Hangover 2

[DACrowe]

I don't know what either song was based off but the first one was entirely more catchy for those of us that weren't born in the 60s/70s and don't know these older songs.

Plus...how did he get a guitar on a boat?

I wasn't born in the '60s or '70s. It's just I like good music.

Just kidding.

 

[LostSon88]

A 3rd time? That would be stretching it, and I suspect that the cast would be reluctant as well. These guys aren't dumb, I'm sure that they know that they just about got away with rehashing the plot from the 1st film. They know that won't fly a 3rd time.

This. You see, for me, even doing it a second time was stretching it.

I had hopes going in that they were going to do just enough in the sequel to distinguish itself from the first one.

...that wasn't the case.

Using the same plot is fine. Using the same gags, jokes, and formula is not ok because it felt like the exact same movie.

 

[TheFuture]

This. You see, for me, even doing it a second time was stretching it.

I had hopes going in that they were going to do just enough in the sequel to distinguish itself from the first one.

...that wasn't the case.

I lent them some good will for this film, but if there is a 3rd film I'd be thoroughly expecting some kind of significant change up to the format.

 

[LostSon88]

One can hope...at least Phillips has stated as such that a 3rd would be different:

If we were to do a third one, if the audience, if the desire was there, I think we have a clear idea where that would head and it’s certainly not in the same template you’ve seen these movies

http://screenrant.com/hangover-part-3-wolfpack-trilogy-benk-116077/

 

[DACrowe]

Again, I pose this question to those who thoroughly enjoyed part II.

If they followed the same structure for the 3rd film, how would you feel about it?

Keep in mind that this means:

There's another wedding, Alan roofies the group, Doug is MIA for the most of the film, someone goes missing, Stu sings another song summarizing the events in question, etc.

All the way down to the final shot of part III being someone popping into frame with a camera to once again show off the photos of the night before.

You'd be perfectly fine getting this plot for a third time?

I don't know if it would be as funny. I view it as a joke. The second movie used the same set-up as the first film, but had a different punchline. Now obviously, the fact that we've heard this set-up before takes away the freshness and surprising nature of the joke. However, they compensated for this by making the punchline darker, more twisted, perverse and outrageous. It worked for me because I still laughed. Maybe not as hard as the first film, but enough that I enjoyed the movie on its terms of being a comedy and a sequel to a film that really doesn't need a sequel. The fact that it's called The Hangover shows the limitations of the concept.

Now if they used the same joke, or rather the same set-up, a third time? I don't know. It's a law of diminishing returns. They got away with doing it once because they went dark and it was still very funny....but not as funny. By the laws of comedy it would be even less funny if they used the set-up a third time. So, I suspect that they would either naturally have to change the set-up or not make it in the first place. But if they change the set-up then it's no longer The HANGOVER and will people still care about the punchline? Like Home Alone 2 or Meet the Fockers, they may want to stop here before they run the joke into the ground (which both those franchises did with many-years later cash-in sequels).

My thoughts.

 

[roach]

I don't know what either song was based off but the first one was entirely more catchy for those of us that weren't born in the 60s/70s and don't know these older songs.

Plus...how did he get a guitar on a boat?

I've been to Thailand and the type of boat they were in were used for pleasure/sightseeing...and would usually have instruments in them. It would just depend on what the tour guide's talents were. They'd often play or sing as they take you from place to place.

 

[Doctor Jones]

If in Anchorman II there was another fight and Brick had another trident and he killed another person on a horse then I wouldn't laugh again because it's the exact same thing.

Can you not see how lazy the writing is in this movie in that they wanted Stu to sing a song so he suddenly has a guitar on a small boat? That is what is wrong with this movie. Using the same plot is fine. Using the same gags, jokes, and formula is not ok because it felt like the exact same movie. Would you buy an iPhone 5 if it was exactly like the iPhone 4? No.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on it:

I don't know if it would be as funny. I view it as a joke. The second movie used the same set-up as the first film, but had a different punchline. Now obviously, the fact that we've heard this set-up before takes away the freshness and surprising nature of the joke. However, they compensated for this by making the punchline darker, more twisted, perverse and outrageous. It worked for me because I still laughed. Maybe not as hard as the first film, but enough that I enjoyed the movie on its terms of being a comedy and a sequel to a film that really doesn't need a sequel. The fact that it's called The Hangover shows the limitations of the concept.

