Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd (2003) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
266 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Pathetic cash in on Hilarious original
beardsleythesaint27 February 2006
Was this movie necessary!? This is a truly terrible film, woefully unfunny to the extreme. Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels were excellent in the first film and in a different league to the two actors in the roles as the young Harry and Lloyd (the guy cast as Lloyd does look like Carrey, except for the blue eyes). If there was ever going to be another film about these two characters it should have been a sequel starring the original pairing, instead we get this stinker. Dumb and Dumber hardly had an Oscar winning story line but gave us some great characters and a hatful of ball bouncingly funny gags, in the 'prequel' the weak story collapses under the weight of even weaker jokes! So uninspired is this movie that there are even rehashes of jokes from the original, just done slightly differently but in a totally inept manner. Dumb and Dumber is a classic, this is a pile of steaming doggy doo doo's. Do yourself a favour stick with the Carrey film and avoid this limp fish at all costs.
55 out of 74 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Hail2thechimp24 April 2004
I saw this movie with my cousin at a nine o'clock showing on the first day it was released. We expected nothing of it, and we were not disappointed. The best part was Bob Sagat screaming "there's sh*t everywhere", at the time I commented how prophetic that line was. I just don't understand how they could make this movie and throw feces all over the memory of the first one. The only thing the movie had going for it was that the two guys who played Lloyd and Harry looked like Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels if you kinda squinted and turned your head at the right angle. Oh yea, and when we left that movie so brain damaged us we forgot where we parked and spent 5 minutes looking for his car.
60 out of 84 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
pitiful attempt to evoke laughter
Special-K887 March 2007
Stupid, inane prequel to Dumb and Dumber chronicles morons Lloyd Christmas and Harry Dunne during their early years in high school when they met for the first time and became inseparable best friends. The little bit of story there is revolves around the two asinine pals and their attempts to thwart a scheming principal (Levy). A talented, enthusiastic cast is wasted in this dismal comedy where unappealing characters run around spouting ridiculous banter and falling victim to cheap gross-out gags. The two leads may look like Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels, but that doesn't mean they'll produce the same results. A brainless farce that doesn't measure up for fans of the original—or any in general. *
5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
some actors, writers, and a director fail miserably at making something entertaining.
skysthelimit084 September 2005
This is the worst movie I have ever seen. I'm serious. Do yourself a favor and stay as far away from this movie as you can....ESPECIALLY if you are even just a small fan of the original movie. The actors are horrible, the plot is even worse, and the jokes are completely unoriginal. I am the biggest Dumb and Dumber fan, and when I saw this prequel, I would've rather been stabbed with a pitchfork and dumped in boiling hot wax than sit through the rest of the movie. It was just so disappointing. Of course, I didn't really have high hopes for it to begin with anyway. Instead of seeing this movie, just watch good old' Dumb and Dumber ONE a couple times.
54 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not that bad
dentontotg21 June 2003
It is tough living up to D&D I so you have to take this money for what it is, a brave attempt to relive the first one. Do they pull it off? Kind of. It is worth the money to go see this if you don't take yourself too seriously.

I think that the people that made this movie are having the last laugh, it will go over $30 million by the end of next week. For a movie, any movie, to bring in $30 million bucks on about a $15 million dollar budget is a coup. After this is all said and dumb with the DVD sales and the HBO licensing this movie will make a cool $50 million bucks profit, easily.

Stop taking yourselves too seriously, go watch a stupid movie and laugh your ass off. Hell, if we can sit through a funny movie, maybe we can all lighten up a little in these way too serious world.
20 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Give credit where credit is due.
safaritom28 December 2014
I think those that give this movie such horrible ratings have no sense of true artistry. The plot was fine... simple. Look at the plot of the original - plain and simple.

The acting was stellar. Harry and Lloyd could not have been portrayed any better. The actors did a stand up performance, incredible. They deserve to be recognized for this...

The movie was great, at its core it was about a fanatical friendship, which is what the world needs more of.

I give the movie 2 thumbs up, way up.

Joel Schumacher
16 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Worse than awful. 3,4 is too high for this rubbish
Juni78ukr17 June 2004
Quite simply, this is an awful movie. There is no excuse for people who made this crap. I thought Gigli was much better film than this. I believe this one is was worst film of the year and at least worst of the decade. No story,no acting, no brains, no heart, no comedy - only waste of time and money for everyone. But that's not all! Also I found this movie absolutely not funny but it's simply insulting and disgusting instead. You must protect your kids from seeing it. It's very sadly to see so talented actors (including Shia Lebeouf, who looked very good in Holes) involved in this disaster.

