|Page 1 of 39:||          |
|Index||390 reviews in total|
I was really optimistic going into the theatre, I didn't expect it to as great as the original, but I thought it would still be good movie. But most of the material was stuff taken from the original only tweaked, and I hate to say it but I was actually bored for a good part of the movie. Some of the jokes/scenes dragged to long, to the point where I didn't find them funny anymore. There were some good moments, but the truly outrageous/original scenes that made the original so great were too few and far between. Some of the scenes were more outrageous in the sense that there was some full frontal nudity, but I'm not someone who finds that super entertaining. Overall it felt to me like a re-hash of stuff that had already been done with some naked people thrown in, and it just wasn't enjoyable like the first movie.
Select All. Cut. Open New Document. Paste. Thesaurus. Print. I can
nearly guarantee you this was the process in writing the sequel to the
most successful R-rated comedy of all-time. In one of the craziest and
most blatant filmmaking moments of carbon copying an earlier
installment I have ever witnessed Hangover II paces, moves, and
delivers in the exact same method, style and speed as the original. The
musical transitions are the same, some of the set-ups are the same,
some of the conflicts and revelations were eerily alike and worst of
all, the entire third act felt like the original----and they are
thousands of miles from the United States. Every strength in this movie
is deterred by the fact that Todd Phillips and company put no effort in
trying to change things up a little aside from setting.
Is the movie still funny? Yes, it is funny and there are indeed some standout moments. But, all the freshness and originality of the first Hangover is definitely not present here, and it hurts more because they could have fixed some of the setbacks of the original. This time Stu (Ed Helms) is getting married in Thailand in order to gain approval from his fiancée's father. During a night of drinking with the "Wolfpack" (Bradley Cooper, Zack Galifianakis, Justin Bartha) and the fiancée's brother, something went wrong, and the crew is many miles away in Bangkok. And of course, one of them is missing. And of course, they don't remember anything. And of course, they are mixed up in multiple situations occurring within the city. The difference between this one and their stint in Vegas is that the stakes are much higher, as the adventure in Thailand is much more grim and dark than in Sin City.
Hangover part one was hilarious, unique, and had flair of comedic originality. However, it needed a few polishes in order to become a true comedic classic. Zach as Allen is the biggest of the flaws. His characterization in the original was very uneven, too random, and just didn't deliver as much sympathy as the other characters. In the sequel, he is ruder, crueler, and an absolute pain to witness. In the original his actions are mildly justified because of his stupidity. Here however the stupid act gets old extremely fast. It doesn't help that Galifianakis doesn't have the comedic timing that superior funnymen possess. The rest of the cast throughout the movie was great, with Ed Helms and Ken Jeong being the best examples.
Todd Phillips should have known better, as he is a good director with a nice track record. I am extremely disappointed that instead of taking an approach to trying something new while still offering the same type of R-rated college humor, he chose to stick to the formula far too close. You can copy some of the jokes and get away with it, but to imitate the entire three-act structure of the original Hangover is nothing more than lazy and uninspired filmmaking. He still has a few tricks up his sleeve with a few raunchy and hilarious surprises, but far too much potential was wasted in order for me to forgive him.
Bottom Line: You will most likely have a good time watching this if you enjoyed the original. That being said, it will feel exactly like the original---except it's in Bangkok and the setting is much darker. They cranked the ante in conflict, but failed to improve anything or change anything from the 2009 comedy smash hit. Playing it safe hindered this movie, as part of Hangover's appeal was its inability to stick to a formula. Hangover II is funny, but lacks the satisfaction, zaniness, and appeal of the original. Hopefully they can spice things up for the third installment (you know it's coming out, stop lying to yourself) otherwise all I have to do is copy this review and paste it to the third chapter.
diac1987.blogspot.com Entire Planet Observed on Daily Basis
Greetings again from the darkness. Two years ago, director Todd
Phillips presented a highly creative, hilarious, raunchy, unique film
comedy called The Hangover. And now, he does it again. He presents that
SAME film again. I am unsure whether this is a sequel or remake. The
only substantial change is the setting ... Bangkok instead of Vegas.
