Is Dave Portnoy right about Happy Gilmore 2? 

Happy Gilmore 2 released to Netflix over the weekend and people have pretty polarizing opinions about it. 

Barstool Sport’s founder and owner, Dave Portnoy, thought it was “terrible” and that the Rotten Tomatoes score seemed too high. 

But some of his followers pretty passionately disagreed with Portnoy and thought it was a really great movie.

So is Dave Portnoy right? Are his dissenting followers? Or is the Rotten Tomatoes aggregate score pretty spot on? 

The Conservative Critic asks: Is it entertaining? Does it have artistic/intellectual value? And: Is it liberal propaganda? 

The Conservative Critic Meter Check: Happy Gilmore 2

Overall rating: A bit ridiculous and overall fine 

Happy Gilmore 2 was a perfectly fine and basically enjoyable movie especially for a made-for-streaming offering. In fact, it exceeded the expectations of this critic whose bar was very low because these sequels often don’t work at all. 

The story follows Happy Gilmore returning to golf under less than auspicious circumstances. It takes a big dig at LIV (all though – LIV really should take notes from the silly ideas in the movie) and is packed full of cameos. 

Happy Gilmore 2 works on some levels. It is zany and ridiculous. It makes a joke about its lazy plot tools instead of just having lazy plot tools. Its storyline is absurdist to the point of comedy but if it was slightly more ridiculous it might work a little better. The reason Happy Gilmore 2 only has a moderate rating instead of a high rating is because it can’t decide if it wants to be absolutely insane or have some heart and soul. In doing both, the film works just fine and is a perfectly fun watch for lovers of the original and lovers of golf generally. It will not overtake any comedies this season as particularly memorable, although to be fair there are barely any comedies to choose from right now. 

Is it entertaining? 

Rating: Silly and nostalgic 

Like the original, Happy Gilmore 2 relies on a zany brand of comedy that almost breaks the fourth wall, shirking true suspension of disbelief for farcical complicity. The form of comedy was common in the 1990s at the height of Adam Sandler’s rise as the iconic comedian he is today but is far less common today and for that reason it seems Happy Gilmore 2 couldn’t quite fully commit to it. While the absurdity was ever present, the comedy in it was a little (but not entirely) lacking. Happy Gilmore 2 wanted to have genuine stakes and heart in a way that is a departure from the original and makes the tone of insane comedic plot tools a little uncertain. It is not likely this movie will make anyone laugh out loud.

That being said, that the movie has some heart is likely why it’s receiving a better score on Rotten Tomatoes (from audiences). While the original did give Happy a motivation to compete in golf (saving his grandmother’s house) the sequel provides an even less selfish motivation and while really shallowly derived, some tragedy to fuel character development. 

Its overall a funny, nostalgic watch for anyone who liked the first movie. 

Does it have artistic/intellectual value? 

Rating: Surprisingly good cameos

The story in Happy Gilmore 2 makes absolutely no sense at all. The movie doesn’t do enough to make fun of some of the glaring problems in the writing. While it takes the reins to make fun of a very convenient plot tool right in the beginning of the movie to spur the series of events, it does nothing to explain the character motivations anyone in the entire story. Its got a really bad case of “and then.” Its like a toddler trying to tell you about an elaborate dream they had but have already mostly forgotten. 

But the jokes are fun and the comedic acting is pretty strong across the board of course with Sandler but also with his supporting cast including Haley Joel Osment as Billy Jenkins and Christopher McDonald reprising his role as Shooter McGavin. 

Additionally one of the strengths of the movie are some of its cameos. While many have lamented that there are simply too many cameos in the movie (perhaps) some of them really carried the comedy. Scottie Scheffler does a great job poking fun at himself and carrying some of the best jokes in the second act of the movie. 

But perhaps the biggest and most surprising stand out performance is Chiefs tight end, Travis Kelce, who plays a sycophantic waiter at the “gold jacket” golf club. Kelce is genuinely funny and not portraying a version of himself like the rest of the cameos. He’s good enough that he could truly have a future in performance once his football career is over which is saying a lot because frankly, it’s entirely unexpected. He might have a John Cena style rebirth in his future. 

Is it liberal propaganda? 

Rating: No political messages

Something about the movie seems right wing coded and I think leftists watching would agree but it’s completely intangible and indescribable (perhaps just the presence of golf and hockey jerseys). There is no direct political messaging. 

Conclusion 

While the movie isn’t “terrible,” Dave Portnoy’s overall sentiment is true. Its a fine movie to watch casually and have a mild to moderate laugh. The Rotten Tomatoes score does seem inflated but not terribly. Its worth watching for fans of the original and fans of golf or Adam Sandler generally.