Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 8 comments in total 

8 out of 10 people found the following comment useful :-
Not good at all, 15 January 2009
4/10
Author: ty040488 from United States

Being a teen I thought this movie would be hilarious but I was wrong.Like others have said I enjoyed the first movie but this has to be the worse sequel I have ever seen.... I guess I have to say that no other movies are as funny as Superbad but there are still funny movies but this is clearly not one of them Do not waste your time! I usually sit through movies and do not complain but there was nothing good in this movie at all. The acting was not horrible but the plot had nothing and there was no excitement! Ido not think I laughed during this film once.I would have turned it off but paying $5 to rent it I was finishing it!

Was the above comment useful to you?

13 out of 22 people found the following comment useful :-
Boring and lifeless, 11 January 2009
2/10
Author: Nick Damian from Toronto, Ontario

While the first movie wasn't all that entertaining - it was passable, this doesn't come close to it what-so ever.

Dialoge is poor, setting is not to full effect, story is lame, casting is all wrong, nothing in this is memorable.

The squirrel sequence is just retarded and it's subplots are just as stupid.

I saw this free and was glad that I didn't pay for it.

It saved me the cost of a rental, but regardless is was still lifeless and bring.

Not even the two eco-chicks were from the first movie - which I guess is a good thing...

Who thought of this story as something to produce is severely looking to get fired.

Soundtrack didn't offer anything either.

If you liked the first Without A Paddle, you should leave it at that and forget about this one, because you will enjoy this.

Nothing really works in this. It's just a mess of sub-stories that were mishmash-ed together to put together a sub par script that is not funny or entertaining.

There is a reason that this went straight to video...because it would not have lasted 2 weeks in a theater.

It's poorly developed - even the sound nature effects are over done.

The continuity is atrociously horrible as is the timing and looping.

Save your money, save your time...go to sleep instead.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
Unwatchable garbage, 3 July 2009
1/10
Author: from New Zealand

My little sister accidentally rented this movie thinking it would be as funny as the original Without a Paddle film. However, its only use is as a Frisbee, and even then it doesn't fly straight. Avoid. The acting was abysmal, a total joke to be honest. The plot was non- existent, and the movie was simply made up of lame joke after lame, stinking joke. Oliver James used to be good, in 'What a Girl Wants,' he is a half decent actor and is rather hot too, but this film is simply a great disappointment if you were watching it only for him. And really, that seems like the only reason anyone would watch this movie, because honestly, you would be better off cleaning the bathroom or writing a ten-page essay as this would be both more entertaining, and a better use of your time. Sure, if you're bored out of your mind, it is vaguely possible you might gain some slight entertainment value from this film, but you would have to be an immensely sad, lame-humoured person for such an impossibility to occur.

Was the above comment useful to you?

Mediocre at best, 26 November 2009
4/10
Author: chellethecat-1 from United States

I'll be the first to admit, I'm VERY tolerant when it comes to movies. I will watch almost anything at least once. This movie was no exception, and after the first movie (which I have to admit I liked) I figured there was no harm in watching this one.

I almost never say this... but, I wish I'd turned the channel. Seriously, that is saying a LOT for me. I willingly sit through movies that most people cannot stand. I knew from the start that this was not actually a sequel to the second as far as characters and events; but rather of concept and idea. I have no problem with that. My problem is, the things that made the first movie endearing to me (a halfway decent script, fairly likable characters, and a nice good feeling at the end) were completely missing from this one. Add in goofy CGI squirrels (such things have a proper time and place people, come on!) and it was bordering on unwatchable.

I will say, you just cannot blame this on the actors, because that part wasn't bad - the material they had to work WITH was the problem. This movie started off on the wrong foot with a shaky script. And the actors are really the only reason I've rated this even as high as I have.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
A Rating of One Because There's Nothing Lower, 31 January 2009
1/10
Author: JakJam from Canada

Even a bad comedy can be good sometimes. Not this one though - not even close.

Terrible story, terrible cinematography, terrible continuity, terrible casting. This is one of the worst movies I've ever seen.

