Hangover 2

The premise of The Hangover: Part II is nearly identical to the first – the same "wolfpack" from the first movie, Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), Doug (Justin Bartha) and the not entirely welcome man- child, Alan (Zach Galifianakis), throw a wild, out-of-control bachelor party that results in the loss of an important character.

At first blush, it seemed as though this movie, with its recycled premise and familiar characters another painfully obvious attempt to wring the last few cents out of a Hollywood cash cow. However, director Todd Phillips, easily quiets these criticisms by playfully mocking the similarities and by upping the raunchiness, insanity, and humor of the movie.

Galifianakis once again steals the show as the perfectly crafted weirdo Alan, who's sporadic and bizarre interjections enliven momentary lulls in the movie. Alan's antics are further accentuated by the return of the humorous and insane criminal, Chow (Ken Jeong). Combined with new, shockingly outrageous situations, the duo keeps the laughs coming and in doing so gets the audience to forget the movie's lack of originality.

Regardless of my strong recommendation, wholesome moviegoers and those who are wholeheartedly convinced that this movie is nothing but a remake should skip The Hangover: Part II because, to be honest, this isn't a movie to be taken seriously. It is not a cinematic masterpiece by any stretch and the storyline is weak at best, but if you're willing to venture into the bowels of Bangkok for a raunchy, silly, sophomoric, and extremely amusing movie, call up your wolf pack and head to see an amusing movie you'll never forget – hopefully.

The gang is back. This time Stu is getting married to Lauren in Thailand. After a quiet night, Stu, Alan and Phil wake up in a seedy apartment in Bangkok. Doug is back at the resort, but Lauren's brother Teddy is missing. There's a monkey with a severed finger, Alan's head is shaved, Stu has a tattoo on his face, and they can't remember any of it. And Mr Chow is back.

This is just like the first one, except this one is crazier and in Bankok. Everything is bigger. Alan is crazier. Mr Chow is more ridiculous. The humor is cruder. It's essentially repeating the same story and some dismiss it for that. I personally don't.

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.

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.