Avoid all costs and stay away as far as you can from this garbage. It worse than anybody could expect. Don't see it even for free! Trust me! I never felt so miserably than I watched this trash. Why, Why I have lost my time and my money for it? Nobody knows. Anyway, you've been warned.

My rating: F- or 0/10.

Sorry for my bad English.
61 out of 94 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Unfunny Ripoff
bellygod22 January 2005
Words fail to express my dismay at having wasted a half hour of my life on this film. If it seems unfair to review a movie based on only watching it 30 minutes, excuse me, but how about the unfairness of duping viewers into thinking they're gonna see the sequel to 'dumb and dumber' which was a FUNNY film, with this bait and switch trash? You've got two (to me) unknown, and sadly, unfunny actors replacing the demented and dumb, yet humorous originals Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels. Then you get a story going nowhere My half hour was spent without a single chuckle; I might have moaned once or twice from indigestion. I couldn't stomach watching any more; I felt I was gonna hurl.

This is one of the worst sequels of all time.
35 out of 52 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
matija-trost20 June 2003
...or how to make a comedy without a laugh?

When I first heard that there's a sequel to Dumb and Dumber I was ecstatic since this was the best comedy in ninenties and certainly one of the best comedies ever. But after seeing opening credits (No Jim & Jeff), I was a little sceptical. Never mind, it still can be good...

Erghh, wrong. The movie was getting worse and worse. The leading characters were shown like a couple of retards (very unlikable, since in original there aren't THAT slow), who were just trying to imitate Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels and failed miserably. Lack of charm, i guess. But the main fault goes to script writer who provides a lot of already seen jokes as the rest of the producers of this crap.

I agree, it would be nearly impossible to beat the original version, since it was full of original black humor, but hey, at least they could try harder. Despite that movie sucked, it has some moments...but since i can't remember any if them, i couldn't rate it higher than

3 out of 10.
28 out of 41 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What the ****
icechalkhands14 January 2005
I challenge anybody to tell me what the f*** I just saw. I mean is Hollywood even trying anymore. Well I can't lie, I knew it was going to be a piece of s***. But I never expected it to stink this bad. The weird thing about this me being mad thing is, that I'am not mad like disappointed mad, but I could just start kicking someone's a** mad. Who funded this undeserving prequel. Why was there ever a prequel anyways. Please don't waste your life line on this movie.

For one the jokes are so forced on you that you'd have to be a child to understand the humor. Some of the actors in the movie, I've seen in very good movies, like the kid who where the donkey head in the parade, he was good in "HOLES". But I guess he didn't see this hole coming. In summary don't and I repeat don't expect to find some humor in this movie because there is none. I hate this f****** movie.
83 out of 145 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I feel dumberer for having watched it.
Ford_Maverick21 February 2004
So my roommate borrowed "Dumb And Dumberer".

God only knows why.

Anyway, he puts it in the machine and shortly afterward leaves the room to take a phone call.

He owes that caller more than he knows.

See, as I hadn't paid any money for it, nor even gotten my butt up off the couch to load the disc, I had little investment in it. Thusly I figured it wouldn't take much to meet my relatively low expectations for it. After all, the first one was pretty funny, right?

Before I continue, it should be noted that this movie had none of the original cast members, writers, directors, etc from the first film.

No one, at least, worth noting.

Now, back to the story. Where the first movie had laughs galore (most of them cheap lowbrow humor, but hey, if I want Shakespeare, I'll read Shakespeare...) this movie had a sprinkling of "That's kinda funny..." and "Was that funny? I can't tell anymore..." moments.

The most telling thing I can say about this movie is that I DIDN'T FINISH IT. Nay, I COULDN'T finish it.

A friend of mine that had the misfortune of being in the room with me at the time said it best when he said: "At one point I laughed at how painfully unfunny it was and I realized that it (the movie) had pulled me down to it's level."

Of course he also said: "Another reason dumb and dumbrererererrer sucked is that both guys were trying to cop Betty White's "Rose" character from the Golden Girls but neither of them possesses her panache or supple buttocks."

Verily, it is a thing of evil.

Having said that, it's not the worst movie I've ever seen. I would have to give some thought to exactly which movie holds that dishonor. "Batman and Robin" is pretty close. But no, I've actually finished worse movies than this. Thing is, in those movies I held out hope that they would get better before the end. With Dumb and Dumberer, there was no such hope. In fact, there was utterly no hope at all.

I did get a chuckle from a couple moments though. Like when the two titular characters walk down the school hallway with their Special Ed class to the theme from the A-Team, and... well, that's it actually.

Oh yeah, Mimi Rogers made out with a little hottie named Rachel Nichols.

