It can sometimes be hard to figure out the proper way to engage with “turn your brain off” entertainment. In an era of online discourse dominated by a “just let people enjoy things” attitude,criticism of film and TV shows that don’t take themselves too seriously is often looked at as pretentious or hateful. But, regardless of what specific piece of art is being discussed,there is always a value to thoughtful analysis or critical exploration. If we lose sight of that, our entertainment landscape can turn us into nothing more than babies for massive studios to just jingle keys in front of and call it a day.
One specific strand of “jingling key” entertainment that has been a fixture in Hollywood storytelling for some time now is the legacy sequel, or “legacyquel.” A legacyquel, of course, is a follow-up film or new installment in a franchise often released decades after its predecessor, which brings back old characters while introducing new ones. The latest example of this isNetflix’sHappy Gilmore 2, a movie so overly packed with lazy legacyquel tropes like celebrity cameos and constant references to the original thatit feels like it’s almost daring stuffy film critics to embarrass themselves by offering earnest critiques. And while, yes, on the surface, it may seem silly to treat this film as anything more than the dumb fun it’s clearly trying to present itself as, criticism feels much more valid when you consider whatHappy Gilmore 2actually is: another film made by famous millionaires, who were hired by a multi-billion-dollar corporation to further cash in on nostalgia while simultaneously pandering to and insulting the intelligence of their audience.
‘Happy Gilmore 2’ is Everything That’s Wrong with Modern Legacyquels
Before we delve deeper into some of the issues inHappy Gilmore 2, let me first set one thing straight: Is this movie a fairly easy watch that’ll get you to laugh a couple of times? Sure. In the moments whenAdamSandlerfeels like he’s awake and trying, specifically in the scenes with his on-screen and real-life daughterSunny Sandler, he does a decent job returning to his seminal ’90s character. And, though I legitimately never thought I’d be typing these words, I thoughtBad BunnyandJohn Dalyboth provided some funny moments. Butwhatever good there is,it is far outweighed by the bad and lazy.
From the very beginning, it’s extremely obvious thatHappy Gilmore 2is not taking itself seriously—and that’s the problem.Just because a movie contains dumb jokes doesn’t mean it itself has to be dumb. Likewise, just because a film is built uponjuvenile humordoesn’t mean it can’t also contain good performances, a thought-out plot, actual stakes to get invested in, and characters to root for and against. In fact, the firstHappy Gilmoreis a perfect example of that. The 1996 film was silly and absurd, sure, but it possessed a coherent structure and had legitimate anti-conformist and counter-cultural ideas that were there if you wished to engage with them. If it had just been a series of disconnected and nonsensical bits for 90 minutes, it wouldn’t have remained culturally relevant for as long as it has. By contrast, its sequel feels like a movie whose lasting legacy will probably be the amount of “Listing Every Celebrity Cameo inHappy Gilmore 2” articles published on various entertainment websites.
‘Creed’ and 9 Other Legacy Sequels That Re-Energized Old Franchises
These legacy sequels put a fresh spin on old classics.
With its ratio of one new cameo per 60 seconds, never-ending callbacks to the original, reliance on tired jokes, and absence of any intelligible plot or resonant stakes,Happy Gilmore 2embodies—and seemingly embraces—the most frustrating qualities found in so many legacyquels. When watching it, you’re able to’t help but feel like the creative forces behind the film had little respect for their audience, as they spend the entire—slightly bloated—runtime just saying, “Hey, remember this thing you laughed at once upon a time? Well, here it is again!” Speaking of that slightly bloated runtime, it’s fitting that this was a straight-to-Netflix vehicle, because likeso many streaming films before it, it somehow feels like half of a movie while also being 20–30 minutes too long.
The reason the “remember this?” aspect ofHappy Gilmore 2is particularly egregious is that it not onlyconsistently references moments from its predecessor in order to elicit cheap laughs, but it actuallyincludes flashbacks of the thing it is referencing to make it abundantly clear to the viewer what the joke is supposed to be. It’s hard to overstate just how little faith a filmmaker must have in their potential audience to include this technique in their film. But therein lies the problem: it feels like more thought went into how the people making this movie could have a good time than how the people watching it would. I’m genuinely glad all these celebrities seemed to have fun shooting their scenes, but that isn’t what I want to take away from my movie-watching experience.
It’s Okay to Expect Quality and Effort Even in Silly Movies
Despite surprisingly high Rotten Tomatoes scores, the social media conversation surroundingHappy Gilmore 2has beenfairly divisive, with most people falling into one of two camps. There are those that have been calling out the lackluster, uninspired, and unimaginative nature of the film, and then there is the “What did you expect? It’s aHappy Gilmoresequel, it’s not supposed to be some substantial work of art” crowd. To this latter group, I say:it is actually okay to ask for quality, effort, and respect for the audience from the massive corporations that are using the things we love to make millions more dollars, regardless of what the film is.
Of course, at the end of the day, people should watch whatever entertainment they personally find appealing. And if that isHappy Gilmore 2, then more power to them. But, the problem with our “let people like what they like” culture is thatit is still generally a good idea to at least somewhat thoughtfully engage with the art you consume. That doesn’t mean we can’t enjoysilly, mindless, straightforward, and accessible moviesand shows, but we should at least try to understand why we like something, what we’re getting out of it, and what—if anything—it is trying to say.
If we completely get rid of that, and continue to equate the value of a film with whether it provides the same fleeting moment of entertainment that a meaningless Tik-Tok video does, we’ll continue to head further down the path towards a world where most people are content with handing over $24.99 a month to a streaming service and saying thank you to whatever slop they’re given. For as much as certain people want to talk about the modern entertainment industry being creatively bankrupt, the accepting and non-critical response to something likeHappy Gilmore 2is proof thatit’s not that Hollywood has run out of ideas, it’s that ideas have been run out of Hollywood—primarily by mainstream audiences.
It’s important to remember that, when done properly,things like legacyquels can be enduring and meaningful works of art that are worthy of our attention. But it takes a lot more than just pointing to a bunch of stuff from the past that we like. A movie likeTop Gun: Maverickbecame such a phenomenon because the care and effort that went into making it could be felt on screen. From theinnovative filmmaking techniques, practical effects, pitch-perfect casting, and way is what was constructed for the theatrical experience—it was unique and creative in its own right, even if it was building on something from decades prior. That’s a far cry from the lazily made movies that feel like they were designed to be played in the background on a laptop screen while doing household chores.
Happy Gilmore2is now available to stream on Netflix in the U.S.