Now I fully understand WHY most sequels follow the formula created by the successful original film. Filmmakers want to keep their audience satisfied. If it worked once, it will work again. Especially when the first film grosses a half-billion dollars! So the chances are very good that if you liked the first one, you will also enjoy this one. But for me, I get excited for creative filmmakers ... not re-treads.
The key characters are all back and played by the same guys: Bradley Cooper (Phil), Ed Helms (Stu), Zach Galifianakis (Alan), Justin Bartha (Doug), and Ken Leong (Mr. Chow). All of these guys have worked constantly since the first film, but it makes perfect sense to return to the scene that put them on the Hollywood map.
This time around, Stu (Ed Helms) draws the long straw and has the storyline based on his pending marriage to Jamie Chung (Sucker Punch). Stu's "wolfpack" buddies agree to a one-beer bonfire beach bachelor party, but of course, something goes very wrong. The next morning finds our boys staggering to regain consciousness in a sleazy Bangkok hotel with no recollection of the previous night's events. The only clues are a monkey, a severed finger, a facial tat and international criminal Mr. Chow.
No need for me to go into any details or spoil any moments. You know the drill if you have seen the first. What follows is nearly two hours of debauchery and moments of varying levels of discomfort, gross-out and comedic skits.
Supporting work is provided by Paul Giamatti, Jeffrey Tambor, and Mason Lee (Ang Lee's son). There is also a cameo by Nick Cassavetes as a tattoo artist. This role was originally meant for Mel Gibson, and later Liam Neeson. Cast and crew protests kept Gibson out and Neeson's scenes were cut when re-shoots were necessary.
I feel tricked by Mr. Phillips. The first Hangover had me excited that a new comedic genius had entered Hollywood and would quickly blow away the Judd Apatow recycle jobs and copycats. Instead, we get Todd Phillips copying Todd Phillips.
This is certainly an above-average comedy and there are plenty of laughs from the characters we kind of feel like we know - though, wish we didn't. Just know going in that are witnessing a clear attempt at cashing in, not a desire to wow.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
The Hangover II is the perfect example of a Hollywood sell-out.
Somehow, despite being set in an exquisitely beautiful country, there was nothing new or even entertaining in the cinematography. An amazing achievement given that Bangkok is a voyeurs dream. In the end, The Hangover II offered us nothing more than travel brochure scenes and worn out clichés.
The story, merely reheated leftovers, is a sexually confused 12-year-old's wet dream. I've never seen so many flaccid penises in one place before. The sad fact that so many people find this movie entertaining is pathetic and down right scary. If all it takes to satisfy the males of an entire nation is a bunch of homo-erotic fantasies, stale clichés, and some exposed titties - we are all screwed - with a capital F.
In the end I'm left with the feeling that I've been felt up, taken advantage of, and somehow have been forced to pay for the experience. If I could erase the images from my memory - even if that meant a hot poker to the ear hole - I would willingly offer myself up.
Unfortunately, instead... I'm left with the bad after taste that The Hangover II has left in my mouth - a taste that reminds me of stale cigarettes, bad tequila and vomit.
What made The Hangover fun and entertaining unfortunately leads to
predicatability in The Hangover II. The only reason I got any enjoyment
out of this movie at all was because I liked the characters in the
first movie. I wish they had tried to do something fresh with the story
and the characters, but it was the same old gags.
When I first saw the original Hangover, I thought the movie might become a classic comedy. But honestly after watching it a few times, it seems less funny where as many comedies you pick up on small things on multiple viewings that make the movie even funnier. With the Hangover, the element of surprise is lost the next time around and the story loses its appeal.
So taking what I just said into account, if you've watched the first movie multiple times and then have expectations that the second movie will be a fun adventure with fun surprises around the corner, you will be somewhat disappointed. The writers even wrote in another animal with the Monkey (Tiger first film) and baby with the old Monk (baby first film). The gags just didn't seem quite as funny the second time around.
There was a lot of hype leading to the release of this movie. In fact, right after the first film was released rumors that a second was on the way already surfaced. Really a disappointing film of what might have become a pretty fun movie franchise. Rating 6 of 10 and this is being nice because like I said, I got some enjoyment out of the film simply because seeing some of the same characters from the first movie was nostalgic.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Most people seem to really enjoy The Hangover. It wouldn't be the
highest grossing R-rated comedy of all time if they didn't, right? The
movie also has a fairly solid reputation, as well; certified fresh on
Rotten Tomatoes along with above average scores just about everywhere
else you look. With that said, it's better as a standalone film.
