Maybe I'm Too Old, But "Dumb and Dumber To" Just Wasn't for Me.

Dumb and Dumber To

The look on Billy in 4C's face sums up my experience with this movie.

“We Should Stop Reviewing Comedies.”  That is the title of an article I wrote for my website over a year and a half ago, and I’ve stuck to it (aside from This Is the End, but I made an exception for that since it was an apocalyptic comedy).  After watching Dumb and Dumber To I felt compelled to break my own rule again.  The exception this time: a comedy sequel to a beloved movie from my youth. 

My argument for not reviewing comedies was basically that comedy is too subjective, and a critic’s sense of humor shouldn’t be held any higher than anyone else’s.  I still stand by that.  That said, I barely cracked a smile while watching this film, but others (and I’ve confirmed this based on a handful of positive reviews and plenty of comments on IMDb in support of the movie) will like it…maybe even love it.  I certainly d

on’t, but I’m not going to spend an entire review hating on a comedy that just didn’t strike my funny bone.  I am, however, going to spend an entire review wondering why this sequel felt so different that the first film…and I’ll probably hate on it a little too.

I love Dumb and Dumber.  Notice I used the present tense, “love,” not “loved”?  It is not a movie I aged out of enjoying.  In fact, I watched it a day after watching the sequel and still laughed aloud a few times.  It doesn’t make sense because this sequel features all of the original filmmakers.  It is written and directed by the Farrelly brothers and stars Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels.  It’s also similar in plot: two idiots go on a road trip and unwittingly get involved in a criminal plot.  This is no prequel a la Dumb and Dumberer (which the original filmmakers had nothing to do with).  It should be something I love.  Why isn’t it?

The obvious answer is time.  I’m older, which (supposedly) means that “dumb” comedies no longer appeal to me.  I think that would be correct if this was not a sequel to a movie I liked.  If this was an original movie that made this amount of money ($60 million as I’m typing this) and had defenders online, then I would simply think, “I must be too old for this.”  I am not too old for this type of comedy, though.  When I watch the stupid comedies from my youth, I still find them funny.  Chalk that up to nostalgia if you like, but I honestly still enjoy the majority of the comedies I liked fifteen years ago. 

Time, I think, actually is the answer, though.  The problem is that, while my comedic sensibilities have not changed, the filmmakers’ have.  Some have criticized the film because the stars, now in their fifties, come across as dirty old men rather than harmless buffoons.  I can see this argument, but I think it’s more than that.  Here’s an example.  In the new film, Harry (Jeff Daniels) and Lloyd (Jim Carrey) yell out to a female scientist, “Show us your tits!”  This was seen as a misogynistic line by many (rightfully so), but it is in keeping with their behavior.  In the first film, Harry comments on a woman passing by: “Check out the funbags on that hosehound!”  Definitely misogynistic as well, but at least it’s more original that what a cliché construction worker would yell at a passerby.  Plus, the line was given after they were talking about being classy to show that they are, in fact, not classy at all.  The point is that the Farrelly brothers have gotten lazier.  Their characters have always been misogynistic, but they used to get a pass because the writing was a bit wittier and more innocent. 

That is how I felt across the board with this film.  The jokes and the people are the same, but the effort is gone.  I loved Dumb and Dumber for the quirkier moments.  The physical gags don’t crack me up any longer (Harry’s tongue stuck a ski lift just doesn’t do it for me these days), but the smaller moments of each actor’s performance still make me laugh (Lloyd laughingly saying, “Yeah ha ha!” when asked if he sold a dead bird to a blind kid.  Now all the nuance is gone.  Sure, they were always cartoonish, but they were tethered to reality at least a little bit.  They’ve gone full blown cartoon now.  Give me the literal toilet humor of the first film any day over Harry and Lloyd glowing from radiation poison after bathing near a nuclear power plant.  These guys were not immortal the first time around. 

