Hangover 2

[danoyse]

No kidding. Some people are fools...

If you came in expecting a much improved, Oscar-caliber plot and acting, then you are drinking some weird-ass kool-aid.

Did I laugh? Oh hell yeah!

Did I enjoy it? Oh hell yeah!

Did I expect what was coming for the most part? DUH

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. No need for the name-calling because you disagree.

 

[spidey-dude]

funny if largely forgettable - just like the 1st

 

[*xmenfan*]

I want my money back. Awful just awful.

 

[Doctor Jones]

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

Which is kind of my point too. You say Stu is pretty smart. I would say so too. And this is where both of us have a problem with the concept of this happening again for a sequel in the first place. Stu even refused originally to bring Alan along. He was convinced by the other two to do it. Sure he was already acting like his self when they met up again, but jesus Christ, couldn't Stu get a hint when he had all their pictures from the first blown up on his walls? Any smart and rational person would not have invited him right there. But this is a sequel that has to make money. There wouldn't be a sequel without Alan.

But, I was able to forgive their stupidity and have a good time. You didn't. It didn't work for you. I'm fine with that.

But I'm not even going to try to convince you. If we keep doing this it's going to go in circles. I respect your thoughts and can understand why you're upset over it. Everything just worked for me. Maybe it's because I don't remember alot of the jokes in the first and because it's been nearly two years since I saw it. I'll watch it again and see what happens. In the meantime, I stand by what I say, and you seem to as well.

Everybody pretty much knows this wasn't going to be as good as the first one. Pretty much everyone I talked to today said so. But they still liked it. It worked for them too as it did me.

The GA seems to be eating this up and have no problem with it being a rehash. Although this is opening weekend, we'll see what happens next week. But they seemed to have no problem with the idea of an uneccessary sequel and just went in wanting to have a good time and they did. I was just enjoying myself and was lost in their stupid hijinks. I wasn't really thinking about suspension of disbelief or how it was done beat for beat. But again, I'll need to watch the first again.

 

[Colossal Spoons]

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

Totally what I expected

 

[Eelectro 2]

great movie, i enjoyed it as much as the first. the whole 'it happened again' theme actually works for this film and im glad i read that the director has an idea for the 3rd but that it would be totally different. you can pull it happening twice but a 3rd time just really wouldnt work for me. with the amount of money this one is bringing in i dont doubt it will happen so its nice to see the 2nd one doing so well. the critics dont seem to like it but i could care less, most critics have reviewed way too many movies, kind of like game reviews, if they dont see something theyve never seen before they dont like it as much. some people say this one was mor3e crude than the first, but it makes sense given where the film takes place. the first one seems so pristine and glamorous where this film is intentionally gritty and dirty. its a nice comparison. found it odd that the strip club guy was the same guy that was in the chapel from the first and it was never even acknowledged it was him. that would have been a bit funnier if it was supposed to be the same guy years later. o well, still funny

 

[Spideyfan93]

Ordered the yellow lab t shirt Allen wears in the movie...for a couple reasons.
- It is an awesome shirt(despite your opinion on the movie, the simplicity of the shirt is priceless)
-After Prom Vacation...wearing this **** could be a big attention grabber. The benefits that could be manifested


Todd Philips said he will take the 3rd inevitable movie into a new direction. And it would be the last in a trilogy, so no doubt he would want to go out with a bang. Even if people didn't love or like 2 much, his execution for the final movie could bring more of an audience than ever before.

 

[Bubonic]

I've got my own amnesiac moments and forgot the first film almost entirely.
So this turned out to be fresh and fantastic for me, seems like the whole crowd of people were laughing out loud as well, and a surprising amount of people even clapped at the end.

 

[UnknownHero]

I don't know what people expected with a movie called The Hangover Part 2. The filmmakers could not stray to far from the formula that worked in the first film. If they did then you all would be complaining about how they took away the things that worked in the first film etc. It's the hangover people! The whole point of the movie is to have a guy missing after the guys get hung over. Then they re trace their steps from the night before ( adding the comedy) finally, they find the guy end movie. That's the point of the movie! Take that elements away and it's not the hangover anymore!


