Dumb and Dumber To

Movie Review #912


Wide release on November 14, 2014. Comedy. This film is rated PG-13 for crude and sexual humor, partial nudity, language and some drug references. Runs 109 minutes. American production. Directors: Bobby Farrelly, Peter Farrelly. Screenplay: Sean Anders, John Morris. Writers: Mike Cerrone, Bobby Farrelly, Peter Farrelly, Bennett Yellin. Cast: Jim Carrey, Jeff Daniels, Rob Riggle, Laurie Holden, Rachel Melvin, Kathleen Turner, and Brady Bluhm.


By Alexander Diminiano

Harry and Lloyd are back, and though they may have physically aged 20 years since we last encountered them, they’ve aged backward mentally. You only needed one inner child to enjoy “Dumb and Dumber” (1994). You might need as many as seven to enjoy “Dumb and Dumber To”.

What’s good about this from the get-go is that it completely ignores that there already has been a follow up to “Dumb and Dumber”. Remember “Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd”, from back in 2003? Yeah, it sucked all right. There’s flashbacks in “Dumb and Dumber To”, but none that pay any sort of mind to that forgettable prequel. “Dumb To” is nothing like that failed attempt to follow the ’90s classic. One thing’s for sure: only Jim Carrey is Lloyd Christmas, only Jeff Daniels is Harry Dunne, and only the Farrelly Bros. have the unexplainable funny power to direct the two of them.

The poor critical reception “Dumb and Dumber To” has received continues to escape me. I laughed my ass off at the movie. Just when I was under the impression that Jim Carrey’s sense of humor was permanently in the dumps, and that I’d never see Jeff Daniels in another movie again, here we are with the two of them doing just what they did twenty years ago. The whole point of “Dumb To” is to make us laugh with whatever stupid antics they can pull, but is that very much different than the first one? All right, this one does kind of slack off on its narrative end. It’s structure seems pretty shallow, once you realize that the movie’s playing out almost exactly as the first movie did.

If you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve already gotten a little taste of the one-joke premise. Harry (Jeff Daniels) needs a kidney transplant, and when he learns he has a 20-year-old daughter who was adopted, he sets off to find her down south, where he’ll request that she give him a kidney donation. Meanwhile, Lloyd Christmas (Jim Carrey) fantasizes about marrying Harry’s daughter, but he doesn’t want to put their friendship at risk, so he tries strenuously to keep hushed about it. There’s a bit more to it that comes into play once the two amigos reach the casa de Harry’s daughter, but it already fits its title in a sense that’s just too great. For most of the movie, you can’t argue with the direction the story’s taking, but that’s all up till the last twenty minutes. There’s more twist endings in this one movie than there are in the entire career of M. Night Shyamalan. But “Dumb To” is still one of the most pleasantly, surprisingly, and dumbly (and dumberly) hilarious comedies of 2014.

It’s got to be a challenge to make a sequel this funny twenty years after the release of the first movie. It took two directors and six screenwriters, but I’d argue that the end justifies those means. I can’t see myself having any other reaction to it. Except maybe disgust. If you’ve seen the first “Dumb and Dumber”, I can’t imagine that you’ve forgotten the infamous Turbolax scene. There’s at least three equally disgusting scenes in “Dumb and Dumber To”. You’ll either be laughing shamelessly or shielding your face. Or both.

Postscript: If you want to see the directors’ cameo, stay after the credits. It’s one of the best scenes in the movie, actually.


9 thoughts on “Dumb and Dumber To

  1. I don’t know Cinemaniac. I loved the original but the trailers didn’t make this one look good, and even if we discount critics for being snobs, audience rating has dropped to a 52%.

    • You seem to ignore the fact that I write movie reviews here. I would not concur that critics are snobs.

      Anyhow, statistics means nothing, at least how I see it. The 52% is still better than half of audiences, and I liked Dumb and Dumber To quite a bit.

      Sent from my iPhone


      • Forgive me as that’s not what I meant. It’s just sometimes mainstream critics can be unduly harsh on a film. I don’t consider you a snob by any means.

        I was just hoping that the Farrelly Brothers would make a stronger comeback with Dumb and Dumber To. They haven’t made a great film since There’s Something About Mary.

        • You’re fine, I wasn’t trying to call you out, and I wasn’t offended. 🙂 I was just playing devil’s advocate. I do definitely see what you mean that critics tend to be snobs, though. Roger Ebert was a HUGE snob. Yet both Gene Siskel and Richard Roeper have always been less snobbish about movies.

          I agree, they haven’t made many great films recently. The Three Stooges (2012) wasn’t that great, but I enjoyed it, personally. Same thing with Dumb and Dumber To, except I enjoyed this a lot more than I enjoyed their Stooges movie. Haven’t seen There’s Something about Mary though, for some reason! I bought it on VHS a few months ago, but haven’t gotten around to it yet!

          Incidentally, I’m actually watching Dumb and Dumber (the original) on TV right now!

          • Haha that’s true, but Roger had brilliant syntax skills.

            I didn’t see the Three Stooges, but it did look like a decent homage to the originals (I was a big fan of them).

            Man, you really have to see it! I used to think gross-out humor was an insipid and lazy way to achieve comedy, but that film changed everything. It actually made 27 on AFI’s 100 Laughs list.

            That’s not a coincidence actually. TV channels always play related movies when a film’s sequel is coming out (i.e. they were playing the Raimi trilogy when TASM 2 came out).

Comments are closed.