|
They say one of the better things about sequels is that you don't have to go through a lot of the "getting to know you" stuff that you have to endure the first time around. It worked for X-Men 2. It worked for Spider-Man 2. But, I can't say that about Agent Cody Banks 2. It's not that it didn't work, though. It's that I didn't see the original. And therein lies the flaw in the sequel theory.
In Agent Cody Banks 2: Destination London, Frankie Muniz returns as our tween super-spy. Apparently more grown up from his previous adventure, we catch up with Cody at summer camp. Okay, actually it's spy camp, but the parents don't know it. One day, while under siege, Cody helps his camp leader, Diaz (Keith Allen), to escape thinking it's a routine drill. However, it turns out that Diaz is a disgruntled CIA agent who has turned on his employer and is working on a plan involving mind control and world domination. So, the CIA recruits Cody to head to London (where there is an upcoming G7 summit) to stop him. Along the way he's aided by his new handler aka comic relief (Anthony Anderson) and the new girl aka 'London's hottest spy' (Hannah Spearritt).
First off, I'll say that I always wanted to see the original. I just never had the opportunity. So, being dropped in the middle of the series wasn't the best idea. Sure, the plot isn't heavy, and there's really no information that I can think of that would've been necessary for checking out the sequel. Still - there's just something about checking out a sequel without the original. It feels dirty. Next - Anthony Anderson. I'm sure there was a little comedy in the original, but from the special features here, they try to emphasize that they cranked up the comedy with his addition to the cast. Big mistake. I like the guy, I think he's funny, but here he was just annoying. Maybe for the movie's audience he was fine, but judging how poorly it performed at the box office, I don't think I'm wrong. I think the story made a mistake by shifting the comedy from Cody. It's his movie. That's why were here. Let him take care of it. Check the box. It isn't titled "Agent Cody Banks' Handler: Destination London", is it?
We get a few special features included with this DVD. First, there's the option of watching the movie along with an interactive quiz. The movie stops at various points and we get stars from the movie who drop in and provide multiple choice questions about certain parts of the movie. They are trying to see if you're paying attention - if you're spy material. Make your way through the quiz and you're promised a surprise.
Next, there's a "Spy on the Set" Visual Commentary. Similar to the first feature, the movie's stars pop in once in a while and provide some behind the scenes tidbits. This worked - and didn't work at the same time. I'll give credit for the originality. Where it didn't work was in that it made the movie so much longer. The background scene pauses for a short time while somebody pops in and talks and when they're finished the movie resumes.
Another thing that didn't work with either of these features - you don't have the option of checking them out without the movie itself. For example, you can't fast-forward to the next pop-up. Press the fast-forward button and you skip right past the feature. So, if you're not in the mood to watch the movie a second or third time, you can't really enjoy either of these features.
The next extra is a featurette titled "Back in Action". Here's where I learned most of what I know about the original film. We get a brief overview of the original film and get a little behind-the-scenes look at the sequel complete with your standard interviews etc. Nothing too in-depth, but for a the movie's audience, it's just enough.
More features include some deleted and extended scenes (sans commentary), a photo gallery, the movie's trailer and trailers for some other MGM titles.
I believe in the Box Office. And this movie's performance tells me something. Either 1) the audience didn't want a sequel, 2) Agent Cody Banks 2 was a bad movie or 3) maybe it was just a bad sequel. Looking at it with a fresh pair of eyes, it wasn't necessarily complete write-off, so I gather it was a bad sequel. From what I know, part two stripped away all that was good about the original and changed it into a completely different animal. That's why the audience rejected it. Still, if you were weary of checking it out in theaters, check out the DVD and judge for yourself.
|
