Hangover 2

[LostSon88]

My point is people act like they were duped and surprised. Why were you? If the marketing said it happened again then why were you so surprised the events that occured from the first happened again

Because it "happened again" in almost the EXACT SAME MANNER.

I was not duped at all. I knew going in that there was going to be another "Hangover" and that someone was going to go missing and that the sequel would involve the 3 figuring out what happened.

But seriously, to do it in almost the exact same way just reeks of lazyness on the writers part.

You mean to tell me they couldn't have come up with something more interesting within the concept of the original.

Going in, I had hoped that they used the idea of the original (Hangover, someone goes missing, figure out what happened) as a starting off point and be more creative with it.

Take the bare strucutre of the original and play with it some more.

Don't simply copy the original movie's structure and beats to the point of mimicry and think that making the film darker is going to disguse the fact that its essentially the same movie verbatim.

I mean am I the only one who had a problem with the final shot of the film being an almost exact replica of the final shot of the original? Down to the characters dialogue?

 

[Spideyfan93]

I was surprised by the monkey smoking legitimately. He was puffing out the nostrils and everything.

 

[antsman41]

I was surprised by the monkey smoking legitimately. He was puffing out the nostrils and everything.

That wasn't any normal monkey, it was Annie's Boobs...

 

[terry78]

They claim it was done via CG. The lit side of the cigarette and the smoke.

 

[PWN3R]

^ Wow. That's an impressive feat for CG. I was in awe of this all powerful all smoking monkey for a while there.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Because it "happened again" in almost the EXACT SAME MANNER.

I was not duped at all. I knew going in that there was going to be another "Hangover" and that someone was going to go missing and that the sequel would involve the 3 figuring out what happened.

But seriously, to do it in almost the exact same way just reeks of lazyness on the writers part.

You mean to tell me they couldn't have come up with something more interesting within the concept of the original.

Going in, I had hoped that they used the idea of the original (Hangover, someone goes missing, figure out what happened) as a starting off point and be more creative with it.

Take the bare strucutre of the original and play with it some more.

Don't simply copy the original movie's structure and beats to the point of mimicry and think that making the film darker is going to disguse the fact that its essentially the same movie verbatim.

I mean am I the only one who had a problem with the final shot of the film being an almost exact replica of the final shot of the original? Down to the characters dialogue?

We all asked the same question when this movie was announced. What could they possibly come up with? It was possible they could have done some different things, but at the end of the day, it's still has the title The Hangover in it. Even with changes that people suggested, it's still the same concept that we all doubted and speculated on in the first place when it was announced. Those differences would have paled in the overall plot. Either way, we all knew this was likely it wasn't going to be as good as the first. Which was the problem in making this film. Either way, people would have *****ed about it in some way.

So was this sequel necessary? Of course not. But like I said, even if they made changes to the structure, they still did it yet again. Yet another Hangover. That right there is ****ing ridiculous and stupid and eye rolling. I mean come on. Let's remember back to last year or so here people. I was one of those people that I mentioned where I questioned why it was happening yet again and wondered what the **** they could do. But for me, I just went with it and had a good time myself.

 

[TheVileOne]

But we were all questioning why this film was getting made when it was announced. My point is people act like they were duped and surprised. Why were you? If the marketing said it happened again then why were you so surprised the events that occured from the first happened again?

I wasn't surprised. Hollywood is shameless. If they find a hot act they will milk it dry and basically kill it. And that is what happened with the Hangover. Sort of a fun and different R-rated comedy that was a big phenomenon. Did a sequel and basically killed and sucked out all the magic and fun out of the original.

My hope is even with all the IT HAPPENED AGAIN stuff that you know maybe there would be some different and more profound reveals.

Here is the point. In the first movie, I can believe the situation as outrageous as it was. They meet this knew awkward man-child and he drugs their drinks and the guys fall for it. All that worked. The writing and doing the exact same things and revealing it the EXACT SAME WAY does not work the second time over.

To be honest man, Stu made a mistake when he invited Alan to come along in the first place. That was already his first mistake. He ****ed up right there.

And yet everything would've been fine even with Alan there if they didn't eat his stupid bags of marshmallows. If I was on fire, I wouldn't even let Alan throw water on me.

Alan is mentally ill. At the very least there is something seriously wrong with him. We all got that in the first film. Stu played it smart at first, yet was an idiot for being convinced to let Alan come along. If Stu played it smart, he wouldn't have invited him in the first place.

And that's the point. We know Stu is not that dumb. Stu was a friend of the best man in the first movie. Doug was getting married and Alan is Doug's acquaintance and his wife's little brother. I can sort of accept Tracy being an absolute ***** and cajoling the guys into letting Alan go. Women can be manipulative like that. However, I cannot buy a paranoid and smart guy like Stu eating or touching anything offered to him by Alan if he is so ****ing paranoid he covers his OJ with a napkin at IHOP.

