I was not too fond of the franchise, but I was interested in seeing what they would do with it after the original, and I think the movie delivered in a satisfying way. The second movie has the benefit of being able to expand upon an existing universe, which can be interesting in the context of the original, even if the original didn't really captivate you. They chose a few silly things and applied them consistently instead of just doing whatever they wanted for the entire runtime. The second movie, while still absurd, had a greater sense of continuity. Also, the thing about Elvis impersonators was ridiculous. The whole premise is that a never-aging dog would take over all affection from humans, which makes little to no sense. The first movie relied a lot on absurd situations to keep the plot moving on. I'd much rather a movie be fairly generic than unfunny or obnoxious. There is significantly less of this in the second, with more movie tropes and at least marginally better jokes filling the gaps. The first movie had a lot of potty humor and other bad jokes. There are a few main factors that I believe contribute to this opinion: I was able to have significantly more fun watching the second movie, even if most of it was ironic. I think that the first movie was really bad, but the second one was just okay. How many Boss Babies can one family hold He may be a big-shot moneyman now, but Ted Templeton flashes back to his Boss Baby past when he and his brother Tim. I'm not sure if anybody here particularly likes either Boss Baby movie, but it is my understanding that the first was at least mildly successful (thus justifying the existence of the second), but the second is considered terrible even by standards of some of the children that it was targeted towards. Based on the 36-page picture book by Marla Frazee and featuring the pitch-perfect voice of Alec Baldwin as a onesie suit-wearing, corporate-minded blessed arrival, this DreamWorks Animation effort.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |