Zoolander 2 'Gives Sequels a Bad Name'
Critics say it's 'terrible,' 'lame,' and unfunny
By Arden Dier,  Newser Staff
Posted Feb 12, 2016 11:22 AM CST

(Newser) – Derek Zoolander returns to the catwalk—15 years later—in Zoolander 2. Critics seem to wish he had slipped, broken his leg, and ended his career a decade ago. Despite cameos from a sea of stars, the sequel to the 2001 original is getting scathing reviews. Here's what critics are saying.

  • "There's no reason the movie had to be this terrible," Nico Lang puts it bluntly. For the first five minutes, all seems fine, he writes at Salon. But from then on, the film "lacks any real comic bite—or much of a reason to exist." It's essentially "a string of embarrassing and unnecessary famous person cameos" in scenes that "feel as if the writers forgot to add the actual jokes." On top of that, it's "as strangely conservative and mean-spirited as its predecessor was disarmingly sweet."
  • Zoolander 2 ought to have poked fun at our obsession with reality TV and selfies. But after "a mildly clever opening sequence," it "steadfastly avoids pointed satire in an attempt simply to cash in, tread water, and peace out," writes Ann Hornaday at the Washington Post. Not only is "this is the kind of lame, warmed-over movie that gives sequels a bad name ... it resembles a betrayal of public trust" for fans of the original.

  • It's not all terrible, writes Tony Hicks at the San Jose Mercury News. Laughs come during the last 10 minutes or so, and Kiefer Sutherland and Benedict Cumberbatch are great. But the movie as a whole "falls somewhere between the second and third Austin Powers movies on the laugh scale." And Will Ferrell's character Mugatu "is absolutely painful to watch and hear," Hicks adds.
  • Kyle Smith argues Ferrell actually "does some amusingly demented things" and "is probably funnier in his sleep than Stiller is at his best." But that's about all he has to praise. "Zoolander 2 is like that draggy last 20 minutes of SNL, when every half-decent idea has been exhausted and the only reason the show is still going is because there's time to fill up," he writes at the New York Post.

 

My Take on This Story
Show results without voting  |  
31%
8%
31%
18%
2%
10%