Which one would you pick?
As much as i liked Van Wilder I definitely thought "Harold and Kumar" was a better movie in all aspects( Ok there wasnt enough of Ryan Reynolds in the latter I agree). The comedy was good and the not too lighthearted take on racism was also good. Moreover I'd say Kal Penn has better chemistry with John Cho rather than Ryan Reynolds(as good as he is). Let me know what you folks feel
they're both great movies but in just plain funniness terms Harold and Kumar take the cake or the sliders. I like reynolds but kal penn and john cho blow him out of the water. they are perfect foil for each other. one is a superhorny irresponsible extrovert, the other is superhorny responsible shy guy. its good sh**.
shareit depends on which kind of person you are. for the stoner types, harold n kumar was a fantastic movie, but for pretty much everyone else, van. :)
shareHarold and Kumar hands down
share[deleted]
Harold and Kumar. Any film that is able to tie in zany humor with scathing racial and social satire as effectively and hilariously as H&K did is going to be better than most comedies. Van Wilder is funny and has some good life lessons but they do somewhat get buried under their own cheap laughs.
H&K: 8/10
Van Wilder: 6.5/10
P. S. Ryan Reynolds is good at the parts he plays, but a great actor? Sorry, but no.
Harold & Kumar EASILY OWNS Van Wilder
Brooklyn Rules is a good film
I fell asleep during POTC: At World's End..