There are only two acceptable reasons to make a sequel. Either because it is part of a trilogy or series that forwards the story (?Lord of the Rings?, ?Star Wars?) or it is foreseeable that the main character(s) can have another adventure and there is still something fresh to add (?Die Hard?, ?Lethal Weapon?). To find out the answers to the don?ts of making a sequel or when one is not needed, look no further than ?Big Momma?s House 2.?
While I didn?t find the original good, it was a decent movie to catch on cable and laugh a few times. Sure it was clichéd, but Martin Lawrence was able to add some of his comic timing to make it work. It also had Paul Giamatti, Anthony Anderson, and Cedric the Entertainer in supporting roles to help in the laugh department.
Not surprisingly, those actors are nowhere to be found in the sequel, and relies solely on Martin Lawrence dressed as a big old lady to bring in the jokes. The problem is that it was a one-time joke that wore out in the original, so how could it possibly hold up and add new life to an additional hour and a half. Well, it doesn?t. As are most sequels, this is an unnecessary retread of the worn-out material from the original.
Lawrence reprises his role as FBI agent Malcolm Turner who has settled down to a desk job to spend time with his pregnant wife Sherry (Nia Long). He finds out that his ex-partner was killed and his death is connected to a worm being created that will breach national security if released. Learning that the man suspected of creating the worm has a family and is looking for a house keeper for the children, Malcolm sees his Big Momma disguise as the perfect way to go undercover and break the case. Since Malcolm is determined to avenge the death of his partner, he goes Jack Bauer and jumps back into the field without the support or permission of his bosses.
This time the subplot has Malcolm spending time with the children, growing affection for and being a parent-like figure to them, rather than the budding romance with Sherry that the first movie explored. While the first movie played like a ?Stakeout? rip-off, this one is more of a ?Mrs. Doubtfire? rip-off. This lends itself to jokes about men failing at cooking and cleaning.
Not every man is willing or able to be a good house keeper, but come on, is it even remotely possible to think an FBI agent would not know how to fix a child a bowl of Lucky Charms (he pours the milk into the box and gives the kid the box). Besides, Malcolm miraculously learns to clean and cook once the plot needs him to.
In addition to the jokes about not being able to wash clothes, clean, or take care of children, which have been seen before almost verbatim in other movies, we also get the fat old lady jokes. We see Big Momma in a bathing suit doing a Bo Derek ?10? impression, dancing in a cheerleader uniform, and in a bath robe at a day spa. These gags do not work and the cheap laughs that do never actually come from the fact that a man is dressed as a big old lady.
In the beginning it seems like the movie takes the plot seriously and spends sometime setting it up. However it is so silly and basic that the audience won?t even care about its resolution. It doesn?t even do a good job of giving a reasonable explanation for Malcolm to dress as Big Momma like the original did, but that?s because there isn't one.
Having an uninteresting plot only allows for the jokes to carry the movie. Since pretty much everything has been seen or done before, there isn?t much that makes ?Big Momma?s House 2? worth seeing.
Say what you want but this is one of the biggest, weirdest surprises I've received in my life.
The first one was, in lack of a better word, vomit. But this sequel, even if it's not the greatest comedy ever created, is FUNNY, something the first one never achieved (even with Paul Giamatti in it)
The first one was pain, this is joy, fun, laughs, stupidity and fat-black-woman-who-is-really-a-dude jokes all over and has its biggest strenght in NEVER taking itself too seriously, producing a nice mix between actual hilarity and campy situations. The kids Big Momma has to take care of are all extremely cute and compelling and never annoying (as "cute" kids in bad comedies usually are) which, even if it may sound as a tiny, unimportant detail, is actually really nice. C'mon! You gotta love Josh Flitter playing a 2-year-old that loves to climb on furniture and high places and then jump just to fall on his face! Too bad the kid's now filming "Ace Ventura, Jr." because he looked kind of promising. As for Kat Dennings, which we all loved in "The 40-year-Old Virgin", she is as hilarious as always.
Overall, the surprise wasn't exactly about HOW funny it was but the fact that it was simply FUNNY, something you'll never expect from a Martin-Lawrence-in-drag-sequel, right?
Give it a try, don't take it seriously and enjoy it. God knows nobody took it seriously while filming it so why should you?
A sequal to the lamest one joke comedy of all time? Thats a great idea! We should definately do that, and make it about the same joke too! Hmm, it appears people seem to be slitting my throat, hmmm.
Martin Lawrence plays a great-role as always. I have never seen the first one so I am juding the movie for what I thought it was - not in comparison to the first.
Actors were all solid, storyline great, and extremly funny. There were a few over-the-top scenes that I could of lived without. Mostly just the scenes that were way unreal but other then those minor unbelievable scenes here and there the movie was great!
I actually thought that it was a pretty well done movie. It was really funny and I think it was better than the first. The most funniest part would probably be the part when he was at the beach and chasing that dude. He took off all the bras off the chicks that were have a shower. I couldnt stop laughing. I thought that it was sweet when he gave his wife the flowers. That was probably the only sweet thing from the movie. Not the best film ever, but it was better than I thought that it would be.
Pretty entertaining and dumb! The story was unpalatable., Only some funny scenes were., But they have some themes that are acceptable., ?Keeping promises?, and that was managed in the film.; ?The family that stays together, live happily ever after?
nah too many bm jokes and martin lawrence knows what i mean first was better of course hes not as good as the black matriarch in diary of a mad black woman
this second installment script felt very forced and the comedy felt forced and it just wasn't enjoyable like the first one, of course only my opinion ok!
This was such a hillarious movie, I love Martin Lawerence in all the movies he does, He is so talented and I reccomend this movie to people of all ages!!
No where near as funny as the first one. I hate when they have a good thing going and then to make more money out of it they go and make a sequal because they think people will like it. No. I liked the first one. I thought it was mildly funny. This was just rubbish. The performances were awful. Martin Lawrence just wasn't as funny this time round which really does serve him right. The plot was just stupid and appears to just be thrown together which explains a lot. I wouldn't recommend anyone to see this film.
Dang. 5 stars again. Good babysitter finding out that one of the candidates perverted the husbands of previous jobs to divorce with their wives. Walkin' around butt-naked.
MCT:August 18, 2008
MCT:July 12, 2008
MCT:July 6, 2008
MCT:June 22, 2008
MCT:June 13, 2008
MCT:February 9, 2008
MCT:February 3, 2008
MCT:December 23, 2007
