Saturday, 10 December 2011

The Hangover: Part II (2011)


One night in Bangkok bears a similarity to one night in Vegas



Phil, Stu, Alan and Doug travel to Thailand for Stu’s wedding. After the bachelor party in Las Vegas, Stu takes no chances and opts for a safe, subdued pre-wedding brunch. However, things do not go as planned, as Phil, Stu and Alan wake up in Bangkok with Alan's head shaved, Stu's face tattooed similarly to Mike Tyson's and a monkey.





The characters do seem to have taken a step backwards from how they were established in the first film. Stu pretty much devolves into a whiny character who isn't any fun to be around. Ken Jeong reprises his role as Chow for a longer amount of time than he had in the first film, but perhaps the limited time he got in the first film was the right thing to do, as Chow pretty much becomes an annoying caricature of any asian gangster stereotype from the last 20 years. Alan, who was the scene stealer from the first film, has taken a U-turn and become an utterly annoying, repressed man child who still lives with his parents, sulks that Teddy is coming to the point where you want to slap him and gets utterly obsessive over the group he brands as "The Wolfpack". Doug appears for so little that it doesn't feel like he's part of the established group like he was in the first film, surely this film was a great way to show how well he fits with the group?

The film is chock full of plot conveniences, and the dialogue is nowhere near as quotable as what we got in the first film. Also, it's pretty head-slammingly obvious what is the cause for them not remembering the night before, but it takes too long to get there that it pretty much tests your patience. Also, the way the gang get to the strip club is utterly lazy, and the ending could not have felt more forced.

Phil and Stu could tell there was something different about Alan

The main problem this film has is one that will have been picked up upon by people before they even see this film: it's pretty much the same film as the first one. Granted, there are a few differences, like it being set in Bangkok and Chow being a bigger part of the group, but ultimately, this film is a basic retread of The Hangover. And it's not just the plot which is retread, it's multiple things that I shall not go into for the sake of spoilers. And the downside is that, despite being pretty much the same, Part II is nowhere near as fun as the first film. This film adopts a darker tone all throughout, and that brings the fun and enjoyment down so much that it becomes a chore to get through this film.

But it isn't all negative about this film. It does have it's good moments, like every scene that takes place within the strip club, and I liked how many references they made to the first film, keeping it within a good continuity in a much better way than them saying "I can't believe this is happening again". Also, Teddy's a nice addition to the gang, and i'm glad he wasn't the typical annoying kid brother type of character that we typically end up with. I felt Paul Giamatti did well with his role, and Mike Tyson's cameo is good.

If you've seen the original Hangover film, then you have absolutely no need to see The Hangover: Part II, as it's a basic retread of the first film, only not as quotable, not as fun, with the characters being more annoying and the darker tone bringing the film down, despite great appearances from Paul Giamatti, Mike Tyson and Mason Lee, son of Ang Lee. Not worth your time.

6 comments:

  1. Yeah, I heard this was pretty bad. Too much vulgarity; so little wit. I'm still gonna see it, though. Good work.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Exactly the same complaints that I had. I smell plagiarism!! I'll see you in court.

    Jk, excellent work, I couldn't agree more. Alan annoyed the piss out of me in this movie with how downright mean-spirited he was.

    ReplyDelete
  3. What’s missing is a huge part of what made the first film so good: the element of surprise and the actual joy of having all these crazy situations happen. This is a dark and morbid cash-in and nothing more, except with some chuckles. Good review.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I don't know man. I liked this one more. It was more insane than the first. Lol.

    ReplyDelete
  5. @Ryan J. Marshall yeah, that's pretty much the gist of it

    @The Chad Reviews I know, I hated that, especially considering how lovable he was in the first film

    @dtmmr That is utterly true, the chuckles were few and far spaced out

    @OMFGITSROHIT It was more insane, but it was still utterly predictable

    ReplyDelete
  6. I bet Paul Giamatti got a big fat massive cheque for his role. I agree here, the first one is far better.

    ReplyDelete