Speed 2 - Senza limiti

I hear a lot of people say that this is a bad movie. I honestly don't think it's that bad. Alright alright, Dennis Hopper in the first movie was just the right type of villain, the kind you really hate, Willem Dafoe is certainly a great villain too. His facial expressions are just great and typical for a villain, he's just so creepy.

If you're looking for that once-in-a-decade A+ masterpiece, this movie is not for you. But if you're looking for a movie to watch when there's nothing on TV, then this is a great choice. Obviously it's not greatest movie ever made, but I've seen much worse.

I'd give it a rating of 60%, or 6/10

Now I liked Sandra Bullock in the original Speed. I even liked her in that film where she went into a beauty pageant. But in this monstrosity, I just wanted to slap her repeatedly and say "What are you doing!?"

She is just dire. Not in acting (well... any more than usual, anyway) but just in the way her character made you want to shake her until she regained some sense. Whoever was responsible for the script needs a good beating here. Unless I am completely mistaken, her character between the events of the first film and this one, turned into a complete and total airhead bimbo.

Add in Jason Patric (who will never be leading man material) and it seems that only Willem Dafoe was having any fun. Truly awful!

But it is good to see that ocean liners, which may have to weather tropical storms, apparently have windows made of glass so easy to break that anyone can hurl themselves through them on a whim. Priceless cinema.

Avoid this one if you liked the original.

Avoid this one if you expect a thrilling sea drama.

Avoid this one if you like Sandra Bullock.

Avoid this one if....well....just avoid it.

"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!

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.

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.