Speed 2: Cruise Control

"Speed" was a surprise hit movie. While it cost about $30,000,000 to make, it made back more than four times the cost. So, some Hollywood executives (with a collective IQ similar to that of a gerbil) thought...'if we do a sequel, we must spend $120,000,000 on it because THAT is why the first movie was such a success'. Not surprisingly, the movie tanked and it somehow has made it to IMDB's infamous Bottom 100 list--the 100 worst ranked major releases of all time.

In the original, Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock work to prevent a bus from exploding and killing folks. Now, because this is an overbloated sequel, they've placed the story aboard a cruise ship...which is also out of control and will kill everyone unless our heroes save it....though this time Reeves refused to reprise his role. So, they cast the rather bland Jason Patric in the lead...who offered little improvement other than he was very good at using sign language in one small scene.

How bad is this film? Well, not bad enough to be on the Bottom 100 list. So why is it on the list? After loving the first film, so many folks expected more of the same...and got nothing but a dull overblown action picture with little in the way to interest viewers....and I think THAT is why it made the list....because it disappointed so badly. Instead, I wish IMDB had a list for films with the worst ratio of cost to enjoyability of the film...in which case "Speed 2" would easily make the top 100.

By the way, this sequel ended up spending nearly as much for ONE crash scene as the budget for all of "Speed"! And, after paying $11,500,000 just to obtain Sandra Bullock for this film, you can only assume that the film simply had nothing left to pay competent writers. Instead, I assume, they hired some penguins to write the script....some very, very dull and untalented penguins!

The enormous success of "Speed" in 1994 could only create a (poor) sequel. The less we can say is that the scriptwriters have got a great narrow-mindedness. Here, the bus was replaced by a cruise ship and the movie doesn't work, partly due to this: a cruise ship can't go as fast as a bus even if it's trapped.

Then, Keanu Reeves' absence can terribly be felt. His replacement is so colorless and listless that Sandra Bullock almost steals the show from him. Moreover, as a rule, "Speed2: cruise control" is supposed to be a suspense film. Well, in this case, where's the suspense? The filmmaker doesn't succeed in creating the suspense and he even can't create a disturbing atmosphere. The end of the movie falls into the ridiculous when the ship is entering the dock and destroys everything in its path.

At the end: one of the worst sequels ever made.

An American action adventure thriller. This is a sequel to the 1994 hit "Speed" set on a slow moving cruise ship. Sadly it lacked the impetus of the original's theme-as-action. It has some very impressive stunts and it never fails to look busy, but the story is crammed with too many action events. The dialogue is clichéd and the characterization is thin, and the plot devices are overfamiliar. Jason Patric fails to impose himself as the lead which left Sandra Bullock who was sidelined into producing a frenetic character which she ends up overworking. Willem Dafoe looks the part but he acts tough without seeming tough. All in all, it's action packed but froths over. The finale does justify sticking with it because back in 1997 it was the most expensive stunt ever filmed.

Having long since broken things off with her boyfriend, Annie and her new beau plan a romantic holiday on an ocean liner. When onboard a disgruntled ex-employee of the liner disables the computer controls and sets it on a collision course while he escapes with his goods. Alex has to take him on and try to stop the ship as it `races' out of control.

As if Twister hadn't done it already, Speed 2 basically showed us that the potential that was shown by De Bont's debut was clearly misplaced and he has yet to show he was really anything other than in the right place at the right time when it came to Speed. The smell of desperation is in the air from the very start when Reeves declined to star, although Bullock was more desperate and did it. This caused Annie to repeatedly state that `relationships built on etc etc never work out', all in an effort to explain it away and help the audience move on. That the film is constantly harking back to a much better film is a big problem, it would almost have been smarter just to move totally away than to retread.

The plot is plain silly and never gets close to being involving. To demonstrate this, I never once gave a rats' ass what was happening - people got crushed by the boat and mangled in it's propellers (unseen) but the film (or me) never care and never lingers. Likewise the supposed big climax is unengaging and smacks of desperation - bang for buck and all that. The whole set up never really feels immediate or threatening, even when the boat swings out of control it is difficult to feel terrified as the boat slooooowly goes towards the tanker, worst come to worst people can jump off to safety. The cruiser setting also is daft when seen beside the bus concept - the vast majority of the audience will ride a bus quite often, very few of us can relate to an ocean liner! The speed is a problem and it is almost laughable it works so poorly!

The cast is another problem. Bullock tries to repeat her sparky performance from the first film - when she manages it, it only feels like an impression, when she doesn't manage it she is cast as a shrieking beauty needing saving. However she also struggles from a lack of chemistry with Patric. It is a shame as he is an OK actor but not used to a pure action role and not used to not having material to work with. He lacks charisma and is quite unconvincing. Dafoe is awful; he drags the film down as much as anyone. His villain is a joke and never threatens in the way that Hopper's did (who managed to be funny and scary). It is a bad impression all round. The support cast of `innocents in peril' do much the same as the ones on the bus did, but we care less about them - they are well off and are separated from the action; those on the bus were in the thick of it and `normal' people who we could relate to.

Overall this is as good a reason for not making unplanned sequels as any - there should be a board to approve all sequels to prevent cashing in! The memory of the original is cheapen by this nasty film that is uninspiring and unthrilling at best, dull and stupid at worst. De Bont never gets up a decent head of steam and he shows his inability to inject drama out of his own skill - anyone can point a camera, not everyone can (or should) direct. A dull 2 hours later, I was wondering why I wasted my time with a film that was so clearly all at sea.

Nah, it just isn't worth watching, or renting, why? Well let's just say it didn't live up to the first one. It wasn't very fast paced, or exciting, it was very predictable. And it's mostly them on the boat, trying to get everyone out, because it is out of control. It lost most of the elements the first one had. It didn't have the 'speed' theme, it was mostly a boat out of control, how? Someone just hacked it, and there it went, it wasn't on the threat of terrorists, there wasn't the threat of a bomb explosion, and it wasn't even sinking. Where's the excitement? The movie doesn't even deserve to be called 'Speed' because there was nothing about 'speed' in it, sure it had Sandra Bullock in it, but Keanu Reeves was missing in it. If you want to see a film about a boat out of control, just watch Titanic.