I'm generally a fan of Ben Stiller, and his works. However, as much as I wanted to like this movie, I couldn't. This contains some light spoilers, but I'll try not to ruin the entire thing... it kind of does that on its own anyway.
Summary: The basic premise of the movie is that in 2001, Derrick's "Center for kids...blah blah blah..." fell apart and crushed his wife Matilda and "disfigured" Hansel. Then years later, Derrick loses Derrick Jr to Child Services because he can't "make spaghetti soft," and is a bad parent for DJ. Then Derrick and Hansel are called out of their prospective exiles, the former from being alone and the later for being disfigured, to return to some sort of fashion event that doesn't really seem to mean a damn thing to the plot at all. Of course, as the trailer gave away and you probably guessed, Mugatu is behind it all and Derrick and Hansel must figure out "who am I," just like in the first one, as well as save DJ and prevent Mugatu from killing some people. Which is done, in much the same manner as the first.
Review: What I find interesting about the movie is that it had the potential to be a sort of big satire- albeit over-the-top satire- like the first one, about the fashion industry and how society has a twisted view of self-image, self-confidence, and all things related to vanity. Instead, the second seemed like it wanted to tackle some pretty relevant issues like "new" sexual identities and sexual exploitation in the media and fashion industry. It was poorly executed.
For example, All- a character in the trailer yet only seen for about two minutes- is a bit of a caricature. In the media today, you can see men with beards dressed as women and being relevant, being "in," being role models and even fashionable because of the courage it takes to be so sexually self-aware and confident. And personally, I think that makes a lot of sense to poke fun of this in the fashion industry and the media, because of the courage it takes for the LGBT community to fight for acceptance. It is a noble thing to recognize the LGBT community's struggle. Yet, the fashion industry and the media seem to have exploited it the same way youth- particularly young women- have been exploited for ages, and they should be made fun of for it.
But Zoolander 2 doesn't really tackle that- the exploitation of the young and the bold. It makes some attempts at jokes, but nothing specific or distinguishable. Derrick makes some comments about working at a bathhouse when he was younger that gave out hand jobs. Some evil lady with too much Botox that turns out to be Mila Jovovich in a mask and wig makes a funny comment about wanting to rip the skin off of a teenage girl. It seems like Stiller and Theroux had some sort of social commentary in mind, but were too lazy or too afraid to really explore that in satire form well executed in the original.
I mean, the fact that "Don Atari" can be so funny- SNL Cast Member Kyle Mooney- as he represents the millennial's generation beyond the coming of age moment struggle to find a sense of identity and just latching on to 90's stuff as being "retro," and all things ugly and terrible being deemed cool... like an uber-hipster, but worse... The fact that the script can nail that character right makes me feel like it must have been fear to really adequately tackle a mature subject and make a funny comment about it.
Another example seemed to be the idea that God created "Adam and Eve... and Steve." Another reference to homosexuality and sexuality in general being more than just a man and a woman reproducing? Steve is the original male model and can... I don't know what the hell the movie said Steve could do, it was just all magical and stuff, like, the reason Derrick could stop a Chinese throwing star or whatever. It didn't really translate well.
The fact that the movie had Hansel's orgy representing sexual promiscuity down to the craziest of taboos represented, All representing sexuality going to beyond the-love-of-all-people to the extreme of loving (and marrying) of one's self, and then the addition of Adam and Eve and Steve being the original beings... There's even a young teenager getting a ball gag stuffed in his mouth to keep him quiet. There's jokes about a teenager boy being fat and therefore unfit to be a son to a better- more beautiful- being. Surely there must have been a hope to poke fun? At sexual identity, at sexual confusion, at sexual exploitation, at the fashion industry "Killing itself," as Mugatu said... And I like that... it just wasn't funny. It was not executed into a funny, enjoyable movie.
You know what it was? It was like a lot of the movie was just a teenage boy in the midst of puberty still finding it funny to wipes boogers on girls even as they dream of groping them under the stadium bleachers. It's just... awkward. Like Dumb and Dumber Too, it was a 90's-era comedy that should have been left alone because no one was ready (or everyone was too old) to get it right a second time. It made me glad to have waited so long to see it from a RedBox rather than in the theater.
