--- title: "Son of the Mask: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/son-of-the-mask/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/son-of-the-mask" critics_score: 18 critics_reviews: 12 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Son of the Mask (2005): what the critics said Critics' score 18 from 12 reviews: 0 positive, 0 mixed, 12 negative. The consensus on Son of the Mask is uniformly negative: all twelve reviews find the sequel unsuccessful, with little sustained praise for any performance or department. Most critics describe frantic action that produces few laughs, a weak story and characters unable to hold attention. The computer-animated baby attracts particular criticism, with its transformations repeatedly judged unpleasant, tedious or derivative. Several reviews also question an audience strategy that combines childish gross-out humour with adult references and sentimental family material. The differences concern isolated merits rather than the verdict. Screen Daily finds the family elements partially successful, while Slant Magazine allows faint praise for Jamie Kennedy’s occasionally lovable stupidity and clips from older cartoons. The effects divide critics slightly: Variety considers them polished but derivative, whereas several others find them shoddy or ugly. The spread runs from qualified disappointment to outright exasperation, with no favourable dissent. ## Screen Daily Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 11 February 2005. The review finds the sequel's approach of adding family elements only partially successful, with unimpressive effects and kiddie-level humor that limits its theatrical appeal. [Read the review](https://www.screendaily.com/son-of-the-mask/4021958.article) ## Los Angeles Times — Kevin Crust Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 18 February 2005. The critic finds the sequel digs an impossibly deep hole by lacking a compelling story or interesting characters. It singles out the tedious, derivative baby sequences and wasted special effects as especially dull despite visual overstimulation. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2005-feb-18-et-mask18-story.html) ## Time Out — Nigel Floyd Fi1m's normalised score 25/100 (inferred from the text). 10 September 2012. The critic criticizes the late sequel for misjudging its audience, with in-jokes for adults but gross-out and syrupy elements insulting to older viewers, calling it arriving "a decade late. And way too soon." [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/son-of-the-mask) ## Empire — William Thomas Fi1m's normalised score 20/100 (inferred from the text). 18 February 2005. The critic calls the film joyless tedium and a long-overdue sequel that fails to recapture the original's energy. They single out the excessive focus on the cartoon baby and crude jokes for complaint. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/son-mask-review/) ## The AV Club — Scott Tobias Fi1m's normalised score 20/100 (inferred from the text). 22 February 2005. The critic deems this a dismal sequel that fails even by the low standards of follow-ups to bad movies, targeting young children with a frantic, CGI-heavy assault that borders on the experimental. The only elements singled out are the return of the creepy computer-animated dancing baby and the unconvincing efforts of Alan Cumming as Loki. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/son-of-the-mask-1798200486) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Fi1m's normalised score 15/100 (inferred from the text). 17 February 2005. The critic finds the film fails basic cartoon logic and consists of nonstop manic behavior without rules or a sane baseline. He singles out the shape-shifting baby sequences as especially unpleasant and unamusing. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/son-of-the-mask-2005) ## Slant Magazine Rating 0.5/4. 19 February 2005. The review calls the film a dreadful sequel that squanders any potential premise and is remarkably inept, with a heroically bad script that prioritizes parent-child themes over humor. The only faint praise goes to a few clips from old cartoons and Jamie Kennedy’s occasionally lovable stupidity. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/son-of-the-mask/) ## The Guardian — Peter Bradshaw Fi1m's normalised score 10/100 (inferred from the text). 11 February 2005. The critic finds the film a profoundly unfunny, hyperactive sequel without Jim Carrey that induces a migraine-like headache. It singles out the baby's morphing effects and the pretensions to Tex Avery-style genius as particularly misguided and stupid. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_review/0,4267,1409869,00.html) ## The New York Times — Dana Stevens Fi1m's normalised score 10/100 (inferred from the text). 18 February 2005. The review calls the film an irredeemable mess and computer-animated Punch and Judy show without wit or heart. It singles out the ugly computer animation effects and lack of memorable performances for complaint. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/18/movies/computeranimated-mayhem.html) ## The Times — Wendy Ide Fi1m's normalised score 10/100 (inferred from the text). 10 February 2005. The critic deems this a cheap and nasty sequel lacking the wit and style of the original Jim Carrey film. It singles out the shoddy effects and misguided appeal to any age group as making it a criminal waste of screen space. [Read the review](https://www.thetimes.com/uk/environment/article/son-of-the-mask-d8hv8hsqg7g) ## Variety — Brian Lowry Fi1m's normalised score 10/100 (inferred from the text). 10 February 2005. The review deems the film a manic and mindless exercise that is a truly numbing experience. It singles out the polished but derivative special effects and the best 90 seconds belonging to a Warner Bros. cartoon clip. [Read the review](https://variety.com/2005/film/markets-festivals/son-of-the-mask-1200528055/) ## Eye for Film — Gator MacReady Fi1m's normalised score 10/100 (inferred from the text). 17 February 2005. The critic calls the film an embarrassment that starts promisingly but quickly becomes one of the worst movies ever made, with appalling CGI baby effects and a focus on the infant instead of the mask. They single out the incoherent, childish plot and lack of humor for complaint while noting the potential in the premise and Jamie Kennedy's performance was wasted. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/son-of-the-mask-film-review-by-gator-macready) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/son-of-the-mask.md