Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde (2003) Reviews

• Sucked in ways I can barely explain

  hannah-1642006-01-22

  I had the misfortune of seeing this movie while on a wonderful trip to Greece. As the 'plot' rolled out, I sank lower and lower in my seat. I was actually embarrassed to be North American. Consider: Elle goes on a mission to find her *dog's* parents so they can attend her wedding. No, not her dog's wedding. *Her* wedding. Now, think about that. I guess this is sort of a spoiler, except it's revealed in the first ten minutes, because it's the whole premise. Yes, that's the peak. It goes downhill from there. I felt particularly annoyed with Reece Witherspoon. Now, she strikes me as a fairly intelligent young woman. I love most of her stuff. I enjoyed Legally Blonde I. I had high hopes. How did this happen?! Was it just about the money? Was it a bet? A dare? Dumb dumb dumb. To be honest, I would *rather* have been attending a dog's wedding.

• Jaw-droppingly awful - one of 2003's worst (*)

  Ronin472003-10-20

  The first "Legally Blonde", with its "ditzy girl with a heart of gold does well" storyline was basically a rip-off of "Clueless", but it wasn't bad. It had a funny central idea, more than a few solid laughs, and a really entertaining lead character. This sloppy, lamely plotted, cash-in sequel has none of those things. Reese Witherspoon, rapidly losing any edginess she used to have, is back as Elle Woods, the pink-loving, fashion conscious lawyer. She's about to get married to her boyfriend from the last movie (played by Luke Wilson) and in trying to invite her dog's parents to the wedding (that's right, her DOG'S PARENTS - remember what I said about the movie being "lamely plotted"?), she finds out that the dog's mother is being held prisoner by a cosmetics company that is pro-animal testing. So...Elle decides to go to Washington to take on animal testing. And I wish I was in a different theater. What we have here is a comedy with no good jokes. Not a single one. This movie's idea of "comedy" is for Elle to find out her chihuahua is gay. And then in the very next scene, the chihuahua is wearing a studded leather vest. Sigh. Also, it's dumb. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but there's a big difference between movies that go about being dumb in a very smart, witty way (see "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle") and a movie like "Legally Blonde 2", which is just plain dopey. The story is idiotic, characters change their minds and motivations for no reason other than to fit into where the plot is going, and everything wraps up in a way that is nauseatingly phony. I've pretty much given up on Reese Witherspoon. Where is the cool, edgy actress that starred in movies like "Election", "Freeway" and "American Psycho"? Abducted by Hollywood to make useless, vanilla movies like this, apparently. I, for one, would love to see her character from "Freeway" scare the living s*** out of Elle Woods.

• The horror, the horror

  sundogg992004-06-11

  That a film sequel will invariably fail to meet the standards of its predecessor is nearly axiomatic. For every brilliant sequel like 'Aliens' or 'Godfather: Part II', there are dozens of painfully lame successors. This is hardly a surprise, yet it is our own unerring tendency to flock, lemming-like, to sequels that insures their continued existence. Sequels make money, and that's a bad thing. Take 'Legally Blonde 2'. Please. By way of defense, let me point out that it isn't all that easy to find a movie that will entertain two adults, a 15 year old boy, and a 12 year old girl. Our hopes weren't high when we rented LB2 a couple of weekends ago; however, we all agreed that we had enjoyed the original movie, or at least hadn't actively hated it. That perky little Reese Witherspoon – how can you not kinda like her, huh? After seeing LB2, I will unreservedly credit it with one thing: it provided a rallying point for my often-scattered family. We were steadfast, united in our complete and utter loathing for this execrable movie. Beyond that questionable achievement, however, I'm not sure there's anything positive that can be said about this film. As virtually every other reviewer on the planet has noted, the original 'Blonde' had some amusing moments, most of which were supplied by Ms. Witherspoon, who managed to inject the character of Elle Woods with a believable combination of ditziness and sweet charm. Also bolstering the original film was co-star Jennifer Coolidge, who played her dim-bulb shtick to perfection as Elle's beautician friend Paulette. Of course it was a by-the-numbers plot line as predictable as Oregon rain, but Witherspoon, et al played it lightly and for laughs and it worked. The sequel, however, is an appalling mélange of preachiness, offensive stereotypes, and patently ludicrous plot devices. 'Legally Blonde' made points by taking a helium-weight, bubbleheaded rich girl and making her into a sympathetic character. In LB2, Elle is an annoying dipshit whose breathless naivete and hyperactive adventures are simply painful to endure. There's no real point in enumerating all the faults of this movie. To do so would be to grant it more thought than evidently went into its creation. But I can't simply step away from one aspect of the film that I found both irritating and troubling. Viewers of the first film will no doubt remember Elle's Chihuahua, Bruiser. For reasons that are continually validated, I tend to hate cutesy cinematic animal sidekicks, and Bruiser was emphatically no exception. In LB2, however, Bruiser's sexuality becomes a repeated theme and convenient plot device. More specifically, we (and Elle) discover that Bruiser is…(wait for it)… gay. Hilarity ensues, ad nauseum. It's a damning testimony that 1) the writers of this movie were so desperate for script fodder that they came up with this stunningly lame idea in the first place; 2) that they play it so shamelessly for laughs; and 3) that certain plot twists depend on this fact. It's a stupid, stupid idea in a stupid, stupid movie. Should I waste more of my time or yours decrying the utter waste of Jennifer Coolidge in this movie? What about Sally Field's humiliating role as Congresswoman Victoria Rudd? Bob Newhart's excruciating turn as the know-it-all hotel doorman cum political mentor. Finally, on a larger scale, should we discuss the massive suspension of disbelief that's required to even slightly believe a moment of this wretched film? Nah.

• Speechless

  Jim-reviews-film2015-03-12

  I went to a free screening and demanded a refund. I was so long ago And it haunts me still. Seriously Don't. I mean it The first was OK.. But this. I mean, it had a sub plot about some dogs.. And there was some pink clothing. I'm sorry. I watched most of it through my fingers. I warn everyone about this movie. I hope you heed mine. Please beware my warning. You cannot Unsee this horror.. Turn back while you still can.

• The Most Disappointing Sequel of 2003

  christian1232005-06-02

  Legally Blonde 2: Red, White and Blonde is a very disappointing sequel as it fails to deliver the laughs. Elle Woods is now a rising young lawyer at a great firm, balancing a demanding a career with preparations for her wedding to the man of her dreams. But when she finds out that her beloved dog Bruiser's family members are being used as cosmetic test subjects by one of her firm's own clients, she stands up for their rights--and is promptly fired. Ms. Woods decides to go to Washington to take matters into her own hands. The plot actually had some potential, unfortunately the execution was very poor. The original wasn't an Oscar quality film, it was just a fun film to watch. The sequel isn't as fun nor is it fun in general. It was pretty much the same as the first movie and so it was a pretty pointless sequel. Reese Witherspoon returns and she does a good job but she's working with a weak script. The supporting cast isn't very good as none add much to the film. Sally Field is a very good actress but her talents are wasted. Luke Wilson's character isn't very interesting and Jennifer Coolidge tries to hard most of the time. Regina King is a new addition to the cast and she does an okay job, nothing memorable though. Missing from this sequel is Selma Blair, this doesn't matter though as her character wasn't really needed. Charles Herman-Wurmfeld replaces Robert Luketic as the director and does a very bad job. The running time is a brief 95 minutes though it feels a lot longer then that. The film felt a lot longer since the movie just wasn't funny. There were a few funny moments though most of the jokes this film delivered were, at best, small chuckles. Do a few funny moments redeem this film? No, this sequel is one of the worst sequels of 2003 and one of the worst comedies of 2003. In the end, this sequel may seem funny but I assure you it isn't. Rating 4.3/10, rent the original instead.