This is the problem with this sequel: Alan came back. Why the hell did he come back? Because he's a huge part of why these films are great.

Once again, I could accept all of this if we didn't get the exact same reveal and plot twist done exactly the same way as the first movie. It was beyond lazy. I would've been surprised if it turned out that the father did it and Alan actually was innocent.

Sequels are made to make money first and foremost. If these things were done logically, Alan wouldn't have come back. Hell, this film didn't even have to be made in the first place. Because it's called The Hangover. Which will be a problem with the third. It's happening for a third time. They can depart from the formula, but it's still a hangover and it happened for a third time. In the first place, why would this happen to them yet again? If they're this idiotic, they deserve what is happening to them. These sequels kind of dictate things for these characters and their actions now. They do it because well, these films are being made. What's sensible in real life isn't so sensible in these films now.

And that's the problem. The first done didn't even need a sequel. The first one I can suspend disbelief before because it's three dudes having a dudes weekend in the morally ambiguous Vegas. Alan is an X factor and most of the guys don't know Alan and he spikes their drinks. I can believe all that happening. In this movie it is ****ing ridiculous and ******ed it happening again. The sequel is a **** movie and makes no sense. The first movie was original and clever and the sequel just copies everything THE EXACT SAME WAY! It's not as funny this time.

The climax of the first one was fun and over-the-top but sort of believable. They make it just in time for the wedding and Doug is all sunburned. They all made it through OK and it's just like, "Sorry honey but I will tell you all about it once we are married." I was able to suspend disbelief for that.

In the second movie, Lauren's husband to be shows up with a Mike Tyson tattoo, vague mentions of semen being inside him, and her brother is beat as hell and MISSING A ****ING FINGER! SHE DOESN'T BAT A SINGLE ****ING EYELASH! She just smiles.

And that's the problem they did the exact same **** as the first movie and just go like well it worked the first time it works the second in the case of the wedding. It has to end with the wedding going off without a hitch. In the first movie I can believe it. The main problem was that Doug the groom was missing. They found Doug he's OK they get him to the wedding and he gets married. Stu finally finds his balls and dumps his jerk GF. Phil and Alan are pretty much the same. It doesn't work doing it all the same just with minor differences. I can't suspend disbelief this time again because it's inappropriate and stupid.

Can Lauren be that much of an idiot and doormat? Either that or she has some secret sadistic side and the idea of sodomy, drugs, cut off fingers, and fresh tattoos turns her on.

 

[dude stannis]

So, hell since so many of you are digging the whole retread of part II then how about they just do it again for the 3rd movie?

I mean clearly the formula worked for you guys a second time. Lets do it again!!

No. You wouldn't want that, right? Because it would be stale and completely unoriginal, yes?

...which is exactly how soooooo many of us felt with them doing it a second time.

Would you mind a Die Hard 5 with Bruce Willis once again stuck in a confined area? Probably not, I know I'd love one to be honest.

You know why? Because there's a difference between overusing a formula and establishing a formula.

Now they can give that formula a rest and dust it off and make it seem fresh again 20 years down the line.

Again, what are you guys not understanding?

Why people have to be so snobby over a comedy basically.

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

its fine if it was thought out lazy...im cool with that...i just know that its a comedy...yet i only laughed like 4 or 5 times and felt like the rest was just...boring...and then the tyson ending wasnt funny...it was just a head scratcher.
a comedy is a comedy and no one should over analyze it...unless it lacks in the comedy department...thats just a terrible movie.

 

[TheVileOne]

Since it was mostly the same stuff all they really did was get darker and nastier. It came off as downright mean-spirited at times. Did Stu really need to get sodomized by a tranny?

Does Tracy have no shame that her brother does this to people? She enables her brother to do this.

 

[bullets]

I haven't seen the movie yet but my friend works at a theater and she said lots of people have been coming to see it. I've see Hangover, is this worth seeing?

If you really liked Hangover you should check it out. Most people I know that saw this thought it was funny.

 

[bullets]

Does Tracy have no shame that her brother does this to people? She enables her brother to do this.

In the first film Allen thought he was giving them extacy. It's still a bad thing to do but at least some of the blame falls on black doug.
It's her slightly ******ed brother and her sympathy leads to her asking for him to be invited to Stu's wedding. They were a bit cautious but I don't think any of them expected to fall for it or for him to do it again.

 

[TheVileOne]

But Tracy clearly knows about the weekend in Vegas which encouraged her to ask them to bring Alan to Bangkok which he really had no right to go to because he wasn't invited and he's not a friend of the family.

Dude isn't slightly ******ed. He's definitely autistic and probably legally ******ed. Nothing slight about it. However Tracy doesn't seem to be at all upset with Alan. I would be yelling at Tracy, "YOUR ******ED BROTHER WHO YOU BEGGED US TO BRING PUT MUSCLE RELAXANT AND MEDS IN OUR MARSHMALLOWS!" Tracy has no right to be upset. She should be ashamed of herself and her brother, mental issues or not.

Also I once again cannot at all suspend disbelief that someone as paranoid and anal retentive as Stu who goes so far as putting napkins over his OJ at ****ing IHOP would eat anything that Alan brought. Phil even throws them away to the side like, "What are you 12? We aren't eating marshmallows at the campfire." Again this is poor writing to me. At the campfire scene I was waiting for the tell. The drinks? The beer bottles are sealed OK. Marshmallows that Alan brought? OK red flag goes up, it's going to be the marshmallows right? Phil tosses them aside we aren't eating stupid marshmallows. And I figure the group has to be smarter than that especially mega-paranoid anal-retentive Stu who puts napkins over his drinks and will only drink beer from a sealed bottle.

My hope was that there was going to be some extremely clever and original reveal. But nope. Alan did the exact same thing and it comes out the exact same way. I also can't buy that Phil and Stu just let it go like that.

And Lauren is a ****ed up person after all that and all she does is just smile and say nothing. Vague mentions of her husband being sodomized and having semen in him and she doesn't bat an eyelash. That honestly creeps me out. Lauren must have some sort of disorder or she's into kinky f'ed up crap.

 

[Colossal Spoons]

Saw it last weekend. Decent flick, def prefer the first one. The whole tranny part killed me haha.

But I see you guys are busy having a super serious over-analysis party in this thread though...

 

[TheVileOne]

Eh whatever. It's a comedy but at the the end of the day I thought the Hangover was a fun refreshing R-rated comedy much like Wedding Crashers. The sequel written the same way sort of kills what made everything about the first one work and was good.

Zach Galifianakis, I mean I wonder how he feels about this character. The dude is like a stand-up comic and an "artist" and all that and now he's sort of stuck as this character for life. Wonder how he will deal with it.

 

[conan69]

Saw this last night.

One of the worst sequels Ive ever seen and IMHO a good example of how stupid, undemanding and unimaginative audiences have become.

I have a pretty good sense of humor and love to make people laugh myself, but I found this a chore to get through. Except for smiling through a couple one liners, I didnt find it funny at all. Unless the sight of a naked transexual is likely to send you into fits of hysterical laughter (which I guess to many... it is), then theres nothing else to see here.

Forgetting I ever saw this, and looking foward to First Class on friday.

 

[marvelman2006]

Saw this last night.

One of the worst sequels Ive ever seen and IMHO a good example of how stupid, undemanding and unimaginative audiences have become.

I have a pretty good sense of humor and love to make people laugh myself, but I found this a chore to get through. Except for smiling through a couple one liners, I didnt find it funny at all. Unless the sight of a naked transexual is likely to send you into fits of hysterical laughter (which I guess to many... it is), then theres nothing else to see here.

Forgetting I ever saw this, and looking foward to First Class on friday.

Thats fair to say, I know alot of people and half loved it and half hated it. I liked it for what it was, a night out with some old friends we hung out with 2 years back. I will ommit that they went alittle too far this time to get a laugh and sometimes it came off as uneeded.

My likes

Spoiler

- Alan and all his scenes and dialogue (zak just knows how to play this character)
- All the pre wedding stuff with the stu's brides father.
- The monkey
- The riot
- The ending

My dislikes

Spoiler

- Too much male nudity and sometimes uneeded when the scene is already funny
- Too much ken jeong, less is more
- The completely uneeded side story with paul giamatti (Same as the scenario with the first movie)
- The tatoo scene that was for liam didnt seem special with all the uproar it got.
- Why was the fourth friend not along for the ride this time?
- No dan band performance at the end.
- Vegas is a much better setting then bangkok

 

[nightwing06]

Whenever i hear a sequel is being planned for a mega succesful film,i say to myself how can they top the first film? There are exceptions like the Die Hard sequels,and the Fast and the Furious sequels.They ranged from pretty good to excellent.The Hangover 2...not so much.

