Van Wilder: The Rise of Taj (2006) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
67 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
no surprises, you know you're going to get a lot of college clichés and jokes
MLDinTN6 July 2008
This movie was OK, but certainly no where near as good as a lot of college/party films. The character of Taj is pretty funny as well as his band of misfits in the Cock and Bulls frat. The geeky guy was probably the best. And Pip is certainly a slime ball. Taj comes to England to be a student teacher. He is also the house leader of a frat. He wants to win the Hastings Cup and really stick it to Pip. A lot of the film is Taj charming Pip's girl, Charlotte. There is also Sadie a member of Taj's frat, whom one could say has an ample bussom that is played for laughs.

Overall, there are a few laughs, but it has a long ways to go before I would call it a funny movie.

FINAL VERDICT: If you have to see every movie that is sort of like Animal House or Beerfest, then check this out. Otherwise, I would skip it.
10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
not great..... but not horrible.....
ss97-131 August 2008
First off I must say I loved VW one, it is still one of my favorite movies. It was very funny, entertaining and Ryan Reynolds was just perfect. The acting was great and the Van Wilder character was unique but familiar.

Now that starts me off on the first problem with "VW2:Rise of Taj" and that problem is that Taj just does not bode well as a primary character. And as much as I like Kal Penn he looked uncomfortable trying to maintain "Taj" and not become "Kumar" and not become "Van Wilder" himself. He seemed conflicted with this issue the entire film. Even his accent would stray in and out, at times sounding totally SoCal American.

The plot itself was predictable from the second it started unfolding. You pretty much knew the gist of what was going to happen for the next 90 minutes based on the initial meeting of Taj and Pip (the antagonist) but really we don't watch these types of movies for their plot-twisting and high caliber story. We watch them because they are fun. Or in this case because we hope it is funny.

That brings up the next problem with VW2. It was not all that much fun, especially not compared to VW1. And it was not all that funny. The first hour was pretty boring and choppy, and seemed comfused about where it wanted to go, even though we knew where it was going. It never really seems to be leading anywhere but in circles. But the problem is that while it is leading in circles, the jokes trying to hold it together are not very funny. They had so many chances to go in interesting directions but never did. They seemed to force it all together too quickly, as the movie oddly moves too slowly.

I actually really liked some of the supporting case.... I really liked Lauren Cohen a lot. She was understated and strong at the same time, while doing her best to work within the limits of the script. The goofy cast of misfits turned cool are good, but are really underused by the writers and directors. One of the things that made VW1 so great was the use of secondary players and there was much more unexplored potential there.

But then something happened towards the end of the film. You unexpectedly start to pull for the underdogs to win and you don't have to wait too long for that to happen. Everything buttons up at the end in a more entertaining way then you expect after the first half. A few decent gags work their way into the fold and you have no choice but to smile a little.

You walk away feeling satisfied that the bad guy got what he deserved and all the good guys win. Which if the movie is that bad you generally don't care about at all. And that got me thinking that the movie overall was not as bad as it seemed.

Yes VW2 is a pretty bad movie, but so are a lot of movies. It is not that bad if you don't compare it to VW1. If you go in expecting to see the original feeling that VW1 had you will be disappointed a lot..... if you take VW2 by itself, it is a silly movie that is not all that funny, but still has some redeeming qualities, and a few funny moments. I gave it a 5-of-10 as I would compare it to most middle of the road college comedy movies.

Just don't go in expecting to see Van Wilder. This movie would have done better to drop the "Van Wilder 2" title altogether. It really is not VW2, it is a small secondary character in another movie with very few ties to the original. It would have been better to just toss in the VW association like they did and leave it off the title. I'm pretty sure Lampoon fans would have made the connection without VW being in the title. compare it to VW1 or it will pale in comparison....
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Worth a look if you have literally nothing else to do for 90mins
tommorusso-124 June 2007
This is not a great film, and certainly not a worthy sequel to the hysterical first film.

