RECENT WATCHES: Cube 2: Hypercube (2002)

According to Wikipedia, “Cube” cost 350,000 dollars to make and would go on to gross nine million dollars in theaters. Considering Vincenzo Natali's film would also be popular on television and DVD, it probably generated even more money than that. This explains why, even if “Cube” didn't exactly penetrate the pop culture zeitgeist, somebody thought it would be profitable to make a sequel. It took until 2002 – which is a pretty slow turn-around, considering the speed with which Trimark/Lionsgate used to crank out low-budget, direct-to-DVD sequels – for another “Cube” to take shape. “Cube 2: Hypercube” kept the all-Canadian cast and the boxy sets but Andrzej Sekula, best known as Tarantino's cinematographer on his first two movies, would take over as director.

As in the original “Cube,” “Hypercube” follow a group of seemingly unrelated strangers who awaken in strange, non-descript rooms. None of the motley gang – psychotherapist Kate, P.I. Simon, blind girl Sasha, engineer Jerry, game designer Max, lawyer Julia, and an old lady with dementia – know how they got there. They soon uncover that they are trapped inside a tesseract: A theoretical construction of cubes inside cubes, where time and reality bend in unpredictable ways. Such a hypercube is also highly dangerous and the survivors soon realize that alternate realities are closing in on each other within the cube. 

The first “Cube” had a simple enough to understand but irresistible gimmick. The idea of a maze of identical cubes, some of them outfitted with deadly taps and some without, produced lots of opportunists for suspense. It also opened the door for gory death scenes. “Hypercube,” disappointingly, tries to be more clever than its originator. Simple death traps are replaced with elaborate attempts at mind-blowing sci-fi. Dead characters return to life, as incidents repeat themselves. People are seemingly in more than one place at the same time, reality bending in on itself. The sequel's nadir occurs with people moving or talking in slow-motion. Despite all the talking the movie does about theoretical physics, none of this shit makes any actual sense. It's just an excuse to indulge in surreal theatrics, in an attempt to blow the viewer's mind.

It does not blow the viewer's mind. In fact, it grows more annoying the more the movie repeats these tricks. What's especially frustrating about this focus on space-time distortion is that it largely abandons the trap gimmick of the first movie. When traps do show up, they are basically at random and with no explanation. The ingenuous brutality of the original's device are switched out for CGI tomfoolery. A floating cube becomes a giant spinning collection of blades. Crystal pillars appear, to abruptly cleave off body parts. The gore is rendered via extremely underwhelming computer effects. Sekula directs this overcooked nonsense with a blunt hand, including far too many whip-pans or slow-motion. (A sex scene, inserted for truly no reason, is shot in a very out-of-place softcore fashion.)

“Cube” was so fascinating because it hinted at some greater conspiracy without providing any answers. Like the characters, the audience could only speculate about who was behind the cube. The sequel, once again in a misguided attempt to out-think the original, reveals much more about the trap's backstory. The characters argue endlessly about weapons contractors, military secrets, or a legendary hacker. While Vincenzo Natali wanted to intrigue us, with endless possibilities, “Hypercube” is much more invested in its own bullshit mythology. And bullshit is exactly what it is, as the characters all become connected in uninspired ways. It's hard to care about a mystery when a movie is determined to tell you all about it, albeit in painfully slow detail. Eventually, “Hypercube” spoils what ambiguity is left by giving us a peek at the world outside the cube. This would've been a wet blanket ending to the first movie and, for a shitty cash-in sequel, it's even more egregious. 

The characters in the original “Cube” were more archetypes than anything else. Yet the movie invested them with enough quirks, and tied them into fascinating philosophical themes, that you didn't mind. The sequel has no thoughts about society on its mind, leaving us with retrends of the first movie's cast members. Geraint Wyn Davies – Nick Knight himself – plays Simon as an obviously evil asshole, an annoying version of the first movie's Quentin. The autistic Kazan is replaced with an old woman with dementia – whose quirks are also annoying – and a blind teenage girl. Matthew Ferguson's Max has a lot in common with the first movie's Worth but not of David Hewlett's charm. Lindsey Connell, as Julia, gives a largely flat performance. Though her character is by far the sequel's most senseless. And as our hero, Kate, Kari Matchett does nothing to make us invested in her.  

I seem to recall “Cube 2: Hypercube” being heavily promoted when it first aired on the Sci-Fi Channel. It says a lot about the network's standard of quality at the time that this movie, as lame as it is, was still a little better than a lot of its other “Sci-Fi Channel Originals.” Compared to the endlessly clever original, “Hypercube” comes off as hopelessly dim. It fakes having big ideas to cover up a lack of interior logic. Its characters are listlessly brought to life and its narrative is ultimately nothing but routine. It is the epitome of a cheaply produced follow-up, meant to capitalize on the original's name without really understanding anything that made the first movie work. [3/10]