Topic: The Hangover Part II

[Dragonfire]

Since I liked The Hangover, I decided to see The Hangover Part II. 

Short review - It is basically the first movie again, just with someone else getting lost and set in in a different city.

I knew from the previews that the same basic thing would happen again.  I didn't mind that since the first movie was funny and entertaining.  Well, even though I expected similarities, I didn't expect so much to be practically identical, especially with how the story is structured.  The movie starts with Phil making the call to Tracey about how they screwed up and the wedding probably won't happen.  Then the movie jumps back to who what led to that situation.  Some of what happens is surprising, but overall, the movie is very predictable.  At the end, the guys end up looking at pictures from the wild night after swearing only to look at them once and delete them.  I knew that the guys had another wild party night and lost someone again, but I had thought that a little more would be different.  It was almost like someone made up a list of main points from the first movie and checked them off for this one.

This time Stu is getting married in Thailand.  He doesn't even want a bachelor party because of what happened the last time and he has to be persuaded to invite Alan, again for the same reason.  The guys, along with the younger brother of the woman Stu is marrying, meet on the beach to drink a beer and have a toast.  Well something goes horribly wrong and Alan, Phil, and Stu wake up in a crap hole hotel room with no clue what happened.  They set out trying to retrace their steps, again, just like in the first movie.  For some reason that still doesn't make much sense to me, Mr. Chow turns up again and is mixed up in what is going on.  The character worked in the first movie, but he's just out of place in this one.

The movie is entertaining and I did end up liking it overall.  I just think it could have been better.  Some of what happens is funny, but the movie isn't anywhere near as funny as the first movie.  Too much of what happens is more wild and outrageous....and that doesn't really translate into funny more often than not.  Some twisted, disturbing, or just plain gross stuff happens.  Again, I think that stuff was supposed to be funny, but it really wasn't.  Stu does another song at one point and while I did like it, it just wasn't as funny as the one in the first movie.  Some wild sexual stuff comes up as well.  It does seem like an attempt was made to be more wild than the first movie.  There is nudity - more male than female I think - and a lot of swearing.  This one definitely deserves the R rating and isn't family friendly by any stretch of the imagination. 

The guys have to deal with the same basic situation of losing someone and not having a clue what happened the night before.  A few more extreme things happen while they are retracing their steps or happened during the night.  Stu should really just go home, lock himself in the closet, and never leave again.  Phil gets hurt again, though in a different way.  Alan is still clueless about so many things. 

The movie can be enjoyable if your expectations aren't too high.  Following the same structure and telling basically the same story from the first movie didn't make a movie that was as good.  I've already been reading that the director wants to do a third movie.   I did read that the third movie would deal with a completely different story.  If another one is made, I'll probably see it at some point, though I'm scared to think what else can happen to Stu. This is definitely not a movie for everyone.



I did get a review posted on Epinions.

The Hangover Part II

[Najemikon]

I saw two of the actors get interviewed on the Graham Norton show and I was disgusted by their attitude. They were nice, funny guys, don't get me wrong, but they actually said, nothing was changed from the first film, because it worked so why mess with it? 

They actually admitted to not even trying and even worse, spun it to make it sound acceptable. 

[Jimmy]

nothing was changed from the first film, because it worked so why mess with it?  

They actually admitted to not even trying and even worse, spun it to make it sound acceptable.  

Wicked Pictures did the same seven times with Wicked Sex Party... of course we don't really talk of the same kind of film

To be honest even one was boring to death... incredible than with 19 performers the director was unable to make one single original or interesting camera angle...

[Dragonfire]

I saw two of the actors get interviewed on the Graham Norton show and I was disgusted by their attitude. They were nice, funny guys, don't get me wrong, but they actually said, nothing was changed from the first film, because it worked so why mess with it? 

They actually admitted to not even trying and even worse, spun it to make it sound acceptable. 

I saw that episode of Graham Norton...It was Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms.  I seem to remember them going on about how they just had to do the same stuff again since the first movie was so successful.  That they had to have Phil make the call to Tracy again and all that.  I should have been more prepared after seeing that, but still somehow, I guess I thought there would be more different.

[Achim]

I saw two of the actors get interviewed on the Graham Norton show and I was disgusted by their attitude. They were nice, funny guys, don't get me wrong, but they actually said, nothing was changed from the first film, because it worked so why mess with it? 

They actually admitted to not even trying and even worse, spun it to make it sound acceptable. 

I have seen the first one, so I apparently saw the second one as well

Furthermore, Kermode's review made this film really uninteresting to me too...

[Dragonfire]

You pretty much have...with the exception of a few minor differences.