National Lampoon's Van Wilder 2: The Rise of Taj
Movie Review
National Lampoon's Van Wilder 2: The Rise of Taj
by Eric D. Snider
Grade: D-
Released: December 1, 2006
Directed by:
Cast:
Sometimes you really can judge a book by its cover. "National Lampoon's Van Wilder 2: The Rise of Taj" is a movie we can pretty much review based on its title alone. The "National Lampoon" part means it will be awful, as everything released under that label since "Christmas Vacation" (in 1989!) has totally blown. The fact that it's a sequel to 2002's "Van Wilder" is another gloomy sign, since sequels to bad movies are usually just as bad, if not worse. And "The Rise of Taj" hints that this sequel is focusing on a minor character from the first movie -- another harbinger of doom. (Imagine "Superman II: The Adventures of Jimmy Olsen" or "Toy Story II: The Wrath of Little Bo Peep.")
Sure enough, "The Rise of Taj" is worthless, a completely desperate and mindless exercise in juvenility. I was a little surprised, though, at how lackadaisical it is. It's listless and lethargic. You can usually count on these things to at least be lively and madcap, if not actually entertaining. But this one goes for long stretches without even TRYING to be funny, apparently content to let its half-baked characters wander around unsupervised while the audience waits impatiently for the next sperm joke.
Taj (Kal Penn), an Indian-American student, was a protege of supreme slacker Van Wilder back at Coolidge College in the first "Van Wilder" film. Van (played by Ryan Reynolds in the original) does not appear in the sequel, but his wisdom is often referred to. Taj is now a grad student at England's Camford University, where he's been made R.A. at a ramshackle residence hall known as the Barn. There are just four students under his tutelage: Seamus (Glen Barry) the angry Irish kid, Gethin (Anthony Cozens) the nerd, Simon (Steven Rathman) the silent video-gamer, and Sadie (Holly Davidson) the cockney tramp. They are all desperately in need of help in becoming cool and confident, so it's Van Wilder to the rescue! Er, Van Wilder, as learned and now repeated by Taj!
There's a snooty fraternity called the Fox & Hounds, led by smarmy jerk Pipp Everett (Daniel Percival), and they intend to humiliate Taj's house in the school-wide Hastings Cup competition. Wouldn't you know it, Pipp's girlfriend, Charlotte (Lauren Cohan), starts to fall for Taj, which makes the rivalry even more fierce. And wouldn't you know it, Taj has a few tricks up his sleeve to cut those pompous Fox & Hound twits down to size!! Ha-ha!
The film was directed by Mort Nathan, a hack writer whose only prior directing credit was -- shudder -- "Boat Trip." Surely no person who endured that disaster can enter "The Rise of Taj" without trepidation. He did not write "The Rise of Taj," however; those honors went to one Drew David Gallagher, a sometime-actor with no previous writing experience who evidently penned this screenplay as part of a contest to see how many euphemisms he could think of for female genitalia. (Answer: more than a dozen, but I lost count.)
I laughed not once during the film. I may have winced audibly once or twice, though, particularly during the scene (ripped off from the first "Van Wilder") in which a dog's sexual behavior is graphically depicted. That's the one moment that actually pushes the envelope. The rest of the movie just draws pictures of boobies on the envelope and tries to pass it off as comedy.
Grade: D-
Rated R, a few scenes of nudity, some strong sexuality, abundant vulgarity and profanity
1 hr., 35 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.


This item has 9 comments
December 2, 2006 at 8:48 am
Eric... you are at your funniest ripping a pathetic movie... well done!
December 3, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Eric said:
I may have winced audibly once or twice, though, particularly during the scene (ripped off from the first "Van Wilder") in which a dog's sexual behavior is graphically depicted. That's the one moment that actually pushes the envelope. The rest of the movie just draws pictures of boobies on the envelope and tries to pass it off as comedy.
I'm tired of any variation of "dog humping" serving as a comedic device. It's not funny anymore.
December 3, 2006 at 8:53 pm
Lowdogg: it never was funny.
December 5, 2006 at 8:24 am
what happend to the girls on the cover of the poster,how come they are not in the movie??
December 7, 2006 at 9:43 pm
Eric got this one right. I knew it would be bad, but I thought it would be much better than it was. There really wasn't one clever or original thought in the whole movie.
December 30, 2006 at 8:07 am
Gee - I'm stupid. For months I've seen this movie title and thought it was a "Van Helsing" sequel.
January 5, 2007 at 7:36 pm
To Lana: If the filmmaker put anything like that in the movie, then someone out there might actually be satisfied with some aspect of it and that is something that the sadists at the Jollytime Hollywood Comedy Factory cannot permit.
February 25, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Wait, is he saying that "Christmas Vacation" was the start of National Lampoon movie suckitude, or the last good movie before their suckitude? Cos "Christmas Vacation" may not be a great movie, but it's got some great moments.
March 3, 2008 at 12:40 pm
You write - " The film was directed by Mort Nathan, a hack writer whose only prior directing credit was -- shudder -- "Boat Trip."
Nathan has won two Golden Globes and two Emmy awards for his work and was a script doctor on such notable movies as "Analyze This". Pathetic eh?!