It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

I really hate this movie for a number of reasons, which I will tell you right now. At first It is not funny at all, its humour is to stupid for even a 10 year old child. I know that the first dumb and dumber hasn't the most original nor the cleverest comedic quotes or scenes,but at list the fun is not force and when you laugh its real. Secondary the characters are not likable at all, they are horrible people who if you meet you would try your best afterwords to forget that they exist at all.Lastly the directing is ,for a lack of a better world ,awful. In conclusion here dear readers we have a prime example of a film which was made in order to steal money of the audience using a previous hit as a starting point for a possible cash cow of a franchise, likely the film-goes were smarter than that and the film failed big time.

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.

You guys should understand this :Without Jim Carrey, there goes Son of The Mask. Without Jim Carrey, there goes Evan Almighty. Without Jim Carrey, there goes Dumb and DumbeRER.But those are only facts that I've been thinking. The real opinion of mine doesn't depend on the movie actors, but the how the storyline should come from the first movie.They should've only been dumb and stupid, but goodhearted. In this horrible sequel, the director made them retards, a bunch of vulgar guys.I give 1/10 ratings on this one, fellas...

It is very strange that when I read the user reviews of this site, so few actually talk about why the movie is so bad. Well, I'd like to take a moment to say why I didn't, and in better detail than most, hopefully, enjoy the movie.Dumb and Dumberer is a prequel, which if the word "sequel" is of any indication, means it is a continuation from the first. Well, "Prequel" implies it as a "beginning of" story, sort of what happened in the childhoods of Harry and Lloyd, who were originally played by Jeff Daniels and Jim Carrey, respectively.The characters in the story are Harry and Lloyd, two simple minded teenagers, who lack any real charm or clever idiocy that was played so well in the original. The idea in this movie is that the principal, played by the legendary Eugene Levy (Jim's Dad in American Pie and most of its sequels) is trying to find a get rich quick scheme, so he develops a special needs class to make the money, but he needs students.If that part of the plot doesn't offend you, don't worry, the rest will.Harry and Lloyd go on a search to find kids who are just like them, (although its so insulting to think special needs kids can't tell an Asian girl from a mentally handicapped child) and needless to say, a class is formed.Jessica, a very smart teenage girl (which only implies the entire school isn't smart enough to recognize this plot) sees the ruse, and uses our heroes to dig up the dirt on the principal.To be honest, if the movie didn't have the "Dumb and Dumber" moniker or even a mentioning of Harry and Lloyd, this movie probably would have faded into obscurity, nary, even been made, and if it did, it might have been a cult classic if it had been better written and not as relying on the first movie's jokes.The movie has some references to the original picture, but the problem is that references aren't usually funny. So when this movie references the laxative from the original as a large truck carrying said product, it doesn't make it funny, you are just implying that you watched the movie enough to notice it.The problem with this movie is just lazy writing. The creators probably thought watching enough of the original was a good idea to create a sequel, but what it does is insult anyone who tries really hard to write good comedy with insulting retreads from classic movies.Harry and Lloyd aren't some kind of smart, they are all kinds of moron. In the original, it is implied they aren't smart, but in reality, it's that their ideas of intelligence is slightly askew from most people, but it was mostly honest mistakes. Lloyd hearing the country Austria and playing it off as Australia is believable, and more than likely a mistake a person has made before, as opposed to say, talking about who Benjamin Franklin is (Where Lloyd explains that Ben Franklin was the "Pilgrim who invented Penicillin and defeated Godzilla").Critics and most writers will tell you that was is usually funny isn't funny, it's what you play off as serious that's funny. The characters aren't serious people doing funny things, they are played off as funny people doing funny things, and that doesn't always equal funny.The actors seem rather detached from the project, as if they all simultaneously had a large bill to pay, so they played their appropriate roles just to pay it off to do better movies. It was strange that from the years 2003 and 2005, people thought that making sequels to previous Jim Carrey movies was to be cinematic gold, was actually just copper painted up and advertised as gold.It is always going to be argued that sequels are never better than their original counterparts, and that's understandable, only so many movies have that bragging right. That doesn't mean if you have an idea for a sequel and you feel strongly in making a sequel that you have to do it poorly in every means possible: in writing, in acting, in character development, music, staffing, ETC. It should be room to improve. A sequel, in particular, a prequel should challenge the audience to see how the characters became who they are when we remember them, not putting them in a less than original story.This concludes my review, I give it a 2/10.