I thought about "Dumb & Dumber" because a lot of people held up that 1994 Farrelly brothers comedy as a shining example of the dumbing down of America. These same people were concerned that the movie, which starred Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels as two dumb guys, would somehow cause an irreparable crack in the metaphorical dam that has been protecting us all these years from a torrent of dumb movies.

I believed 14 years ago that those people were wrong. I would like to amend that assessment. I now accept that they were only half-wrong. I don't think that the national debate that was triggered by "Dumb & Dumber" was as much off-the-mark as it was premature.

I also thought that they were wrong because there have been dumb movies around for as long as there have been movies. The Three Stooges made a lot of funny films, but they didn't make a lot of smart films.

However, the half-right part of the "Dumb & Dumber" argument is that we are faced with a plethora of dumb movies these days. And I use the word

"plethora" intentionally to distinguish myself from the people who make dumb movies.

The dumb movies seem to outnumber the smart movies by a margin that I could calculate if only I were smarter. Perhaps there is a crack in the dam.

In fact, there are so many dumb comedies these days that I think they should carry a warning label. Moviegoers' precious time and hard-earned money should be guarded against unscrupulous filmmakers.

I suggest that a blue-ribbon panel of clowns, buffoons and drunken frat boys be selected to convene on a regular basis to review upcoming comedies. I'm limiting this discussion to comedies for no better reason than they annoy me more than dumb dramas.

Of course, this is something the Motion Picture Association of America should be doing, but it apparently is too busy trying to distinguish between a PG-13 and an R rating to spend time saving us from dumb comedies.

If this newly appointed dumb-movie panel doesn't understand the movie being reviewed, it will be passed through under the assumption that it is an intelligent comedy. For instance, "Groundhog Day" would not fall under the panel's jurisdiction because it contains no fart jokes.

However, if the panel laughs at the movie, it then would be responsible for determining which of the following warning labels the film comedy should receive. Once the label has been affixed, moviegoers are on their own.

DUMB COMEDY: A dumb comedy has its heart in the right place. The filmmakers tried to make a smart comedy, but weren't capable. The trouble lies mostly in the script. An example might be "Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay," a pleasant enough sequel to the funnier, but still dumb, "Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle." Other films I'd place in this category include Rodney Dangerfield's "Back to School," Bill Murray's "Caddyshack" and the first "Austin Powers" movie.

STUPID COMEDY: This is a movie that insults on many levels. It doesn't have the sweetness of a dumb movie. It is made by people out to make a buck by following a formula established by earlier stupid comedies. You've seen it all before, and probably better. An example might be "Wild Hogs," the mid-life crisis biker movie that was clearly an attempt to separate you from the money in your wallet. There is nothing inherently wrong with the Hollywood profit motive, but is it asking too much for the filmmakers to pretend to care about telling a coherent story? The second "Austin Powers" movie should have gotten this label.

IDIOTIC COMEDY: This is the real problem with Hollywood comedies today. Most of the dumb movies that truly offend fall into this category. Where do I start? "Norbit"? "Witless Protection"? The third "Austin Powers" movie? These movies are lewd and crude for one reason — the filmmakers couldn't think of a clever line of dialogue. These movies give broad comedy a bad name. They are a waste of valuable screen space.

And there are at least three more coming this summer.

Reach Barry Koltnowat bkolt now@ocregister.com.

Font Resize