I Still Know What You Did Last Summer Reviews
Then we have the opposite. Or rather, a belief in the opposite: that a bad film, if somehow is given a sequel, has nowhere to go but up since in better hands, the sequel can rectify the mistakes of the first and show that the sins of the fathers need not be visited upon the sons.
Let's take I Know What You Did Last Summer: it was formulaic, filled with narm, characters that were so annoying you were BEGGING to see them die (as opposed to films where you want the characters to die only because the villain is a franchise staple who can be very inventive with their kills), illogical and it had one of the weaker villains ever to grace a horror/thriller. I only gave it a rating slightly higher than this film due to Sarah Michelle Gellar, who I enjoyed seeing in Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
Now, this is the question I pose: what the Hell went so wrong that not only did they not make a better film they somehow made it WORSE than its predecessor?!
Let's start with the title. Now, I don't think I'm spoiling anything by telling you the fisherman from the first movie, who is meant to be the antagonist but comes off as Billy Bob Thornton in fishing gear (yes I know he didn't play him in the films, don't message me and try to correct me) is back to try and kill Julie James (Jennifer Love Hewitt, who seems to have a yo-yo career as far as I'm concerned). If I have spoiled it for you... seriously, you couldn't see that coming? Anyway, the title is just absurd. Of course you remember what happened. And it's a false title anyway because a whole new fiasco happened LAST summer. So it should be I Now Have Two Summers I Know Things About or I Still Know What You Did LAST Last Summer. That second one wouldn't make much more sense anyway but would still be more accurate. Not that it matters. Like I said, he's very unlikely to forget his apparent death. I say apparent because he doesn't appear to be undead (apparently, the third film in the series says he is undead and kills those who hold secrets of a death but more on that later). Come on, is revenge on four teens who will most likely live crappy lives with unfulfilled dreams really how you want to spend your time? Wouldn't you rather be at home with your wife, joking about your "crazy time" where you almost died?
Besides, you killed a guy. Isn't you being run over karma for murdering a guy who didn't seem to do anything wrong except in your crazy book?
Anyway, about the title, it just looks like a bad joke. Honestly, I think I would rather see the title as something like I'm Fairly Certain I Remember What Took Place A Few Years Ago Something About Being Run Over Right? Where Am I? Ooooh, Bagels! Anyway, What Was My Point Again?
Getting past the title but still on topic with the villain, I want to know what the Hell his deal is. Is he undead in this film or just really, REALLY good at taking beatings and bullets? Was he undead the whole time? Does he do this every few centuries or so and we just happen to be seeing the latest of many slaughters? Let's face it, he is nowhere near as cool as other undead characters like Freddy or Jason. Adding to that, he looks like a geezer version of Ghostface from the Scream series only without the awesome voice modulation.
Speaking of voice... ugh. Looks like a crazy hillbilly/homeless guy, sounds like one, probably smells like one. If this were a comedy, I'd be half expecting him to go "CHANGE! Ya got change?! Ah come on, help a guy out!"
Now let's move on.
The movie has a few other little things I don't like. One of those is the karaoke selection from Julie: I Will Survive.
I. Hate. That. Goddamn. Song.
It is so overplayed, the vocals are terrible, the lyrics are just awful. So naturally, it was choice number one for this film wasn't it? How many other horses you want to beat to death? Makes me wish TV's Frank's and Dr. Forrester's idea of a karaoke machine that only plays public domain songs would see the light of day.
And now for my other big complaint: Jack Black. Oh dear Lord man, what the Hell were you thinking?! I like a lot of his work, even though some of his characters border on annoying. This is the first time I've ever wanted to see his character die in his opening scene. It's like the writers thought "Well, we're in the Bahamas now, how about we include a stoner! Cos, y'know, stoners are funny! And they live in exotic places like that, as do African tribes of cannibals that totally isn't a stereotype!" "Dude, you are brilliant! That's like the greatest idea since Scrappy-Doo!"
Also, I want to take note of the following things: Brandy, your singing is barely passable (and for what you did to Another Day In Paradise, you've pretty much confirmed you shouldn't be allowed to cover another song. Ever) so I don't know why you thought acting would be a good idea.
And Jeffrey Combs, what in the name of all that is holy are YOU doing here?! You're too good for this! Unless... unless this is meant to be part of the Re-Animator series and Ben Willis is your latest experiment! No... wait... that's retarded. That's so retarded it makes Meatwad look like a genius.
The sad thing is, you think that maybe NOW there's nowhere to go but up. But then a third film came out and it had nothing to do with the previous movies beyond the title and Ben Willis. You couldn't pay me enough to see that film. Now the franchise should just die. It can join Final Destination and Urban Legends and just stay dead.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go punish myself for even mentioning a fun series like Re-Animator in relation to this. I'm sorry Jeffrey, please don't hurt me!
Its pretty much more of the same, but it's cheesier, weaker and more clichéd than the first. Don't get me wrong i still found some enjoyment in watching it, but classic material it is not! Anyone who loved the first film, will at least enjoy this one, but it is definitely inferior in every respect.