Well, Lee, I have read over your review a few times now, and I think your critique is fair. There is much I can agree with you on, but much I also feel the need to stand up for. I guess I'll just go through it one part at a time.

First, I'm sorry you didn't like the opening scene but that is definitely my favorite in the entire film. I think you missed the mark here, because the old lady is not used to be funny by cursing at her grandkids. If anything, she sets the tone for the film to follow. The scene shows that she is hip to Paul and Rob's world, and she's providing a window to allow her grandchildren to explore this (obvious) fantasyland with her. You seem to think we are using her strictly as an exploitative punchline, which was certainly not my intention. Also, I enjoy this scene so much because, even though the characters are outrageous, the environment they are in is so calm, tranquil, and cozy. It is indeed a direct contrast to the absurdity of the film that is to follow. Those snowflakes and the "Home Alone" music are in this scene for a reason, my friend. It's because after this cozy little Christmas Eve, chaos is about to ensue. I think you just missed the point of the joke, but then again that may just be my fault as a director.

Fair enough on your comments about the Jewish pool scene. I would agree with you that Allen and Mark go way over-the-top with their characters, and I blame myself for that. I think that scene -- especially since it is the first time we see Allen and Mark in the movie -- was in much need of a humor barometer. I probably should have directed them to scale up or down their energy level, and adjust the intensity of the characters as the scene sees fit. To our credit, this was the first scene we shot directly after Allen got off the plane from LA in June, so most of us were pretty out of it. The chemistry probably was off, not to mention all of us were pretty out of it. It didn't help that the scene took an entirely long day to shoot. AND the scene itself was much longer. I think the tighter editing helps move it along, as the original cut was pretty painful to sit through. And more offensive.

On The Don: I'm glad you enjoyed the costume, but again I think you're missing the point with the locations he hangs around. I don't understand why you call it a hole-in-the-wall pool joint to begin with. Why is this? Because he's only playing pool against one other extra? Or the fact he didn't have a bunch of girls on his shoulders like he does in his wrap-up scene? If the scene looks scaled down, it's only because we wanted The Don to look scaled up. The scene is about HIM, and his aura alone is supposed to entice the viewer. Maybe we just failed in this sense, though. As for the Putt-Putt course he plays miniature golf at, well, we all just thought that would be funny. I'm sorry you did not. If anything, The Don is a spoof of the numerous charismatic, larger-than-life mentors found in an abundance of other comedy films. The miniature golf OF COURSE is supposed to be cheesy. If you didn't think that the first time out, then seeing The Don ride on the horsy merry-go-round in the next scene should most certainly have given that away.

There is not much I can say about Toodles. Either you like him and find him funny, or you don't. There really is no middle ground. And of course, we all knew that going in from the beginning. I've had people come up to me many times saying they thought Toodles was hilarious, while at the same time others have told me they wanted to shoot him in the head. Either way, I certainly do not blame Jake Warren for his performance. He gave me exactly what I wanted. Now, to be fair, after seeing "Hustled 2" many times now, I can easily say that I wish I had told him to tone down the energy a bit in certain scenes. But again, and even as you mention in your review, it is obvious we are trying to be BIGGER than the original, so I let the actors get BIGGER with their body language as a result. And, also as you stated, perhaps bigger is not always better. In some of Toodles' cases I would have to agree.

While I'm disappointed you found Angelina and Kirsten to be the least successful characters in the movie, I'm even more upset that you didn't enjoy their initial speech to Paul and Rob. Of course it's SUPPOSED to be creepy, they play psycho ex-girlfriends! I actually think this is Allen's best-written scene in the movie. If anything, I'm disappointed in the pedestrian way I shot it. Also I was let down that you did not mention the performances by Gaby and Lauren. I thought they did a fantastic job, balancing just the right amount of sweet, lovey-dovey girlfriends with a sharp and painful mean streak, as the situations called for it. I also thought Allen was brilliant for writing the main bad guys to be vicious ex-girlfriends. How many of us guys can't relate to that?

I see what you are saying about the man-hating lesbians with deep voices, among many other stereotypes thrown into the mix. But the "Hustled" films have ALWAYS embraced character cliches. Sure, it's cheap humor, but it's also what you should expect if you've seen the first film. And admittedly the climax is a creepy scene. Interestingly, Allen and I argued many times over how over-the-top the scene was written. The scene is probably my least favorite in the entire film, simply because I think the universe Paul and Rob inhabit becomes TOO much of a cartoon. At least the previous unrealistic hustles in the movie contained a hint of the real world. The climax, however, is too out there, even for me. I do, however, think Wil DeShazo was hilarious, and very bold for taking on such a character. He made the entire cast and crew laugh numerous times, and evidence of this can be found in the outtakes of the closing credits.