Now if they used the same joke, or rather the same set-up, a third time? I don't know. It's a law of diminishing returns. They got away with doing it once because they went dark and it was still very funny....but not as funny. By the laws of comedy it would be even less funny if they used the set-up a third time. So, I suspect that they would either naturally have to change the set-up or not make it in the first place. But if they change the set-up then it's no longer The HANGOVER and will people still care about the punchline? Like Home Alone 2 or Meet the Fockers, they may want to stop here before they run the joke into the ground (which both those franchises did with many-years later cash-in sequels).

My thoughts.

The jokes worked for me. Maybe it's because I forgot alot of the things that happened in the first because it's been nearly two years since I've seen the first. I do remember the distinct things, but not the smaller jokes.

 

[NewYorkSpider]

5/10

 

[antsman41]

Only highlight of the film was seeing inside Alan's head. How the "WolfPack" to him is like a children's group...

 

[CelticPredator]

See, I was hoping Mr. Chow would've been the one to snatch them up, torture them, drug them, they all break out, go on a wild party streak, and end up at an apartment....

That would've been awesome.

But no.

Spoiler

Alan drugged them again.

That really ruined the whole movie for me.

 

[enterthemadness]

Oh....

Spoiler

Alan didn't drug anyone. He wanted to drug Teddy...but accidentally wound up drugging them all. Damn.

This movie is fantastic.

 

[CelticPredator]

That ruined everything for me. Why did it have to be that? Why did it have to be him?

This movie is ****.

 

[bullets]

See, I was hoping Mr. Chow would've been the one to snatch them up, torture them, drug them, they all break out, go on a wild party streak, and end up at an apartment....

That would've been awesome.

But no.

Spoiler

Alan drugged them again.

That really ruined the whole movie for me.

I think they would of freaked if Mr Chow showed up while they were still somewhat comprehensive. Also him kidnapping them to make them party
doesn't make sense.
A subplot about the kid having issues with his father and drugging everyone after hearing about their legendary antics while they reminisced on the beach might of been better.

 

[bullets]

You'd be perfectly fine getting this plot for a third time?

I think the consensus is that a third time would wear out it's welcome.




One of the cast members mentioned Amsterdam as a possible location for the next one. It's pure speculation but I'd like to see that .

 

[CelticPredator]

Well, the kidnapping to a party doesnt make sense...but kidnapping, and torture for some reason would've been intense.

He gives them a knockout drug of sorts, and they end up escaping. Still high on it...they go off into the night.

 

[DACrowe]

I don't know what is more ridiculous. Alan drugging them again or people going into a movie called The Hangover Part II and expecting something different or groundbreaking. Both are pretty ridiculous.

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

What a piece of crap this movie was. Its a carbon copy of the first one. ****, Mr. Chow may not have jumped out of the trunk of a car on this one...but he did do it from an ice machine. Brutal execution. Like I did not expect this movie to be this bad.

Some of the jokes I didnt care for, Mr chows dick, the dudes w ***** etc. I also found weird how sometimes the racist black people jokes didnt really seem like jokes that much.

Overall, Im done with this series. Dont bother making another one.

 

[danoyse]

I don't know what is more ridiculous. Alan drugging them again or people going into a movie called The Hangover Part II and expecting something different or groundbreaking. Both are pretty ridiculous.

Or expecting a torture movie. What the hell?

 

[danoyse]

I wasn't born in the '60s or '70s. It's just I like good music.

Just kidding.

And that is definitely good music. The first concert I ever saw was Billy Joel at Madison Square Garden in 1984 (when I was 10). And he played Allentown that night. He played it when saw him 3 years ago at Shea Stadium too.

The reference didn't come of nowhere in the movie, one whole side of Alan's room was covered in Billy Joel posters, including a giant poster of the Glass Houses album cover. Probably just stuck in Stu's head afterwards.

 

[roach]

What a piece of crap this movie was. Its a carbon copy of the first one. ****, Mr. Chow may not have jumped out of the trunk of a car on this one...but he did do it from an ice machine. Brutal execution. Like I did not expect this movie to be this bad.

Some of the jokes I didnt care for, Mr chows dick, the dudes w ***** etc. I also found weird how sometimes the racist black people jokes didnt really seem like jokes that much.

Overall, Im done with this series. Dont bother making another one.

you can pretty much count on a 3rd one...this movie is printing money

 

[LostSon88]

I don't know what is more ridiculous. Alan drugging them again or people going into a movie called The Hangover Part II and expecting something different or groundbreaking. Both are pretty ridiculous.

I don't see what's so 'ridiculous' about expecting something different from a sequel.

You seem to be perfectly content with the film, fine. Some of us however expected a little more creativity.

...just A LITTLE.

