Hair of the Dog: The Hangover Part II’s Sloppy Seconds
Pretty soon there will be folk remedies for alleviating the nausea induced by The Hangover Part II, but just as the characters wish they’d never cracked open that first beer you’ll be better off staying home and avoiding this mess in the first place.
This sequel, or rather reiteration, starts to go wrong with its title. It’s supposed to be like The Godfather, Part II. Get it? No? Why? Do you think jokes should be funny or something?
Like the first movie, this one starts out (this time in Bangkok) with the principals dejected and having lost track of a friend somewhere out there in Partytown. As in the first movie, they spend a lot of time with a wild animal (a monkey instead of a tiger). Alan, the Zach Galifianakis character, again drugs his supposed friends. The mild-mannered dentist Stu (Ed Helms) again hooks up with a prostitute and is again disfigured (this time with a facial tattoo instead of by losing a tooth). There is a rooftop scene, a confrontation with the wacky Chinese guy Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong), a cameo by Mike Tyson, and a mystery solved in the lamest possible way (by the fellas looking right back where they started). “I can’t believe this is happening again,” says Stu. Neither can those of us who are watching. The effect is exactly that of being at a dinner party where someone cracks a joke, it gets a big laugh, and then someone else does the exact same gag to a reaction of utter silence.
The story, which sounds like a couple of screenwriters wrote it on cocktail napkins between innings at a sports bar, involves this time the impending wedding of dentist Stu, who is marrying a Thai-American girl who insists on having the nuptials in her parents’ homeland, at a beautiful island resort. Her little brother Teddy (Mason Lee), a 16-year-old student, goes out on the beach for a drink with Stu, Alan, and Phil (Bradley Cooper), and the next thing we know the three principal characters are waking up with a hangover in a dumpy hotel room in the seedy metropolis of Bangkok, far from the resort. Teddy has gone missing, but not all of him: his severed finger is being licked by a monkey in the hotel room.
The original film, while funny, was not actually a classic: What made it such a hit was the fond relationship Americans have with Las Vegas as their always-available font of debauchery. Moving the action to Thailand, a country most of us have no particular attachment to, immediately waters down the drink, and as the movie can’t stop repeating ideas its other flaws become very obvious.
First and foremost is the Galifianakis problem: He is an odd-looking guy, true, but that is the limit of his appeal. His habit of scowling a little and saying dumb things in a deadpan voice (he keeps calling the country he is in “Thighland”) is not getting any more interesting as his career goes on. So lost is he for a joke that he is at all times styled in deliberately ridiculous ways: We see him wearing a scarf with a safari suit at the beginning; later he’ll be seen with a shaved head (but a full beard) with a big funny straw hat and a labrador T-shirt. If he were genuinely funny, he wouldn’t need the clown clothes.
And Alan is the funny one of the group: the ever-flustered Stu and the cool leader Phil are mainly supposed to react to the wackiness of others. The movie never knows what to do with Phil, who at one point gets shot (this is funny?). As for Stu, who endures a gross-out scene involving a hermaphrodite prostitute and is also insulted viciously by the father of the bride at a banquet scene, he seems like such a decent guy that you’re just sorry for him. It’s hard to laugh when you’re feeling pity. It’s also hard to laugh at the idea of a guy who gets his finger cut off with a carving knife. Just because something is “outrageous” doesn’t mean it’s comical.
When the movie ends in almost exactly the same way as the original (this time with not one but two covers of 80s pop hits), you’ll know what’s coming next: Snapshots of all the strange things that happened during the night of partying. As with everything else about this movie, it just isn’t as funny in rerun mode. The Hangover Part II is so desperate to bring back the wild times that it winds up being kind of sad — like watching a washed-up athlete who doesn’t realize the magic is gone.
You’re just a hater. You even crapped on the frist movie by refusing to acknowledge it is indeed a classic. Everyone knows conservatives have no sense of humor. You think movies like an American carol are funny.