The most notable thing about Nichols, other than her being very attractive, is that she's in the new Bruce Campbell film "The Woods" which is currently in post production.

Apart from that "Dumb and Dumberer" can be summed up by the fact that I actually got up off my couch to remove this ultra-boring, ultra-unfunny piece of cinematic spam from the DVD player.

PS: I did put it back in to check the not-so 'Special Features', but I did not find the apology I was looking for.

Maybe it's an 'Easter Egg'.

I don't recommend checking yourselves, but if someone finds it, please let me know. I feel it's owed to me.
42 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not as bad as everyone says!
DomNickson84312 April 2015
Warning: Spoilers
There's a number of jokes that are funny in this movie and I don't know why people criticize it. I mean like what the heck did you expect a masterpiece? For what it was the film is at least loyal to the characters who are both stupid and you don't know who's stupider. This is way better than that terrible sequel made last year, where all the jokes were based on how gross it could be. I never liked the idea of prequels but this film I think did it fine. The only thing I think would of been a wiser idea is had Harry take Lloyd's role of being the one to tell him what to do. I mean Harry is a leader in the original but here he is more of like a sidekick. I really liked the scene, "There's Sh.t everywhere!" The only things I wish they changed were Harry and Lloyd's roles and also maybe add a funnier climax but it's overall alright! I can't believe people hate this but the sequel made last year is rated higher! I think these rating should be switched! I give it a 6.5 out of 10.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The Most Unnecessary Movie Of 2003
christian1233 June 2005
Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd is really just a dumb comedy, the only problem is that it isn't funny. It's the first day of high school and Harry, who previously has been home schooled by his mother, needs someone to show him the ropes. Lloyd, who lives in the school's basement with his adoptive dad/school custodian Ray, turns out to be just the guy. They unknowingly fall into the web of the corrupt Principal Collins and his girlfriend, head lunch lady Ms. Heller, who want them to be the first students in a phony "special needs" class in order to bilk $100,000 in grant money for themselves. Harry and Lloyd go out to look for more students for this new class, they catch the attention of Jessica Matthews, a hard-hitting reporter for the school's newspaper, who suspects foul play. The plot sounds like it has some potential but the execution is very bad. This has to be the most pointless film of 2003 and one of the least funniest as well. Most of the jokes just fall flat and apparently the filmmakers weren't trying at all. I can see now why Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels backed out of this one. They are replaced by Eric Christian Olsen and Derek Richardson. Derek and Eric both play their roles dumb, they just try to hard most of the time and aren't funny. Eugene Levy is embarrassingly bad and this has to be his worst film ever. Mimi Roger's role is small but its nice to see her on screen. She is also one of the few saving graces in this film. The rest of the cast is mostly unfunny except for Bob Saget who does have some funny moments. Troy Miller does a poor job of directing and writing as he didn't seem to really put a lot effort in. People are defending this film, saying that you can't take every film seriously. I wasn't taking this film seriously and it still wasn't very funny. There might had been a laugh here or there but that's it. The original was fine and didn't need a prequel to explain what happened before and this film just ruins the original. The running time is also a good thing as its only 82 minutes long though sometimes it feels longer. Is this film better then the original? No, not even close and this comedy should be forgotten. In the end, this film is not worth the time or money to watch and its better if you just skip this. Rating 3.3/10, rent the original instead.
17 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
What were you expecting?
scruffycub2-115 November 2003
Boy, people have sure been knocking this movie. I personally, thought it was hilarious. I loved it. I don't know what other people were expecting, I mean, glance at the title. If people are looking for intellectual stimulation and a subject for discussion at their next Mensa meeting, then no...this movie would not be for them. Derek Richardson and Eric Christian Olsen did a great job. They both had their work cut out for them, and they came through.
12 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Absolutely foul
Senorls19 June 2003
I love gross and vulgar movies. I love bad movies that have some redeeming

value. I will keep this brief--avoid AT ALL COSTS!!!!! I don't recall ever seeing anything as worthless as this. Everybody below has said it in one way or another. No need to repeat them except to WARN YOU NOT TO SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!
20 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
otherotherside8823 June 2003
Oh man I have never laughed so hard in my life! That movie was the GREATEST! I couldn't stop kicking the chair in front of me, thank god there was no one in it! I began to tear! Both actors chosen for Harry and Lloyd did fantastic jobs and I don't think any other cast could've been better!
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Below average prequel film about two odds boys in their adolescence
ma-cortes15 July 2005
An ordinary story of sex-minded people , dealing with brainless youthful and made without solvency . The movie talks upon the adventures and misfortunes of two no brain teenagers from the beginning their acquaintance , when Harry (Derek Richardson) and Lloyd (Eric Christian Olsen) meet themselves at high school . The picture narrates the various pranks , the mischiefs with schoolmates and teachers (Eugene Levy) . The respective parents (Mimi Rogers and Luis Guzman) try to resolve the problems without success . They are idiot pals who are continuously doing jokes and seeing lustfully by the opposite sex .

