Movie Review: Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous (2005)
Critical Critic: General Disdain | Published on: April 30, 2005 |
Filed under: Comedy, Thriller
Directed By: John Pasquin
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Starring: Sandra Bullock, Regina King, William Shatner, Enrique Murciano
IMDB Link: Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous
Movie Trailer: Trailer
With the mildly surprising success of Miss Congeniality, Hollywood and Sandra Bullock figured why not pump out a sequel and hope for similar results. What do they get? Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous. A mildly entertaining movie (of course).
Ms. Bullock reprises her role as FBI agent Gracie Hart. The dressed down, seemly stupid woman, who in reality is a hot, smart, tough broad (yes, Sandra Bullock IS hot). For this sequel, the producers bring as much of the first cast back as possible and ask Regina King to take the place of Benjamin Bratts’ reluctant partner.
Basically, the movie works. Gracie continues with her half-witted schemes that work and the fueding chemistry between her and Sam Fuller (Regina’s role) is fun to watch (even if it is a bit over-the-top). However, Diedrich Bader (Oswald, from Drew Carey fame) steals the show. He plays an outrageous fag, who is assigned to oversee the hair and wardrobe of Gracie, who is now the FBI spokeswoman. Every scene he is in, I found myself laughing. Want a funny movie? All you have to do is write in an overly homosexual character. Even die-hard homophobes will shit themselves from laughing so hard!
My only real drawback of the movie is Bullock doesn’t show any skin. Doesn’t wear any tight fitting dresses or bikinis either. Surely they could have found an excuse to get her into something even semi-revealing. Overall, I’d recommend seeing Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous if you enjoyed the first movie or need a way to spend 2 hours of your life and $15. Hell, just to watch Diedrich Bader act like an imbecile is worth the price of the ticket!
 |
About: General Disdain I love long walks on the beach, candlelit dinners and I'm a sucker for women named Helga. What can I say -- I live for the finer things in life! |
Thanks for visiting! If you'd like, why not use one of the buttons below to subscribe or bookmark us for future updates?
At the very least, cast your vote on our poll over there on the top right!
Talking Head posted a response on: May 11, 2005 | Reply
Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous suffers from the same symptoms of most sequels, especially comedy sequels. The story is somewhat contrived seeing the F.B.I Barbie come alive, and they try to resurrect some of the jokes and bits that made the first movie a hit. In addition, some of the dialogue is hokey, and over the top. It was intentionally done, and fits with the character concepts, but still is hard to watch in parts.
However, that being said, the movie was enjoyable. There are points where little things come together that by themselves are mildly amusing, but together make you laugh out loud. Sandra Bullock and Regina King made a great pair, alternately at each other’s throats, and pulling each other out of sticky situations.
As for the drawback with the movie for the lack of skin flaunting Sandra B, now that would have been lost within the bouts of laughter that the movie had to offer. She could be a girl with nice curves, but not exactly a show stopper.
Before seeing this movie, know what you expect of it. If you expect it to be better than the first, you’ll be disappointed. But it’s still a funny movie, and worth seeing.
I rate this movie B.
Mr. Pink posted a response on: May 11, 2005 | Reply
Agreed, most comedy sequels use the same gags as their predecessor. Sometimes it works, in most cases it doesn’t. Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Fabulous doesn’t necessarily use the same gags as the first film. It does at times, however, put the characters in similar instances. This allows for new twists and turns, which as a whole, the movie delivers.
I disagree with the Sandra Bullock comments. The first movie did find a way to get her primped up and in a tight dress. That was part of the charm of the original! They could have found a way to do it here too. She is a “show stopper”. Unfortunately, most of her movies have her covered head to toe, so it is easy to think that she doesn’t have any worthwhile ASSets. This girl is built for speed. She needs to be ridden.
Talking Head posted a response on: May 16, 2005 | Reply
The movie does deliver but all I’m saying is, this was a generic sequel where it kept going on some tedious spiral which was predictable and contrived with some fresh moments.
Sandra Bullock seems to have got an elaborate make-over spread over two movies. As for defining assets, now thats relative. To me she is nothing more than just good looking with some decent curves. She does not have the oozing sexiness which calls for screen presence even though some might be lacking in the asset departments, a good example to quote would be Kate Hudson.
Mr. Pink posted a response on: May 17, 2005 | Reply
Hmm…Am I to understand that you think Kate Hudson oozes sexiness and has screen presence? Are you high? Bea Arthur exudes more sexiness than Ms. Hudson.
I stand by my remark “This girl is built for speed. She needs to be ridden.”
Amen.
UChewMe posted a response on: May 19, 2005 | Reply
I think there is more go for Kate Hudson than to waddle around with Ms Sandra B.
I’m willing to take a poll within the premises of 8440 Remington Ave to see how many actually like Sandra Bullock and consider her top tier versus how many don’t.
You are on!
Mr. Pink posted a response on: May 19, 2005 | Reply
Let’s not just stop there. Let’s compare Kate Hudson with Sandra Bullock and determine which is hotter.
Bet on, UChewMe.
MunchBack posted a response on: May 19, 2005 | Reply
You have a deal!
Mr. Pink posted a response on: May 19, 2005 | Reply
I’ll have the webmaster of this fine site set one up. Silly boy.