5/10
I give it a 3/5. Nowhere near as great as its predecessor, but still a decent movie.
10 July 2003
First off, I have to say that Dumb and Dumber is one of my all-time favorite films. I've seen it countless times and it's just as funny as it was the day I first saw it. That being said, I was delighted to hear that a prequel was going into development in late 2002. The fact that Carrey and Daniels were not returning was a bit upsetting at first, but the fact that it takes place in 1986 would just make them feel out of place and I was more than willing to give new actors a chance. After the official trailer, people bashed the flick relentlessly, vowing never to watch it because it looked like pure s*** and nothing more. I, on the hand, couldn't wait until June 13th.

I was there opening day, and I have to say this is, hands down, the funniest film I've seen in a long time. There were a few nods and references to the original, and Derek Richardson and Eric Olsen really perfected the parts of Harry and Lloyd. Everyone seemed to love the Bob Saget cameo, myself included. Funny, funny stuff.

There were a couple of major problems, however. First of all, there are anachronistic errors littered throughout, the music being the most distracting. Artists like Vanilla Ice and Good Charlotte certainly were not around in '86. Another problem is the editing. Test audiences weren't big fans of this film, as it was trimmed down from 115 minutes to 82 minutes. Luis Guzman and Mimi Rogers had decent-sized roles, but in the final product their presence was just about wasted. They even went as far as to delete a musical number and scenes from Lloyd's childhood (i.e. how he eventually came to live with Ray).

But, despite being historically incorrect and having major editing issues, the film was still full of laughs and ends up being an enjoyable way to spend an hour and twenty minutes.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed