Bottom line: The Hangover: Part II is not as good as the first one. That statement doesn’t carry much weight. There are plenty of good sequels that aren’t as good as the originals. Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay (which I liked better than the first one), Iron Man 2, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, etc. But those sequels are all still good movies. They had a high bar set for them. In the realm of worthy sequels, this movie does not belong.
The movie revolves around the wedding of Stu (Ed Helms), who is getting married in Thailand to Lauren (Jamie Chung). Along for the wedding are of course Phil (Bradley Cooper, still delightfully snarky) and Alan (Zach Galifianakis). Because of the events of the last movie, Stu doesn’t want a bachelor party. Instead, he finally agrees to have one beer on a beach by firelight with his friends and his fiance’s 16-year-old brother Teddy (newcomer Mason Lee). Of course, it turns out not to be just one drink and the gang wakes up the next morning in a shady hotel room in Bangkok, and Teddy is missing. Hilarity ensues, a couple of times.
Before you dismiss my opinion, let me first say that it pains me to review this movie as negatively as I do. It does. I loved the first movie. I own the first movie. I’ve watched it repeatedly. The characters carried with them a sense of brotherhood and camaraderie. That camaraderie is completely absent in this movie. This is especially true of Alan, who in the first movie was kind of an affable idiot. But here, he’s not so much stupid as he is just mean and despicable. I actually didn’t have any problems with Phil. He is the same as he was in the first movie, but then again, we don’t learn anything new about him in this movie. In the first movie, he plays it off like he hates his life, but at the end, we see that he actually loves his family. We see Alan find friends. We see Stu develop the self-confidence to break it off with his abusive cheating girlfriend. In this movie, it’s like Stu has re-developed his insecurity in relation to Lauren’s father, who does not like him and openly insults him. This feels crowbarred in just so that Stu can have an arc. Stu is very much the main character in this film, and it feels weird because the movie should be about the three of them, just like the last movie was. And it wants to be about them all, but there just isn’t enough story there for the three of them.
It’s tough not to compare this film to the first one, but it compares itself to the first one. All the time. They probably figured that people would react negatively if they did not reference the first film, since the premise is so similar. That’s the biggest problem. This film is almost an EXACT COPY of the first film, which would have been fine if it was FUNNY, but it isn’t that funny. What they should have done was try for something different, and find the humor in that. At least then even if it wasn’t funny, they would have done something different. Fail on one level instead of two. They failed on both levels here. It’s like they didn’t even try. Every big laugh in the movie is there just for laughs. It doesn’t feel real. I know that all the circumstances of these movies can’t be taken completely seriously, it’s a comedy. That’s not what I mean. Even in the first movie, everyone reacted realistically to their extraordinary circumstances. In this one, that doesn’t happen and at least for me, it takes me out of the movie.
******SPOILERS*******
Okay, I have to reveal plot details to further explain my point. If you’ve already seen the movie, or don’t care, keep reading this section.
Let me point out the major problems (that I haven’t stated) with this movie in detail. In no particular order.
- Alan: Alan is not lovable in this movie. He does not like Teddy and is threatened by him to the point that he tries to drug Teddy so that he can’t have fun with the guys. Yes, once again, Alan is responsible for the wild night. Even though he denies it early in the film, it was him once again, and it is not surprising at all. Again, there’s a lack of originality here. Why couldn’t they find another reason for the wild night, other than Alan supposedly meaning well? At least in the last film, he meant to slip ecstacy in everyone’s drinks so that they’d have fun. It turned out to be roofies, thus explaining why no one could remember anything. In this one, it was ADD medicine and cough syrup, I believe. ADD medicine is a cardiac stimulant. Neither it nor cough syrup would make someone completely forget their night. And this time around, he didn’t do it to help his buddies have a good time. He attempted to incapacitate Teddy, messed up, and ended up drugging them all. Thankfully there’s a moment in the film after he admits this where both Phil and Stu get angry with Alan for this and threaten to not be friends with him anymore, but it’s not treated with much weight. I’d never speak to this guy again if it were me.
- Mr. Chow: I loved Mr Chow in the first movie because Ken Jeong was a great side-gag character. But that’s what he should have stayed: A side-gag character. In this film, he’s much more important to the “plot” in this movie. They seem to have taken his best jokes or Chow-isms from the first movie and blended them together to spit them back out incessantly in this movie. It’s funny until you realize that you want it to stop trying so hard.
- Stu: Here is one example of a moment where they sacrifice character for laughs. One of the things that happens in the movie is that apparently Stu played the catcher in male gay sex with a pre-op She-male. Funny right? No. Just uncomfortable. What’s worse is that it doesn’t make sense that Stu would do that. In the first movie, Stu marries Heather Graham, a stripper. He does this because it reflects his desire to break free from his abusive girlfriend. Here, it makes ZERO sense and I couldn’t really laugh at it because it just seemed like a shameless grab for a gross-out laugh. Stu isn’t gay. Even really drugged up, it doesn’t make sense that he would consent to have sex with a man.
- Teddy: I’m sorry, but this kid was not funny. Then again, he’s barely in the movie. He loses a finger in the course of the night’s happenings. When they finally find him and take him back to his father’s house for the wedding, his father is furious. It’s understandable. This kid is sixteen years old, he’s his father’s most prized possession, and his finger is gone forever. That’s right. They didn’t keep the finger and then re-attach it. This kid, who plays the cello, has permanently lost his finger. Yet, he is not at all concerned about it. I’d be really pissed and I’d never hang out with these people again. I wouldn’t tell Stu that “even though I don’t remember anything from last night, I was happy.” NO. That’s stupid. And that doesn’t even make sense.
- The photos at the end.: At the end of the first movie, Alan comes up to the guys, announcing that he looked at his camera and it was full of telling photos from the night. This made for a very funny montage during the end credits that both explained what happened and was funny. Obviously, since they felt every need to copy the first film, they do this again in this movie, but it feels SO FORCED. Teddy walks up to them and says that he charged his phone and it is full of pictures from the night. Ugh.
******NO MORE SPOILERS*****
I wouldn’t go see this movie in theaters. There’s no need. I’m having a hard time deciding whether or not to recommend it at all, even for rental. Look, you’re probably going to see it anyway, and this movie has already made a crapload of money. But I really don’t recommend it at all. As hard as it is to believe, I really don’t think it is worth seeing. I’ve even heard some critics say that it ruined the first film for them because it made them question the creative choices of Todd Phillips.
Do what you want. But I didn’t like this movie. I agree with those who would say that if you liked the first movie, don't see this one.
The Hangover Part II is playing in theaters everywhere. Mobile residents can still see it at the Carmike or Hollywood theaters.
No comments:
Post a Comment