For mine there are three types of sequels. The first is for movies that deserve a sequel and receive one worthy to follow the original. Aliens and Terminator 2 are good examples of this. The second type is a movie where a sequel is needed but the execution of that sequel leaves a lot to be desired. Think of the Transformers sequels to get an understanding of what I am talking about. The third type, and perhaps most wretched, is a sequel that is for a movie that never needed a sequel. The motive behind these sequels is normally a desperate cash grab by producers and directors trying to milk a great movie for all it is worth. Speed 2: Cruise Control is one of the best examples of this type of sequel. Based on this premise I want to make one thing perfectly clear before attempting to remedy this movie. I believe this movie should not exist. Speed is a fantastic action movie that deserves to stand on its own for originality and direction. So while I will be attempting to correct this abomination I want it well know that this is still not a good idea and some movies are better left alone. With that established lets dive right into Speed 2.
The biggest issue I have with this film is that it feels like a poor rehash of the original. Instead of an out of control bus it is an out of control ship. While the first is great because the premise is quite unique with the second I get a sense that I have seen it all of this before. While I believe that certain aspects of an original need to be maintained to keep the connection valid with the original this can be overdone. If I use a good action series, like Die Hard, the same theme is maintained i.e. John McClane needs to stop a group of thieves/terrorists; the method of crime and resolution vary from movie to movie. This keeps the premise fresh and makes the viewer want to see the next installment. If Die Hard 2 and 3 were about John McClane needing to clear the Empire State Building and London Tower of terrorists respectively we would lose interest pretty quickly. Therefore we would need to severe the strong connection between the first and second Speed movie. Keeping with Die Hard for a second there is a scene in the third movie that inspired me on this. There is a scene where McClane and Zeus Carver have to barrel through New York in a taxi to get to a pay phone on the other side of town to prevent a bomb from exploding. Expand this into a series of speed related obstacles and I think you have a good premise for Speed 2. I know this is not an entirely original idea. Not that I have seen it but I think 12 Rounds has the same premise, as well as some others I am sure. It’s more the idea of keeping the theme of fast moving decisions and quick paced action common between the two movies without having to flat out borrow the plot from the first movie. I think if Speed 2 was to take this approach it would be better for it.
 |
| This poster makes the movie seem way more intense than it actually is. |
Casting also plays a big part in the success of a sequel and unfortunately I believe this is something that Speed 2 gets wrong. The returning character for this film is Sandra Bullock’s Annie. For it to work I believe they really needed to bring back Keanu Reeves’ Jack Traven. While Annie is a character who does play her role well and contribute a lot to the story in the end it is Jack Traven that we are truly cheering for. He is the one that is risking his life heroically to save the people on the bus and the one who is going up against Dennis Hopper. To therefore have the sequel focus on Annie and a new male protagonist (who I add is basically a more wooden Keanu Reeves) just seems a bit of a letdown. To again reference Die Hard it would be the same as making Die Hard 2 about Al Powell. Sure he’s an important part of the story but the story is about McClane. I also think that Keanu’s performance in Speed is one of his better ones. While he can be a bit stiff at times you do still buy into the character. Therefore I would have done everything in my power to make sure Jack Traven was in Speed 2, and considering Reeves did the Matrix sequels it would seem he does not have an aversion to doing poor sequels.
The next issue I believe needs addressing is that of genre. For all intents and purposes Speed 2 is not an action film. It is a romantic comedy with explosions. I’m not trying to over embellish this fact! To give you an idea of what I mean by this, discounting the opening motorcycle chase (which is no elevator scene I assure you) it takes 40 minutes for the next bit of action to take place!! During this pause in action we are treated to awkward scenes of Annie and Alex (Reeves Version 2.0) enjoying the festivities of the ship they are on and being introduced to characters who will be semi-important later on. After the fluid and continual action of Speed 1 this tawdry opening is not what is expected of a sequel. Speed wastes little time in getting to the overall plot of the movie, i.e. the bus that is going to explode, and develops character as the action is happening. Speed 2 believes that getting the audience emotionally invested in the characters is better to keep us involved with the action. While this sounds plausible in theory all this does is piss off the fans that came for an action movie and are treated to Notting Hill. In short, the action in this film should have been ironed out first before trying to flesh out what little of the characters there is.
Along this theme of genre is another key failing which is very much apparent throughout the movie. This is the fact that the comedy in this movie is anything but subtle. While I could go through many examples of this I think I’ll stick to the two most prominent issues that spring to mind to better explain this.
