Better than the first


I may be alone in this, and I am perfectly fine with that. I was never a big John Cusack fan so I really didn't care 0.5% that he wasn't in the sequel and actually I think him not being in it is why I enjoyed the sequel more. I can not even comprehend how him not being in it is a deal breaker for people. It is John Cusack ffs, not Bruce Willis. I found the sequel to flow a lot better and not drag out as much as the first did. It may be that I just enjoyed the plot and settings more than the first. The future is cooler than a ski lodge, and murder is more interesting than a can of soda. I am also confident that I laughed out loud more during the sequel than I did in the first. When I started the film, I wouldn't say I was that interested but shortly after starting the film I realized that I had forgotten how much I liked the characters (Nick, Lou, Jacob). I was going to watch it the other night but put it off due to lack of interest but last night I went through it and watched it and I am glad I did honestly. I am in no way saying the first one is a bad movie because it isn't, I just enjoy the second film more than the first and maybe, just maybe, one other person feels the same way. Only thing I didn't really care for was the ending with John Cusack popping up and something about discovering America. I would have zero interest in seeing a third film if that was the plot for it. Not like a 3rd one will be made anyway. Probably for the best.

reply

I can see why you'd feel this way about it, but I think they're both about as good as eachother. I ranked them both a 7.

reply

I'm following a Back to the Future pattern here with the first two movies. Watch the 3rd one take place in the old West.

reply

more like it the american revolution instead of the old west.

 "That Monster is being ignorant!"

reply

unless this one becomes a cult with strong DVD sales there wont be a third film; this one didn't make enough money.

reply

I like Adam Scott and it's cool you like this terrible movie.

reply

I might actually agree with the OP, and i don't really understand all the hate on this board. This is a fine sequel to the first movie, and doesn't exactly need the cheesy characters and irrelevant storylines that the first movie had to some point.

reply

I really started enjoying this movie about halfway through when I realised it didn't need John Cusack. I loved the awesome tech in the movie, and the game show was just crazy. Very clever and intelligently thought out and I want one of those cars! Also enjoyed the loonie father/son love hate relationship. Yes it was dumb, crass, I loved it and want more.

reply

They are different types of comedies.

Even though the first one was forgettable enough that I can't remember a single actual joke, it was a nostalgia piece, an 80-s bashing comedy -- essentially one of those "Grown-Ups" movies by with more R-rated characters. In it's comedic punch line ragging on the 80's ski flicks (you have to have watched them in the 80's to truly understand that they were taken seriously) extends its reach back to direct its comedic scorn at its own plot. It's deliberately cheesy and that's part of its comedic consistency.

The second film was like watching Ted, or pretty much most R-rated comedies in the age of "Seth MacFarlane" high-low-brow comedy. If you like those kind of movies... and particularly if you didn't live through the 80s (a set of people that pretty much overlaps the former) then I could see how you would like this sequel.

As for Cusack (and to bank on the Bruce Willis reference), when I learned Cusack wasn't even going to make a cameo appearance, I was like, this guy did "The Prince" - an $18MM also-ran action turd - and he's passing on Hot Tub 2? WTF? After seeing it I can understand why he maight have said "pass"...

reply

[deleted]