"Stoopid is as stoopid does," claimed Tom Hanks in "Forrest Gump". But even Forrest's poverty-stricken IQ would struggle to come up with an idea as stoopid as "Dumber & Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd".
With two unknown actors playing the roles previously filled by Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels and absolutely no sign of original writer-directors the Farrelly Brothers, this belated prequel to "Dumb & Dumber" is a really re... re..., er, special movie.
It's not the first time a prequel's stretched the bounds of credibility. Back in 1979, the suits at Twentieth Century Fox decided to cash in on the box office bonanza of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" with "Butch and Sundance: The Early Years". Since it went into production ten years after the first film and original stars Paul Newman and Robert Redford were too old to play the gun-slinging heroes in their youthful prime, Fox drafted in Tom Berenger and William Katt instead.
The economics were simple: take a successful movie property, cast cheap unknowns in the lead, sit back, and watch the profits roll in. It didn't matter that the end result was little more than a shameless cash-in that didn't have half the charm of the original: the prequel was born.
Ever since Butch and Sundance, Hollywood's had a passion for prequels. Mostly that's because they're a favourite with hack screenwriters who work out of the creative equivalent of the Gobi Desert. Which explains how throwaway cash-ins like Chuck Norris' "Missing in Action 2: The Beginning", "The Scorpion King" (the prequel to "The Mummy Returns"); and "From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman's Daughter" (a prequel set 100 years before the original film) came into existence.
You could hardly call George Lucas' "Star Wars" prequels throwaway cash-ins, but you'd be hard pressed to say anything complimentary about them, either. If "The Phantom Menace" and "Attack of the Clones" prove anything, it's that back story should remain just that. If David Lynch had followed this dictum, we'd also have been spared the head-scratching histrionics of "Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me", an unnecessary prequel to the cherry pie-munching TV series.
Still, there has been the odd prequel that's proved cleverer than "Dumb & Dumberer". Film fans like to quote "The Godfather: Part II" as proof that there is such a thing as a good sequel, but it's actually a sequel come prequel (which makes its success doubly impressive), with Robert De Niro playing the young Vito Corleone. That's proved the exception to the rule, though: "The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas" is far more typical prequel fare.
Talking of horror movies... Of all Hollywood's forays into prequelitus, it's the horror film that's racked up the most entries, and some of the most lamentable productions.
From "Ring 0: Birthday" to "Psycho IV: The Beginning" - and upcoming plopbusters like "Blair Witch 3: The Curse" - horror movies are the prequel's main stomping ground. Presumably because it's easier to resurrect the dead in a prequel than a sequel (unless of course, you're talking about the "Halloween" or "Friday the 13th" franchises).
So, the next time someone tells you that 2003 is the year of sequel, be sure to point out that 2004 looks set to be the year of the prequel, with "Lecter Variation: The Story of Young Hannibal Lecter", "The Exorcist: The Beginning", and a rumoured backstory to "Ginger Snaps" already on the cards.
Maybe this prequel business isn't as dumb as it sounds.
