Hangover 2

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I think that's why [BLACKOUT]Teddy was glad he lost his finger. His father was so controlling and domineering that he planned Teddy's life all out for him. With his injury taking that away from him, Teddy is completely free to choose his own path.[/BLACKOUT]

That would have been fine but there is one problem to that. There was no indication that he was tired of his life, nor was there any indication that he didn't want that life.

Spoiler

Also, whether he didn't or not, he lost a friggin finger! You can't be that chill if you lost a finger, especially when he finds out that the guys don't have it, he's just smiling. That's not normal, nor i that natural of the world or character that was set up.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

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.

Like I said before, the fact that it was the same was the least of my problems about the film. In fact, that wasn't the problem I had at all. The problem I had was that a lot of the jokes were meaner. It felt like a much more mean-spirited movie than the first one, sometimes going against the "fun" feel of the first Hangover.

 

[DACrowe]

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.

Yes, because it was a Billy Joel song about Reagan's America (Allentown), though Stu changed the lyrics....to hilarious effect.

Billy Joel's Original Allentown



If you didn't find that scene funny in the movie, it is out of some arbitrary need to hate the movie. I know it is a rehash. The trailer said it was a rehash. The concept on paper is a rehash. It is THE HANGOVER PART II. What do people expect???

Was it funny?

Yes (IMO). Works for me.

 

[DACrowe]

Like I said before, the fact that it was the same was the least of my problems about the film. In fact, that wasn't the problem I had at all. The problem I had was that a lot of the jokes were meaner. It felt like a much more mean-spirited movie than the first one, sometimes going against the "fun" feel of the first Hangover.

They raised the stakes and made it a dark comedy. Somehow that felt fitting for Bangkok. But the real reason for that was they realized if they just did the same type of humor again it wouldn't have been funny. While they didn't change the plot (AT ALL), the comedy is where this franchise lives. And they certainly raised the stakes comedically. Since we've seen the set-up before, the punchline can never be as funny. But going for that "silly fun" punchline again would just be a dud. So they went for a darker, more perverse twisted punchline. And it worked, it was very funny (IMO).

If you don't like such dark humor, I could see why it would be a turn off. But it worked for me. Though you're right about the [blackout]finger bit being resolved so happily when Teddy just shrugs it off.[/blackout] But that was them trying to keep the happy, cheeky tone of the first film and give us the exact same happy ending. It would have been better (if more depressing) if they took this storyline all the way home and [blackout]Teddy and the bride's family[/blackout] had a more realistic reaction. But that's splitting hairs for what it is supposed to be a comedy. I just know the way they built up the movie with Johnny Cash and Kanye West's Monster was epic and should have prepared you for a much rougher ride of a movie.

 

[DACrowe]

double

 

[dude stannis]

That would have been fine but there is one problem to that. There was no indication that he was tired of his life, nor was there any indication that he didn't want that life.

Spoiler

Also, whether he didn't or not, he lost a friggin finger! You can't be that chill if you lost a finger, especially when he finds out that the guys don't have it, he's just smiling. That's not normal, nor i that natural of the world or character that was set up.

I don't know, I really thought he was over it the way his expressions sold it.

To be fair, you're not wrong how underplayed the whole film was. [BLACKOUT]I think Stu took being sodomized extremely lightely![/BLACKOUT]

I think a third one should be about the crazy night they have. Maybe with a post credits scene with the crew waking up with no memory of the night before.

 

[samsnee]

It wasn't even the jokes. Structurally it was the same as the first. First scene was Phil making the call, then flashback to a few days earlier. Then the toast, time-lapse to them waking up, etc...

I didn't think it was a bad movie, I just thought it was boring because there was nothing new creatively. The Part II for me means it compliments the first by continuing the themes from the first one. This was just a retread.

 

[terry78]

That would have been fine but there is one problem to that. There was no indication that he was tired of his life, nor was there any indication that he didn't want that life.

Spoiler

Also, whether he didn't or not, he lost a friggin finger! You can't be that chill if you lost a finger, especially when he finds out that the guys don't have it, he's just smiling. That's not normal, nor i that natural of the world or character that was set up.

It was kind of an unfortunate implications thing,with the movie basically saying, "being uptight and studious and sensible is wrong, partying your ass off and having fun is nothing but right." That was what they were getting across with both Stu and Teddy.

 

[Doctor Jones]

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.

Yes, because it was a Billy Joel song about Reagan's America (Allentown), though Stu changed the lyrics....to hilarious effect.

Billy Joel's Original Allentown



If you didn't find that scene funny in the movie, it is out of some arbitrary need to hate the movie. I know it is a rehash. The trailer said it was a rehash. The concept on paper is a rehash. It is THE HANGOVER PART II. What do people expect???

Was it funny?

Yes (IMO). Works for me.

They raised the stakes and made it a dark comedy. Somehow that felt fitting for Bangkok. But the real reason for that was they realized if they just did the same type of humor again it wouldn't have been funny. While they didn't change the plot (AT ALL), the comedy is where this franchise lives. And they certainly raised the stakes comedically. Since we've seen the set-up before, the punchline can never be as funny. But going for that "silly fun" punchline again would just be a dud. So they went for a darker, more perverse twisted punchline. And it worked, it was very funny (IMO).

If you don't like such dark humor, I could see why it would be a turn off. But it worked for me. Though you're right about the [blackout]finger bit being resolved so happily when Teddy just shrugs it off.[/blackout] But that was them trying to keep the happy, cheeky tone of the first film and give us the exact same happy ending. It would have been better (if more depressing) if they took this storyline all the way home and [blackout]Teddy and the bride's family[/blackout] had a more realistic reaction. But that's splitting hairs for what it is supposed to be a comedy. I just know the way they built up the movie with Johnny Cash and Kanye West's Monster was epic and should have prepared you for a much rougher ride of a movie.

Completely agreed. One of the first lines of this movie was, "We really ****ed up. We did it again."

That should have given you the clue that yes, it is happening yet again. Seriously, people are acting like they've been duped. The trailers, the title, the very idea of all of this says that it is happening again and it's the same. It wasn't lying. Which is ironic given that trailer do lie at times. The lines in the trailer were "I can't believe this is happening again!"

There it is right there. I can't believe people were surprised by this.

The Hangover Part II. What else does it mean? What else do you expect? A different kind of hangover? A different kind of reaction when they wake up and find out *gasp* they did it again?

Now that puts into question what can happen for a third. If they depart from the formula these two, you might as well not call it The Hangover or have a Part III or whatever in it.

I liked this alot because the jokes worked and were twisted around and it was darker. If the jokes didn't work for you then fine. But people complaining how it wasn't much different are pissed off for something they should have expected because everything indicated what it was up front.

 

[samsnee]

I was expecting a Hangover. I was expecting someone to be missing. I wasn't expecting for Alan to drug them, again, or that the person they thought had their missing friend didn't really have that person, or that the missing person was only a few feet away from them the whole time. You can keep the same overall story but this movie felt like a re-make if the studio decided to re-make the original twenty years from now.

 

[danoyse]

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.

When I was on line waiting to go in to the theater, I heard the woman in front me say, "I just want to laugh my *** off," to her friend. I think that's pretty much a common sentiment for most people who are seeing this movie. They're not looking for it to break any kind of new ground, they just want a movie that's at least as funny as the first one.

I thought the first movie was a little better, but this one was still pretty damn hilarious.

 

[danoyse]

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.

"We're living here in Allentown, and he's driving our lives into the ground...when we woke up we were wasted and drunk....Phil got shot...we were beaten up by monk...."

There was another lyric about Stu's unfortunate incident that I can't post here, but my audience was howling at it.

 

[The Chris]

When I was on line waiting to go in to the theater, I heard the woman in front me say, "I just want to laugh my *** off," to her friend. I think that's pretty much a common sentiment for most people who are seeing this movie. They're not looking for it to break any kind of new ground, they just want a movie that's at least as funny as the first one.

I thought the first movie was a little better, but this one was still pretty damn hilarious.

Yeah. I agree. This is getting really good response at my job. Lots of clapping and cheering.

 

[Doctor Jones]

"We're living here in Allentown, and he's driving our lives into the ground...when we woke up we were wasted and drunk....Phil got shot...we were beaten up by monk...."