Austin Powers, American Pie movies were all the same but I didn't heard complaints about the stories in those movies. I mean the trailers for the movie told you what the plot for this movie was from the get go! Right there should have been your warning if you didn't want to see the sequel. Sine the trailers basically said " hey this has the same plot as the first movie but in a new city and a new missing guy". I enjoyed the movie for what it was a decent summer comedy movie. Sure it was a rehash but like I said, What else would you expect from a movie called The Hangover part 2?

 

[chaseter]

Why do people get mentioning the American Pies movies? They were terrible. The first was funny and the rest sucked.

 

[bullets]

Why do people get mentioning the American Pies movies? They were terrible. The first was funny and the rest sucked.

It was a successful franchise so I guess a lot of people disagree.

 

[TheVileOne]

Yeah I guess but all the sequels were still trash plus all that DTV garbage that came out of it.

I think Teddy being the culprit would've been acceptable. He could've had a big moment at the end where he came clean and explained that he drugged everyone because he had so much pressure from his father being the goldenboy and maybe admitted that he didn't want to be a surgeon and wanted to be like I dunno a NASCAR driver or something or prize fighter or something. That would've absolved Alan and the guys and made Stu a bigger hero for bringing Teddy back and even Teddy cutting off his own finger.

 

[dude stannis]

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

Well, you know I platonically I love the **** out of you. You where willing to give it a go beforehand and it didn't work for you. That's why the way you've conducted yourself is different to the people that are being snobby.

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

Bearer Bonds is to General Esperanza as Mike Tyson's Tiger is to Drug Dealing Monkey. IMHO.

 

[-X-]

It had funny moments but I was hoping for a little more variety. I knew it was a long shot but I was really hoping

Spoiler

1.Doug would have been involved
2. Alan would NOT have been responsible for drugging them.

I was actually hoping Teddy would have done it...especially after Alan was being suck a jerk to him.

Where the first film was more fluid this one seemed to force a few things

Spoiler

Teddy losing his finger and being okay with it, the wife being cool with the Tyson tat (At least Doug's wife in the first one was frustrated he showed up with major sun burns) and the dad suddenly backing down to Stu and allowing the wedding to go on. That family as a whole came off as very traditional (mainly due to the father) so the fact that they still allowed a wedding with a speed boat crashed nearby just didn't seem to make sense.

I still enjoyed it for the sake of seeing the characters that I liked from the 1st but I just wanted a little more.

I do hope there is a Hangover 3 and this is an idea I have for the story.

Instead of again doing a movie that follows the first 2 exactly I think it would be cool if:

-Since the movies end with weddings this time Alan (oddly enough) finds someone to marry.
-Instead of having the guys getting drugged and losing one of the fellas, have the wives of the guys who get drugged (Wild bachelorette party?) and turn up missing.
-It would be cool for the movie to appear like the guys are going to be in the same situation (go back and forth between the guys and the women in their separate parties) only to have them wake up fine in their room and all of them accounted for. (with the morning after shot actually being the torn up room that the women partied in)
-Maybe have the women bad mouthing the guys during their party about how they always get into trouble and that something like the stories the guys lived through would never happen to them.
-Eventually have them realize that all of their women are missing and the hunt becomes about finding them (ALL of the guys this time, make Doug more involved).

I think a lot could be done with that scenario while sticking to the same situation yet offering a fresh take at the same time.

1. The guys would still have no idea of what happened the night before (because they weren't with their women)
2. Someone is still missing (the women this time around)
3. They would still be searching for clues (gaining more with every location, starting with say text messages from the women or just from finding clues in their trashed room)
4. They can still get into trouble, be it on their own or from their women putting them in tough positions.

