Well a lot of scenarios played out similarly as well

HANGOVER 2

I was somewhat interested in this but after reading some reviews online and the opinion of a co-worker I was a bit hesitant to even watch it in theatres. I went anyway knowing that it was essentially going be just like the first film but less enjoyable, not as funny, more crude jokes and that's exactly what I got. I certainly did laugh during the picture but there were more than a few times that felt unfunny or boring. I think the end photo sequence was the funniest part of the picture. Next funniest moment was when Stu was in the tranny club. Overall, I think it's a picture to definitely wait for on dvd.

Grade - C

Nowhere near as funny as the first film even though it's the same film in many ways. Even still, these characters are just really amusing and the situations are so outrageous that the sequel still manages to entertain and provide a quite acceptable number of laughs. The three leads still have terrific chemistry; Bradley Cooper is reliable for being both the straight man and easy on the eyes, Ed Helms is about as amusing as he was the first time, and Zach Galifianakis' deranged Alan is once again the highlight. B

pretty much the same thing as the first but it did its work, i laughed, a lot actually...

B

Very True, and the Most Important Thing.

After watching the trailer were any of you actually expecting something different frm the first film?.

nope. I expected exactly the same. I was actually dragged to the movies, i didnt want to see it but i have to admit i had a great time watching it.

I enjoyed this. Had a lot of GREAT laughs. Though it did slow down towards the end.

Everyone has been saying it, and it is indeed true: Todd Phillips' The Hangover Part II adheres incredibly closely to its successful predecessor, almost beat for beat. Yet the sequel isn't entirely unpleasant nor is it without merit. For one, the core cast--Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis, and Justin Bartha--still share an appealing chemistry and function well as a comic unit. I do wish Bartha's Doug had been allowed to participate more in the action this time around, though. As for Galifianakis, he pushes the Alan character even further into absurdity here--his naivete is almost monstrous at times--but I still found him hilarious. Another reason The Hangover Part II is a relative success is the new setting: Bangkok. The film grabs hold of the Thai city's pop-culture image as a crowded, seamy metropolis overrun by gangsters and whores and other fringe dwellers and uses it to give the proceedings a charge of unpredictable menace. In terms of today's mainstream comedy directors, Todd Phillips is among the more interesting ones. He brings more to the table than a point-and-shoot, sitcom-esque aesthetic. This Hangover more than the last has real atmosphere and grit. There's also a truly exciting, well-staged car chase sequence.

Certain elements do fall undeniably flat. The return of Mike Tyson is groan-inducing. Stu's bride-to-be, played by young Jamie Chung, is in an incredibly bland character. Her only purpose is to be Asian and therefore give the Wolf Pack a reason to fly to Thailand. (These films in general have no time for women. No female character is given even a decent throwaway one-liner.) The whole enterprise has a fairly cynical, why-should-we-try harder? vibe, it's true. Yet there's still a beating heart underneath the excess, and a few very talented people in front of and behind the camera, saving Hangover number two from being a complete wash.

B-

2 Things: 1st, is there any logical explanation for the departure of Heather Grahams character from the 1st movie that this guy Stu is just magically with an asian chick out of nowhere about to get married??? Any references to her cause at the end of the 1st movie, it was made out to be like those 2 would get together after he dumped that bitch of a girlfriend of his back home at the wedding??

2nd: Let's just say for a moment that Mel Gibson was in the movie as a glorified cameo or just plain cameo: Do you think he would've possibly been a little fresh plot wise than a retread of Tyson without the white tiger??? It still bugs me that the cast had a problem with Gibson and his morality VS a convicted rapist being in the movie and nothing was wrong with this apparently..

I didn't mind the Tyson thing. It actually tied things together and makes more sense then a random Mel Gibson at the end there. Also, what does his past criminal record have to do with anything? He's turned his life around and had his ups and down like everyone else. I doubt Mel Gibson would have made this picture any better than the average comedy that it is.

what?!

I have to say it's been a very good year of comedy films so far, and it looks to continue. And while Hangover 2 will undoubtedly be on the lower end of the more memorable ones, there are some huge laughs to be had here. Its only real fault is where Hangover one was a Non Formula following comedy, Hangover II is forced to stay in the new formula Hangover created. And as a result where the first film was completely fresh, this film has you anticipating the scenes that are to follow and the film looses its edge. The characters are still funny (Though Alan is extremely creepy and is given too much of a pass by the other characters this time.) I too wish there was at least an explanation of Grahams character and Doug would have been a fun addition.

Weirdest fucking scene


I'm down for a third film, but it really needs to spice things up. It seems Alan's Bachelor party could be the most bizarre. Maybe the Dark Underworld is Disney.

B+ (Though I think the repeat viewings will be farther between)

You know none of the main characters in these films smoke pot or do drugs other than Allen (Who seems to bring his own stash with him or buys from seedy characters)

I thought it was boring. I'm ok with them rehashing the plot since what else were they going to make a sequel out of, but it's just not good or interesting. It kicks a bit up in the last third when the Giamatti/Chow plot comes in cause the action scenes aren't bad, it's just the comedy that fails. Two funny scenes in the whole movie for me: Tranny bar and the pictures at the end. Not a chuckle for the rest.

I'm surprised Galifinakis is so weak in this. That's the biggest difference between 1 and 2 for me. In the set-up he seems out of character assholey, then for the rest of the movie he kind of plays it straight and boring. I don't know who's idea it was to give Bradley Cooper more screentime than Galifinakis. His agent's? Overall it felt like the movie was written by unfunny and uncreative people

D for drab and dull. See Kung Fu Panda 2 instead if you're on the fence.

I generally agree with this.

I didnt find it dull, it just was the first film over again - and what was so good about the first isnt so exciting or funny a second time.

The funniest scene - yes the lady boy one - could be seen a mile away. In fact I predicted it in a thread here on KJ when the film was announced.

Overall - not a bad evening at the drive-in, but hopefully they go down a different path for the third film.

Liked it as much as the overrated original and I enjoyed the setting more this time around. I wish I could see more of the "fuck tha police" scene. Police action + hysterical drunk people = epicness.

B

At a certain point, this just wasn't fun anymore.

The opening credits?

6/10 -> C


Unlike most people I wasn't crazy about the first The Hangover. It was a good comedy, but nothing outstanding or hilarious. The second part is just more of the same. And I only think it's just slightly less good because it doesn't add anything new or worthwhile, but the enjoyment level is nearly on the same level (so I don't really get all the toxic reviews the movie gets).

I can't believe so many of our fine KJ reviewers in this thread rated this film a "B" - - this film flat out stunk.

HYPE and the goodwill of the other movie paved the way for that grade you see.. Perhaps once this comes out on DVD, people will realize this just wasn't that good.... I still say that if the hypocrite casrt of this movie would've allowed Mel Gibson to cameo in it, it probably would've been better but will never know now will we???

It seems like the more mainstream/blockbuster/'fluff'/'dumb comedy'/etc. a movie is, the less people are willing to grade it one way or another. Call it the rottentomates effect, we're not supposed to grade films like the Hangover II vs a Horrible Bosses as real movies, we're supposed to put them all under one umbrella of art forms not worthy of our introspection aka 'B grade'. Even though the secret of the industry is that in terms of degree of difficulty, the King's Speech is an underhand softball and the 40 Year Old Virgin and The Green Lantern are 99mph heaters - yet the praise is reversed in favor of the former

Insightful analysis!