Pushing another Hangover film onto the masses would water down and
lessen the impact of what made the first film entertaining. The
Hangover Part II proves just that and illustrates what a film made
solely for money and nothing more really is.
I felt like I missed out for not seeing the original film in theaters. Due to how often I laughed out loud during its duration, it certainly seemed to warrant a theatrical viewing. With the sequel's release upon us, it seemed like an easy solution. But promotion for the sequel made me feel weary. Trailers pretty much let everybody know that audiences would be sitting through the exact same film again. As it turns out, it is. The Hangover Part II is probably about 90% the same film as The Hangover.
A few things are changed in comparison to the first film: there's a drug dealing monkey instead of a tiger, Stu gets a tattoo instead of losing a tooth, Alan loses his hair instead of his pants, they're in Thailand instead of Vegas, Jamie Chung replaces Heather Graham (different characters, but still), and a new character is missing instead of one of "The Wolfpack." Everything else plays out nearly identically to the first film other than them checking the roof first; searching all over the city, outrageous antics, Stu's realization that the person they were looking for was right under their nose the entire time, Mike Tyson having a small cameo, right down to the ending leading to pictures in the credits. It's difficult to consider these spoilers when this is technically a film you've already seen. There are a few surprises in there, but not enough to make this sequel feel worthwhile.
Ken Jeong's Mr. Chow gets a bigger role this time around and he's just as much a blessing as he is poison to the sequel. He has a few pretty classic one-liners, but is really annoying overall. So right after he mutters something amusing, he usually ruins it immediately afterward by either taking the joke too far or just saying something lame. He's a perfect example of too much of a good thing.
Part of me wishes that The Hangover Part II would've combined The Human Centipede just to see something different. Phil, Alan, and Stu waking up as part of The Human Centipede without any recollection of how they got there sounds way more interesting than what we received. At least it'd be something different and not a complete rehash.
The Hangover Part II does offer a handful of laughs, but suffers because it's the illegitimate twin brother of the original film. Its redundancy renders it an unnecessary experience even for the most die-hard Hangover fan. You'd probably be better off just watching the first one at home again and saving yourself $10. Part II may also set the record for most male genitalia shown in a wide released R-rated film or at least gives the record a run for its money. Men's junk and its overuse was all that was being discussed as people exited the theater.
At the end of the day, The Hangover Part II is a mostly pointless sequel that's excessive, repetitive, and manages to tarnish what good it had going for it the first time around. If the small references to the first film weren't in there, it could probably pass as a remake. While it does offer some laughs and is bound to kill at the box office, it doesn't seem worth the trouble since it's basically the same journey with the addition of a bucket load of shafts and testicles and a cigarette smoking monkey.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I had modest expectations, they weren't met. This is Hollywood milking a successful movie with a contrived followup. This is the same movie. The jokes are the same, just dirtier and more low-brow to get shock reaction. This is like the joke "the Aristocrats". Same joke as before, just dirtier and more disgusting. Drug overdoses, kidnapping and hiding bodies as a premise for a comedy isn't entertainment, it's desperation to go "over the top" without originality. The interaction with the lady-boys was obvious and a cliché for Bangkok humor. It's the Heather Graham joke from the first movie with a little sodomy mixed into it. The inappropriate observations and comments by Alan that made the first movie clever just push the envelope but don't even feel awkward anymore. If your brand of humor falls along the lines of "the more disgusting and grotesque the better" than this is your movie. If you want some creativity and originality for your money, don't bother. I gave it a 4 instead of a 3 only because of the monkey.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
In a classic case of going to the well just once too often, "Hangover,
Part II" should be a lesson to all directors and screenwriters that
what sets a successful sequel apart is SOME kind of divergence from the
original movie's plot.
But if a story about three friends who end up in crazy situations while celebrating their buddy's upcoming wedding can make $300 million at the box office, why argue with success. Like most recent Hollywood tales, the writers aren't stupid, they just dupe it.
