Movie Review: The Hangover Part II

 In Uncategorized

I think this one will be short. I’m a little late writing about it, so you probably already know all there is to know about this movie. In a nutshell, it’s the international version of the first one. Same premise–the gang loses someone because they can’t remember the night before and has to find him–same characters, same ridiculous humor. Instead of a baby, though, there is a monkey. And instead of Ken Jeong as the bad guy–he’s kind of traded to the good guys in this one–there’s Paul Giamatti. That’s pretty cool…in theory.

A few of the recycled gags were still funny the second time around, but I would’ve really liked more originality for my money. When I think about it, I really can’t believe how incredibly identical these two movies are, and how that seems to be OK to the general public. I guess people like the familiar because The Hangover Part II made something like $32 Million in its first weekend. Of course, I thought the first Hangover movie was pretty much the characters from Old School, recast and moved to Las Vegas, so I shouldn’t be surprised.

If you liked the first Hangover film, you’ll enjoy The Hangover Part II, but probably not as much. I say if you really want to see a good comedy in the theaters, go see Bridesmaids instead. People seem to like to compare the two, but I don’t think that’s fair, and I don’t think they are anything alike.

The Hangover Part II trailer:

Recent Posts
Showing 2 comments
  • Blake

    Steven,

    Totally agree with you. I thought it was a rehash of the first one cobbled together with all the jokes left on the cutting room floor from the first one. Not sure if you saw this article in the NYT yesterday, but it kind of gets at what you’re talking about:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/movies/films-in-defense-of-slow-and-boring.html?_r=2&src=dayp

    Blake

  • Steven

    I did see that article, Blake. And I agree with what A.O. Scott says, especially at the end of it. I think there’s room for all the different tastes in the cinematic diet. I don’t know if it’s a menu that the masses are willing to order from though.

    If you look at the films that gross the most, it’s always comedy or action for the most part. So maybe American moviegoers are defining what is boring to them as a whole and they’re not really all that excited about trying new things, which is a terrible shame, because there are a lot of really amazing films out there that should have wider audiences. I guess it comes down to business and what the companies have seen working in the past though, hence another Hangover (and now, maybe even another Hangover). I wouldn’t say that movie was boring to me, per se. But I do think it was phoned in from the very beginning. Again, though, Warner Bros. saw the success of the first one and know they’re strike gold again the second time around. (This is a trend I noticed the other day when I walked by the movie theater down the street and all four of the movies they were showing were sequels)

    Maybe it’s that America doesn’t want to vary their cinema diet because the studios don’t want to make the other, cheaper options on the menu as visible.

Leave a Comment