I think an interesting thing that was mentioned in the 2nd movie was that [BLACKOUT]Chow had a wife. Maybe she could be introduced and be the reason the women get drugged.[/BLACKOUT] Just an idea as I'd imagine they would try and have Chow in a 3rd movie.

It is only fitting something should happen to the women, especially Doug's wife...because technically she is to blame for the scenarios of both movies since she asked that Alan be invited along.

I think the 3rd should also have:

-NO [BLACKOUT]Mike Tyson[/BLACKOUT]...it is played out at this point, introduce a new celeb possibly.
-Do NOT have Stu [BLACKOUT]suddenly put stuff together again
[/BLACKOUT]
I think if done well that type of story could be created well, being funny and new at the same time. Maybe even ending the movie with finding a camera with pictures but this time the guys finding a camera showing what the women did on their wild night (maybe even have a few pics of them spying on the guys so the audience could still see what the guys also did despite not getting drugged this time, unless the guys actually discuss their night through the movie).

Well, that is enough I've probably gone way to far with that but it seemed like a good idea when I was thinking about it. I just really hope they mix it up for the next one.

For now, first one still is at the top for me.

 

[chaseter]

It was a successful franchise so I guess a lot of people disagree.

Shrek is a successful franchise and those got continuously worse. Great first movie, then quickly ****ed out into suckville.

 

[bullets]

Shrek is a successful franchise and those got continuously worse. Great first movie, then quickly ****ed out into suckville.

That's the golden rule for a lot of franchises , people keep going to see them hoping it will turn out good again. It kept the Jason/Freddy movies going .

I hate that! That's how my old account on this site got banned. Because I got into a nasty argument with a stuck up *****ebag. *****ebags that go around posting their OPINIONS as fact just annoys me so much! If you didn't like the movie fine but there is no reason for you to insult the people who did enjoy it.

Insulting is the worst but also hanging around to counter attack everyone's point of view if you didn't like something. There's exceptions to the rule but sometimes that s*** gets annoying.

Why did you delete my post? The dude who posted after me called me a fool because I liked it.

He was basically throwing your insult right back at you. No ones an idiot for liking or not liking this movie. It's just how it is.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Hangover 2 - 3/10

I gave it a three for Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and the monkey, all of whom I found entertaining. The problem with the movie was two-fold for me, it was weakly written, very weakly written and not funny enough to allow for this. I find with comedies that bad writing or poor characters can be overcome if the movie is actually funny. I don't find the story of Airplane! particularly compelling, but the good news is that it's hilarious so I don't care. Hangover 2 was simply not that funny. It was funny-ish, I can't say I didn't laugh, but there was too much not funny moments for me to reflect on how god awful the plot was.

First, yeah, it's the same dang movie. I had almost convinced myself this wasn't a problem going into the theater. I figured if I prepped myself I ultimately would get past this. That somehow it just wouldn't bother me, but ultimately it did.

I understand following the same general plot, the key word in bold there. I was thinking, in this one we'd have some nefarious kidnapper do it, but no, it was Alan.

Which brings us to Alan. I liked Alan. Key word in bold again. This time, I didn't. I found him to be playing a caricature of himself. First of all, in the first movie I had some measure of sympathy for him. It was fairly obvious why Doug would be forced to include him in his bachelor party, it was, afterall, his new brother-in-law. In this one though there was literally no reason for him to be there. If I have a wedding, my friend's brother-in-laws are not invited. It's not even because they are weirdos, like Alan, it's because they have literally nothing to do with me. I kind of assumed Alan simply would have been their slightly odd friend now, that they wouldn't have been deliberately ignoring him for years. They were though, so even though Doug's wife protested, it doesn't matter, it's not Doug's wedding.