Summary: The basic premise of the movie is that in 2001, Derrick's "Center for kids...blah blah blah..." fell apart and crushed his wife Matilda and "disfigured" Hansel. Then years later, Derrick loses Derrick Jr to Child Services because he can't "make spaghetti soft," and is a bad parent for DJ. Then Derrick and Hansel are called out of their prospective exiles, the former from being alone and the later for being disfigured, to return to some sort of fashion event that doesn't really seem to mean a damn thing to the plot at all. Of course, as the trailer gave away and you probably guessed, Mugatu is behind it all and Derrick and Hansel must figure out "who am I," just like in the first one, as well as save DJ and prevent Mugatu from killing some people. Which is done, in much the same manner as the first.
Review: What I find interesting about the movie is that it had the potential to be a sort of big satire- albeit over-the-top satire- like the first one, about the fashion industry and how society has a twisted view of self-image, self-confidence, and all things related to vanity. Instead, the second seemed like it wanted to tackle some pretty relevant issues like "new" sexual identities and sexual exploitation in the media and fashion industry. It was poorly executed.
For example, All- a character in the trailer yet only seen for about two minutes- is a bit of a caricature. In the media today, you can see men with beards dressed as women and being relevant, being "in," being role models and even fashionable because of the courage it takes to be so sexually self-aware and confident. And personally, I think that makes a lot of sense to poke fun of this in the fashion industry and the media, because of the courage it takes for the LGBT community to fight for acceptance. It is a noble thing to recognize the LGBT community's struggle. Yet, the fashion industry and the media seem to have exploited it the same way youth- particularly young women- have been exploited for ages, and they should be made fun of for it.
But Zoolander 2 doesn't really tackle that- the exploitation of the young and the bold. It makes some attempts at jokes, but nothing specific or distinguishable. Derrick makes some comments about working at a bathhouse when he was younger that gave out hand jobs. Some evil lady with too much Botox that turns out to be Mila Jovovich in a mask and wig makes a funny comment about wanting to rip the skin off of a teenage girl. It seems like Stiller and Theroux had some sort of social commentary in mind, but were too lazy or too afraid to really explore that in satire form well executed in the original.
I mean, the fact that "Don Atari" can be so funny- SNL Cast Member Kyle Mooney- as he represents the millennial's generation beyond the coming of age moment struggle to find a sense of identity and just latching on to 90's stuff as being "retro," and all things ugly and terrible being deemed cool... like an uber-hipster, but worse... The fact that the script can nail that character right makes me feel like it must have been fear to really adequately tackle a mature subject and make a funny comment about it.
Another example seemed to be the idea that God created "Adam and Eve... and Steve." Another reference to homosexuality and sexuality in general being more than just a man and a woman reproducing? Steve is the original male model and can... I don't know what the hell the movie said Steve could do, it was just all magical and stuff, like, the reason Derrick could stop a Chinese throwing star or whatever. It didn't really translate well.
The fact that the movie had Hansel's orgy representing sexual promiscuity down to the craziest of taboos represented, All representing sexuality going to beyond the-love-of-all-people to the extreme of loving (and marrying) of one's self, and then the addition of Adam and Eve and Steve being the original beings... There's even a young teenager getting a ball gag stuffed in his mouth to keep him quiet. There's jokes about a teenager boy being fat and therefore unfit to be a son to a better- more beautiful- being. Surely there must have been a hope to poke fun? At sexual identity, at sexual confusion, at sexual exploitation, at the fashion industry "Killing itself," as Mugatu said... And I like that... it just wasn't funny. It was not executed into a funny, enjoyable movie.
You know what it was? It was like a lot of the movie was just a teenage boy in the midst of puberty still finding it funny to wipes boogers on girls even as they dream of groping them under the stadium bleachers. It's just... awkward. Like Dumb and Dumber Too, it was a 90's-era comedy that should have been left alone because no one was ready (or everyone was too old) to get it right a second time. It made me glad to have waited so long to see it from a RedBox rather than in the theater.