 

[bullets]

you can pretty much count on a 3rd one...this movie is printing money

It really made bank. Not only a big victory for the Hangover crew but R-Rated comedies as well.


http://movies.yahoo.com/news/usmovi...rt-ii-biggest-comedy-all-time-1181-million?nc
'The Hangover Part II' biggest comedy of all time at $118.1 million


Shattering numerous records, Warner Bros.’ The Hangover Part II grossed $118.1 million in its first four days to help fuel the best Memorial Day weekend in history at the domestic box office. The sequel is expected to gross another $20 million on Monday for a staggering five-day bow of $138.1 million, setting a new benchmark for comedies.
DreamWorks Animation and Paramount’s Kung Fu Panda 2 also contributed to the boom, grossing $62.4 million in its first four days (like Hangover, Panda opened on Thursday). The 3D toon should end Monday with a five-day total of $68.2 million.
Kung Fu Panda impressed overseas, where it grossed a mighty $57 million from 8,023 markets in only 11 territories. In seven territories, it scored the best opening ever for an animated title and in China, scored the biggest opening of all time for a foreign film in grossing $18.5 million.
Hangover’s foreign numbers weren’t immediately available.



The overall uptick in theater traffic at the domestic box office was a welcome respite for the film business, which has suffered one of the worst box slumps in history. Grosses for Memorial Day weekend are projected to reach $270 million, easily surpassing the $254 million earned in 2007.
From Todd Phillips, Hangover grabbed the best opening ever for a comedy, besting the $85.7 million earned by Bruce Almighty over Memorial Day weekend in 2003, as well as the biggest Saturday ever for a comedy ($29.7 million).
Hangover and Universal’s Bridesmaids set new benchmarks for the playing power of R-rated comedies. Even with competition from Hangover, Bridesmaids held well over the weekend, declining only 27% to an estimated $16.4 million to place No. 4. On Monday, Bridesmaids is expected to earn another $4.4 million for a domestic cume of $89.4 million.
Hangover should grab the largest five-day opening ever for any R-rated pic, comedy or otherwise. Previous best was The Matrix Reloaded ($134.3 million) and The Passion of the Christ ($125.2 million).
Hangover is a sizeable victory for Warners and co-financing partner Legendary Pictures, and delivered the studio its best Memorial Weekend ever (Terminator Salvation was the previous crown holder at $65.3 million).
“This blows everything out of the water. It’s pretty amazing stuff,” Warner Bros. president of domestic distribution Dan Fellman said. “Moviegoers love all the characters, and they love the story.”
Hangover is the first title in months to appeal heavily to younger moviegoers, who represented 54% of the audience.
--------

 

[Mario_Galaxy]

Saw it last night. I didn't think it was as bad as other people think, and when they actually used original jokes and ideas it was funny. Other than that, it really was just a shameless attempt at making lightning strike twice. And from a storytelling perspective, some things just did not add up. Yes I realise it is a comedy and certain rules do not apply, but come on.

Spoiler

Alan randomly hating on the little brother just because he's going to the wedding? What the ****? Or the brother laughing off the fact that he lost his finger. And then the dad totally backing down at the end after spending the entire movie clowning Stu. The third act in general wrapped up way too well. It really did feel like they spent too much time going over every joke that made the first movie funny and scrambling when it came to actually telling a story

But the first movie/overall premise doesn't really lend itself to a sequel. And they're already talking about another one? Sheesh.

 

[TheVileOne]

It was OK but they basically killed the gimmick. This movie was lazy as hell. It is beat for beat, scene for scene the exact same movie.

I was hoping to be surprised that Alan didn't drug the group again but he did. I thought the marshmallows at the beginning were a fake out. Why? Alan brought the marshmallows and Bradley Cooper tossed them aside. They aren't going to eat marshmallows while they are out on the beach. I would NEVER eat anything Allan brought anyway and these grown men all obviously college educated should not be that ****ing ******ed. Stu especially since he was against Allan even coming along.

I just can't suspend disbelief for the plot of the movie at all. It is a comedy yes but I actually bought into the premise of the first movie. This guy they don't really know drugged them and they went crazy for a night. It worked.

The writers by copying the movie ruined what made the first movie work. The same **** doesn't work the second time around.

Also Tracy is a *****. This is basically her fault since she forced the guys into letting Alan go.

 

[dude stannis]

See, I was hoping Mr. Chow would've been the one to snatch them up, torture them, drug them, they all break out, go on a wild party streak, and end up at an apartment....

That would've been awesome.

But no.

Spoiler

Alan drugged them again.

That really ruined the whole movie for me.

Your suggestion would've been much better.

Spoiler

Chow had a bad batch of coke, laced with acid or something.