I, too, find Dickless and Kip to be some of the funnier (and better-written) characters in the film. In fact, the biggest feedback I have received from people who have seen the movie is how much they loved the character of Kip. I think an entire movie about him would definitely be a stretch, but I'm glad you found him humorous nonetheless. Matt is brilliant as Dickless, and Allen was smart enough to realize this by expanding upon his character in the first film and giving him more screen time. However, as funny as the character may be, I AM glad that Allen was keen enough to write him out of the movie early on. That's why supporting characters can be so effective: when they aren't used excessively, the humor stays fresher. It's like they always say about the effectiveness of blood-splattered horror films: Less is more. I think by shunning Dickless and Kip away from too much of the spotlight, we as an audience find them more welcome the times they do come in front of the camera.

On that note, I can't help ya if you don't find Paul and Rob humorous. Especially if that was your biggest problem with the movie. These characters are simply extensions of the people they played in the original, but probably with a bit more bite. I would agree that they are more aggressive this time out, and cockier as well. By this film they indeed have become cartoons, since in the original they were still vulnerable to certain other foes they came across. In "Hustled 2," nothing gets in their way, and they probably do have a bit more of a mean streak. In two of their earlier scenes, for example, they beat up both The Heckler and Dickless. This is something that didn't always sit well with me from the beginning, when I first read the script. I laughed at what the characters were doing, but was wondering at the same time if they were being a bit too mean-spirited. Yet the way Allen sets up both The Heckler and Dickless, they're pretty hateable supporting characters. Of course, we learn Dickless means well later on down the road, but at the time, I think Paul and Rob's actions are justified.

I'm not going to say much on how you feel that Allen writes the Paul and Rob characters in a way that might fuel his real-life ego. I'll let him take a shot at responding to that. But I certainly disagree when you say that only people who know other people in the film would have a chance at having a good time while watching the movie. For one, the comment is way too closed-minded. Comedy is subjective. It always will be. I think you are a fine reviewer, but saying that people who don't know us won't have a very good time viewing the film is low, even for you. Yes, personally knowing the people who compose our cast will ensure that some jokes will be heightened more than the average audience member who hasn't got a clue of the faces onscreen. You'll probably get more out of some of the humor when you recognize a face during one of the insane shenanigans going on in the movie. I think that is obvious. But to say that's the only way you'll have a very good time watching it is ridiculous. Tons of people who I have never even met before or who have never seen an Old School film (or aren't familiar with our casts, for that matter) have expressed how much fun they had with the film. You yourself even told me that you showed "Hustled 2" to a friend who didn't know a single one of us, and claimed he had a blast. You are right in one respect: we DID make this movie for a certain audience. And I sincerely believe that, for this particular audience, we delivered. They got what they expected and had a good time. In a way it IS a private party. HOWEVER, to close off others from joining in on the fun, simply because they don't know us, is a very premature statement. It may be a private party, but anyone is welcome to join.

So yeah, we make fun of the audience in The Heckler's scene. It's a cheap shot, but at the same time I think the audience is in on the joke. If anything, I think they're aware enough that we're making a silly movie and that our talents extend beyond this. In a sense, all of us as filmmakers are saying, "Hey, everyone, look! This movie is gonna be really stupid, we all know that! But let's have a good time anyway!" Again, I think this is you reading too deep into something that goes beyond our intentions of the joke.

I'm glad you enjoyed the way the film was shot and produced. You may be right. It might be too well-made for the material. But just because Allen's script is more juvenile than other things he has written in the past (or will write, for that matter) doesn't mean that we should back away from producing the best-looking picture we can make. If someone doesn't enjoy the film, fine. But please acknowledge that, at the very least, the entire production is an exercise of our filmmaking. We're not gonna half-ass "Hustled 2" just because it won't win any awards or film festivals. With EVERY project we do, we always strive to do a better job in all aspects of filmmaking. Otherwise, what's the point of doing it? We tackle every single project as its own, and work our asses off to come out with a final result that we are all pleased in. Some obviously turn out better than others, but at least we are trying and growing.

Which brings me to my last point, where you encourage us to grow as artists. Thank you. That's what we're trying to do. Yes, "Hustled 2" was made as a thank-you note to a specific audience. It was meant to be nothing more than that, and a good time. As filmmakers, I think we did indeed need to have a little fun on a movie set and let it out of our systems. It is behind us now, and we will move on. Finally, we appreciate your support and anticipation for what we have in store for the future.

- Brad