Yet here they are back together under improbable circumstances, and what do we get, more improbable circumstances. First of all Alan was weird in the last one, and even when he was socially awkward or rude I had a small amount of sympathy for him. Not this time, [BLACKOUT]accidentally roofie-ing your friends because of a dumb drug dealer is somewhat understandible when you suspend a little disbelief, deliberately druging people, even if it was the wrong people, is incredibly awful and criminal[/BLACKOUT]. Furthermore Alan went from playfully awkward and slightly rude, to just an all out a**hole in the first thirty minutes. Not a single family member questioned his presence either. After interrupting the dinner and being all out rude to his son that Dad, as he was depicted, would've had no compunction to kick Alan out. When they found out [BLACKOUT]how they were drugged I honestly wanted to enter Phil's body and tell Alan he was finding his own way back home. The fact that Phil chocks up his anger to "the heat of the moment, is completely and blatantly ridiculous.[/BLACKOUT]

The amount of times the movie just acted like it was "okay" with the sh** that went down was obscene. I'm no chick but honestly [BLACKOUT]someone coming back with a face tattoo, who may or may not have bore responsibility for my brother losing his finger seems like a deal breaker[/BLACKOUT]. Also, I'm not wedding planner but [BLACKOUT]I'm pretty sure the wedding is off once you crash a speed boat into it[/BLACKOUT]. The first movie did a nice job of showing the guys attempting to do damage control to convince the party guests that nothing major had happened. While Stu's tooth may have been a red flag, who honestly cares what state the groomsman whose girlfriend beats him is in? Okay, maybe Stu's missing tooth was a little over the top, but not insanely over the top as [BLACKOUT]a face tattoo, a missing finger, a shaved head and a gunshot wound.[/BLACKOUT]

Someone here said it, this movie was too cruel and dark. It was essentially like doing a SAW film with stand-up comedians.

 

[danoyse]

Why did you delete my post? The dude who posted after me called me a fool because I liked it.

The posts where anyone called anyone a fool were deleted because they were unnecessary and irrelevant to the topic. The conversation is done. Get over it and drop it.

I hate that! That's how my old account on this site got banned. Because I got into a nasty argument with a stuck up *****ebag. *****ebags that go around posting their OPINIONS as fact just annoys me so much! If you didn't like the movie fine but there is no reason for you to insult the people who did enjoy it.

It probably wasn't a good idea to mention that you've been banned once before...

And I suggest you drop it and stay on the topic of the thread as well.

 

[Bubonic]

You think this is on the cruelty level of Saw?
That is ridiculous.
Have you seen any of the Saw movies, or just heard of them and stayed away?

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Which is kind of my point too. You say Stu is pretty smart. I would say so too. And this is where both of us have a problem with the concept of this happening again for a sequel in the first place. Stu even refused originally to bring Alan along. He was convinced by the other two to do it. Sure he was already acting like his self when they met up again, but jesus Christ, couldn't Stu get a hint when he had all their pictures from the first blown up on his walls? Any smart and rational person would not have invited him right there. But this is a sequel that has to make money. There wouldn't be a sequel without Alan.

But, I was able to forgive their stupidity and have a good time. You didn't. It didn't work for you. I'm fine with that.

But I'm not even going to try to convince you. If we keep doing this it's going to go in circles. I respect your thoughts and can understand why you're upset over it. Everything just worked for me. Maybe it's because I don't remember alot of the jokes in the first and because it's been nearly two years since I saw it. I'll watch it again and see what happens. In the meantime, I stand by what I say, and you seem to as well.

Everybody pretty much knows this wasn't going to be as good as the first one. Pretty much everyone I talked to today said so. But they still liked it. It worked for them too as it did me.

The GA seems to be eating this up and have no problem with it being a rehash. Although this is opening weekend, we'll see what happens next week. But they seemed to have no problem with the idea of an uneccessary sequel and just went in wanting to have a good time and they did. I was just enjoying myself and was lost in their stupid hijinks. I wasn't really thinking about suspension of disbelief or how it was done beat for beat. But again, I'll need to watch the first again.

This.

Watching the movie, I didn't care that it was the same. It probably goes against many things about movies I don't like, but at the same time I really didn't give a damn. I was too busy having fun with my friends enjoying the movie complain a lot even though I did have problems with movie.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

It probably wasn't a good idea to mention that you've been banned once before...

