The Hangover, Part II
Director: Todd Philips
You would think that after a hangover THAT big nothing like that would ever happen again, but guess what: it did... just exactly the same. I don't mind repetitivity every once in a while, maybe it can work, maybe it can be as funny or funnier than the first time, but if you're gonna do it in a sequel then do it just once or twice throughout the whole movie, and try to fill the rest of it with fresh new and original ideas, making very different situations and still having a kick out of it. But the deal with The Hangover, Part II is that it is almost exactly what The Hangover was. And that's not a good thing.
After the disaster of the bachelor party that happened in Las Vegas two years prior, Stu, who is about to get married, decides that he just wants to have a bachelor brunch. The "wolf pack" travel to Thailand for Stu's wedding (with Alan barely invited). The night prior the ceremony the foru of them, along with Stu's brother in law Teddy, go to the beach to have a couple of beers. The next day, Stu, Alan and Phil wake up in a dirty hotel room in Bangkok (along with Chow). They know that Doug is in the hotel, but Teddy is nowhere to be found. With Stu getting married that day they have to find Teddy before the ceremony, but in a city where everything can happen (and by everything I mean everything weve already seen) finding him can be harder than it seems.
The main problem with The Hangover Part II, as I've already said, is that it echoes alot the first movie. It follows the same strucutre, it has almost the same situations but with a few details changed, and we even have a similar resolution. The opening scene was almost a copy from the one in the first, but it was funny. As I said, repetition can be funny every once in a while, but then it started to become annoying and silly. *SPOILERS* Instead of having a baby/tiger we have a drug dealing nicotine addicted monkey, instead of having a fake Doug we have a fake Teddy (a monk with an eternal vow of silence), instead of having a stripper/whore who Stu marries we have a transvestite whore who Stu drunkenly falls in love with. *SPOILERS OVER*, and there's much more.
The performances are solid and funny, but nothing special, except for Ken Jeong and Zach Galifianakis who were pretty good, but the problem was that their characters weren't likeable anymore. For Ken Jeong, his character was driven to the extreme and lost most of his charm from the first film. And Zach Galifianakis' character Alan was much more malign in this film, when in the first film he was innocent and that was made him funny, this time around he is darker, *SPOILERS ONCE AGAIN* this time roofying them on purpose, even if it was directed to Teddy *SPOILERS OVER*, and that basically ruined him for me.
The film is funny, yes, but it isn't hilarous, even if it uses many of the same jokes as in the first, only that much darker and nastier. That didn't help the film either. Making the film much nastier or crueler wasn't a big help, as it became or rude, or annoying or a simple turn off.
The Hangover, Part II is funny and has good performances, but the fact that it is an almost remake of the first film and that it is much crueler and nastier kind of ruins the film. It isn't a complete failure, but it isn't a success either. I've heard they are making a third one. What I say is that if they aren't going to change the situation and make something entirely different then don't really bother.
My recommendation: Is not really worth it going to the theater, better wait for the DVD/Blu ray if you want to watch it, but don't have high hopes.
My score: 43%