Movie Review: The Hangover Part II (2011)
Same movie, different place, not that funny
Photo: Warner Bros.
When I saw The Hangover back in 2009 it had me rolling. When it came time to watch it again on Blu-ray I immediately began to feel the film's length. The novelty had already started to wear off and while it still had its share of laughs it simply wasn't anywhere near as funny as it was the first time around. That said, you can probably predict my opinion on The Hangover Part II when I tell you it is pretty much a carbon copy of the first film only set in a different city.
The cast includes Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms, Justin Bartha, Ken Jeong, Sasha Barrese, Mike Tyson, Jamie Chung, Paul Giamatti, Nick Cassavetes and Jeffrey Tambor. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"The Hangover Part II" is a Warner Bros. release, directed by Todd Phillips and is rated R for pervasive language, strong sexual content including graphic nudity, drug use and brief violent images. The running time is 1 hour 42 minutes.
I'm going to skip any additional setup and just tell you Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms) and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) find themselves in the exact same situation as before, only this time they spend a wild night in Thailand and can't find Stu's soon-to-be brother-in-law Teddy (Mason Lee). Also, a monkey replaces the baby from the first film and the less-than-well-endowed Mr. Chow (played once again by the annoying Ken Jeong) has joined the party.
The scenario is set as the boys wake up in a dingy apartment in Bangkok, they can't remember what happened, the wedding is the next day and someone is missing and needs to be found. Sound familiar? This isn't The Hangover Part II, it's Hangover 1.25 and as the first film gets increasingly boring on repeated viewing, this one suffers from those problems from the outset.
There are three emotions you're likely to feel while watching The Hangover Part II, the first of which is tired. The fact this is more or less the same film with a few ramped up scenarios that are likely to offend any number of minority (or majority depending on who is being targeted) groups isn't necessarily funny or interesting as much as it just feels like bullying, not to mention it has been done before and done before with more wit and less blunt force. Just because it's done on a larger scale here doesn't make it any more humorous.
You're also going to feel annoyed, first with Galifianakis' Alan who seems to have gotten dumber from one movie to the next to where he now comes off as someone who should probably be locked in a padded room and fed applesauce rather than roaming about as an unwitting menace to society. Secondly, Ken Jeong as Mr. Chow was mildly funny in the first film when he kidnapped "Black Doug" and jumped out of the car trunk with a tire iron, naked and lacking. However, Chow has a much larger role in this film and whatever accent Jeong is trying to put on — something of a high-pitched gangsta-speak squeal — becomes so grating you begin to rue the day you ever laughed at anything he's ever done.
Finally, there will be brief moments where you'll be entertained. Yes, there are some laughs to be found in The Hangover 2 and they are primarily similar to the moments you would still laugh at when watching the first film. The difference being, while walking away from The Hangover I was repeating several of the fun one liners; I don't remember any of them from this film, which is really more of a vulgar assault than an attempt at actual comedy.
I guess this shouldn't come as much of a surprise considering the original Hangover screenwriters, Jon Lucas and Scott Moore, had nothing to do with this film as director Todd Phillips, Scot Armstrong and Craig Mazin stepped in to collaborate. So I guess this is what you get when the people who collectively wrote Due Date, School for Scoundrels, The Heartbreak Kid, Scary Movie 3, Scary Movie 4 and Superhero Movie team up on a screenplay, a mean-spirited copy of another film attempting to pass itself off as funny.
The Hangover Part II is a tired retread that bludgeons its audience rather than invites them into the fun. The first film had charm to go along with its raunchier bits, this one has none of that. This is the Transformers 2 of comedy sequels where the mindset was "bigger is better" and they couldn't have been more wrong.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 21 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
You got that right, that is the exact same thing that I was thinking about. They should have done something different instead of re watching the same movie in far east Asia.
I agree with everything you said. The upside, for me, was that it was shot beautifully.
Based on your review, "C-" seemed generous.
same opinion
It may be, but I just couldn't put it at D+, though I considered it.
Why not?
I don't get it does Ken Jeong show his willy again or do you just hate him alot now?
You referenced his small weeny twice!
Anyway, first Hangover was overrated and boring on first viewing to me, this one will prob still make money and fans.
You'll see… that is if you go see it.
That ruined mt day. I really wanted this film to be good but I guess Todd Philips couldn't pull it off. I'll see it any way but Brad is probably right. The real bummer is according to you, that this is the second misfire from Todd Philips, the Oh-so famous director of the Hangover.
I still haven't seen the Hangover 2 yet, but I am planning on seeing it tonight. All I really have to say is what the hell did everyone expect when they announced they were making a sequel? The premise of the first Hangover was the bread and butter of the whole movie, it should have been obvious that they were going to do it again in the sequel. I know not everyone liked the first one, but I know there were a lot of people that did and that's what made it so successful. Both movies are cash cows plain and simple. All they are meant for is to be entertaing, and if you don't find them funny then thats fine, but if your upset that they didn't do a different premise or story then really that's too bad because that's something people should have expected whenever they bought the ticket.
But I also think that a hangover 3 would be overkill
I knew it would be like that when I watched the trailer.
I remember seeing Todd Philips' name tacked on as the 3rd credited screenwriter, but I had no idea the other 2 writers were new. What happened to Jon Lucas & Scott Moore, the writers of Four Christmases and Ghosts of Girlfriends Past?
Did they get too busy with other projects? On IMDb I'm not even seeing them credited in Hangover 2 with creating the characters.
Todd Phillips said that barely any of Lucas and Moore's original screenplay emerged in the first film due to WGA arbitration rules. Phillips and Jeremy Garelick, who overhauled the first film's script, weren't credited at all. For some reason, the WGA gave Lucas and Moore full writing credit on the first film — and it's even weirder they don't get a "characters created by" in the sequel.
The WGA must have ruled that more than 50% of the original script could be attributed to Lucas and Moore, which is why they got credit. Also, they did get a "characters created by" credit for the sequel.
The reviews aren't surprising to me………………..but the box office opening weekend on this is probably going to be gigantic if the midnight showings are indicative.
Does anyone think word of mouth could sink it over the five days?
Just got back from seeing it and I went in with low expectations, and just as I predicted… it is the same film, only set in a different location. Booooring.
And yes, I found Galifinakis incredibly annoying in this film, and every time Ken Jeong spoke it was like listening to nails scratching on a chalkboard. I couldn't stand it.
Also, this may or may not be a mild SPOILER, but I didn't see all of the closing credits, but both Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper said there are some images which are incredibly offensive to the Vietnam War or something. What were they?
There was a seemingly intentional parody of the famous war photo "General Nguyen Ngoc Loan executing a Viet Cong prisoner in Saigon" in the credits. Basically one of the wolf pack guys are posing with Ken Jeong's gun and one of the poses definitely resembles that photograph.
This is what they get for screwing Mel Gibson…
I loved the first Hangover and found this to be the most anticlimactic and idiotic sequel in a long time . . .
I'm in the minority here it seems, but I actually quite enjoyed the movie. Maybe it extends to the fact that I also enjoyed "Due Date" more than most, but to me it was a similar film to the first but with a darker, edgier tone. Did I laugh as often as I did in the first? No. And while I do wish some of the structure had been changed, when the film got me to laugh I laughed pretty damn hard.
I like these characters and I think the best course of action for another film would be to move away from the "someone's missing and it's a day before a wedding" motif and take them into a new situation. I'm giving it a B because it could have been better but I had a good time with it.