The lack of any other characters from the first is a killing blow to this film.

Its worth a look for the dog "ballsack" and for Taj. But otherwise its little more than giggle-worthy. Also, there is an incredible lack of research into real English society, This is the weakest Lampoon film i have ever seen.

But worth a look when you're free

Needed Ryan Reynolds.
12 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Don't watch this
rockeymallavia2 December 2006
First let me start by saying I was a huge Van Wilder fan and enjoy all of Kal Penn's work, be it in Van Wilder, Harold & Kumar, and even American Desi. This film, however, was a disaster. The plot is unimaginative; Taj arrives in a British university and leads a misfit group of losers against a wealthy, socially elite house in an intra-fraternal competition. The object of Taj's affection unfortunately winds up being the girlfriend of his biggest antagonist, the head of the rival fraternity house (see the original Van Wilder for a blatantly similar romantic situation).

This just wasn't funny at all. I crack up pretty easily and laughed less than 5 or 6 times during an hour an a half. And even then, I was forcing it just because I felt like I forked down $10, and if I didn't even laugh once, I'd have been bamboozled of my money. The only redeeming scenes are those featuring Taj's parents, who are in the film for less than 10 minutes and managed to pull my rating from a 1 to a 2. Every other joke was corny, unfunny, and otherwise dull. The writing and directing were so uninspired that it was actually painful to watch this movie. The problem with this film was half conceptual too, since Taj was only funny in Van Wilder in the limited doses we got. Goofy Indian accents aren't enough to carry an hour and a half long poorly written train wreck, and that's what we saw here.

The thing that really bothered me was that I could feel Kal Penn's career dying before my eyes. I really don't know how anyone who read this script could agree to do it, especially him, because he was the only actor with a future in this movie. He had at least moderate buzz going for him after a string of decent performances, and then releases this nonsense. I can only hope that movie studios will forgive him, because it was difficult to watch this.
93 out of 132 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Oh my god
Confidante7721 January 2007
After making a great supporting role in Van Wilder and being pretty damn funny in Harold and Kumar, I had kind of high hopes for Kal Penn, but Oh God does this movie suck.

Short of changing the actor who plays the lead character for a sequel, the worst thing you can do when making a sequel is get rid of the main character who is in this case also the title character (how can it be called Van wilder 2 if Van Wilder isn't freaking in it?).

A brief synopsis of the story is that Taj goes to England and starts trying to do Van's thing in a posh college, he also somehow gets involved in a dog show. Sounds pretty lame, doesn't it? Well, yeah it is. Not only is it not funny at all, but again there's the completely stupid British stereotypes flying around as if people even found them funny the first time round.

Don't waste your time
61 out of 92 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Nothing but lowbrow humor
JoeDaniels1 December 2006
Taj Mahal Badalandabad (played by Kal Penn) had a few funny moments in the movie (i.e. jokes regarding the former British aristocracy in India), but the movie almost nothing but sex jokes for the entire movie. This sort of humor included nearly a dozen different euphemisms for the female anatomy (I lost count), and countless jokes about how to "score" with the opposite gender. I laughed at the first few sex jokes, but by the end of the movie, I was really tired of hearing crude jokes.

If this sort of humor is appealing to you, then you'll enjoy this movie. Otherwise, don't bother seeing it. Overall, I felt "Harold and Kumar" was much more humorous. I'm a fan of Kal Penn's, but unfortunately, I cannot recommend this movie.

Brief Plot Synopsis (no spoilers below): Taj heads to Camford University (name taken from Cambridge and Oxford) in England to pursue his higher education and to follow in his fathers footsteps. He believes that he has been accepted to the prestigious fraternal guild "Fox and Hounds". However, upon arriving at the University, he is told by a "Fox and Hounds" member (nicknamed "Pip") that he was mistakenly sent this acceptance letter.

Taj is forced to become a teacher's assistant at the "Barn" residence, which contains a group of social outcasts. Pip and the other "Fox and Hounds" members treat Taj and his house mates very poorly. Determined to help the members of the Barn residence gain acceptance, Taj starts the "Cock and Bulls" fraternal guild. He hopes that the "Cock and Bulls" guild will win the Camford Cup, which is an annual academic, social, and athletic competition between fraternities. The bitterness between Taj and Pip only increases as the fraternities compete in several competitions to earn points towards the Camford Cup.

I cannot say anything more about the plot, or else I'll spoil it for you.
18 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
It really wasn't that bad
brian09088813 May 2007
The bad reviews are kind of astonishing. I'm not sure what people were expecting for a National Lampoon's flick. I mean, the things we can compare it to are: "Adam and Eve," "Going the Distance," and "Barely Legal." The series is now just a raunch-fest of low-brow humor. If that's not what you're into, why did you watch the movie? The soundtrack of this movie was priceless, and people who point out the formulaic nature of the story should realize that it was the point. It wasn't a film that took itself seriously. It was a NATIONAL LAMPOONS movie. The series hasn't involved any family friendly humor since Christmas Vacation.

It's funny for a laugh, and I think people need to lighten up a bit. I'm tough to please, and I thought the movie was worth a few chuckles. The final scene (which I won't spoil, but can tell you it has to do with swords) was the coup de grâce for this underrated film. I give it a 7, out of 10.
43 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Not a total train wreck... but probably should be avoided
nunyerbiz28 April 2007
You know things aren't going well when the title character doesn't make an appearance in the 'sequel'. As much as I enjoyed Kal Penn in the first Van Wilder (and Harold and Kumar), he isn't given much to work with here.

The script is awful, just brutal. I think I laughed twice throughout the whole thing. I'm sure nobody is watching this type of movie for compelling characters and riveting plot, but when almost every single joke falls completely flat... every other blemish on the script becomes glaring. There are completely nonsensical subplots thrown about that reference secondary characters that you forgot were introduced in the first place, a silly competition that never makes any sense and an embarrassing turn by the bulldog that made his infamous scene from the first "Van Wilder" look like high art. If you sat a twelve year old in a room with a typewriter and told him to write "Revenge of the Nerds in England" he couldn't do much worse than what's given here. The worst part is that the movie gets consistently less funny as it goes on. The final 15 minutes or so is cringe inducing.

The direction isn't much better. The whole thing has a look of a made for cable TV movie you'd see on a kid's network. Not only is Kal Penn inconsistent with his accent from scene to scene, sometimes it's every other line. On a few occasions, I couldn't even make out the dialog. The actors clearly didn't give a clean read but it made through to the final cut anyways. I realize this was made on the cheap, but you can tell the folks behind the camera didn't put forth much effort. Either that or they didn't have the time. Regardless, it's not pretty to watch.

The only saving grace are the actors. Despite Kal Penn not bothering to hold his accent, everybody on screen appears to be having a good time. Even if everything else is awful, I can't hate a movie where it at least appears that the actors enjoyed their work. They all seemed determined to give their best despite what they all must have known was horrendous material. Kal and the female lead (Lauren Cohan) admirably build some chemistry with little help from their lines. Holly Davidson also steals a couple of scenes as the "cockney" member of the group.

While I didn't think this was a complete disaster, you'd be wise to avoid it.
17 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
This Movie doesn't deserve the bad rap it is getting
MadMovieMax7 January 2007
When I saw that Van Wilder 2 The Rise of Taj was listed as the 4th worst movie and Kung Foo From Beyond the Grave had a 7. I had to write. This wasn't as good as the first one but it still had many laughs. Kal Penn was a laugh riot as well as the other British outcasts, although I am a bit of an Anglophile. Although I will grant you this It probably is a movie not to see in the theaters but at home with friends and drunk or stoned.

Nothing can compare to the doggie spunk pastries but I actually believe that the foil was better in this movie than in the first. The first foil looked like if Ashton Kutcher was dropped on his head one too many times as a child but this pompous British Birkshire Hunt was an actual huy I wanted to see humiliated. This was a solid comedy.
16 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Please don't put yourself through this...
valechadwick2 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I want to begin by saying that I actually feel embarrassed to say that I went to this movie on its opening night in CT, needless to say it did not make a favorable impression on me. I realize that I was asking for it just by watching a movie with a title like "The Rise of Taj" that wasn't the name of a documentary about a palace in India, but now that I'm through the hellish experience I feel obligated to warn as many as possible about the mental anguish you will go through if you see this craptastic movie. Oh, and my condolences if you have already been tricked into seeing it.

I checked 'contains spoiler' in this comment but I have faith that I will NOT be spoiling anything for anyone. The plot is about as formulaic as it gets for a movie about young people going to college and the warm feelings you may get from the relative safety of a painfully predictable storyline are about the only comforting thoughts you are going to experience... IF you can sit through it (I dare you). This movie made me cringe from the moment in the opening scene when "Taj" starts waxing philosophical to the dog with scrotal elephantitis, to the obligatory sword-fighting climax, when the hate-me-I'm-a-prick antagonist gets his ancestors' cremains in the face. Now those two sight gags may have been funny at some time on their own, but like a s... sandwich everything in between still reeks.

Imagine, for a moment a giant staircase where you must look at travel brochures of London or slides of a dog show for five minutes after which time you are forced to jump onto the next step and land squarely on your head. Repeat this process 19 times and you've got the essence of the movie down; lull, followed by a sharp decline in your personal well-being anytime any colorful characters opens their mouth to recite from the most boring, headache-inducing script ever made. VW2's script has enough clichè and stereotype reinforcing to eclipse an entire season's worth of MTV's reality show 'Next' and the one where Xzibit whores himself out... combined!

Flaming aside, the fact that movies like 'The Rise of Taj' are made and seen by idiots (myself included) is very depressing. I encourage everyone to make their own judgments about this and every film, but I feel very strongly that seeing it and actually enjoying it would require you to be either under 18, or someone with the intelligence of perhaps a blade of grass.
18 out of 33 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Better than I expected...
detecthief1 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Before I checked out this movie I read the reviews first and they weren't good. So I thought that this movie is going to suck but out of boredom I popped the movie in and watched it.

I find that this film is actually good, pretty good actually. Don't think of it as a sequel to Van Wilder but think of it as a spin-off. You won't get funny but awfully true life lessons here, just plain old humor.

The only things I didn't quite like about the film is that Taj came out as invincible/lucky because of the dog food and test results and also because it lead to a swordfight. I know it got ridiculous didn't it? But overall it's a good film. Just relax, take it slow, and let the film roll.
12 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Fun, its just not Van Wilder, thats the problem
destroyerwod4 October 2010
To be honest, you take this movie as a stand alone, its correct, sure its stereotyped at max, but which comedy dosen't do that? Especially the ones setting in University. If you are watching these kind of movies hoping to see reel stuff, you will see students in class and studying 90% of the time...would be a fun movie right? lol. Anyway basically i am a huge fan of Van Wilder, and without Van, it wasen't Van Wilder... thats the problem. This movie should have do better without the title it got, i know they tried to capitalize on the name, but problem is that people where just so much expecting a similar movie to Van Wilder that in the end... it didn't do as good. So personally yeah i enjoyed it, not as much as the first movie and neither as the third, but still enough to have a good time.
3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Don't waste your time
jsorenson77713 January 2007
Kal Penn is OK, but the rest of this is formulaic, inane (not in a funny way) and an insult to film. The story is predictable and there is nothing here that surprises or shocks. It is a copy of other idiotic films and it is a bit more idiotic, but less humorous, than the worst of the films.

This is not bad enough to fit into the great bad film genre, with "Ishtar" and "Rhinestone" and Ed Wood's original stuff. It is just bad.

Anybody can make a film now and anybody can write favorable comments. Probably the positive comments were written by those who stand to make some money from the rest of us renting this turkey. Skip this one.
22 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Taj MaTerrible
paw781 December 2006
I received a free preview ticket for this and should have stayed home. This was just an awful waste of time and money. I have to think that there is someone out there who could have used the studio's money for something better. There were actually people laughing uncontrollably at a guy getting hit in the groin with a paint ball! It was painfully obvious that this was getting ready to happen. It was like a bad sitcom pilot that went on for way too long. The only good thing here is that there are some fairly attractive females. Oh well, I guess this just wasn't for me. I really shouldn't be complaining though, it was free after all...
39 out of 83 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Best left alone
hollymell11 September 2007
Considering how funny Van Wilder's Party Liaison was and that the character of Taj was great in it you would expect more from this follow up. It's basically Americans having a laugh at the English the college is a mix of Oxford and Cambridge with toffy nosed types trying to dupe the American. He ends up with a cockney slag, a geek and a drunken Irishman and boosts their confidence. Taj falls for the toffy nosed boys girlfriend and inevitably she falls for him. Predictable, not funny...In fact Taj is the only good thing in the whole movie the rest of the the "never heard ofs" are dire. Not worth the movie cost to rent it. Believe me
8 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Van Wilder 2: The rise AND FALL of Taj
drsatindersingh3 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I had experienced many emotions whilst watching this film. Here are a few of my thoughts in no particular order: Once in every generation comes a genre defining cinematic epic. I have been privileged to watch 'Van Wilder 2: The Rise of Taj' while it is still a relatively unknown despite the enormous success of its predecessor.

Firstly, coming from an Asian background myself, I found the difficulties and challenges faced by Taj in a elite British university corresponded almost exactly to my experiences as a undergraduate at an Oxbridge University. Rarely does a film script capture the essence of academia in such prestigious institution. I often look back at my life and remember the numerous fencing competitions I entered and dog shows I attended to gain a respectable reputation from my peers only be thwarted in my attempts by an aristocrat with canine Viagra. Almost biographical, I often wiped the tears away from my face so I could continue watching the movie.

From a purely cinematic perspective, I found few flaws in the film, and at points it reminded me of the majestic direction found only in Coppola's 'Apocalypse Now' and Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey'. If only the respected film institutions representing and honouring Western cinema appreciated such inspiring and ground-breaking work. I often thought of making my own movie, but after watching 'Van Wilder 2: The Rise of Taj' I can confidently say I have seen this art at perfection and cannot hope to improve upon it. Hopefully future generations will look upon this classic work of art and recognise it for the masterpiece it really is.

The scarily accurate portrayal of students, the best in their generation, at such an elite institution could only be achieved by actors of the highest calibre working at their hardest thoroughly researching the polymaths they bring to screen. Much of their work previously ignored, hopefully this film will elevate them to greater things and Oscars are surely looming. This film is truly a showcase of talent the industry has to offer.

I look forward to seeing more movies like this one, but deep down I know that this is a once in a lifetime cinematic opportunity standing aside films such as Gone with the Wind and Casablanca.

For some reason I was looking forward to watching Van Wilder 2 : The Rise of Taj, despite the negative feedback and media coverage it received. Perhaps it was a fault of mine, feeling nostalgic about my college days, hoping that this film would re-kindle my undergraduate experiences of watching college classics such as 'American Pie' and 'Road Trip'.

Sadly this film lived up to its reputation. If film making was a crime, then Mort Nathan is a murderer and MGM the people who handed him the pistol. Watching this film was like witnessing the execution of Kal Penn's career, despite his best efforts to exonerate the poor performance of the actors around him. Why "that Asian guy from Van Wilder" decided to undertake a film with a script recycled from its predesessor is beyond reason. This corpse of a movie is best remained buried in an unmarked grave so that no-one will have to endure the feeling that they have not only wasted 97 minutes of their life, but leave the theatre knowing something has died deep within them. It you manage to keep your eyes open to witness the horror of celluloid, then be prepared for the post-traumatic stress disorder you will develop following this film, with flashbacks of badly acted college students with no emotional depth haunting your dreams. If the 97 minutes wasted watching this movie were not enough, the subsequent 97 minutes writing this review as a warning to others may provide me with some sort of satisfaction that some good has come out of me seeing this atrocity.

Like my review, the film is full of contradiction, least of all Van Wilder not actually being in it. My friend and I started punching each other to keep us awake during this film.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Decent film, loved the soundtrack
tbdavep24 February 2007
It was a decent film, however really riding on the Van Wilder popularity. Kal Penn does a decent job, but in the back of my head, his character from Harold and Kumar keeps overtaking his role as Taj. Interesting pranks, the film has a definite college/b-grade feeling and atmosphere. The character development seems a bit rushed and not thought out completely but you get a good idea of each of the supporting characters roles. I loved the soundtrack and am searching for the name/artist of the song that plays in the background while they are on the bus tour of London. Anyone know the name/band/group? Much appreciated and thanks in advance!
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Why wasn't this sent straight to DVD?
RunningSensation3 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I had some expectations that this film would be at least tolerable. However, shortly into the film, which I only paid $4 to see, the disappointments began to appear on the screen. I enjoy Kal Penn, and was hoping that he'd be able to continue his humorous Taj character from the first film. In this movie, there may have been a couple humorous parts that I chuckled at, but the minimal laughter that I expressed was usually directed at the complete absurdity of the plot. The plot was very, very similar to the first film. The few differences that I noticed were that it was in a different location, and the prime players of the film were altered. I would further explain the similarities, but do not wish to ruin it for anyone who still has the desire to view this film for some reason. The jokes seemed forced, the plot was unoriginal, as stated prior, and the movie overall had no purpose in being released to the theaters. The film, also, has little reason to ever be released to DVD; however, inevitably when it is, a price of more than $1.05 is too expensive. The one somewhat positive aspect of the film was that there were attractive females throughout, but I still was very upset that I paid to see this film.
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Sticks to the formula and hidden male fantasies...
kooleshwar21 March 2014
We all know the formula of the "Teen Sex comedy sequel" and what to expect of it....

When i say formula....i mean a winning formula ....because i didn't really expect or want anything else from this movie and nor should anyone else.

If anything this movie was less raunchy than i would have liked it to be and probably thats the only genuine criticism i have of this movie.. (obviously people who watch foreign films,.. tend to rate and opine most on any site and thats apparent in the skew of ratings in favour of dramas vs comedies).

So which hidden male fantasies has this movie covered.

1)The British accent......and its not my colonial hangover.....just hearing girls with British accents does something to men....when you combine that with pretty or hot....

2) The other guys girl......countless studies....same conclusion....

3)The ugly guys who gets the pretty girl....I'm fat and i want Scarlett Johansson to fall for me.

4)Giving it to the bully....it may not be a sexual fantasy but there was always this guy.....and we all wonder now....

5)Being the big dog in school.

6) A girl who sees the inner goodness behind the asshole.....seriously I'm a good guy...i just want to be what i am.....and super sexy girls should see that...

7)Happy Endings....its not just the massage parlours where guys want it.....i don't know about sexual orientation ....but most guys are in the closet teen-rom-com lovers....(when its not girl centric)....

I could have spoken about the wide range of quality in other aspects of film making in this movie...

But seriously unless a "Teen Sex Comedy Sequel" completely sucks at most of them.....do you really care....

You know what you want....go for it....
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Lasted 30 minutes then switched off
junaidaslam15 April 2007
I have watched such cinematic abortions such as Showgirls, Gigli, Glitter, Police Academy films and low budget bollywood films with no plot or three different plots. Why? Because I'm a sadist when it comes to bad films.

A "friend" brought it over after work and it was so awful we zoned out after 30 minutes and started talking.Lets just say the conversation we had would have made a much better film but thats not to be repeated here as children may read.

The film was predictable and pointless and I have lost 30 minutes I will never get back.

