I'll stick to the original, thanks. (Cube 2: Hypercube (DVD))

Member Name: giksy21

Product:	Cube 2: Hypercube (DVD)
Date:	16/06/09 (36 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: good concept.

Disadvantages: to complicated for it's own good

There are a few films that stick in the head, not because they are particularly good, but rather because they gather a cult following. This following then acts like a media train, to lure more viewers in. One such film was the original cube.

It was essentially, a low budget horror/thriller, with poor unknown actors. But for some unknown reason, it worked. I far one am a big fan of the original, which kept you gripped to the end, even though for the most part you were staring at a white room, with very little going on in it.So, when cube 2 : hypercube came out, I for one was quite exited.

For those of you who do not know the original, a brief rundown of the plot would be that a group of eight people are put into a huge contraption, with the bizzarre aim of trying to get out alive. They were put in without consent, or prior knowledge. But, they were put in for a reason, as each one held a particular skill, or a piece of knowledge, that may help them escape. Basically, from there the 'contestants', continue through the maze of identical cube shaped rooms, and slowly go mad. Some rooms contain traps, some contain horrific scenes, and some are safe.

Now that you know the plot for cube, you also know the plot for hypercube. It would seem that the film has been given a bigger budget, which they threw at the film to give it better effects, and slightly worse acting. Again, we see eight 'contestants' put in a huge contraption, with the aim of getting out alive at the expense of the others. The tag line for the film tells us that this time there are no rules. So, where you could at least follow the first film, you certainly cannot follow this one.

As the name suggests, this time the people are not held in a giant cube, but a hypercube. A hypercube is a theoretical shape, that it is not possible in our dimension. It is a real concept, and mathematicians have studied it for years. Basically, it is a four dimensional cube, and involves seeing the 'hidden dimension'. If you imagine two living circle, on a sheet of paper. They would see eachother only in 2d (a flat line.). Similarly, although we live in a 3d world, we see only in 2d (we see surfaces, but not volumetric shape.). So, supposedly, in the theoretical 4d world, you would be able to see 3d images. You would be able to see all of an object at once, the front, the back, the inside, and the outside, and all angles of view at once....


Got that?

Good. So, that is the basis of the film. In a 4d world, we cannot begin to comprehend what might happen. This is why the film tells us, that this time there are no rules. That said, I personnally think that this is a rediculous notion on which to base a film. If anything can happen (and it does), then you cannot build up suspense. The acting is wooden, though believable enough. You never really build up any relationships with the characters, which is a big thing for me.

The film is ok, but you will not want to watch it a second time. The only thing that you will understand throughout the film, is that the end will be the only interesting part. Once you have seen the ending once, it suddenly loses its appeal. The film looks lower budget, than its lower bugdet predessor. The film stars no-one you know, and their performance will not make you want to ever see them again. I would only suggest that you watch this, if you were a fan of the first film. Otherwise, stay clear.

Summary: How can they spend more money, and make it look lower budget than the original?