I could go on and on like this with examples of gags that worked the first time that were duplicated to lesser effect this time around.  But that would be too exhausting, and I think you get why I don’t like it by now.  I’ll finish by repeating that the film might, and does, work for others, but I can’t appreciate it as something separate from the beloved first film.  I guess I just haven’t aged enough comedically…and I hope I never do.

Dumb and Dumber To receives a:

We Should Stop Reviewing Comedies

Does this look funny to you?  No?  Great!  Yes?  Great!

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone comes out this Friday, and I doubt that I make it out to see it.  As a regular dude looking for a funny movie, I'll probably watch it eventually because of the talent involved.  I'll wait for the video release, however, because nothing in the previews looks funny to me.  Which brings me to why I won't be watching it as a psuedo-critic, either.  It's a comedy, and it doesn't look funny "to me."  Will others like it?  Definitely.  Will most critics hate it?  Probably.  (It's at 40% on Rotten Tomatoes as of this writing.)  I've accepted my own uselessness as a "critic" lately due to my lack of readers, but even if I was read by thousands of people a day, I still wouldn't review Burt Wonderstone.  (Hell, I didn't even review my favorite comedy, Wanderlust, from last year.) 

I can see the argument against film criticism in general these days because the box office and the critical response are rarely equal.  I'm not going to throw my hat in that ring (just check around the movie sites for the debate on the point of movie reviews).  I just want to posit that when it comes to comedy, criticism is essentially worthless.  The genre is far too subjective to be judged.  Sure, you can critique performance and the elements of filmmaking, but you can't truly critique what is funny. 

Taste in film in general varies from person to person, but it is possible to separate a prestige, high quality drama from a loud, cash grab action sequel through criticism.  It's even possible to judge these films objectively based on what they attempt to achieve.  Did the drama make you care about the characters?  Were the action sequences a jumbled, over-edited mess in the other film?  But if the goal of the film is to make you laugh, how can you truly praise or condemn it when senses of humor are so different?  I'll look at what a critic has to say about the action in, say, a Transformers movie, and how hard it is to decipher which robot is winning a fight.  Or if Haneke captures the essence of a lifelong relationship in Amour effectively.  Should I return to the same critics to find out if fart jokes and funnier than political humor?  And yes, the Transformers series is a fart joke in that analogy.  
 

I don't want to read anything by someone telling me my sense of humor is juvenile...or sophisticated, for that matter.  Comedies reside, or should reside, in a review-free zone.  That's not to say that people shouldn't recommend comedies; it's just that it should be done on a small scale.  I don't think I need to tell anyone to actually do this, but people should just listen to their friends when it comes to comedy.  To be fair, people are always more swayed by the opinions of those in their immediate lives than they are by critics, but while critics know movies, your friends know your sense of humor.  For instance, I know which of my friends I would suggest In Bruges to and which ones I would suggest 21 Jump Street.  

Comedies are naturally better as group movies.  I wouldn't try to get some pals together to watch The Master, but a few of us watching Ted together?  Absolutely.  Because of this group mentality, it becomes necessary to watch certain movies.  When critics universally praise a prestigious film like The Artist, most casual movie fans will tell themselves that they should watch it because it's supposed to be so good, but they probably don't have any friends commanding them to see it.  Think about it; what's more likely?  Someone saying, "Dude, you haven't seen Knocked Up?  You have to watch it...now."  Or, "Oh my God, have you seen Amour yet?  No?  Come with me right now; I have the blu ray at home."  

People feel the need to watch the comedies that their friends have seen for multiple reasons.  First, you want to get all the references they are making so you don't feel left out.  Second, maybe you're skeptical of just how funny this movie is so you want to see what all the fuss is about.  Third, this might be that rare movie that defines your friendship for the next few weeks, or years, even.  I'll elaborate on that last part.

I started watching Joe Dirt last night for probably the hundredth time.  I'm not obsessed with it or anything, and it's actually been a few years since I've seen it.  But as I watched it, I realized I still remembered every single second of the film...and I still found it funny.  Is Joe Dirt considered a universal comedy classic?  Of course not.  But that movie came out while I was in high school, and my group of friends loved it.  Once a member of the group bought the DVD, we slowly integrated everyone into the Joe Dirt cult.  It got so bad that our official class motto was, "Life's a garden. Dig it."  (This was also the motto of a neighboring school's senior class as well, so this may have been a regional phenomenon.)  Every group of friends has a movie or show that they latch onto for a week or two, but this movie is still quoted by my friends to this day.  It has become part of our daily language.  No critic could have told me that.  In fact, if I listen to the critics of this film, I'm supposed to hate it.  A movie that has bound my group of friends together, probably to our dying days, is at 11% on Rotten Tomatoes, with most critics claiming that it contains no humor at all.  You could've fooled my group of friends.  

"How much is in there?!?" is still a quote among my friends.  Don't judge us...

This made me wonder how other "classic" comedies from my youth fared on RT.

• Billy Madison - 11%
• Happy Gilmore - 45%
• Freddy Got Fingered - 11%
• A Night at the Roxbury - 11%
• Ace Ventura: Pet Detective - 45%
• Tommy Boy - 45%
• Dracula: Dead and Loving It - 9%
• The Jerky Boys - 9%
• Kingpin - 50%
• Dumb and Dumber - 63% (Fresh!)
• Orgazmo - 47 %
• Dirty Work - 17%
• Austin Powers in Goldmember - 54%

I love each of the above comedies, some more than others, but the critics consistently hated almost all of them.  How can you reconcile something like that?  A critic says that a beloved comedy is simply not funny.  But you laughed, consistently.  Does that mean you are wrong?  Is your sense of humor worse than theirs?  Or better?  It's different, that's all.  And it can't be judged.  You simply cannot judge a comedy by the amount of laughs it provides.  All you can say is, "I thought it was funny."  I slip up now and then and simply tell people a movie is funny, but what I always mean is that I personally found it funny.  You might not, but I did.  Watch at your own risk.  This is why reviewing comedies is so hard, and pointless, for me.  I don't know what any of my random readers find to be funny, and it hurts my brain to try and imagine all of these hypothetical senses of humor.  I'm reduced to lame comparisons, like "Did you like Blazing Saddles?  Then you'll love Spaceballs!"  It's this weak attempt at criticism that leads to idiotic labelling like calling Bridesmaids the "female Hangover."   



Listen, jerky, I don't need you to approve of my taste in comedy.



Back to that list above.  At this point, you may have decided that I simply have a crappy sense of humor.  Possibly, but those are the films of my youth and they still hold a place in my heart.  I am not embarrassed about liking any of those films.  But is this just a time difference thing?  As I considered the older comedies, I also had to consider some recent movies that I found funny.  (I don't consider these all-time favorites or anything just yet, just a few recent movies I enjoyed.)

• 21 Jump Street - 85%
• Bridesmaids - 90%
• Wanderlust - 59 % (Rotten!)
• Ted - 69%
• In Bruges - 82%
• The Five-Year Engagement - 64%
• Paul - 72%
• Horrible Bosses - 70%
• The Green Hornet - 44% (Rotten!)
• Cedar Rapids - 85%
• The Other Guys - 78%
• Piranha 3-D - 73%
• MacGruber - 47 % (Rotten!)
• Get Him to the Greek - 72%
• Hot Tub Time Machine - 63%

Okay, this isn't exactly a scientific survey, but still, what does this mean?  Has my sense of humor become more sophisticated?  If so, then why do I still laugh at Joe Dirt?  Do I hate comedies like Vampires Suck and Epic Movie because I'm just too old?  Is it all just based on what age you were when you first saw the film?  If that's the case, then reviewing comedies makes even less sense.

I guess this article is just my long-winded way of saying that I'm done reviewing comedies.  It's too difficult for me, and it's borderline pointless.  I'll still review the hybrid action-comedies and stuff like that, but as for flat out funny movies, I'll save my recommendations for my close friends.  And even then, when they ask if the movie is funny, I'll say, "Well, I thought it was funny..."