The first Gingerdead man film from 2005 wasn't a good movie. With elements that were barely passable, it was hard to like anything about it. The acting wasn't believable, the special effects were cheap and the villain was wasted. Plus, the only main attraction for watching the movie was to see Gary Busey act as himself and voice the chunky funny gingerdead cookie man. But apparently, either there was a small fan base that demanded a sequel or the release of the 60-minute film gained enough money to render a sequel. Not sure which is the case but here we are the next installment - and it doesn't improve much at all.
This next chapter of the wisecracking serial killer cookie brings us to a troubled film studio that can't cut a break in problems. Its whole crew is a bunch of misfits that don't cooperate and could care less who they're working with. Leading this poor operation is director Kelvin Cheatum (Kevan Moezzi), who smiles like he's never heard of bankruptcy being a bad thing. However, it's not until a package of baked goods come on set and inside lies the dangerous gingerdead man. So my question is, how did he come back to life? How did he get all the way to this set? It was clear to why the gingerdead man needed victims, but why was it necessary to get his victims from this specific studio set? Viewers won't understand.
As for acting goes, Moezzi isn't a good actor at all and perhaps that's how his character was supposed to be written, but I found the first movie better because at least the actors tried to make their characters seem real. And they knew fear when problems arose, but here Kelvin is just a grinning emotionless shell of a character. The new voice actor behind the gingerdead man is okay but Gary Busey at least would've still been more appreciated. However, viewers may enjoy Joseph Porter's performance as Tommy. He gives his character a unique spin that even I was not expecting. That is one plus.
And the last two pluses are the special effects and violence. Considering the first film had bad special effects and a very small amount of violence, the improvement is noticed and it looks better to be honest. Sadly this doesn't help improve its overall score. The overall writing isn't good either. In fact, the title to the film only ties into the story at the very end. It's cheap, lazy and insulting to think that's how a story is told. There has to be a lead up to this kind of result, but instead it's just inserted last minute to stay true to the title. Not even the music helped this time around. Just another cash in is all it is.
This sequel has extremely loose continuity and bad acting. Even with improved special and practical effects, the character development is feeble and its plot is hardly even there.
This next chapter of the wisecracking serial killer cookie brings us to a troubled film studio that can't cut a break in problems. Its whole crew is a bunch of misfits that don't cooperate and could care less who they're working with. Leading this poor operation is director Kelvin Cheatum (Kevan Moezzi), who smiles like he's never heard of bankruptcy being a bad thing. However, it's not until a package of baked goods come on set and inside lies the dangerous gingerdead man. So my question is, how did he come back to life? How did he get all the way to this set? It was clear to why the gingerdead man needed victims, but why was it necessary to get his victims from this specific studio set? Viewers won't understand.
As for acting goes, Moezzi isn't a good actor at all and perhaps that's how his character was supposed to be written, but I found the first movie better because at least the actors tried to make their characters seem real. And they knew fear when problems arose, but here Kelvin is just a grinning emotionless shell of a character. The new voice actor behind the gingerdead man is okay but Gary Busey at least would've still been more appreciated. However, viewers may enjoy Joseph Porter's performance as Tommy. He gives his character a unique spin that even I was not expecting. That is one plus.
And the last two pluses are the special effects and violence. Considering the first film had bad special effects and a very small amount of violence, the improvement is noticed and it looks better to be honest. Sadly this doesn't help improve its overall score. The overall writing isn't good either. In fact, the title to the film only ties into the story at the very end. It's cheap, lazy and insulting to think that's how a story is told. There has to be a lead up to this kind of result, but instead it's just inserted last minute to stay true to the title. Not even the music helped this time around. Just another cash in is all it is.
This sequel has extremely loose continuity and bad acting. Even with improved special and practical effects, the character development is feeble and its plot is hardly even there.
