MovieChat Forums > Dumb and Dumber To (2014) Discussion > The film's real issue: Harry and Lloyd's...

The film's real issue: Harry and Lloyd's characters.

posted 10 years ago by tueher86
56 replies | jump to latest

In the original Dumb and Dumber:

Harry and Lloyd were equally stupid. They were not the ideal people to blend into an adult social event of any sort. Basically, they were like 7-Year olds trapped in the bodies of two adults. While they were often volatile and disruptive, Harry and Lloyd were mostly harmless and when they were actually harmful or dangerous, it was the result of unintended stupidity. They were mostly two good guys with good intentions. Lloyd has a few moments where he can be manipulative which crosses into the grey area and that is what separates him from Harry, the more gentle innocent oaf. But overall they were normal(but stupid) guys who were just trying to get through life like all of us. This allowed you to laugh at them, feel sorry for the victims, AND still root for Harry and Lloyd. The only evil act in the original was when Lloyd sold a dead bird to the blind kid.

At the end of Dumb and Dumber, I really wanted to see them win some sort of reward for going through all that. But they didn't(which also works) and you sort of feel sorry for them.

In Dumb and Dumber To:

Harry and Lloyd become outright jerks. It is no longer two 7-Year olds in the bodies of grown men, it is simply two half-retard jerks. Their antics and behavior become premeditated and mean. This takes away the audience's ability to feel for them or root for them. Lloyd is especially exaggerated in the sequel as he becomes twice as evil and twice as annoying. There doesn't seem to be a single scene in the movie where Lloyd isn't acting like a goof or a jerk. It was like watching two villains act stupid through an entire movie and then getting away clean at the end. The two twisted pranks that they play on each other in the movie were completely unrealistic, too extreme even for characters who are suppose to be stupid, and worse of all...they were not really that funny.

By the time the movie was over, AFTER they shove two women into the bushes, I was left with a bad taste in my mouth. I wanted to see them get hit by a car or something just so that there would never be a third film.

On paper, the idea of Harry traveling across country to find his long lost daughter could have worked for a Dumb and Dumber sequel. Even the crazy plot twist that the daughter was in fact Lloyd's would have made the movie that much better. But it's the small things that killed the movie. The writers, whether it was intentional or not, turned Lloyd and Harry into twisted parodies of themselves and then plopped them into scenarios that weren't all that great in supplementing their "dumb" routines.

[–] Mississippi20 10 years ago

Can you give specific examples of when Lloyd and Harry are jerks and it bothers you? Because I'm a little miffed at how selling a dead bird to a blind kid is ok with you and apparently gets a pass, but you're so bothered by the sequel.

I'm trying to think.....Lloyd kills Billy in 4C's birds but not on purpose. He's too dumb to even know the consequences. Paraphrasing: "Ya, like they're going to mess with a 30 lb. ally cat".

They obviously don't fit in at the Kent Conference and act rude at Pee-Stain's house, but it's because they are so dumb they don't know any better. "Well that was awkward.....ya, somebody comes to your house at 3 a.m., put some pants on." LOL

I mean, if you don't like the movie, whatever. Maybe it'll grow on you, maybe it won't. I like the movie but I think that's a flawed argument.

[–] grhqofb5 10 years ago

I thought the scene where they yelled into Billy's ears was a bit mean, but I guess that Harry may have been doing it to prove to Lloyd that blind people really can't hear you sneaking up on them.

One of the funniest scenes of the movie was when Lloyd and Harry lit off the fireworks in Travis' hotel room, obviously they weren't trying to harm him, just scare him, but then he comes running out of the room on fire after they overdid it. Still laughing on that one. Some propel probably thought it was mean, but it wasn't intentional, must like when they killed mental with the rat poison in DD1.

[–] Mississippi20 10 years ago

I thought the scene where they yelled into Billy's ears was a bit mean, but I guess that Harry may have been doing it to prove to Lloyd that blind people really can't hear you sneaking up on them.

Most importantly, it made me laugh. I don't think it was particularly mean-spirited, but it's definitely something childish.

Still waiting on specific examples.....

[–] danmankp37 10 years ago

Well I have to agree about Lloyd.. For most of the movie he wants to make it with his best friends daughter who's 30 years younger. His motivations to find her were not about Harry and his kidney and all about his own needs.. He was pretty much a jerk in this movie..

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] croat-hr 10 years ago

I for one, completely agree with you.
Their characters turned from selfish kid-like adults to pure evil and completely retarded guys.

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cspin 10 years ago

THANK YOU! Finally, someone brought up the second plot twist! It was completely unnecessary! I mean, for me, the film had me when Lloyd thought Penny was his daughter. Had Harry and Lloyd been how they were in the first, take out the recycled gags from the first, make Penny less annoying and much funnier and make her Lloyd's daughter the whole time, they could have had a fantastic sequel. Damn, this movie was such a disappointment!

[–] jkersey95 10 years ago

Re: About the end. How can they not know? *Spoilers*
by ajackett » Fri Nov 28 2014 11:00:40 Flag ▼ | Reply |

Post Edited: Fri Nov 28 2014 11:01:22
I have a different take on it. I think their lack of understanding makes the original even funnier, which I didn't think was possible. Everything about Harry's heart being broken, the french tickler, Lloyd's dream sequence, when Lloyd was practising his speech to Mary... it's all so much funnier now knowing that they have no idea what they're talking about. I feel like we, the audience, had a 20 year gag pulled on us. It was brilliant. Is it unrealistic? Maybe. But does it matter? No way. This was a great joke.

Re: About the end. How can they not know? *Spoilers*
by EightiesKid » Sat Nov 29 2014 21:54:43 Flag ▼ | Reply |

I actually kinda see where you're coming from, ajackett. Even though the Farrelleys probably weren't thinking of that way back in 1994, it does end up working really well (even if its hard to believe).

Re: About the end. How can they not know? *Spoilers*
by ajackett » Sat Nov 29 2014 22:08:29 Flag ▼ | Reply |

I agree 100%, I doubt the Farrelly's had it in mind to write a joke that wouldn't pay off for 20 years, but I think it was "genius, sheer genius" to have Freida reveal that they never actually had sex. They must have realized there really was no evidence that the guys weren't virgins, and decided to roll with that.

Actually, this was the one part of the story I was the most concerned about. Once I heard Harry had a child, I immediately thought they'd write it where it's actually Lloyd's child, and when Lloyd made that connection in the film, I was a little disappointed because it's so obvious. But when Freida revealed the truth, they "totally redeemed" themselves.

I wonder if maybe that's how the joke started. Maybe they wrote that in, then said "that's pretty obvious, how can we change it to make it funny and unexpected?", and realized they could make it neither, but then they took it a step further and made it so Harry and Lloyd were still virgins.

Just makes the original funnier.

[–] RockytheBear 10 years ago

To tueher86:

You're right, Harry and Lloyd's characters have changed, but I don't think it's because the writers have forgotten how to write them; I believe it's because comedy itself has changed. 1994 was twenty years ago. That sweet, good natured style of humor (The Simpsons, Seinfeld) was on top back then. But over the next two decades, that form of comedy has been replaced by juvenile, mean spirited, gross out gags and shock humor. Look at how much has happened in the comedy world over the last 20 years:

In 1994, there was no...

South Park
Family Guy
Curb Your Enthusiasm
There's Something About Mary
American Pie series
Wayans Bros. movies
Apatow movies
Chappelle's Show
Adult Swim

Keep in mind, I enjoy everything I have listed, but the reality of the situation is simple. Raunchy is in...sweet is out. Sad but true.

[–] cspin 10 years ago

You're absolutely right. Also, comedy of the 2010's relies on being gory and offensive just for the sake of it. I also can't help but compare 90's comedies like "Dumb and Dumber", "Tommy Boy" and "The Nutty Professor" to the comedies of the late 2000's to 2010's, "The Hangover" trilogy, "Tropic Thunder", "This is the End" and "21 Jump Street", because of how comedy has been changed. Come to think of it, comedies from the 2010's make you feel even more depressed, because of the mean-spirited culture, whereas the 90's comedies I mentioned that were considered "gross-out" at the time are now more wholesome and good-natured. They really leave you with a happy feeling after watching them.

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 10 years ago

Fcking PC Nazis ruined everything.

[–] nostairwaydenied 10 years ago

But over the next two decades, that form of comedy has been replaced by juvenile, mean spirited, gross out gags and shock humor. Look at how much has happened in the comedy world over the last 20 years:

In 1994, there was no...

South Park
Family Guy
Curb Your Enthusiasm
There's Something About Mary
American Pie series
Wayans Bros. movies
Apatow movies
Chappelle's Show
Adult Swim

Keep in mind, I enjoy everything I have listed, but the reality of the situation is simple. Raunchy is in...sweet is out. Sad but true.

I absolutely abhor everything about what comedy has turned into. Comedy looks worse than porn. You are %100 right on that. The 90s were prime for amazingly memorable music and great comedies. I hate all the cheap gimmicks done with comedies now.

[–] xPhenomenusx 10 years ago

Just because something's raunchy doesn't mean it's mean spirited.

I just don't think Apatow's work and movies of that nature belong on that list. They are raunchy but not mean spirited at all and they have their share of sweet moments.

[–] nostairwaydenied 10 years ago

Just because something's raunchy doesn't mean it's mean spirited.

I just don't think Apatow's work and movies of that nature belong on that list. They are raunchy but not mean spirited at all and they have their share of sweet moments.

Someone like Don Rickles is an "insult comic" and he would roast his friends and other actors as a shtick. I don't compare what he did with his routines to what Apatow is currently doing to comedy. He's ruining it with perverse "unrated" gags. Nothing sweet, innocent or intelligent about.

It's mean spirited because in all of Apatow's movies someone is always screaming, yelling, fighting with each other in a genuinely angry, bitter and bully-like way. Even in the more harsh jokes that Don used to do, he was never particularly angry at anyone, he had a smart way to the perform substance and was bottom line, doing it out of love. Stoner humor wasn't popular for a reason, it always had a cult following like Half-Baked and Fast Times. Apatow takes the easy way out and writes about gross things.

[–] xPhenomenusx 10 years ago

We'll have to just agree to disagree I guess. Just because something has gross moments doesn't mean that's the at the heart of what the movie is about. I guess it depends on which particular Apatow film, because they vary, but of course they argue and whatnot, they are comedies with dramatic and serious elements. But I don't know where you get the bullying aspect from, it's generally people arguing with their spouses whom they love or their friends, nobody gets along all the time and most married people argue.

[–] nostairwaydenied 10 years ago

There's nothing sweet about Apatow's films. They're always too long, too perverse and too in your face with all the anger.

[–] xPhenomenusx 10 years ago

You are looking at things very black and white. Just because there are gross moments, and if that bothers you fine, but it doesn't mean everything in them is gross and there is no heart to the movies. It sounds like you've seen only bits and pieces of them, and made a judgement only on certain scenes. It's fine that you don't like them, but I don't understand this black and white thinking, just that something has R rated humor and jokes, that it can't have sweet and dramatic moments, because they do.

[–] nostairwaydenied 10 years ago

People think Apatow is the master of comedy, but really, he's no different than Madonna or Lady Gaga, sex and gross gags always sell. It has zero to do with heart or substance. It's black and white because either you hate it or you absolutely love it. ALL of Apatow's movies are unrated in their uncut version. Dumb and Dumber was PG-13 and worked, that's what made it great and memorable. When they released the unrated version of DD1 on DVD it wrecked the classic appeal and sweetness and the overall heart of the story. Imagine if they did that with Napoleon Dynamite? It bothers me that people confuse this with genuine comedy. Did we really need to see an extended version of the hot tub scene where the guys overhear a raunchy couple having sex? Or Lloyd be homophobic while taking to Harry? It's not funny, it's Hangover humor. It's the easy way out. Over-the-top gross is never comedic.

[–] xPhenomenusx 10 years ago

Isn't your avatar from Team America World Police? That had less heart, and equally R rated humor as Apatow's stuff.

[–] badtothebono 10 years ago

He is listed as Producer on maybe dozens of movies, but I think he only wrote &/or directed a few of them. I agree with you on this

someone is always screaming, yelling, fighting with each other in a genuinely angry, bitter and bully-like way

for many of the movies he Produced. I haven't finished watching one of them in years. Maybe the most surprising thing is how he makes L Mann, his wife, look like a complete shrew most of the time.

I would say that it is not so true of 40YOV & Superbad iirc (but he only Produced Superbad, so I'm not sure there is any real consistency based on the writer). Maybe I'm crazy, but, to me, 40YOV & Superbad & Sarah Marshall are 3 of the better comedies of the last 10 yrs. Not the BEST, but far above avg, never mind complete trash like This Is The End.

So, which films do you mean? I almost equate Rogen's presence as a better indicator of all your complaints. And don't get me started on Fatty McBride. Anything he is in should have a warning label & a self-destruct button.

[–] Utpe 9 years ago

I think you pretty much hit the nail right on the head; I can't believe what actually passes for comedy these days.

Let's compare Vacation (1983) to Vacation (2015) - both movies are about a family taking a vacation when a few things go amiss. The one from 1983 had heart and soul without having to rely heavily on all things grotesque.

The newer one, on the other hand, relies completely on shock value. There's one scene in which a woman has a head-on collision with a semi-trailer truck. This probably would not have happened in the original movie, let alone in the 1980s/1990s.

Now that they're rebooting Ghostbusters in 2016, I don't expect it'll have the same type of humor as the original one from 1984 with the new one having Paul Feig and Melissa McCarthy. They pretty much go by modern-day slapstick humor.

Even if the newer movie had the original characters, it would not be the same. 

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Sensei_Rebel 10 years ago

I never saw them as kids trapped in adults in the original. In the deleted scene of the original, Lloyd knew how sex actually worked when you heard him say he'd bang Harry hard if Harry had big boobs. They knew about adult stuff like dates and drinking in the original too. Suddenly in the sequel, they're building a couch fort and saying 'boys rule, girls drool'. Stuff like that doesn't match with the original characters at all. The original characters knew about the adult world, but just acted dumb about it all. In the sequel, they actually are written as if they're kids a bunch of times.

[–] nutsberryfarm 9 years ago

jeff daniels' acting was really bad in this. it was great in the 1st one b/c he treated the character as if he didn't know he was funny. in this one he's clearly winking at each funny line.

🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴🌴

[–] LukeLovesFilm28 10 years ago

Watch the original again. They were both complete insensitive a$$holes at times.

"I guess its true what they say. Although slow and dangerous behind the wheel, the elderly still can serve a purpose.... Don't you go dying on me."

[–] ianberg 10 years ago

DDTo had the same basic plot as DD and rehashed some of the jokes. That was more disappointing to me than whether Lloyd and Harry are meaner than before, which is debatable.