He's personally one of my favorite actors but he was not the driving force of the previous film. The best laughs and moments came from the rest of the cast. Cusack's character helped to level things out and have a SLIGHT sensitive side. I'm sure Adam Scott can fill that role just fine and still have an awesome film.
shareI just found out that Cusack isn't in it. To me that's a big let-down.
Edit: To me he was integral, largely because there were lots of sly references to his early movies (A Sure Thing, Better Off Dead, etc.). Obviously they won't repeat all that stuff; but the 80s-throwback stuff is kind of a grace-note to the whole endeavor.
...did you see this movie? It was a train wreck. There were no charm nor endearing qualities to this movie, unlike the first one. You know what else there is none of? Cusack.
shareNow that we've all seen it, I think it's safe to say that this film didn't survive without Cusack. It should have never have been made.
And for all of those of you who praised Cordry in the first film, well he just showed in the sequel that that was a one off and he simply couldn't carry this film (nor could he with the help of the other three) without Cusack. It's pretty simple to understand why none of the other four are not A-List stars, and probably never will be.
As the OP stated (or corrected later), the balance wasn't right, not to mention an awful script, and the producers should have either canned the idea when they knew Cusack wasn't in mind to be involved, OR just bit the bullet and got him on board, even if it meant a bigger budget was required. This sequel almost tarnishes the success and popularity of the first one. Such a waste...
Unless you've seen "Going Overboard", you have no right to start a thread called "Worst Film Ever"!
It was a decent movie, but woulda been much better with Cusack.
Adam Scott was really bad in this....then again he's bad in most things so yeah.