There was another lyric about Stu's unfortunate incident that I can't post here, but my audience was howling at it.

That last part was great.

 

[jacobed]

118.1 Million

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/usmovi...-part-ii-biggest-comedy-all-time-1181-million

 

[terry78]

Not a shocker.

 

[Heisenberg]

8/10. Retread, yes. But, the characters were entirely aware that the situation was exactly the same as the last time around. I don't understand the backlash, part of the comedy was that this was happening again. Comedy sequels rarely, if ever, deviate far from the path of the original - and when the original is a huge sucess, I don't see how anyone thought this would stray outside of the formula in any manner. I personally thought it was very funny, not as much so as the original, but the humor was darker and I think that was a smart move, as Bangkok plays darker and more dangerous than Vegas.

I loved Alan's reactions to everything, Galifianakis knows how to constantly engage you during a scene, even when he's in the background. Cooper held the group together nicely as he was, relatively, the straight guy. He even managed to contribute to some of the best laughs (his lines in iHop, getting shot). Ed Helms definitely shone here, and practically killed me with his reaction in the stripclub scene. I really enjoyed it, but I guess my expectations were in check. I figured this would be, literally PART 2, as in - a continuation, much the same. It was, and it delivered.

 

[chaseter]

"We're living here in Allentown, and he's driving our lives into the ground...when we woke up we were wasted and drunk....Phil got shot...we were beaten up by monk...."

There was another lyric about Stu's unfortunate incident that I can't post here, but my audience was howling at it.

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?

 

[Doctor Jones]

Who cares?

If we're asking these questions we might as well ask why the hell these guys got drunk and had yet another adventure out of a hangover.

 

[chaseter]

8/10. Retread, yes. But, the characters were entirely aware that the situation was exactly the same as the last time around. I don't understand the backlash, part of the comedy was that this was happening again. Comedy sequels rarely, if ever, deviate far from the path of the original - and when the original is a huge sucess, I don't see how anyone thought this would stray outside of the formula in any manner. I personally thought it was very funny, not as much so as the original, but the humor was darker and I think that was a smart move, as Bangkok plays darker and more dangerous than Vegas.

I loved Alan's reactions to everything, Galifianakis knows how to constantly engage you during a scene, even when he's in the background. Cooper held the group together nicely as he was, relatively, the straight guy. He even managed to contribute to some of the best laughs (his lines in iHop, getting shot). Ed Helms definitely shone here, and practically killed me with his reaction in the stripclub scene. I really enjoyed it, but I guess my expectations were in check. I figured this would be, literally PART 2, as in - a continuation, much the same. It was, and it delivered.

Doing the same plot and using the exact same jokes and punchlines are two different things. I knew this would be a retread of the plot but they used the exact same gags and jokes and they didn't add any new characters to the group dynamic to up the stakes. At least have let Doug go with them this time or have Teddy be the cause of the problem but it was exactly the same.

 

[chaseter]

Who cares?

If we're asking these questions we might as well ask why the hell these guys got drunk and had yet another adventure out of a hangover.

They got roofied with marshmallows. That is plausible. But they wanted so badly to copy the first movie that everything felt forced and too familiar. So much so that Stu manufacturers a guitar on a Bangkok boat to be able to sing a tune about their situation.

 

[Doctor Jones]

But it's a comedy man. Who cares where this stuff comes from? Like where did Steve Carell get the trident or grenade in Anchorman? Comedies can get away with absurdities like this. I get that you weren't happy with the jokes, but where he got the guitar? The boat guy might have had the guitar in the boat or something. I doubt that's uncommon. I don't think it would be something to question.

I just loved how it came out of nowhere.

 

[LostSon88]

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?

 

[TheFuture]

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?

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.

 

[chaseter]

But it's a comedy man. Who cares where this stuff comes from? Like where did Steve Carell get the trident or grenade in Anchorman? Comedies can get away with absurdities like this. I get that you weren't happy with the jokes, but where he got the guitar? The boat guy might have had the guitar in the boat or something. I doubt that's uncommon. I don't think it would be something to question.

I just loved how it came out of nowhere.

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.