The boys are back in.....Thailand for the wedding of Stu to Lauren (the gorgeous and underused Jamie Chung)
Bradley Cooper as frat boy Phil, Ed Helms as the buttoned down Dr. Stuart "Stu" Price,
Zach Galifianakis as the man child Alan.They bring along Teddy, Lauren's brother(Mason Lee) Some beers on the beach fade out to the lights of Thailand,and the trio wake up in a run down apartment ,hung over to the 10th power and Teddy is missing.
I laughed out loud at certain scenes and situations and the trios reactions to the trouble they have gotten themselves into once again.Especially Helms's screams and facial expressions.
Its definitely more raunchy than the first film,but some of it felt forced.The racial humor was a bit overdone IMO .Why the writers jammed so much of it in the film is beyond me.Most of it was met by dead silence and groans from the audience
Ken Jeong's role as gangster Leslie Chow is extended this time around and he's funny but where his story leads doesnt amount to much,but it was fun to see Paul Giamatti briefly as Kingsley a rival to Chow.
There will likely be a third film,but i may sit that hangover out with a few aspirin and a glass of water.
Scale of 1-10 a 7


SIDENOTE

It truely bothered me that out of the 100 people standing online to get in the theatre about 20 of them were kids under 9
I could only imagine the parents trying to explain some of the things that went on in the film to them

 

[kane9321]

I saw the movie three times this weekend..it just kept getting better each time.

Look guys its called The Hangover 2 for a reason,I dont get all the fuss. There's an old saying...if it aint broke, dont fix it.

The only problem I had with it was parents taking their "LITTLE KIDS" to see this movie
all three times I saw this movie.. I saw kids..little kids...thats horrible

 

[CelticPredator]

Would you mind a Die Hard 5 with Bruce Willis once again stuck in a confined area? Probably not, I know I'd love one to be honest.

You know why? Because there's a difference between overusing a formula and establishing a formula.

Now they can give that formula a rest and dust it off and make it seem fresh again 20 years down the line.



Why people have to be so snobby over a comedy basically.

I'm not being snobby....I just hate when they do the same movie twice...

It's like if Die Hard 2 was about Col. Stewert stealing the money inside the airport.

Alan being the instigator and causing the entire mess was the part that killed it for me.

I can live with the first half. I really can. I was going with it, and enjoying it. But I have a low tolerance for characters who **** things up constantly, and show no remorse for it.

Like those Teen Nick shows....they end up on TV every once in a while, and damn...are they annoying. Idiot characters, acting like idiots every episode, always ****ing up, and never learning. Pisses me off.

 

[CelticPredator]

I saw the movie three times this weekend..it just kept getting better each time.

Look guys its called The Hangover 2 for a reason,I dont get all the fuss. There's an old saying...if it aint broke, dont fix it.

The only problem I had with it was parents taking their "LITTLE KIDS" to see this movie
all three times I saw this movie.. I saw kids..little kids...thats horrible

The movie should be called "ALAN RUINS EVERYTHING AGAIN". Because that's what it is.

 

[marvelman2006]

The movie should be called "ALAN RUINS EVERYTHING AGAIN". Because that's what it is.

I kinda wished it would have been Teddy who drugged them this time. I mean given his story/character arc it would have made more sense then Alan just drugging them to relive another crazy night. Teddy could have admitted it in the end once they found him and have a scene where he says he wanted to cut loose for a night because of all his pressure from the dad and secretly we learn that he's done drugs while in stanford.


Also to the other poster I had a 4 year old girl sit on her dads lap during the movie and afterwards a mother walked out next to her 8 and 13 year old boys shaking her head in disbelief...... what did she expect? Some parents need to have there kids taken away from them and not given back until the parents learn what is appropriate.

 

[bullets]

nvm

 

[The Shape]

Honestly, besides Stu and the tranny, this movie has very few memorable laughs when compared to the first. Some people are like, "OMG Hangover 2, best sequel ever! It was so sick!!!" But those are the same people that are going to completely forget about it in a week or so.

IMO, this was an "event" movie that just didn't deliver in the way that it should have.

 

[marvelman2006]

Honestly, besides Stu and the tranny, this movie has very few memorable laughs when compared to the first. Some people are like, "OMG Hangover 2, best sequel ever! It was so sick!!!" But those are the same people that are going to completely forget about it in a week or so.

IMO, this was an "event" movie that just didn't deliver in the way that it should have.

Agreed, completely overhyped to the point where I walk into a 7/11 and see bradley coopers face on a big gulp. I didnt feel cheated out of my money seeing it friday morning but I would never buy this for the sake of completing the set. My bigger question is since part 3 is happening, what is there left to do or tell that is interesting? Go to Germany? Already seen that in countless other movies. The other problem I had with the picture was Bangkok is just not as interesting or fun as vegas.

Overall the movie certainly wont hurt any of the stars careers but a part 3 is certainly a deal breaker for me with this franchise is it happens.