Oh - and please - was there not one Canadian any where near the shooting of this film to teach the director that Canadians do not talk as though they were portrayed in this movie. The use of the sound "eh" and the 'sayings' (like "Holy Halifax") were contrived and - well, okay, I'm going to use a bad word: stupid. It was so annoying and so ridiculous, it was hard to even get close to the end without eye rolling and chucking popcorn at the screen. Is it really so challenging to portray a Canadian? After all, we are America's closest and largest neighbour and have thousands of Canadians working in Hollywood alone. This wasn't funny, it was lazy writing and unacceptable.

I'll be sure to avoid anything with these actors and directors in the future.

Was the above comment useful to you?

2 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
A fun, quirky little flick, 17 February 2009
8/10
Author: lilchele_08 from United States

I have to admit, I did not like the original Without a Paddle movie. I watched it with my brother and our friends, and I just wasn't impressed. I'm not a Seth Green fan, really. Anyway - I saw the commercial for this, and I just had to watch it. I absolutely adore Kristopher Turner and Oliver James, and seeing them together? Sounded great! I laughed a lot, it was good to see Oliver away from chick flicks and Kristopher away from Instant Star. If you're expecting a remake or something building upon the original, you're going to be disappointed, but if you go into this looking for a laugh, you're going to get it. It's not going to be named movie of the year, but it's certainly not a waste of time or money.

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Decent movie - not as good as first - some fun laughs, 4 January 2009
6/10
Author: Movie Buff from Bay Area

When I heard a a sequel had been made to "Without a Paddle," I was kind of excited. Dax, Matt Lillard & Seth Green were pretty fun in the first movie, so I expected a decent flick. With a cast of relative no names, this movie seems to be a more straight to DVD type of movie. The biggest name had to be Hall of fame football player Jerry Rice, playing crazy woodsman "Hal Gore."

Two lifelong friends (a laid back nurse and a stressed lawyer) and a Limey-Brit must take raft down river, in search of a beautiful hippie girl, who lives deep in the Oregon woods. Adventures unfold with white rapids, crazy squirrels and angry mobsters making things tough on the guys.

All in all, the movie is pretty entertaining throughout. Very simple and kind of silly plot, with a fair amount of laughs. This is a movie that kids will enjoy a lot more than adults and overall I found the first movie in this series to be better than this one.

Was the above comment useful to you?

6 out of 15 people found the following comment useful :-
because CGI rodents biting people in the crotch is the height of hilarity, right?, 17 January 2009
1/10
Author: movieman_kev from United States

The best part of having a girlfriend is, of course, the copious amounts of sex. On the flip-side, the worst part of having a steady girlfriend is having to sit through many MANY crappy movies, this brings me to the topic at hand "Without A Paddle 2" which has nothing at all to do with the first one (which ironically I also was conned into watching when it came out, different girl though, but I digress) This one revolves around a guy who meets a vegetarian animal-rights crusader while on the first day of high school, she gets expelled the second day before she can so his 'cool' homemade 'Meat is Murder' T-shirt (I guess the Che shirts were all sold out) Anyways years little his friend, who works in a nursing home, accepts the dying wish of an ancient old lady to find her grand-daughter, whom winds up being, yup you guessed it, little Mizz Feminist crusader. So he, his friend, and a snotty English guy with ulterior motives travel to her last known whereabouts deep in the rain-forests.

This film was atrocious, the joke aren't just easily telegraphed, they're also massively unfunny, the acting is sub-standard and I didn't give a toss about any of the characters involved in the least. Also Jerry Rice was a great football player, and as an actor he was a great football player. That was seriously painful to watch. The only good thing that came from this film is the sex I got for being forced to deal with this major eye sore of a 'movie'. It's all about reparations people.

My Grade: F

DVD Extras: A 10 minute Making-of; 'Furious Nuts' featurette which is 7 minutes about the CGI-squirrels; 'Treehouse Tales' three minutes about the treehouse sets; a gag reel; 4 very short deleted scenes; and Tralers for "Van Wilder: Freshman year", "American Teen", "Stoned Age", " 'Kenny Vs. Spenny' Volume 1, 'TV Funhouse Uncensored'

Was the above comment useful to you?

Add another comment

Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
External reviews Parents Guide Main details
Your user comments Your vote history