Plus, I truly cannot decide what was the worst moments of this picture, the jokes, the writing, the forced nudity and vulgarity, the poorly mismatched vignettes or the assaultingly bad obscene rap soundtrack I was forced to endure. Let's just say it was all equally horrible and added up to one lousy day at the movies.
Director Todd Phillips (who did himself no favors in helming "Due Date" between the first and second versions of this film) brought most of the cast from the wildly popular "Hangover" back for what amounts to a major rehashing with Bangkok substituting for Las Vegas.
Here, the idiotic trio, Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu the dentist (Ed Helms, "The Office") and the obnoxious Alan (Zach Galifianakis, "Due Date"), who were shanghaied in Vegas during Stu's bachelor party, now find it's deja vu all over again. This time, however, the raunchy fun and silliness of that plot is replaced by drugs, death and dismemberment and few laughs of which to speak.
Add to the mishmash a ton of completely unnecessary supporting characters (Stu's brother-in-law-to-be, Teddy, Mason Lee; the coked out Chow, Ken Jeong; Mr. Kingsley, Paul Giamati looking like Jabba the Hut in a leisure suit; a totally unfunny Middle Eastern gun dealer; a gruff future father-in-law, as well as a smoking, drug-dealing monkey that replaces part one's tiger) and you will feel like you're in the midst of an actual hangover.
And that's sad, because there were a few genuine laughs in this picture, and not the kind in which a character just repeats the F-word over and over again (which all of the characters did, by the way) or with homo-erotic situations that seemed more bad afterthought than real comedic inspiration. Most of the guffaw lines came from the pompous nerd Galifianakis, his long locks now shorn as a tribute to a night of debauchery.
Helms also gets in a few decent scenes, most revolving around his discovery that the tattoo on his face pays silent homage to Mike Tyson. Cooper, on the other hand, while a pretty face, comes nowhere near a laugh in the movie's mercifully short 100-minute running time.
The funniest scene in the movie, for me anyway, was Stu holding a bachelor party brunch at IHOP while his disbelieving friends sit stunned. If only that kind of inspired fun could have permeated the rest of the film.
Don't think too much about this one, though, friends. Just get some aspirin, ginger ale, black coffee, tomato juice or the hair of the dog anything to erase this awful hangover from your system.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
2009 wasn't exactly the best year for movies, but out of that year we
did get a comedy that will last for years to come, The Hangover. When I
heard that there was going to be a sequel, I was telling my friends
that I had a feeling that this was being made for the money. After all,
The Hangover made over 200 million dollars world wide, they are going
to milk it for everything that it's worth. Plus what made the first
Hangover so great was that as crazy as their night was and outrageous,
in some strange way it was believable where we've been so drunk we
couldn't remember the night before and somehow did the most insane
things. How is this supposed to happen again and be believable? But I
loved the first Hangover so much that I went into this just hoping it
was going to be a good time and sadly, it was exactly as I feared, this
was made for money because it was nothing but copy and paste.
Phil, Alan and Doug travel to Thailand for Stu's wedding, but after their escapade in Las Vegas, Stu has opted for a safe, subdued pre-wedding brunch. They go to Thailand with Allen as well, when Stud did not want to invite him due to the previous events. They all look to have one drink on the beach, however, things do not go as planned after they lose the 16-year-old brother of Stu's fiancée and somehow wake up in Bangkok. Now they must go through the whole mystery again of trying to find their missing friend, but everyone they meet tells them that "Bangkok has him now".
See, the thing is, I did laugh a couple times, I will admit that. But the beginning and ending verbatim is the exact same thing first Hangover. A lot of the jokes are the exact same thing as the first film, the monkey was the replacement for the tiger, the silent monk was a replacement for the baby, the brother was a replacement for Doug, Paul Giamatti was a replacement for Leslie Chow, Stu's girlfriend's attitude problem from the first film is now his future father in law's attitude problem, you get the idea. Leslie Chow becomes more of a main character in this movie which I felt was another problem, as I mentioned in my review of the first film, even though he was funny he was the only thing about The Hangover that I felt was a little too over the top. He did make me laugh still, but again, it's more of the same. Also I don't know why but it seems since Stu had such an awful girlfriend in the first Hangover, they felt they had to go to the extreme opposite and give him a girl that not only looks 20 years younger than him but also is the perfect girlfriend who doesn't question anything and thinks Stu is the best man in the world.