The first is the villain of Speed 2, Geiger, played by Willem Defoe. Before I start bashing on this character I do want to say that Willem Defoe is the only actor in this movie I feel does try his hardest to be menacing but unfortunately is bound to the material around him. Therefore while he starts as moderately creepy and conniving in the end he is reduced to a live action Looney Toon. That’s not an overreaction either because one of the traits of his character is as the movie progresses he incoherently laughs with greater frequency. Even as he is about to die at the end of the movie all he can do is cackle hysterically. While this sounds like a failing on Defoe’s part I do need to point out that movie becomes increasingly stupid around him. Really the character has little choice but to react to this. Compare this to Dennis Hopper’s Howard Payne (one of my favourite villain performances of all time) and you can see where Defoe simply becomes more ludicrous, Hopper becomes more evil and desperate. Very rarely does Hopper lose his sinister cool, until the point where he loses his head. It’s this stark contrast that points out where the comedy lies because whereas Hopper is subtle in his humour Defoe is as blatant as you can get. Let’s put a line from each character side by side just to prove the point.
Howard Payne: “The whim of a madman…… I like that”
Geiger: “Bwahahahahahahahahaha!”
Need I say more?
 |
| Visual representation of the point just discussed! This man was in Platoon for heaven's sake |
The second point I want to make about the comedy lies in the movies show piece moment, when the ship crashes into the harbor city. This was the moment that made every trailer and was even on a few movie posters. Much like the bridge jump scene in the original this was to be the moment that defined the movie. Unfortunately instead of this being a quite harrowing and awe inspiring moment it is completely ruined by the over use of sight gags and over reactions. I watched this scene over again and there are eight different hammy performances in this five minute sequence. These range from simple double takes to the gag inducing final joke of the ship stopping just short of an expensive sports car only for the anchor to fall on it. Having this parade of juvenile humour only weakens the power of this scene. I sometimes feel the scene should be shown in black and white with a 20’s piano tune humming the background. This scene perfectly demonstrates the overriding humour of the entire film. In reality the ship crashing scene should have simply been the ship plowing into sizeable structures while people flee. How hard is that to get wrong?
I could go on and on about this, mentioning scenes like the smoke stripping scene, Annie’s driving test and the hammy returning cameo of Glenn Plummer but I won’t because I believe the point has been made. I will leave you one last addition to this point, in the final joke of the movie. After surviving the ship Annie re-sits her driver’s test (she started the movie taking one). Anyway, as she is about to pull out of the driveway a bus goes roaring past to which Annie explains “that bus is going way too fast’. Subtle humour….. End Point!
The last point I believe that needs to be examined and altered to make this a better movie is a very simple one. Despite its name Speed 2 has very little speed in it. While I will agree that the bus in Speed 1 had to only stay above 50mph, which isn’t overly fast, it was fast given the surroundings and situations. Put that up against the “speed” portion of Speed 2. To set the scene Geiger has messed with the ship’s navigation and is setting it on a collision course with an oil tanker. The ship is now hurtling towards the oil tanker at a brain melting 17 knots. This translated into road speed is 31.48 kilometers per hour (or 19.56 miles per hour for the imperials). I don’t care how you cut it that is not fast. I want to really put this in perspective so let me share this fact with you. Usain Bolt (the world’s fastest man) can do the 100 meters in 9.58 seconds. Assuming he can keep that momentum indefinitely this would equate to a speed of 37.56 kilometers per hour. Bolt is over 6 kilometers an hour faster than this out of control ship. I’m sorry but when a vehicle has the potential to lose a footrace it loses a lot of creditability. Now before the nautically inclined start hating on me yes I am aware that ships of this size would struggle to do anything higher than this and that therefore makes it more realistic. I believe however that this strengthens the argument further to have this movie not take place on a ship. I might also add that this crash scene takes around 20-25 minutes and loses all tension after 5. This movie had to take place in a vehicle that could accomplish a speed to be worthy of a title like Speed.
 |
| Perhaps Speed 2 should have taken place on Bolt's back. |
In summation Speed 2 should have been a proper action movie, focusing on large set pieces rather than forced character development. It should have maintained the premise of a vehicle being commandeered to foil a terrorist plot at high speed while not having the vehicle directly involved. Willem Defoe should remain on as the villain to take on Keanu Reeves with witty banter and threatening conversations (opposed to needless sight gags). Mostly however Speed 2 should be fun. Much like the original it should be a chance for the audience to immerse themselves in, without wanting to sound to cliché, a true thrill ride. Living the twists and turns of the protagonist as we cheer for him to inevitably triumph over what seems like an insurmountable evil. Doesn’t sound that difficult does it? The mere fact however that they got it this wrong in the first place backs up my original point. Speed 2 should not exist. Do yourself a favor, go and watch Speed and enjoy it for its entire splendor. Now if you’ll excuse me I’m going to go home and have some sex…. Or puke….. which will be fun too.