The film mingles irony , chuckles , giggles , comedy and numerous sex jokes . And of course , there's very bad taste , being the extreme when happen the incredible scenes on the crap in the bathroom . The comedy is cheesy and gross-out but has some moments here and there . The film is an embarrassing and absurd mess , the plot is ridiculous and monotonous and is formed by several humor set pieces , being quite disagreeable and graceless . There are some steamy hot scenes and some memorable and hilarious happenings of dirty humor which will rejoice the rogue aficionados to these kinds of things . Neither the players , nor the filmmaking seem to be nice , and the storyline is utterly embarrassing , but , curiously , it has some amusing moments and I found myself laughing in some times of the movie . Eric Christian Olsen was repeatedly denied the role of Lloyd because the producers thought he was "too good-looking" . It was only after seeing some home-video footage of Eric in full make-up improvising a scene with already-cast Derek Richardson that they gave him the role . The cast secondary is pretty good , such as : Luis Guzmán , Rachel Nichols , Eugene Levy , William Lee Scott , Shia Labeouf , Bob Saget , Julia Duffy and Mimi Rogers . Lin Shaye was the only cast member to star in both the original Dumb and Dumber and the sequel . The motion picture takes part of the large group about filthy and dirty humor , such as : ¨Scary movie¨ , ¨American pie¨and sequels . The previous film (Dumb and dumber) is much better ; plus , there were Jeff Daniels and Jim Carrey who are greatest actors , here the protagonists are unknown . Rating : It's a awful turkey . Disconcerting as well as inferior sequel and bottom of barrel . Yawner and snooze is continued.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Underrated comedy genius --- or mental dysfunction...
pedrothelion10 January 2006
Now, mainstream critics and audiences alike are pathetic at this point in history. Accepting humor and just having a good time is hard with many, especially when some are trying to maintain a grand reputation. This is the case with the overall acceptance of this riotous film. A campy plot and set of jokes couldn't possibly lose a viewer's interest, could it? I mean, people laugh at Family Guy, a show with humor clearly as subjective and ridiculous as that of Dumb and Dumberer. Even Blue Collar humor is more clichéd than this. I admire the entire good mood of this film. I felt great after viewing it. I also haven't laughed that hard in an unnamed amount of time. Don't believe the criticism --- the only reason I can think of for those types of comments is that the lead roles aren't played by the same actors. Yet, who would want to see 40-somethings playing teenagers?
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
I think this is funny stuff!
ichabod_crane189924 June 2003
I had the feeling this movie was going to do bad with the critics, I was right and I didn't think it would do good at the box office because this movie didn't have very good marketing and again I was right. But I still had high hopes for this movie! Jim Carrey is my idol and I was a little mad that he wasn't coming back, but you gotta understand, this dude wants to explore different characters. Anywayz, I went into this movie with my brother and we laughed out loud. Yeah there were some not so funny scenes, but it was still hilarious! Especially Bob Sagat! Eric Christian Olsen play Lloyd Christmas very well, but Derek Richardson is alright. I didn't think Eugene Levy gave his best, but Cheri was very funny! And that Rachel Nichols lady is mighty fine! Anywayz, all in all, this movie made me laugh, I wasn't disappointed, and I'm going to buy it when it comes out on DVD! I do have a life, but I can't put a movie down that easily (like Dreamcatcher), but this movie I didn't feel sorry for! But, yes, this movie could've done better with the Farrelly Brothers! I hope they get the thought to making a sequel and bring back Jim, Jeff, and Sebass! Although Dumb and Dumberer is funny stuff my man! 4 stars out of 4 stars

Sincerely Sidekick Jolly!
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
This movie is awesome
coldplay0302776 July 2003
I thought this movie was great and Eric and Derek did great jobs playing the characters. They are both very good looking as well. I hope everyone that sees this enjoys it because its good. And if you dont like it, then you can go away and not say bad things about it. Great job to all of the people who worked on this movie. its my favorite movie at the moment. :-D
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
psychoferret9614 June 2003
I saw Dumb and Dumberer on opening night. I entered the theater with a highly skeptical attitude toward this prequel to a classic movie that I love for its total randomness, stupid hilarity and countless other details Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels brought to the part. The movie began with some of the most terrifically horrible ads I've ever seen in my life, and I was losing hope for this movie rapidly if this was how they were going to front the audience before playing it. And then it began...and I was extremely impressed! The actors sincerely looked and acted like teenage versions of they're predecessors, and as such a great on screen team the laughs never subsided when Lloyd and Harry were in the scene.

