Samsonite! This is way off!

Jim Carrey, Jeff Daniels and Rob Riggle in a scene from 'Dumb and Dumber To." Photo by Hopper Stone, © 2014 Universal Studios. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 

Twenty years is a rather long gap to bridge between films, especially for a story that filled its original runtime just fine. Yet, somehow, “Dumb and Dumber” evolved from a singular comedy to encompass an animated series (featuring the voice of Patrick Star), an abysmal prequel and the just-released sequel titled, fittingly enough, “Dumb and Dumber To.”

Your guess as to what the Farrelly brothers did with the missing “w” is as good as mine, but that faint attempt at a joke is about as interesting as the brothers Farrelly (Bobby and Peter) and stars Jeff Daniels and Jim Carrey get in this overlong opus of inane idiocy. Their sole accomplishment in this wasteland of tired humor is to spur the audience to ask itself why it felt any attachment to these two jerks in the first place.

“Dumb 2: The Dumbening” brings back Lloyd Christmas (Carrey) and Harry Dunne (Daniels) for another road trip through the heartland, which arrives after Carrey spends two decades in a fake catatonic state (if you didn't laugh at the joke in the preview, it won't get any funnier in the theater). The impetus for the road trip is Daniels' apparent need for a new kidney, and he finds out the only living relative he has is a daughter he apparently fathered in a one-night stand with Fraida Felcher (Kathleen Turner). Turner, whose character received a name drop in the first film, put her daughter (Rachel Melvin) up for adoption, leaving it up to Daniels and Carrey to find the young girl and one of her kidneys. Oh, and there's a murder plot involving Melvin's adopted mother (Laurie Holden) and lawn keeper (Rob Riggle) against the girl's adopted father (Steve Tom) that adds to the shenanigans that ensue lazily.

Like this, but slower and more haphazardly.

 Plot was never the strongest part of the Farrelly boys' repertoire, and that issue is front and center in “Dumb II: Re-Dumbed.” The film is aimless at best and languorous at worst (it needs at least 20 minutes of trimming) with little urgency to create, let alone get to, a finish line of any sort. It slouches and slogs through the motions, fueled by bitterness and appeasement for the mindless.

Good filmmakers can get away with minimal plotting — heck, many of the best sequences “Dumb and Dumber” are on the road — but there needs to be some additional reason for the audience to stick around to the end. The original — a film I still contend is unimpeachable despite what it hath wrought — compensated with some very clever dialogue and vibrancy among the stars and even the then neophyte filmmakers.

But everything feels just very, very old and very, very tired this time around. The brothers Farrelly fill “Dumb Two: Dumbed Down” with way too many flashbacks, callbacks and fantasy sequences that stop the film in its tracks, and many of the jokes or pratfalls are bundled together so tightly there's no room for any of them to breathe. It’s a rather a stark contrast to the original, which keeps the protagonists' silly antics reasonably in check and at least grounded in a modicum of reality.

Essentially, the filmmakers went for a more is more strategy, and the result is almost immediate diminishing returns with one or two quality jokes. More egregiously, there is not a single one anywhere near as quotable as “Samsonite? I was way off!”

 

                                                                    Or this.

I'm still unsure then what motivation the Farrelly boys, Carrey and Daniels decided to do a sequel after two decades. Maybe they wanted to recapture something lost long ago, especially the Farrellys, who haven't made a decent film since 2000's “Me, Myself & Irene,” (maybe 2005's “Fever Pitch” if you're feeling generous). They, and perhaps audiences, might try to sell it as a way of spending more time with the lovable couple Harry and Lloyd, although that would require the central duo to have redeemable qualities.

“Dumb 2: Dumbledore's Revenge” is a joke that comes at the viewers’ expense perpetrated by the Farrellys, Carrey and Daniels to emphasize how awful Christmas and Dunne are as people. They're selfish brutes who are insensitive to the cares and considerations of other, and always, always, always broadcasting their ignorance with pride born of shamefulness. Harry and Lloyd are just mean people in a cruel movie made by brothers who've abandoned all shreds of the decency and kindness they once exhibited.  

Then again, perhaps revisiting two people who haven't changed their idiotic ways in 20 years is more frustrating than cute. Which raises the question: why, again, does this film even exist?

Why indeed?

Review: One and a half out of Five Stars

Click here to see the trailer.

Rating: PG-13

Run time: 110 minutes

Genre: Comedy

Ask Away

Target audience: People lured in by their fond memories of 1994.

Take the whole family?: The film does get a hint scatological that makes it inappropriate for kids younger than 10, but it really shouldn't be a problem for older viewers.

Theater or Netflix?: Netflix if you really, really, really must watch this thing.

What's with all the murder and infidelity, anyway? An additional peccadillo to add to the laundry list above is the Farrellys' excessive use of murderous schemes as plot material. Both “Dumb” films use murder and betrayal (along with a token McGuffin) as story motivation, and they repeat it in the abysmal “Three Stooges” flick they made. It's another sign the Farrellys have lost at least some motivation for their films, and an indication of their lack of respect for their female protagonists.

Watch this instead?: Just watch the first one again and I promise you'll be just fine.