Agent Cody Banks 2: Destination London (2004) Reviews

• Destination ... nowhere!

  film-critic2005-04-27

  I will admit, I was a fan of the first film. While I didn't think it was one of the greatest films created, I did think that it had quite a bit of potential coupled with ample originality. It was fun, exciting, and it seemed like everyone involved seemed to be enjoying themselves. I only with that I could say the same for the sequel, Agent Cody Banks: Destination London. From the opening sequence of this film you could sense an aura of dislike, repetitiveness, and simple futility. Nobody, not even Frankie Muniz himself, seemed like they were bringing the same level of excitement to this project. Also, the level of originality was completely below par for this sequel. If you, like myself, brought any excitement from the first film to this one, it will be completely destroyed. Nothing worked in this movie, from the jokes, to the "spy" story, it just seemed flat and disrespectful. My first issue is with the cast. If this was a true sequel, I think the producers could have budgeted a bit more to see about getting the original characters back. I understand that perhaps Hillary Duff's paycheck had risen since the original film, but she did bring something (as embarrassing as it is to say) to Agent Cody Banks that kept the spark alive. As did everyone else involved, sadly, Anthony Anderson (one of the most overused comic actors of this decade) brought nothing to the table. His jokes seemed generic and, honestly, repetitive. He had no character, all I could witness was Anthony Anderson being Anthony Anderson. They attempted to bring sympathy to his character by giving him this sub-story about being the "black" sheep of the CIA, but in my eyes it just wasn't enough. Anderson was just trying to showcase his "talent" so that he can continue to live the lifestyle that he has built. It was sad, and really hurt this film. Second, was Muniz himself. The bond between him and Hannah Spearritt was poor. I am not sure who the casting agent was on this project, but there was no chemistry between these two actors. They continued to prove that by reading your lines and walking the steps, you could inherit a $5 million dollar paycheck. Nobody cared, nobody stopped, they just continued to make this cheapened sequel. Next issue, where was the story? The first film carried with it some decent events that built a strong story which ultimately lead to a better than average film, but it seemed like in this sequel they aimed towards children and empty minds. In most film sequels, they use a similar plot structure to give the audience a sensation of relaxation, while simultaneously building different elements to keep our attention. Well, none of that was used in this film. Instead, we find ourselves with a cheapened story that results in dogs playing piano and a very unspooky villain. In fact, I couldn't even tell you who the true bad guy was of this film, and that is a perfect sign that your film is struggling. This story just felt as if it was unfinished, as if the original screenplay was not dumbened down for children, but instead built another strong adventure, but the studio wanted to capture the child audience, so the butchered the product, leaving frayed edges and unfinished segments, so that they could make room for Anthony Anderson's cheap laughs. Yet again, proving the pathetic nature of the film. I went into this story expecting to be completely surprised, yet somehow walked away without any recollection of what I just experienced. It was the perfect example of a how a sequel should not be structured or released. Finally, I would like to say that if you have a film that seems to do somewhat well at the box office, there should be no need to rush right into a sequel, especially if you see a growing decrease in the excitement behind Malcolm in the Middle. Frankie Muniz is a decent actor, but when handed poor material, he will not fray from making it exceptionally poor. He is one of those actors that brings good things to great material, but will falter if handed unseasonable stuff. I do not see a bright future for Muniz due to his ability to stray from decency. This could have been a powerful sequel, but instead Hollywood yet again strayed towards the side of childish behavior instead of truthful storytelling. Overall, this film lacked the fun of the first film. With unfamiliar characters, comedy that seemed forced and incoherent instead of funny, and a story that had that cheapened Velcro feel to it, Agent Cody Banks 2 proved that jumping to quickly into a sequel will place a black cloud on your entire series. While once I had considered this to be an interesting and highly original concept, I now have second thoughts. I am not sure that Muniz was prepared for such a cheap sequel, and therefore he signed too quickly. I do not recommend this film to anyone that enjoyed the first film, or at least was under the impression that the first film was decent. This was a horrible sequel that should have never seen the light of day. YUK! Grade: * out of *****

• a few safe for the family laffs

  bluzman2004-03-20

  This is a fairly weak follow-up to the original. It lacks the newness and novelty found in first movies, which is to say it offered nothing really new or exciting. In his movie we already know who he is and what he does. The gadgetry is nothing stunning or new. The special effects are fairly standard. The biggest chance to go anywhere, and it was completely missed, was for him to at least get a little distracted by the cute flute player, or even the bassoon, woodwind buddy, girl. Granted we cannot let him go into full James Bond mode, but it was an opportunity to make a little something extra in the movie, and it was squandered. All in all, I am not so wrapped up in or concerned with the stuff critics get off on. I don't need to say something special or controversial to get published. I don't need to rag on a film to feel superior to the great unwashed who pay to see it at the local cinema. I am concerned in being entertained and seeing my family equally entertained. That said, we were mildly entertained. It will be a safe choice for family movie night from the video store. No one is going to be annoyed by it, but few will be thrilled either. Save your theater movie, and wait to rent it.

• So so

  jpintar2004-07-17

  Agent Cody Banks 2 is a decent sequel to the original. It is watchable with a few scattered laughs. However, the film way overstays its welcome. Some scenes go on without any point to them whatsoever. The climax at Buckingham Palace seems to go on and on forever. I think Frankie Muinz is a very bland actor. I never understood his appeal or of his show Malcolm in the Middle. He seems lost in a role that requires more charisma and screen presence. In the first movie, he had help from Angie Harmon and Hillary Duff. In this movie, he has a miscast Anthony Anderson and an English girl who is not given enough screen time to develop a character we care about. This is not to say the movie is not fun to watch. However, it pales in comparison to the original and the far superior Spy Kids trilogy which was far more imaginative and more fun. 5/10 and I think I am being generous

• Actually, It's Great!

  g-bodyl2008-04-14

  Before I saw this movie on DVD, I had low expectations about this film because of the negative reviews about it. I must say that I liked it, a lot. This film is just as good as the first Banks minus Hilary Duff. This time around, Banks attends a CIA camp during the summer. One night, troops came to take the leader of the camp away. But, Banks thought it was just a drill. How wrong he turned out to be. The guy who escaped is a mind-control geek and he wants to use the devices to take over the world. Banks must head to London, team up with two more agents(a hot chick and an agent who stays in London), and stop the world from turning into mind-control freaks. The acting is great especially with all three agents played by Frankie Muniz, Anthony Anderson, and Hannah Spearitt. The plot was a simple one with a few comedic points added in. I recommend this movie to everybody. I rate this film a 9/10.

• Fun film for the whole family

  BobSongs0072007-10-06

  Seems quite a few people have given this film a bad rap. Well, let's take a different look at it. My younger children, my wife and I watched this film and enjoyed it. We recently rented the first Cody Banks flick. We didn't preview it but there were some scenes in it that were disturbing to our smaller children. This wasn't the case with Cody Banks 2. It puzzles me why this movie got such a low rating. (Film rating is a bit of a beef of mine. Movies today have so many different aspects to consider: Score, Content, Character Development, Pacing, Editing, etc. And 1 star is so unfair.) I gave a higher rating because this film was toned down from the original. The childish tone was intentional to contrast it with the very "mature" feel of the first movie. It's more like a family Disney movie: The violence is stylized with humor that's better understood by children. The score is very playful throughout. The camera work is fine and the plot is something younger children can understand and appreciate. Hey: it's really a spy comedy. My wife and I felt it was an all round better film than the first. We recommend it for families that watch films together. Rent it before you buy.