I found only a few faults that would irritate the average movie-goer and criticizer of this movie, as they bugged me ever since I left the theater. One is that Lloyd, Jim Carrey's old part, is very controlling of Harry and is a 'jerk' the majority of the way through the movie, which really got on my nerves. In addition, Harry seemed too laid back and just let Lloyd treat him somewhat negatively. Also, there was almost no plot line! In the first 1994 movie there was an ultimate goal, a reason for the movie. In this prequel, there was one but it seemed as though New Line Cinema Stuck it in there just for spite. Thirdly, they didn't film it in the same way as the first! In Dumb and Dumber, every place the characters went, several funny things happened there that the viewer remembered later as the 'Cafe scene' or the 'beer scene'...In Dumb and DumberER, each clipping was significantly shorter, leaving the audience to figure out later what happened or why something occured, which is, in truth, an insanely poor movie-making technique that irritates.

Besides those problems, however, and despite this movie being very different than its well-loved predecessor,it's hilarious! Many parts I found myself not able to breathe from laughing so hard, and maybe you need to be a teenager as I am to fully comprehend the jokes, but it was hilarious in its own way. This is a movie you'll want to take your crew of friends to and laugh at all the sickening stupidity and overall dumbererness of the first adventures, when Harry met Lloyd. I was impressed as it excelled past the standards I set for this flick, and maybe you will think so as well. Give it a try and go see it! An 8 out of 10 stars. Fantastically humorous and, well..dumb!
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not as good as the first, but still kicked ass!!!!!!!
jab17714 June 2003
This is a hilarious comedy. i own the first one and have watched it probably over 50 times now. Its my favorite comedy of all time. I went to see this movie not expecting much because it wasnt the original actors( Carey,Daniels) but i really enjoyed it. Bob saggot did an awesome job and the guy who played Lloyd did a great job following careys role. I give it a 8.7/10 for the great acting and hilarious jokes.
6 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
It just isn't funny!
maschoemaker20 June 2007
It doesn't happen a lot that a movie is really awful, but this is everything! It just isn't funny! The physical comedy is totally ridiculous! How hard Eric Christian Olsen and Derek Richardson try, there getting more embarrassing every minute. There is no way they can replace unthankfully replaced Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels. The harder they try, the worse it gets. Also the story is nothing. Even a children's movie has got a more intelligent story line than this film. Dumb and Dumber are such a great characters. As well as in the previous real movie as in the cartoon. Unfortunately, they really don't take advantage of it, because the movie is even dumber than the characters.

So only watch this movie if you are really (and I mean REALLY) bored! Else: don't even bother to think about it! That's why I rate is 1/10.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not even a smile..
cousyrules121 March 2006
This has to be one of the worst comedies i have ever seen. Not only were the jokes unfunny, but the movie was so boring. When I saw that none of the Farrely brothers had directed this, i knew i was in for a disaster, and i was right.

The first and best "Dumb and Dumber" got me laughing so hard i pooped a little. Now this movie so good because the acting, the directing, and improvisation. This remains to be the best comedy i have ever seen, next to "Theres something about Mary" I officially hate "Dumb and Dumberer" They should never have remade it, and this director should be shot.

Thankyou for reading this.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The title says it all...
Rob_Taylor20 May 2004
Let's face it, if you went into a restaurant and ordered a sh*t sandwich and got precisely that, could you honestly complain about what you got?

Dumb and Dumberer is precisely that. The title sums it up and you really shouldn't expect anything other than rubbish when you sit down to watch it.

That said, I am surprised to see it in the bottom 100 of IMDb's lists. It is bad, but I'm sure there are many films far above it that deserve its place at the bottom much, much more.

Dumb and Dumberer could never hope to compete with its predecessor but its no worse really than any other teen-comedy-high-school nonsense. If the original movie had not been made, then this one wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the bad press it has. But, alas, it was not to be, and so this film will slip into obscurity like many ill-conceived sequels, destined to be forgotten, or talked about with ill-disguised scorn when reminiscing over the original movie.

The best way to watch this film (if you have to at all) is to try and forget the characters Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels made their own, and view it as if that first film had never happened. Also, console yourself whilst watching that there are a few bloopers tacked onto the end that are the comedic highlight of this unfunny movie, although its really not worth watching the film just for them. You might then get some enjoyment out of an otherwise bland film.

In summary then, its bad but not really deserving a place in the worst 100 of IMDb.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed