20 years ago it was 1994. Pulp Fiction came out. Forrest Gump came out. Shawshank Redemption was still new. And Dumb and Dumber hit theaters. All great movies. Hands down. Three of the four were nominated for Oscars and even won a good amount of them. The fourth just sat and watched from home on Oscar night but still managed to become a classic of the 1990s.
When someone chooses to name a movie "Dumb and Dumber" it's hard to expect much out of it. Some movies have a nice way of surprising audiences despite the title. Bobby and Peter Farrelly are two brothers that have made a great reputation in surprising audiences with their zany and quirky characters. Their filmography consists of a few classics and guilty pleasures (There's Something About Mary, Shallow Hal, Me, Myself, & Irene, Osmosis Jones...), some better than others, but still, entertaining until the credits roll.
For some reason, they decided to knock "entertaining" off the list when making their latest film and seemed to focus solely on the box office numbers.
Now, for the million dollar question....... Why mess with what was already perfect?
When Dumb and Dumber To started its promotion spots a few months ago it was decided, for some reason, to put the entire focus of the movie's beginning in the trailer. Harry (Jeff Daniels) approaches a heavily dazed and bearded Lloyd (Jim Carrey) while he resides at a mental hospital. Turns out, for twenty years, Lloyd had been faking his illness and going through countless medical procedures and tests all to play a joke on his best buddy. Not the most ideal prank or really funny at all for that matter but sticks with the norms that the first movie displayed two decades ago. While the Farrelly brothers had a good time throwing in references and plot points from the first movie that everyone would love, they must have thought it was a fitting substitute for well thought out jokes. The end result is two film production icons out-doing themselves in all the wrong ways.
You'll see this movie for two reasons: 1.) To answer the question, "The first was so good, will this sequel curse it?" And 2.) To see how to perfect Lloyd's bowl-cut. I'm choosing to focus on the first one. Jeff Daniels actually nails his performance. He seems to have held onto the persona of Harry Dunn (whatever that means) and aged no more than he should have. He's a father now and in search of his [gorgeous] ditzy 22 year old daughter, Penny (Rachel Melvin). He was never known as being completely animated as his costar but sure can hold his own onscreen. That's regrettably one of the only positives I can throw out there. Rob Riggle and Kathleen Turner head up the supporting cast but don't seem to fit in at all with awkward roles like this. Turner is a the mother of Harry's daughter and also part owner of a funeral home. Riggle plays a mooch after a family's fortune with a confusing identical twin in special ops. He has no character continuity at all as the film goes on and appears as a last-minute edit by the Farrelly duo.
 |
| Rachel Melvin and Jim Carrey |
What else? Oh yeah, Jim Carrey. Jim Carrey is not a person. He's a cartoon, a whirling dervish of talent and insanity. He's an icon and a comedy legend that has revolutionized slapstick for generations to come. Another thing he is doing is showing his age. It's hard to say but being over-the-hill shows with films like this one. Carrey reprises his haircut and chipped tooth as Lloyd Christmas. While being known for his extravagant improvisations, it is difficult to believe he made up some of the poorly timed jokes and gags that go along with being in a movie this silly. He comes off as the jokester at a party that won't stop telling the same joke even though no one laughed at it the first time.
Of course there will be no moral to this story, that's only common sense. The first movie was fun to watch because of how different it was and set high standards for future slapshows. The jokes are as childish as the characters (actually, not so much this time around. Adult humor is where it's at, apparently) as expected but just because there is "Dumb" in the title does not give the writers permission to make the movie as stupid or crude as humanly possible. There is quality to be had but that was thrown to the wayside over the course of two decades. Thank you, Harry and Lloyd, but next time, stick to what works. GRADE: 4.8/10 (A bit generous but I rated it based off the actual number of genuine laughs it provided).
No comments:
Post a Comment