Hangover 2

[UnknownHero]

I give it a solid 8/10. Thought this was as good as the first one, which I really loved. I honestly think people are getting too caught up in the same storyline hate, because it did not affect my enjoyment at all. The characters are fully aware that similar circumstances are repeating, and that's one thing to me that I found funny because Phil, Stu, and Alan really grew on me during the first. Seeing them in this environment and re-testing their relationships was interesting

My thoughts excatly! Phil, Stu, and Alan are aware that the situation is a rehash of what happened in vegas. The film is basically making fun of that knowledge. People who bash it for being a rehash of the the first movie should hate every single super hero origin movie that has been released over the last couple of years. They are all the same basically following the same pattern. Hero origin, love interest, introduce villain, blah blah , final showdown with villain, end movie. Not saying there is any thing wrong with that ( I am a super hero nerd) but just saying. Lots of movie sequels are nothing more than rehashes of the previous movie.

 

[LostSon88]

I liked it.

I think anyone who bashes it for sticking to a formula and then goes to praise all the superhero origin stories, or films like Terminator 2 and Die Hard 2 is being a massive hypocrite.

Please...it's one thing to stick to a formula (T2, Home Alone 2, Ghostbusters 2) and another to do an near carbon copy of the original.

T2 introduced a more advanced villain in addition to evolving the Sarah Connor character. Home Alone added a subplot regarding Duncans Toy Chest in addition to adding new villains. Ghostbusters added a unique villain and the use of 'mood slime' while introducing Danas son to be a major plot point.

Hangover 2? Well, they Used a monkey instead of a baby.

The difference between those sequels and Hangover 2 is even though they stuck to the same formulas of their originals, they made just enough changes to distinguish itself from the first movie.

You cannot tell me the same can be said about Hangover 2. They were content with simply copying the structure of part 1 almost beat for beat.

The whole point of a sequel is to take elements of what made the first so successful and expand upon them. Not to simply rehash the first movie almost verbatim.

 

[terry78]

With comedy sequels, you basically have to up the stakes, and it can be passed off as a sequel. It's such a subjective genre, straying too far from what people liked about it can be a death toll.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I wanted them to add another dynamic. They should have included Doug on their journey.

 

[samsnee]

When Stu started singing another song about what was happening, that's when you know the writers were definitely being lazy creatively.

 

[terry78]

The fact that he's barely in the ads already told me they were trying to capitalize on the power trio of the first one. I would say in the third one maybe they could add a female to the mix and see how that plays out.

 

[jacobed]

They are the exact same movie but thats what the fans want and as long as it makes you laugh I suppose thats all that matters.

 

[UnknownHero]

Please...it's one thing to stick to a formula (T2, Home Alone 2, Ghostbusters 2) and another to do an near carbon copy of the original.

T2 introduced a more advanced villain in addition to evolving the Sarah Connor character. Home Alone added a subplot regarding Duncans Toy Chest in addition to adding new villains. Ghostbusters added a unique villain and the use of 'mood slime' while introducing Danas son to be a major plot point.
.

If memory serves me correctly, critics and fans of ghostbusters didn't really go crazy over Ghostbusters 2. Even if they did add new things to the story it turned some people off.

 

[UnknownHero]

With comedy sequels, you basically have to up the stakes, and it can be passed off as a sequel. It's such a subjective genre, straying too far from what people liked about it can be a death toll.

This. I mean some people complain that is a rehash of the first film ( which it is for the most part) but they would also complain if the sequel strayed to far from the original. As for part 2 I think they did raise the stakes and made it darker than the first movie. The trio thinking Teddy is in danger or dead, being involved with criminals, some darker humor, testing the boundaries of the trios friendship etc. Sure concept of the movie is not as new or fresh as it was in 09 but I thought it was a decent sequel. If they do greenlight a 3rd film they need to change it up.

 

[LostSon88]

If memory serves me correctly, critics and fans of ghostbusters didn't really go crazy over Ghostbusters 2. Even if they did add new things to the story it turned some people off.

The point I'm trying to make though is that they were at least willing to take that risk.

From the get-go, Todd Phillips and co. were completely content with doing the exact same movie.

As a fan of the original, frankly, I expected more of an effort out of them.

Humorwise, yes, they pushed the envelope once...maybe twice. But the rest of the movie just plays it so freaking safe in regards of where the story went.

 

[The Jester]

When Stu started singing another song about what was happening, that's when you know the writers were definitely being lazy creatively.

I loved it and look forward to hearing a song in the third

I can't see how this script is lazy in any sense because they took everything that worked in the first one and continued on with it. That's being smart. Unlike the first one (though there was violence) I really felt their lives were in danger in this addition. Yes, the concept and story are the same, but as I said before Stu, Alan, and Phil's relationship had really changed at the end of this one from how it was towards the beginning and that's what I'm interested to see continue on in the third. There is such chemistry between three individuals who seem like they would never be friends with each other in a thousand years.

For my closing comments, a comedy movie that makes me laugh = succeeded

 

[LostSon88]

If Hangover 3 were to follow the exact same structure as the first two movies...and by that I mean having the following elements:

The group wakes up from a "Hangover"
Another wedding.
Alan roofies the group.
Someone goes missing.
Doug is MIA.
Stu hooks up with another prostitute.
The group gets chased by a mob.
Mike Tyson.
Stu sings a song.
A scene where the group discovers clues from clearing out their pockets.
An end scene where a character appears with a camera thus revealing the events of the night before.

...I take it this is something everyone would TOTALLY be into seeing again, right?

I mean if you didn't have a problem seeing it a second time, why rock the boat?

Lets do it AGAIN!!!

 

[chaseter]

Yes...they literally took everything that worked with the first one and didn't add anything.

Does anybody remember Stu's song this go around? No.

 

[danoyse]

Yes...they literally took everything that worked with the first one and didn't add anything.

Does anybody remember Stu's song this go around? No.

It's actually to the tune to one of my favorite Billy Joel songs, so...yes.

 

[bullets]

I mean if you didn't have a problem seeing it a second time, why rock the boat?

Lets do it AGAIN!!!

I don't think there is really much of an argument with your point. We can all agree it was a lot of recreating the first one ... stuff like chow jumping out of the ice machine instead of a trunk , etc. I don't know if that was part of the joke or they just felt they needed to go there. What's even more strange is we know they are capable of much more.
Some people don't mind that and found it funny. I was laughing throughout. However if they do the same thing a third time it will wear thin with everybody. It might of worked for people this time because there were alternate lines/jokes.
They definitely need to keep the camera bit at the end though. Unless they actually show the party which will never happen. At least we got to see that little video footage.

 

[The Jester]

Yes...they literally took everything that worked with the first one and didn't add anything.

In all seriousness, you know that's not true. What I meant by taking "what worked" is the humor and character traits, since I already acknowledged that it retreaded the same concept and story. The movie was still different enough where I found it enjoyable.

Of course if they continue on using the same formula for the third, I'm going to get tired and bored by watching the same routine, but given the talent and team involved, it's still going to probably end up making me laugh

 

[chaseter]

It's actually to the tune to one of my favorite Billy Joel songs, so...yes.

What do tigers dream of, when they take a little tiger snooze? Do they dream of mauling zebras or Halle Berry in a Catwoman suit?

What are two lines in this song? I can't remember a single line. That's just sums up the whole movie for me other than the shock value dongs and monkey gags.

I was in denial about why critics were bashing this movie but they were right this time.

 

[LostSon88]

Of course if they continue on using the same formula for the third, I'm going to get tired and bored by watching the same routine, but given the talent and team involved, it's still going to probably end up making me laugh

I was tired and bored by watching the same routine THIS time around.

 

[The Jester]

I was tired and bored by watching the same routine THIS time around.

If it looks good enough to give a chance, I hope you enjoy the 3rd one

 

[LostSon88]

Todd Phillips did say that he does indeed have an idea for a 3rd one...and that his idea for it will be completely different from the first two.

...that's encouraging.

 

[bullets]

What are two lines in this song? I can't remember a single line. That's just sums up the whole movie for me other than the shock value dongs and monkey gags.

I was happy and my life was good , getting married like a dentist should,
roasting marshmallows on a stick, I got f'd in the arse by a girl with a dick

 

[-X-]

...

 

[dude stannis]

Please...it's one thing to stick to a formula (T2, Home Alone 2, Ghostbusters 2) and another to do an near carbon copy of the original.

T2 introduced a more advanced villain in addition to evolving the Sarah Connor character. Home Alone added a subplot regarding Duncans Toy Chest in addition to adding new villains. Ghostbusters added a unique villain and the use of 'mood slime' while introducing Danas son to be a major plot point.

Hangover 2? Well, they Used a monkey instead of a baby.

Those examples are paper thin. Single ply toilet paper thin. The T-1000 being more advanced? That's no bigger a change than the setting relocation.

Duncan's toy chest and new villains? You're ****ting me here.

Ghostbusters 2? The same Ghostbusters 2 that some how conveniently makes half of New York forget about the gigantic stay puft marshmallow man so it can stick to formula?

Hangover 2 added a whole new family, made us think the missing character was dead, seriously damaged Alan's relationship with Stu and Phil, made Stu a victim of rape, added a whole new crime element with Chow's character that was minimal in the first. They even managed to make the fact that Alan drugged them again a shock.

The difference between those sequels and Hangover 2 is even though they stuck to the same formulas of their originals, they made just enough changes to distinguish itself from the first movie.

You cannot tell me the same can be said about Hangover 2. They were content with simply copying the structure of part 1 almost beat for beat.

The whole point of a sequel is to take elements of what made the first so successful and expand upon them. Not to simply rehash the first movie almost verbatim.

I can tell you the same can be said for The Hangover 2 and I will. There's plenty of criticism about the film that is valid, a lot of the humor falls flat, Alan goes beyond ******ed, the overused blue/orange contrast etc etc. But to crap on it for sticking to formula just reeks of laziness and hypocrisy.

 

[DACrowe]

I called this backlash months ago when I saw the trailer.

But again I have to ask....what kind of quality were some of you really expecting from a sequel to THE HANGOVER. Again, we are not dealing with The Godfather or Lord of the Rings here. It's, THE HANGOVER. By basic concept it is going to have to be a rehash of "Oh no, we did it again!"

Now for some, there should be no sequel for that reason. But I went in knowing from the moment I saw the trailer it was a rehash. The question is: was it funny? I thought it was hilarious. Not as hilarious as the first one, but still hilarious enough for me to last for most of the movie.

 

[DACrowe]

I called this backlash months ago when I saw the trailer.

But again I have to ask....what kind of quality were some of you really expecting from a sequel to THE HANGOVER. Again, we are not dealing with The Godfather or Lord of the Rings here. It's, THE HANGOVER. By basic concept it is going to have to be a rehash of "Oh no, we did it again!"

Now for some, there should be no sequel for that reason. But I went in knowing from the moment I saw the trailer it was a rehash. The question is: was it funny? I thought it was hilarious. Not as hilarious as the first one, but still hilarious enough for me to last for most of the movie.