IMDb user comments for
Van Wilder 2: The Rise of Taj (2006) More at IMDbPro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Index

48 comments in total

---

90 out of 122 people found the following comment useful :-
Don't watch this, 2 December 2006

Author: rockeymallavia from New York, USA

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.

---

48 out of 71 people found the following comment useful :-
Oh my god, 21 January 2007

Author: Confidante77 from United Kingdom

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

---

26 out of 40 people found the following comment useful :-
It really wasn't that bad, 13 May 2007

Author: Brian from Connecticut, USA

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.

---

15 out of 23 people found the following comment useful :-
Please don't put yourself through this..., 2 December 2006

Author: valechadwick from United States

*** This comment may contain 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.

---

13 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
Not a total train wreck... but probably should be avoided, 28 April 2007

Author: nunyerbiz from Detroit, Michigan

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.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Van Wilder 2: The rise AND FALL of Taj, 3 July 2007

Author: S SINGH from United Kingdom

*** This comment may contain 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.

---

8 out of 13 people found the following comment useful :-
Worth a look if you have literally nothing else to do for 90mins, 24 June 2007

Author: Tom Russon from United Kingdom

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.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Where Is Ryan Reynolds When We Really Need Him???, 16 June 2007

Author: Van Roberts (zardoz@bellsouth.net) from Columbus, Ms

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

The worst kind of movie sequel promotes a supporting character to take over the lead role and takes longer than a couple of years to arrive in theatres. Like "The Return of Josey Wales," "Iron Eagle 2," "Smoky and the Bandit 3," and "Jaws 3 & 4," the latest superficial sequel to show up, "Van Wilder 2: The Rise of Taj," substitutes a supporting character for the title protagonist and appears four years later. As far as gross-out comedies go, "National Lampoon's Van Wilder" (2002) was no masterpiece, but the Ryan Reynolds' original qualified as far funnier that its tardy and tedious sequel could ever imagine. Everything that made Kal Penn of "Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle" so memorable in the first "Van Wilder" has been sacrificed and Penn cannot rival Reynolds' comic timing. Not only does it lack Reynolds' charismatic poise, but also the uninspired plot rehashes hackneyed higher education humor that "Animal House," "Revenge of the Nerds," "Old School," and "Porky's" have already worn out. Like its predecessor, "Van Wilder 2" does feature a collegiate setting, several bare-breasted babes, binge drinking aplenty, risqué sexual epithets, with a scatological skit or two, but nothing like the crude shenanigans in the first movie. The two biggest jokes in "Van Wilder" consisted of the seamstress sight gag at the beginning and then the very vulgar prank where a rival fraternity gobble pastries spiked with the seminal fluids of a well-endowed bulldog. The lack of anything remotely funny is compounded by the lack of originality in "Van Wilder 2." Look for this lackluster movie to crowd the video shelves in no time.

Baby-faced comic Ryan Reynolds channeled Chevy Chase in "Van Wilder," but the eponymous hero graduated from Coolidge College after seven year of lolly gagging. As Van Wilder's Indian protégé Taj Mahal Badalandabad, Kal Penn has not only stepped into his mentor's shoes but also he has stepped into something infinitely worse--a movie of unmitigated mediocrity. Nobody quite knows how to pronounce Taj's family name in "Van Wilder 2" and the joke generates fewer laughs with each instance. Freshman scenarist David Drew Gallagher, who has acted in a number of television shows and should forsake the pen, has forged far fewer offensive gags than his rowdy predecessors in his cookie-cutter screenplay. When "Van Wilder 2" opens, Taj has graduated from Coolidge College and has transferred to merry ole England. Our hero sets out to get his Master's Degree at a stodgy Cambridge-like university called Camford and follow in his father's footsteps as a lothario. Taj learns quickly that the natives are none too receptive to his desire to join their ranks in the elite Fox and Hounds' fraternity. Pipp Everett, the Earl of Grey (David Percival of the TV series "Sinchronicity"), the stuck-up man-in-charge of the Fox and Hounds, informs poor Taj that he has been rejected on a technicality. Searching for somewhere else to fit in, Taj takes the job of advising a minor fraternity made up entirely of misfits: Seamus (Glen Barry), a fiery Irish rugby player; Sadie (Holly Davidson) a tough female boozer; Simon (Anthony Cozen) a bean-pole genius, and Gethin (Steve Rathman) a well-endowed but shy guy. Taj names the new fraternity the Cock and Bulls. Actually, this is about as daring as "Van Wilder 2" gets.

In a dastardly attempt to put upstart Taj and his new friends in their ignoble places, Pipp challenges our heroes to a high stakes university competition for the prestigious Camford Cup, an annual academic, social, and athletic contest between fraternities. Nothing inventive in the way of amusing sight gags or grandiose gross-out jokes emerges from this stale, substandard sequel. Director Mort Nathan, who helmed the laborious Cuba Gooding, Jr. comedy "Boat Trip," makes the least of every comic opportunity in this prudish 95 minute potboiler. Indeed, Nathan and Gallagher revert to the general plot of the original without breaking new ground. When the snooty villains realize that they're going to lose the cup that the Fox and Hound fraternity has never forfeited, they plant incriminating evidence in the Cock and Bull's frat house. Consequently, dotty Camford Dean (veteran British TV actor Roger Hammond) has no choice but to expel Taj and his pals. Taj admits that he stole the test materials so that his pals can continue to compete in the tournament. Predictably, "Van Wilder 2" allows our oddball heroes to triumph over the Fox and Hounds without developing any suspense. Aside from Taj, the only character left over from the original "Van Wilder" was Van Wilder's pet bulldog.

Mind you, National Lampoon usually scrapes the bottom of a barrel of monkeys for its college comedies, and "Van Wilder 2" proves no exception. Unlike the witty original, "Van Wilder 2" boasts no cameos from previous National Lampoon movie cast members. Kal Penn should have been working on a Harold and Kumar sequel rather than this infantile idiocy. "Van Wilder 2" ranks as a forgettable follow-up to the original with a modicum of witty lines.

---

2 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Sorry excuse for a sequel, 18 March 2007

Author: raypdaley182 from Coventry

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

1stly this entire film is based on a total misconception. British Universities have NO fraternity system what so ever. So the need for inter house cups and challenges doesn't actually exist.

Take 1 character from the original Van Wilder and move him to England. Then put him amongst as many British stereotypes as possible.

The British University system actually allows people from all over the country to attend Universities so all accents and classes are represented.

The only actors most Brits are going to know are Taj's parents, One from Eastenders and one from The Kumars and Goodness Gracious Me.

This is a very poor representation of Britain and the British University system which is nothing like this. Fencing? A rarely played sport. Most Black Tie University Balls are conducted at the end of a term too.

As for the very racist notion that the Upper class don't welcome Asians to our country is total rubbish. Many areas of Britian have huge Asian Communities.

This is a bad film with no basis in reality and very poor stereotypes, few of which actually exist in modern Britain.

Oh, and doesn't EVERYONE know Earl of Grey is joke about Earl Grey, the type of Tea?

---

3 out of 4 people found the following comment useful :-
Best left alone, 11 September 2007

Author: hollymell from United Kingdom

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

---

---

Page 1 of 5:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

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