Cube 2 is the exact same thing, except not as good. Cube was an original, interesting, and disorienting movie. 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. Because they don't exist, everything goes wild here, allowing for some things to happen. It's not claustrophobia, but the idea of anything happening in a hypercube. But one positive difference between the two is that this one seemed to be overall scarier. Maybe it's for the prequel, Cube Zero (due out sometime this year) to describe. But then they left it in the air yet again. The ending, which was vague in the first, explained some more, which I was angry yet happy about. Here, it seems like everyone was involved somehow. In the first, you barely knew anything about the giant cube they were in. The characters are all more broadly drawn, the dialogue is cheesier, and it looks faker. I guess that's for people who see sequels before the originals. There's the wandering around, talking about the past, and speculation of why they're in the cube. 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. Instead, some rooms have a cube that attacks you (don't ask), some have gravity reversed, and time means nothing. They're not different colors, and there's no booby traps. Strangers are thrown together into a series of interconnecting cubes yet again, but this time they're more high-tech. 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. 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. And that seems like the case with Cube 2: Hypercube, a sequel to the cult hit Cube. Although no one liked the sequel, I'm sure Jonathon Lynn is proud that The Whole Nine Yards got a sequel somehow. I've never really thought about it this way, but I suppose in most cases, it's an honor to have a sequel. Poor acting, poor story and a cheap set equals bad movie. My math isn't good enough to get me out of a cube but I know when things don't add up. In attempts to make it more uncrackable they made it more absurd. 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. They tried to give us a little more information while still leaving us guessing. I know that CGI was still a relatively new toy in 2002 but it cheapened the movie and made it less likable. Now it moved silently and had a bunch of cartoonish ways of killing the cube members. It may look shinier and newer but it doesn't hold the same value. It was like the classic car that's stripped of its original parts and replaced with a bunch of gaudy upgrades. The cube itself was a suped up version of its predecessor and it wasn't any better. Ten cube captives in all and ten terrible actors. There were a few other ancillary characters thrown in there but their purposes were insignificant and more-or-less a diversion. I think that covers the very same characters that were in the first version. Two engineer types, Max (Matthew Ferguson) and Jerry (Neil Crone), both whom were unwitting participants in the creation of the cube. Paley (Barbara Gordon), both whom were typical burdens until their function was revealed. Two handicapped persons, Sasha (Grace Lynn Kung) and Mrs. The ultra-protective nurturing doctor, Kate (Kari Matchett), who's there to help everybody. There was the misplaced alpha male, Simon (Geraint Wyn Davies), who is only there to create conflict. This time there were ten people in the cube except they only focused on six of them. All of the things that made "Cube" endearing were totally lacking in "Hypercube". So, if "Cube" was good then "Hypercube" should be great. It has a common meaning of the extreme of a thing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |