Critics’ reviews

Dumb and Dumber (1994)

9 reviews from 9 publications. Critics’ score 69: 4 positive, 3 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Dumb and Dumber

69
Positive
4
Mixed
3
Negative
0

Most critics find Dumb and Dumber cheerfully crude and funny enough to make its appetite for toilet humour worth indulging. Praise centres on Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels, whose commitment to the silliness gives even basic gags a lift. Daniels draws particular approval for his comic timing and his contrast with Carrey’s more frantic performance. The warmer reviews also find a good-natured quality beneath the bodily functions, with the leads’ relationship helping to sustain the laughs.

The reservations concern uneven jokes, repetition and a road-trip plot that offers few surprises. Carrey’s mugging divides opinion, while some reviews find the staging less reliable than the performers. The New York Times is notably cooler, stressing the reliance on scatology and misspellings despite acknowledging effective moments. The Hollywood Reporter likewise sees a backward step for Carrey, though it still finds that a substantial share of the jokes land.

Radio Times
★★★★ · John Ferguson
80

With Jim Carrey there are no half measures; you'll either love this as one of his finest moments or loathe it as mind-numbing Hollywood cinema. Even the harshest critic will find chuckles in this cheerfully moronic mix of slapstick, sight gags and toilet humour.

Read the full review →
Variety
14 December 1994 · Leonard Klady
80*

The review calls it a good-natured celebration of stupidity and bodily functions that delivers high-gloss lowbrow laughs for general audiences. Strong performances, especially from Jeff Daniels, and slick production help it escape the gutter and point to commercial success.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
16 December 1994 · Peter Rainer
70*

The critic describes the film as a heap of dumb gags heavy on bathroom humor and gross-out moments that works best when the stars fully commit to the ridiculousness. It has a love of silliness and more laughs than some contemporaries despite misfired staging.

Read the full review →
RogerEbert.com
16 December 1994 · Roger Ebert
65*

The critic finds the film mostly silly with uneven gags but praises one standout laugh and Jim Carrey's growing appeal as a comic original. The relationship between the two leads provides some of the fun amid the formulaic road-trip plot.

Read the full review →
Time Out
14 August 2014 · TCh
65*

The two dumbest guys in the world drive across America to return a lady's briefcase containing a ransom. Carrey mugs too hard but the force is with him, like a less recherché Jerry Lewis, and the film avoids romanticising its no-hoper protagonists.

Read the full review →
The New York Times
16 December 1994 · Stephen Holden
45*

The review sees the movie as a crude, scatological comedy that lives up to its title, with Jim Carrey channeling a Jerry Lewis-like manic energy. It notes the humor's reliance on bodily functions and misspellings but acknowledges some effective comic moments.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Caroline Westbrook

The critic finds the film a delight of non-stop, toilet-fixated, daft humour that will cause laugh-induced incontinence among UK audiences. She singles out the cast's gusto, comic timing and Jeff Daniels' unexpected comic talent for praise.

Read the full review →
The Hollywood Reporter
16 December 1994 · Frank Scheck

The critic finds the film a step backward from Jim Carrey's prior work like The Mask, with repetitive gags centered on the leads' extreme stupidity, though a high percentage of jokes land. Daniels provides effective laconic contrast to Carrey, and the gross-out humor is noted as likely to appeal to kids.

Read the full review →
Digital Spy
20 December 2014 · Ben Rawson-Jones
80*

The critic finds the film has a timeless quality with goofy brilliance that transcends its 1990s origins. The incredible physical performances by Carrey and Daniels ensure the crude humor never feels nasty.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate