Honestly, it’s hard to talk about Son of the Mask without talking about the giant, green shadow cast by Jim Carrey. When you think of The Mask, you think of 1994. You think of Cameron Diaz in a red dress, "P-A-R-T-Y," and the high-octane energy of a man who was basically a human cartoon. Then, eleven years later, we got a sequel that felt like it was from a different planet. It’s one of the most debated, memed, and generally disliked sequels in Hollywood history.
But why?
Was it just the lack of Jim Carrey? Or was it something deeper in the way the film approached the lore of the Norse god Loki? If you revisit it now, you’ll see a movie that was trying—perhaps too hard—to bridge the gap between a Tex Avery cartoon and a family-friendly sitcom.
The Impossible Task of Following Jim Carrey
Replacement is a dangerous game in Hollywood. Jamie Kennedy, a talented comedian known for Scream and his prank show, was the guy chosen to step into the whirlwind. He played Tim Avery, an aspiring cartoonist who stumbles upon the mask. The problem wasn't Kennedy's talent. It was the shift in tone. The first movie was a PG-13 action-comedy with an edge. This was a bright, neon-colored fever dream aimed squarely at toddlers and pre-teens.
Most people don't realize that the original 1994 film was actually a sanitized version of a very dark Dark Horse comic book. The sequel leaned even further away from those roots. It went full "Looney Tunes."
The plot is simple enough. The mask finds its way to a new owner, Tim Avery. He conceives a child while wearing the mask. This results in Alvey, a baby born with the powers of the mask. At the same time, Loki, played by Alan Cumming, is being hunted by his father, Odin (Bob Hoskins), to find the mask and bring it back to Asgard. It’s a domestic comedy mixed with mythological stakes.
✨ Don't miss: Who was the voice of Yoda? The real story behind the Jedi Master
The CGI Nightmare and the Uncanny Valley
One of the biggest hurdles for Son of the Mask was the technology of 2005. The film relied heavily on computer-generated imagery to replicate the stretchy, physics-defying movements of the Mask. In 1994, the effects felt groundbreaking because they were used sparingly and blended with Jim Carrey’s actual facial contortions.
In the sequel, the baby is often a digital construct.
There’s a specific scene where the baby, Alvey, battles the family dog, Otis, in a sequence that mimics Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner. It should be funny. On paper, it is. But the "uncanny valley" effect—where something looks almost human but not quite—made the baby look slightly terrifying to many viewers. The movements were too fluid, the eyes a bit too glassy. It lacked the tactile, gritty reality that made the first film's magic feel like it was actually happening in the real world.
Alan Cumming as Loki: A Bright Spot?
Believe it or not, Alan Cumming’s performance is actually quite interesting if you look at it through a modern lens. Long before Tom Hiddleston made Loki a household name in the MCU, Cumming was playing a version of the character that was much more accurate to the "trickster" archetype. He’s chaotic. He’s desperate. He’s constantly changing shape.
His chemistry with Bob Hoskins provides the only real emotional weight in the movie. You have the legendary actor who played Eddie Valiant in Who Framed Roger Rabbit playing a grumpy, god-like father figure. It’s a bizarre casting choice that somehow works better than it has any right to.
🔗 Read more: Not the Nine O'Clock News: Why the Satirical Giant Still Matters
Why the Box Office Failed
Money talks. The film cost roughly $84 million to produce and barely cleared $60 million at the global box office. That’s a disaster by any metric.
When you look at the marketing, it was clear the studio didn't know who the audience was. Was it for the fans of the original? Probably not, considering the "kid-friendly" shift. Was it for kids? Maybe, but the humor was often too surreal or relied on references that five-year-olds wouldn't get. It sat in a weird middle ground where nobody felt totally welcome.
The critics were brutal. Richard Roeper and Roger Ebert both gave it a "thumbs down," with Roeper famously calling it one of the worst movies he had ever seen. It won a Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Prequel, Remake, Rip-off or Sequel. It’s rare for a movie to get that level of universal pushback.
Re-evaluating the "Cartoon Logic"
Despite the hate, there is a technical feat occurring in Son of the Mask. Director Lawrence Guterman, who previously directed Cats & Dogs, was obsessed with "squash and stretch" animation.
If you watch the movie as a live-action cartoon rather than a sequel to a Jim Carrey movie, it’s actually quite experimental. The way the house transforms, the way the colors pop, and the sheer audacity of the sight gags are impressive from a purely visual standpoint. It’s a maximalist film. Everything is turned up to eleven.
💡 You might also like: New Movies in Theatre: What Most People Get Wrong About This Month's Picks
- The dog wearing the mask is a direct callback to the first film but taken to an extreme.
- The baby’s "Hello! Ma Baby" dance is a tribute to Michigan J. Frog.
- The entire third act is essentially a sequence of escalating visual puns.
It’s easy to see why it didn't land in 2005. We were in an era of gritty reboots and rising realism. A movie that looked like a bowl of Fruit Loops spilled on a TV screen was a hard sell.
The Cultural Legacy: A Warning Tale
Today, Son of the Mask serves as a case study in film schools and marketing departments. It’s the primary example of "sequelitis" gone wrong. It teaches us that you can’t just replace a lead actor who defined a role with "more of the same" effects.
However, it has found a second life on the internet. Generation Z, who grew up seeing this on cable or DVD, doesn't have the same vitriol for it that older millennials do. To a certain segment of the population, it’s just a weird, nostalgic fever dream they remember from their childhood. It’s "so bad it’s good" for some, and for others, it’s just a fascinating artifact of mid-2000s excess.
What You Should Do If You Plan to Watch It
If you’re going to sit down and watch Son of the Mask in 2026, you have to change your mindset. Don't go in expecting The Mask. Don't look for Jim Carrey.
- Watch it as a standalone surrealist comedy. If you treat it as an experimental film about a magical baby, it's a lot more tolerable.
- Focus on the practical sets. While the CGI is dated, some of the physical set pieces and the vibrant color palettes are actually quite well-constructed.
- Appreciate the Loki lore. It’s a fun "what if" scenario to see a different take on the Norse gods before the Marvel era dominated our collective imagination.
The movie isn't a "lost masterpiece," but it isn't the end of the world either. It’s a loud, messy, bright experiment that failed, but it did so in a way that remains memorable decades later. Most boring movies are forgotten. Son of the Mask is many things, but it is certainly not boring.
Take Action: Exploring the Mask Universe
If this deep dive into the 2005 sequel has piqued your interest in the franchise, your next step shouldn't be just re-watching the movies. To truly understand the DNA of this story, you should track down the original Dark Horse comic books by John Arcudi and Doug Mahnke. They are incredibly violent, noir-inspired stories that show the mask is actually a cursed object that brings out the worst in people.
Reading the comics provides the ultimate context for why both movies—the 1994 classic and the 2005 sequel—were such massive departures from the source material. It turns the franchise into a fascinating study of how Hollywood adapts "unadaptable" content for different generations. Check your local comic shop or digital platforms for The Mask Omnibus Vol. 1 to see the true, terrifying origin of the green face.