I really wanted this to be an excellent film, I was so looking forward to having a good laugh, but when it's the exact same thing as the first film, how could you enjoy it? There are no surprises and the magic is gone. They made Allen into a mean character that is totally unbelievable, Stu is over the top in being a sissy and Phil is now there just to be the pretty boy and I really wish they had used Doug more in this one since we didn't get to see him in the first Hangover much, he seems like a great character. Seriously, skip it, this is not worth your time or money, the first Hangover is a classic. If they make a third one, make the girls have the hangover or bring a new group in because the story is just done. This was lazy and pathetic and I want my money back.
Remember that one movie that came out in 2009 called The Hangover? Of
course you do. It was only one of the most talked about films of the
summer, surprising everyone as one of the funniest comedies in a long
time. Two years later it was only fitting that a sequel be made so that
we could relive the original Hangover fervor and kick off summer 2011
with a bang. Well, the basic rule of thumb for a sequel is that it
either a) needs to be a continuation of the story from the first film
or b) tell a new story with the same characters. The Hangover Part II
decided to invent their own option c) which is to tell the exact same
story all over again, but just changing a few details.
And that is what The Hangover Part II is. This time Stu, Alan, and Phil are in Bangkok, Thailand for Stu's wedding. The wolfpack reunites for another awesome bachelor party, this time brining along Stu's sixteen year old brother-in-law, Teddy. Stu promises only one beer and then he is calling it a night, but of course that isn't what happened or this wouldn't be The Hangover Part II. Nope. Once again a crazy night ensues and the boys wake up the next morning with absolutely no recollection of what happened the night before. They only have small clues to go off of, but they have no choice but to use these clues in order to find Teddy, who has gone missing. From here things play out much like they did in the first film with the same elements as the original. Instead of a tiger we have a monkey. Instead of a baby we have a monk. Instead of a regular Las Vegas hooker we have, well... I won't spoil that.
I, like so many others, loved The Hangover. I was happily surprised by how funny and just how well made it was for a film that looked like it would be another silly comedy movie. Of course it was that but it had something great about the raunchiness of the jokes and the cleverness of the mystery story that unfolds. The Hangover Part II doesn't quite have that and it only seems to try as hard as possible to outmatch its predecessor. It is this excessive one-upping of the first film that also drags down the films story. For one, it is just the same story all over again, but I can get past that because it worked in the first film. I won't say it wasn't annoying seeing so much of the same things happen all over again, but I'll get over it.
I was disappointed though because I loved the mystery aspect of the first film. The process of finding out where Doug was in the first film coupled with the incredibly entertaining humor was done just right. The Hangover Part II just tries so hard to go even further over-the-top that the mystery aspect here falls flat. It isn't nearly as interesting, thus the thing that made The Hangover more than just another comedy is lost in The Hangover Part II. The film does everything in its ability to be raunchier and more over-the-top than the first film, affecting all aspects. The obviousness of this effort actually ends up being distracting and it just reminds me why sequels too often suck, especially comedy sequels.
But The Hangover Part II doesn't suck. It definitely hasn't lost all of the magic that was there in the first film. Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, and Ed Helms obviously love these characters and you can see it come through in their performances. The hilarious trifecta are just as great in this film as they were in the first, and I never thought for a second that they were losing touch with their characters in the film's attempts to one-up the original. And honestly, this film really is funny. I laughed hysterically at plenty of moments throughout the film and there is never a dull moment. Each moment just gets raunchier and and more insane, keeping you laughing from start to finish. The comedy in this film isn't as clever as the first film, and it really sort of boils down to fart, poop, and dick jokes, but I love the characters of this film too much to not be entertained by that.
I won't say that I wasn't thoroughly entertained for the 102 minutes this film ran. I still think Zach Galifianakis is one of the funniest human beings currently on this planet and I think Todd Phillips still knows how to make a funny movie. But The Hangover Part II certainly doesn't live up to the hype and it doesn't even come close to the first film. As much as I laughed during this film I really just can't think of it as much more than just another comedy.
|Page 1 of 39:||          |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|