Friday, June 3, 2011

Hangover II

Ben’s Review of Hangover II
If the first movie is good then why not try duplicating it again. If you bring back the exact same cast, director, and writer then you simply cannot lose. This was most likely the thinking behind the Hangover II. And why wouldn’t a movie studio think this? The original Hangover is the highest grossing rated R comedy of all time and the best selling comedy DVD of all time. This movie also jump started the movie careers of Bradley Cooper, Zack Galifinakis, and Ed Helms into hyper drive. With all of these accolades and a beloved cast, a sequel was merely academic. So a hilarious sequel is guaranteed right? Well….
The Hangover II begins with the revelation that everyone’s favorite Hooker marrying Dentist, Stu once again played by Ed Helms, is getting married in Thailand. Coincidentally, all of his friends from the Wolf Pac are invited, except for Alan, reprised by Zack Galifiinakis. Through some very tough convincing, Stu relents and invites Alan to the nuptials. So the gang goes to Thailand to marry off Stu. Stu, aware of the problems that can be caused by a bachelor party, refuses to partake in any pre-wedding festivities except for a beer with the guys on the beach and, of course, this is when everything goes wrong. The wolf pack wakes up in Bangkok with no recollection as to how they arrived there and must once again piece together the previous night’s activities and find the missing party member, this time Stu’s future brother in law. The three musketeers of debauchery once again have to check their pockets and rely on locals figure to learn the whereabouts of Stu’s brother-in-law. So is the Wolf Pac in Thailand a can’t miss premise?
(CAUTION SPOILERS FOLLOW) The original Hangover was a very original and well put together movie. It was truly hilarious because it had surprise after surprise which kept the audience riveted to their seats to see what would happen next. The problem is that the Hangover II does not offer anything new. It is literally the exact same premise and plot in everyway. Not only were almost all the gags the same but they occurred in the same order as the first movie. There were no real surprises just more of everything. The loan bright spot was a whole lot more Mr. Chow played by Ken Jeong The only real difference between the two movies is that the disturbing events that happen to the characters are truly disturbing to the point where they almost lose the humor.
I truly wanted to like this move but it came across as uninspired and just plain lazy. I give it two roofies out of five.

Elisa's Review of the Hangover II

"The Citizen Cane" of bachelor party movies touted "Rollingstone" magazine, in its review of the original "Hangover." When I meet people who have never watched the movie, I become so jealous that soon they are going to watch and experience each scene and laugh that full-body wet-their-pants laugh that only a first-time viewing provides. I can watch the same scenes, over and over on HBO--Is there anyone who doesn't want to experience Alan asking the clerk at Ceasar's "is there a phone bank in the hotel" for the first time again?
It was this built-up adoration for the antics Ed Helms, Zach Galifan...whatever, and Cooper Bradley, that provided the excitement for the sequel. Could these guys be as funny again? Could Sin City be replaced with Zen-City Bangkok? The answer, I am sad to report, is a solid, and loud, "NO."
It wasn't funny. I laughed in one part out of sheer exhaustion from holding in my cheer for 45 minutes. And, I am pretty sure what I laughed at was a complex penis joke, or a gay sex joke. It was a stretch. It was..not funny.
The studio, actors and writers cannot be blamed. Clearly, large wads of money were thrown at them to make this piece of cinema garbage. It is important to know two of the original writers, out of a team of three, did not participate in the sequel. Evidently, they were the clever and smart duo of the oringal threesome. They should receive an Oscar for "Best Decision Ever made."
The movie is so stagnant and boring, it seems as though the writers went scene-by-scene from the original outlining the movie. Or, it is possible they pulled up the original screen play and did a "Find/Replace" search finding "Las Vegas" and replacing it with "Bangkok." Finding "Tiger" and replacing with "monkey." Replacing "stripper" with "tranvestite hooker."
While the movie feels stagnant and boring, the plot is simultaneously rushed. There is no development as to when/where/how/why the boys are in Bangkok. There is no blury wake-up. It is a fast panic. Face Tatoo? Not that funny. They needed Liam Neason.
The story is canned and the laughs are cheap. Wait to rent it, HBO it, or watch the edited-for-TV version and save your tears. Hopefully, "The Hangover" franchise will not follow the four-peat sequels of another hilarious sleeper hit "Meatballs." There does not need to be a Zach Galifanik..whatever scene with Joan Rivers.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

This is the first time I've heard a movie called "stagnant." What a great description - slimy green water with wriggly mosquito larvae and giant water beetles - to keep me away from the movie. Definitely NOT a candidate for stilton-and-port night.