What's so bad about Speed II: Cruise Control (1997)?

It's one of those movies that often cited as one of the worst movies ever, and it was even on the Imdb's bottom 100 like 10 years ago. But I finally watched it out of curiosity, and I have to say, I don't see what's so bad about it.

It's not a great masterpiece of an action movie by any means, it's no Terminator 2, or Die Hard, or anything. In fact, Speed, the first one, is kind of a redoing of Die Hard, Die Hard on a bus if you will, with Speed 2 being Die Hard on a ship.

A lot of 90s action movies wanted to redo Die Hard and put new spins on it. But I think that Speed 2 is underrated. It's not action masterpiece, but it is still a considerably good movie, and much better than some of the other Die Hard redoings of the 90s. It's better than Passenger 57, or Sudden Death by a huge long shot by comparison.

But for some reason, those movies do not get near as much flak by comparison, even though they have bigger problems in the movies, than Speed 2.

In fact, when I read what people have to say about Speed 2 and asked people's opinions, they really don't have anything specifically bad to say about it. They can't put their finger on it, they just say it sucks, and it seems like they are grasping at straws when trying to come up with a specific reason.

Maybe I missed it, but why is it considered to be so terrible?

I saw it when it first came out and thought it was crap; never bothered with a rewatch. I cant even remember why it was crap - I tend to forget crap movies and only remember I thought they were not worth rewatching. Maybe the people you asked were the same. If you liked it, good for you.

Who was the critic who liked this better than the first one?

I thought the movie was okay years ago when I saw it. Might have to give it another try.

Oh okay. That's what others say, to, they do not know why it's crap.

“It’s called Speed but it’s in a cruise ship.”

— Keanu Reeves

The reason why it's called Speed 2 is cause it's a sequel to Speed. Who says the sequel cannot take place on a cruise ship?

But even if Keanu said that, who knows that it was going to be titled that after it was made? I think that if a good movie has a bad title, then the movie shouldn't be blamed for the title being bad, or not the right title.

I just think that quote’s funny. I haven’t seen Speed 2.

this gives Does Jason Bourne take too many risks than he has to? tough competition for thread of the year

__________________

Keanu Reeves.

But the movie has a lot going on on the cruise ship, such as looking for the terrorist, passengers being held hostage and trapped and needing to be rescued.

I mean being held hostage on a ship worked for Under Siege, yet people say it's bad choice for this movie. I don't get why this one is the exception to the rule, when having a Die Hard redoing on a ship.

Plus if you were to have a plot where a vehicle has to maintain a certain fast speed and cannot slow down, then people would just say that it's Speed one all over again. So do fans really want to see the same thing over again, or is good to change things up and have a different plot idea?

Why do you care so much? Just enjoy that you enjoy it. You seem to start a thread every time you have a different POV and need justification for your opinion. This was regarded as a franchise killer and killed off a Speed III. But that has no impact on your enjoyment so just dont worry about it.

Seagal as a former-Navy-seal-turned-cook goes a long way.

I like the movie the original is junk
Willem dafoes performance is brilliant
if you like speed II check out counter strike *2003 movie
(similar story)

the movie is only watchable for the villain in willem defoe, but other than that it doesn t fit to be named speed 2
second it doesn t have keanu on board, so yeah the worst sequel ever made i would say

well i like the first speed better then the 2nd, the 2nd is alright