I'm so annoyed by the film i am still planning my revenge on the "friend" that brought it over to my house.
13 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The Greatest, Most Ambitious Motion Picture Ever Shot
will_blanchard7617 December 2006
I can not put into words how great "Van Wilder 2: The Rise of Taj" is. I have always said that cinema is in an "artistic coma" right now, and that it is impossible to make a movie greater than "Chinatown" or "2001: A Space Odyssey," but this film just proved me wrong.

I have already sent a letter to the American Film Institute asking that they edit their "Top 100 Films" list and put this movie right above "Citizen Kane." If Fellini were alive today, he would cry upon watching this film. When the credits began to roll at the end of this movie, I felt like I could hear the ghosts of Stanley Kubrick, Frederico Fellini, Sergio Leone, Alfred Hitchcock, Francois Truffaut, Orson Welles, and D.W. Griffith standing up to applaud.

Watching this film is, in the words of Will Ferrel as James Lipton, like looking into the face of God, having him smile back at you and saying, "You are my finest creation."
86 out of 176 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Raises the average for National Lampoon.
kierz-225 March 2007
Considering its pedigree the most remarkable thing about this, even with its 'unrated' version is how tasteful it is. One poster mentioned how it compared with the Police Academy movies and in that comparison the Police Academy movies were actually more sexist and racist. Women were objectified in the Police Academy movies far more rather than being participants in their own sexuality and the tokenism of the black characters in the Police Academy movies was blatant while this movie does a much better job of exposing the classist and racist attitudes of higher institutions. A little more work in the script department and another comic talent or two would have helped but considering the average of the recent National Lampoon movies this one raises, not lowers the average.
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
formula movie with likable character,-bad message telling
drystyx31 December 2007
I don't think anyone will argue that this is the basic formula movie. New guy takes girl away from snotty rich kid. That works okay. In fact, the character of the lead is well done. He is rather likable and believable (for this sort of circus atmosphere), and has the impish likability of Cary Grant mixed with the very caring and concerned character of a James Stewart. The gags are juvenile, but okay. Nothing really bad. Certainly better than most of National Lampoon's bombs. Now the bad news. The idea behind the movie is lame and trite. We have a character who teaches students to throw History books away because they were written long ago. That may work for Science, Math, or certain subjects, but History is something that really becomes bad when rewritten, by definition. We already have people wanting to rewrite History, and in a hundred years, don't be surprised to see History books portray Manson as an idol, Jesus as a guy who had babies with Mary Magdeline, and Moses as a myth. Yes, some people already believe in these crocks because of people who would ban History books. That said, it goes for okay cheap entertainment that when your friends make you sit through it, you won't feel very bad.
6 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Not a very good movie
lbatista8117 May 2007
It gets off to a decent start. I thought the film would be good first 10 minutes in but after that it became more and more painfully obvious this one was going to blow. This was supposed to be a comedy and it just does not deliver enough laughs. The original Van Wilder was a much funnier movie. This movie relies on a lot of college film clichés but doesn't add anything new to the genre. Kal Penn manages to hold up the weak material for a little but eventually the movie just sinks. Kudos to Kal because he is always entertaining, but this one sucked. The only redeeming quality in this film are the two female leads, they both provide nice eye candy. I would not recommend this.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Letdown
nerm00023 March 2007
I'm brown, British, loved Van Wilder and Kal Pen but this film is utter sh*t.

Unfunny, unimaginative, badly directed and written.

As an initial idea it's great (that's why I went out of my way to see it) but the execution is nothing but shockingly poor.

The acting is poorly directed whist I have to say I expected worse from the accents (remember those terrible British accents by the "diarrhoea twins" in Harold and Kumar?

The dialogue was just offensive and I don't mean in a racial term (see above - I'm brown.) just p*ss Poor. Even Kal Penn's Hindi comments were just offensive and unfunny.

I wonder if this is an example of one of those projects producers and studio execs use as a vehicles to get laid?
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed