisms when Tim is The Mask, and these underscore that Kennedy can't do Carrey like Carrey can (of course), these are few and far between. Kennedy is Tim as Tim for most of the film, and funny at that. Alan Cumming was hilarious in his different disguises when he's searching for his mask, and entertaining otherwise--he's impressed me in all of his films I've seen. I also found the baby frequently funny, especially when more surreal.

Giving Son of the Mask a 1 or 2 seems simply ridiculous to me, even if there are elements of the film you strongly dislike. Technically, at least, this is an exemplary work of art. It deserves to be reconsidered.
35 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Why do most hate this film?
gfast13 February 2007
Am at a loss to explain why this film gets so much hateful criticism. In my opinion it is an entertaining, inventive film. The main mistakes were linking it (loosely) to the original The Mask, the criticism seems to be centred around how UN-like The Mask this film is, that it DOESN'T have Carrey etc., so perhaps this link works against it and the film-makers should have thought of another title and synopsis that distances this effort from The Mask.

This film is pure cartoon, and any appreciator of cartoons should recognise the many tributes and cute links to the cartoon world. (The singing frog for example). Loki was hilarious and the baby effects well done, and Otis the Dog a stand-out (the shot where he gives up what he's doing to get the bone is a gem) Overall, some of the effects were overly-laboured, such as the urinating and exorcism vomit scenes. But, hey its a cartoon!
16 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
the mask is here so fasten your seat belt
hcalderon120 February 2005
The most fun since Roger Rabbit. This movie had a good blend of action, comedy and animation. It just feels like you are glued to your seat. The story begins with the Avery family when the husband gets a hold of the magical mask, when he puts it on a party he becomes live and animated. When he and his wife discover they are going to have a baby,and when the baby is born the baby starts developing his own possessive power but then Loki who is known as a god of mischief comes into this world seeking the mask and he will stop at nothing to get the mask back. It was a great that kept your mind occupied. Do you think that the Avery family can make it Stay tuned to find out.
32 out of 58 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Mask this movie away!
manjodude21 February 2011
Can't really compare the two, you know. You know what I mean, right? If the former Mask rocketed Jim Carrey to stardom, the latter did not carry anyone anywhere! Anyone can war a mask, it's how you carry it off that matters :) Jim brought the Mask to life with his crazy & unbelievable expressions but actor Jamie Kennedy didn't really do anything. Its like someone plastered a fixed smile on his face throughout the movie whenever he wore the mask.

The special effects were comparatively disappointing.

Liam Falconer as the baby was cute and also Alan Cumming as the mischievous Loki did a very fine job.

And the dog Otis? Sigh, I wish he was mine forever :) who wouldn't?

Verdict: Kids might like it, otherwise keep the mask, I mean, the movie away!
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Avoid What the Critics Say. Enjoy "Son of the Mask"!
DirectorsCut1920 March 2005
Sadly, this film is not doing well at the box office, but it should have. This is a frantic and funny follow up to "The Mask", and I enjoyed it. As he has proved with 2001's "Cats & Dogs", director Lawrence Guterman knows how to make a live-action cartoon. He uses weird, yet inventive, camera angles that adds more laughs to the film.

The film is also jam-packed with brilliant special effects that excel from the effects of the first film. Although the film isn't better than "The Mask", it's pretty close, and it's even wackier than its predecessor.

"Son of the Mask" is also being trashed by the film critics who probably doesn't have the knowledge to know that this is a KID'S FILM. It really does get annoying when critics always lambastes family films. My advice is to avoid their opinions and go see the movie. You might be glad you did.
24 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A good family film.
husnain_0523 December 2005
This movie is a good family film.

It is an okay movie but not as good as the pacifier.

Just as aspiring cartoonist Tim Avery gets over his fear of parenthood with the birth of his new son Alvey, he quickly finds himself in over his head as his new baby is born with the magical Mask's spectacular powers. Further complicating matters is the family's jealous dog, who turns the household upside down and gets the mask and buries it. But none of them know that the mischievous Norse Loki (Allen Cumming) has come looking for his Mask, and is willing to do whatever it takes to get it back.
21 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Son of the Jim Carrey-less Mask
silentcheesedude21 February 2005
The story in a nutshell: Dog finds enchanted mask. Pre-Dad puts on mask one night for Halloween party. Turns out the mask gave him superpowers capable of doing anything he wants. Has a baby WHILE he has the mask on, thus giving baby superpowers when he is born. Dog gets jealous, decides to put on mask itself, and becomes super-insane dog. Mom goes away for a week, dad's about to face a big battle between his baby, the dog, and a really crazy god called Loki who wants his mask back.

Son of the Mask ends up being a generic, CGI filled, and otherwise throw-away movie, and normally, that would be the end of that. It no longer has Jim Carrey, and has toned down sexual innuendos to cater to kids. Being a parent, I know that young kids will love it, but will you? Here's a little questionnaire to find out:

1: Do you like old Bugs Bunny,Roadrunner,Woody Wood Pecker cartoons?

2:If you watched these mayhem-filled cartoons, would you still laugh?

3:Do you have kids, or a brother/sister under 12?

4: Do you like watching movies that are carried primarily by CGI effects?

If you answered 'no' to any of the above, you might not like the movie. You may even hate it. It is, after all, a real life cartoon. Things don't make complete sense. It's a very poor sequel in comparison. Jaime Kennedy is no Carrey, amid the fact that the Jamie Kennedy Experiment is a funny show. Alan Cumming as the god Loki? I liked him a lot better painted in dark blue as Nightcrawler in X-2. New Line Cinema paid way too much money to get this one made. I don't think they will get the money back.

But it's a family friendly film, no naughty words, no nudity. And, hey, when you're at a kids movie, you can't always expect Oscar winning performances. I was laughing my head off at some scenes, including one where the dog draws up a booby-trap plan to get back at the baby, and instead ends up getting caught in the trap itself. Instantly reminded me of Wild E. Coyote, getting his ACME trap to get the Roadrunner, and instead gets caught in it himself. That's the beauty of cartoons, you really don't have to think much, you don't have to ponder, just watch!

While I know that this movie will never get a good rating, it doesn't deserve the '1' that everyone is giving it. It's short, at least as good as a hectic cartoon, and every bit as cheesy. I just wish New Line would have spent their money more on the plot or just done another better movie.

If your kids really bug you to watch this one, do it on the cheap.

5 out of 10. To me, a 5 represents a movie that fails to meet all expectations, may be poorly produced, acted and directed, but may find interest in those that know what to do before watching this movie: films that you remove your brain for.
51 out of 99 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Is it okay that um I'm a fan?
lexxweb2 March 2005
This film was not at all perfect but was enjoyable to me. What I cannot understand is why nobody can accept another persons opinions on this board. I post my opinion and everyone is going to bash it saying the following:

You have bad taste Your a child Go see a doctor Your a studio Plant Fu*ck you

I'm 14 for the record. Just thought I would post my opinion. I thought it was an okay film and I just hope people on this board can respect my opinion on this film, I say this because nobody has respected anybody Else's opinions and has been bashing it and calling them plants.

Thank You,
28 out of 51 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

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

Recently Viewed