Probably's an understatement.

 

[chaseter]

HAHAHA. Someone banned themselves. Classic.

 

[dark_b]

i still can not belive that they showed Chang's worm

 

[CelticPredator]

Well, you know I platonically I love the **** out of you. You where willing to give it a go beforehand and it didn't work for you. That's why the way you've conducted yourself is different to the people that are being snobby.

*punches chest with a much love symbol*

 

[CelticPredator]

Hangover 2 - 3/10

I gave it a three for Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and the monkey, all of whom I found entertaining. The problem with the movie was two-fold for me, it was weakly written, very weakly written and not funny enough to allow for this. I find with comedies that bad writing or poor characters can be overcome if the movie is actually funny. I don't find the story of Airplane! particularly compelling, but the good news is that it's hilarious so I don't care. Hangover 2 was simply not that funny. It was funny-ish, I can't say I didn't laugh, but there was too much not funny moments for me to reflect on how god awful the plot was.

First, yeah, it's the same dang movie. I had almost convinced myself this wasn't a problem going into the theater. I figured if I prepped myself I ultimately would get past this. That somehow it just wouldn't bother me, but ultimately it did.

I understand following the same general plot, the key word in bold there. I was thinking, in this one we'd have some nefarious kidnapper do it, but no, it was Alan.

Which brings us to Alan. I liked Alan. Key word in bold again. This time, I didn't. I found him to be playing a caricature of himself. First of all, in the first movie I had some measure of sympathy for him. It was fairly obvious why Doug would be forced to include him in his bachelor party, it was, afterall, his new brother-in-law. In this one though there was literally no reason for him to be there. If I have a wedding, my friend's brother-in-laws are not invited. It's not even because they are weirdos, like Alan, it's because they have literally nothing to do with me. I kind of assumed Alan simply would have been their slightly odd friend now, that they wouldn't have been deliberately ignoring him for years. They were though, so even though Doug's wife protested, it doesn't matter, it's not Doug's wedding.

Yet here they are back together under improbable circumstances, and what do we get, more improbable circumstances. First of all Alan was weird in the last one, and even when he was socially awkward or rude I had a small amount of sympathy for him. Not this time, [BLACKOUT]accidentally roofie-ing your friends because of a dumb drug dealer is somewhat understandible when you suspend a little disbelief, deliberately druging people, even if it was the wrong people, is incredibly awful and criminal[/BLACKOUT]. Furthermore Alan went from playfully awkward and slightly rude, to just an all out a**hole in the first thirty minutes. Not a single family member questioned his presence either. After interrupting the dinner and being all out rude to his son that Dad, as he was depicted, would've had no compunction to kick Alan out. When they found out [BLACKOUT]how they were drugged I honestly wanted to enter Phil's body and tell Alan he was finding his own way back home. The fact that Phil chocks up his anger to "the heat of the moment, is completely and blatantly ridiculous.[/BLACKOUT]

The amount of times the movie just acted like it was "okay" with the sh** that went down was obscene. I'm no chick but honestly [BLACKOUT]someone coming back with a face tattoo, who may or may not have bore responsibility for my brother losing his finger seems like a deal breaker[/BLACKOUT]. Also, I'm not wedding planner but [BLACKOUT]I'm pretty sure the wedding is off once you crash a speed boat into it[/BLACKOUT]. The first movie did a nice job of showing the guys attempting to do damage control to convince the party guests that nothing major had happened. While Stu's tooth may have been a red flag, who honestly cares what state the groomsman whose girlfriend beats him is in? Okay, maybe Stu's missing tooth was a little over the top, but not insanely over the top as [BLACKOUT]a face tattoo, a missing finger, a shaved head and a gunshot wound.[/BLACKOUT]

Someone here said it, this movie was too cruel and dark. It was essentially like doing a SAW film with stand-up comedians.

This post is so on the damn money.