Hmmmm
“Everyone knows Conservatives have no sense of humor” Obvious Troll. Go back to YouTube and annoy everyone again, you are not wanted here.
Everyone who?
I enjoyed Hangover. I wouldn’t let my kids see it, it’s definitely not kids stuff. Hangover 2 being the same as one is no big problem – as long as enough enough time is allowed between episodes. I enjoy a good joke more than once.
Schmuck Liberals are the ones with no sense of Humor….They voted Obama in and no one laughed. It just wasn’t funny.
This is a movie? Really?
I thought this was about our juvenile presidents second year.
Obama’s legacy won’t even make the funny papers.
And I should care about this why?
This movie is Tedious, Formulaic, Uninspired, Boring and, like the Libs who cooked it up to try and cash in on this very OLD “formula”, convinced of its own infalliblity.
HollyLib movies are the dessicated silica of the arts – they absorb anything but consumption of them will eventually kill any culture consuming them.
The Hangover was an enjoyable film (I thought it was a little overrated, but I saw it several months after it premiered; by then I had heard everyone I know tell me countless times how amazing it was)but there was no need for a sequel.
But since it made almost a half a billion bucks…
“But since it made almost a half a billion bucks…”
There’s the kicker! WHO CARES what the sequel is like…
It will do $200M+ just because it’s called “The Hangover II”. Period.
It’s all about the money…not the art of movies.
This movie is what the Democrats are going to experience in November 2012, although it is showing now to take them out of their painfully obvious situation of their failing and flailing petulant, and pathetically immature representative.
I watched 15 minutes of the original movie and my brains fell out of my head. After extensive physical therapy, I watched 15 minutes of Super Troopers (yeah, I know. A little late) and my brains fell out of my head a second time.
I’m sticking with Denzel Washington flicks.
First of all – it’s cool that PJ has articles like this. All politics all the time can get a bit played.
I caught Hangover 2 today. Your review is pretty much spot on. A few laughs, but for the most part, the comedy was really labored. Watching Ed Helms freak out and scream “What’s happening!!??” for the 3,000th time in 109 minutes made me wonder if even he gets tired of the same routine.
The good: Cinematography was pretty good – I enjoyed the title sequence of fast motion Bankok. The transvestite scene was actually my favorite part – maybe its just because it was so outrageous. This is definitely NOT a kid’s movie.
The bad: Tons of frontal male nudity – no one wants to see that. And why did it seem like I was more concerned about a 16-year old Stanford pre-med surgical protege losing his finger than he seemed to be? Was Mike Tyson supposed to be some big finale? If so, he failed.
In the end, I was glad I saw the movie (I’m a movie theater fan), but HO2 wasn’t a shadow of the potential it could have been. For the most part, I blame the writing. I hate to think what this thing cost. I give it 2.5 out of 5.
Although I didn’t see the original, and don’t intend to see the second version, this scenario sums up what Hollywood has come down to – make a sequel of a film, regardless of how successful or dismal the original did at the box office. And far too often, the sequel will have a sequel. Brings to mind a John Ritter film from the late 80′s entitled “Problem Child.” I made the mistake of seeing it, and thought it to be a tremendous waste of two hours of my time. What happens? A sequel is then made. I did not make the same mistake twice and see the second one.
Anyway, point being that Hollywood no longer gives a rat’s behind about the quality of the films that are being produced. As DaveII stated, it’s all about the money – nothing else.
A spoiler alert somewhere would have been nice.
My 11 year old son laughed uproariously at the first movie (I thought it was okay), and now he is 13 and I’m sure he enjoyed the 2nd one too (I wasn’t able to take him to that one). My only complaint is it gives the impression you will have an awesome time if you use a dangerous drug.
The Hangover Part 2 is racist towards Asians. To all Asians — BOYCOTT THIS MOVIE. In fact, I’ve created a website for that purpose:
http://asianboycottleague.wordpress.com/
It’s meant to be used as a petition. Please comment on the site to pledge that you will not watch the Hangover 2 or any movies similar to it.