MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > Is "Speed 2: Cruise Control" (1997) real...

Is "Speed 2: Cruise Control" (1997) really as bad as most say in your opinion?

posted a year ago by TheMan18 (13016)
23 replies | jump to latest

Granted, yeah, its a lot worse than the very good original "Speed" (1994) by same director Jan De Bont and is arguably his weakest movie too and it is weak and forgettable but as bad as most say?

And even if you found it unsatisfying, was there anything good or redeeming about it?

And also... What did you think of the lead villain Geiger played by Willem Dafoe as well as his infatuation with leeches and did he really lose his job because his company found out that he used leeches as medicine? And this made him crazy and want to hi-jack the ship?

And any other elements to it.

Was the script, plot, action etc and acting all that bad in your opinion? Direction? Was it really totally unexciting and forgettable? Did it have noticeable plot holes and goofs that are irritating even by silly action movie standards?

Anyone here actually LIKED it, despite the flaws AND negative reputation overall, even if its definitely below "Speed" itself? Cheers.

P.S. And what do we think about it also being released same year, 1997, as another big boat hit - "Titanic"?

reply

[–] rootvegetables (1670) a year ago

I am pretty lenient in reviewing films, and try to find a way to highlight the good over the bad if I can. That said, I remember seeing S2CC in the theater when it came out, and considering the film insultingly and laughingly bad.

[none]

reply

[–] mikethemartian (6719) a year ago

I never saw it but it looked bad to me.

reply

[–] Stratego (30511) a year ago

Yes. I saw it in the theater back in 1997 and was able to somewhat enjoy it at age 14 and never having seen an action movie on the big screen before or even Speed. But with every subsequent viewing I hated the movie more and more, ESPECIALLY after I finally did watch Speed. It's a ridiculous and retarded movie and an insult to the first movie.

reply

[–] Bloodshot77 (13779) a year ago

14 in 97? I feel old.

Signed, million man

reply

[–] Daft_Munks (4654) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] TheMan18 (13016) a year ago

Fair enough but may I ask, what mostly made this movie that way? And did you find what was happening on screen too unbelievable as well, even for a silly action sequel?

And at the end when that boat was crushing into and destroying everything in its path, were the effects there sub par?

reply

[–] Stratego (30511) a year ago

The whole concept was ridiculous. From a ship out of control to the stoopid villain. I don't know about the effects, but the ending was absurd. Speed wasn't super believable either (although the actors and the dialogue made it work), but at least it had suspense and most of all, SPEED.

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13016) a year ago

Plus the original "Speed" (1994) was generally tense and spectacular with very well staged action and suspense scenes or a combination of each and with solid to some very good performances, it was generally well directed and scripted, has some originality to it and the "goofs" and "flaws" weren't too immediate at least while watching it.

reply

[–] samoanjoes (56743) a year ago

I didn't mind the first half too much, but it falls apart in the second half with just dumb thing happening after dumb thing.

reply

[–] Bloodshot77 (13779) a year ago

I didn't read your post because it is too verbose, but.... speed 2 was just meh.

Signed, million man

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13016) a year ago

I did FAR more verbose even HERE. Lol )

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13016) a year ago

It was definitely lacklustre, underwhelming, unexciting and mostly forgettable overall. And yes it is so far to date director Jan De Bont's weakest film.

reply

[–] TheMan18 (13016) a year ago

My overall rating for this film would be around a 3/10. Original "Speed" movie - 8.

reply

[–] TandyMan (11097) a year ago

the problem with Speed 2 is it fell just short of being "so bad it's good". which just makes it a forgettable dud. they should have camped it up and had a little more fun with it.

reply

[–] FredBurroughs (21465) a year ago

It's a decent popcorn classic with a committed insane villain performance from Willem Dafoe and a showstopping final act boat crash. Jason Patric does what he can in a thankless hero role that would have been bound to be ill-received with the absence of Keanu.

That leads to a great thought experiment, though - how would Speed 2 and Titanic have turned out if Dafoe and Billy Zane had switched roles, and also Jason Patric with DiCaprio?

reply

[–] SemiAnimus (2353) a year ago

I don't think Speed 2 was any worse than the likes of the random Van Damme and Steven Seagal movies that used to be played on TV networks like TNT all the time.

reply

1
2