Holy crap what a ridiculous average on this one

I actually do LIKE both.. but over all the FIRST film is MORE consistent. The sequel. I think its almost a Arthur vs. Arthur 2 debate, sure there's MORE funny. But its almost at times like they tried the throw EVERYTHING at the wall and see what stuck, and II had some real clunker moments. And not the consistent hilarity, or at least the higger batting average of the first.

Ty being such a small character.. and really loseing the Carl character were 2 of the biggest problems with the sequel. I mean if they had focused on the entire Caddys vs. the golf carts story (something that seems to never really be brought up after the opening scene). And Jonathan Silverman, whom I LIKE, but he just doesn't seem as a character as well developed as the Danny Noonan character. We followed more closely the Noonan character than Cervik in the first, it seemed they wanted to flip it with the AL, or I should say Harry, character in the sequel being the MAIN character. But he never really gets the development and the movie goes more often for the EASY cheap laugh.. which sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't.