YouHeart I gave it a 7.5 out of 10

ShangLuda Admirable film.

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Justina The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

adonis98-743-186503 Twenty years since their first adventure, Lloyd and Harry go on a road trip to find Harry's newly discovered daughter, who was given up for adoption. Dumb and Dumber To often gets criticized a lot and i can see why but on the same time even tho it got released 20 years ago after the original it doesn't disappoint, both Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels are great just like they were back in 1994. The jokes are most of the time a hit and Rachel Melvin who played Penny is terrific in her role. There's some nice homage to the original as well and although it touches upon nostalgia a lot it doesn't get overstuffed with it. Old Characters return and New ones make a nice impression like Penny and Fraida (played by Kathleen Turner) and some cameos like Bill Murray's or even Paul Blackthorne as a Doctor in the end. The soundtrack is also great and the little end credits where they made a little video mixing both films? was a nice touch to it. Now as far as flaws go? some particular choices of humor were a bit disgusting as well (like the farts for example) plus i didn't like the characters of Rob Riggle and Laurie Holden that much but in the end for a sequel that was released 20 years after? It wasn't that bad it's of course not a Masterpiece and if you expect it to be as good as the first film? you will be disappointed but i think that we can all agree that it's miles better than the 2003 prequel Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd. Overall Dumb and Dumber To although it's not as good as the original film it's still miles better than both critics and audiences made it sound like and with the right expectations? you might enjoy it as well just like i did. (7.4/10)

rsthunder When you make a movie to late in the ballgame like this one, well you get a decent movie but not great, the characters were a little bit off from the original but what do you expect after almost 20 years. I really didn't care for the plot, I am sure they could of come up with something better than what they did so it was decent but could of been so much better had they made this movie 15 or 20 years ago!

snowlvr-43130 I won't get into all of the details of why this movie is so bad, others have done that. I wanted to like this, the first was so bad it was good. Unfortunately "humor" these days is rarely humorous and this movie is no different. The biggest disappointment is that anyone would think the scene with the poor dog is funny. Bestiality, even just implied, is NEVER funny and should never be mainstream, shame on Hollywood for thinking that's okay. It was disgusting and for this reason alone you should avoid this movie.

Dominik Treadway Yes, I am a huge fan of the first movie, it made my childhood. When they announced that they were making a sequel, I was kind of happy and yet afraid that they would ruin the first movie, because most sequels do. The first time I watched this, I'd say the only reason I was happy to be seeing it was because it was just nostalgic to see Harry and Lloyd, Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels back on the big screen together. I didn't laugh that much, but the ending credits made me want to cry when they rolled footage from the first movie.However, the more and more times I watch this movie, the funnier it is to me.. If you really pay attention to Jim Carrey's acting, it gets funnier and funnier. I'm not completely disappointed with this sequel at all and these movies will always be my favorite.I see all these people who are writing reviews about how horrible the movie is and I just feel bad. It's really not a horrible movie. I loved seeing Harry and Lloyd together again.