Hangover 2

[roach]

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 dont think it would have been believable that if someone was kidnapped and drugged they'd break out and then go party

 

[dude stannis]

i dont think it would have been believable that if someone was kidnapped and drugged they'd break out and then go party

Agreed, but I like the idea of Chow

Spoiler

Giving them bad drugs.

That also doesn't mean Alan is basically responsible for Stu being sodomized.

 

[Matt]

I really enjoyed the movie. Not great, not nearly as funny as the first but a solid 7 out of 10. I'm still baffled by what people were expecting.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I don't get it either.

When this movie was announced what were you expecting and saying? I seem to remember it was, "How are they going to make it different from that last one and not seem like it repeats itself? There's only so much you could do with it."

Then what were we saying when that first full length trailer came out? "It looks very similar to the first one."

Yet you saw it based on trailers where it clearly advertised this idea. The entire lead up to this movie basically spelled it out for you this was happening again.

 

[Matt]

Exactly, the most commonly used line in the TV spots was Phil's, "It happened again." They were pretty open about it being a retread, but that's fine. The Naked Gun 2 was basically an exact repeat of the original Naked Gun with minor tweaks. Wayne's World 2, Austin Powers 2, American Pie 2, Ghostbusters 2, Evil Dead II, Lethal Weapon 2, Fletch Lives, all the good comedy sequels are basically retreads.

The worst of the comedy sequels are ones that drift too far from the original premise, like Weekend at Bernies 2, Airplane II, etc.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Weekend at Bernie's 2...

Jesus Christ. I even forgot about that until now...

If you thought this was unecessary, then you didn't have to see it. It's as simple as that. If you wasted your money expecting something different and feeling like you were duped where in actuality for once, the trailers didn't decieve you, I don't feel sorry for you. That's on you.

 

[TheVileOne]

Yeah sorry these are all bad excuses for bad, lazy writing.

 

[Doctor Jones]

So you have no excuse for going to see the movie and paying for it by your own will when you've seen countless times from the promotion this wouldn't be a completely new thing?

 

[The Chris]

Well in the end I think they made the right decision. People are coming out of my theater really happy. I haven't seen one person these past five days say that it sucked. I've heard "that was hilarious", and "the first one was better but that was good too". The callbacks to the first get big reactions. It happened again gets a big reaction every time. People wanted to see The Hangover again, and they got it. Simple as that.

 

[Nathan]

If I wanted to see the Hangover again, then I think I'd just watch the Hangover again. As I actually do from time to time. I haven't watched this yet, so I'm not making any judgements. But I think I'll pass anyway. Hangover for me, was one of those Movies that didn't need a Sequel.

 

[CelticPredator]

Agreed, but I like the idea of Chow

Spoiler

Giving them bad drugs.

That also doesn't mean Alan is basically responsible for Stu being sodomized.

I can go with that. I'm fine with they got drugged, but just not from the person who did drugged them.

It's beyond retred. It's beyond anything....it's just horribly idiotic. It makes that character a waste of time. He didnt learn. He didnt grow...he stayed neutral. And that is what makes a bad movie.

 

[TheVileOne]

Doctor Jones knock if off with that jazz. I didn't pay to see the movie, I saw an advanced screening. I didn't have high expectations because it was looking like the same movie.

My hope was the big reveals would've been stronger or more interesting but they weren't. It was the exact same **** as the first one beat for beat, scene for scene.

 

[antsman41]

Also, the only other good part other than Alan's mind was Annie's Boobs smokin cigs and dealing droogs...

 

[TheVileOne]

Yeah the trailers and marketing made it clear it was pretty much the same movie and that is part of the problem. The movie doesn't work being the exact same situations and beats just in a different setting.

Stu is so anal-retentive and paranoid about everything he's putting a napkin over his drink at IHOP. If anything like that ever happened to me, I would never accept anything from Alan. Stu went so far as only drinking from sealed beer bottles that Phil brought. They made a point of telling us, SEALED BEER BOTTLES. Alan brings marshmallows and Phil tosses them aside. After an experience like that, I am not touching anything at all Alan brings or gives me. And it is ****ing ******ed that they ate Alan's marshmallows.

And that is why the writing doesn't work. All the big reveals and beats are the same. It doesn't work doing that just in a different setting.

Also why the **** would Lauren even be OK with what happened with Stu and her brother? She doesn't even bat a ****ing eyelash!

 

[DACrowe]

Exactly, the most commonly used line in the TV spots was Phil's, "It happened again." They were pretty open about it being a retread, but that's fine. The Naked Gun 2 was basically an exact repeat of the original Naked Gun with minor tweaks. Wayne's World 2, Austin Powers 2, American Pie 2, Ghostbusters 2, Evil Dead II, Lethal Weapon 2, Fletch Lives, all the good comedy sequels are basically retreads.

The worst of the comedy sequels are ones that drift too far from the original premise, like Weekend at Bernies 2, Airplane II, etc.

Exactly. I don't know what people were expecting from Hangover II. I wanted it to be funny, though I knew it wouldn't be as funny as the first film (because now I knew the set-up). I got what I expected, a funny retread of the story that worked.

 

[LostSon88]

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.

What exactly are you guys not understanding in the reasons why we were disappointed?

We didn't ask for them to completely revamp the concept, just change the dynamics a little:

Have Doug involved.
Have someone else drug them.
Have their get together be something other than a wedding.
Use videos instead of photos in the end credits.

I could go on. Bottom line, for many of us, they didn't do enough to distinguish itself as a sequel. Take away a few minor instances and it's essentially a remake. A darker, less funny remake.

I wasnt expecting much. But i didnt expect this.

Again, what are you guys not understanding?

 

[Paroxysm]

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?

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

6/10.

I had no problems with them rehashing the first movie, my problem is that it wasn't funny. I felted bored at times, waiting for the next joke. I had to force myself to laugh at a lot of jokes. It was a mediocre.

 

[LegendaryCaleb]

6/10.

I had no problems with them rehashing the first movie, my problem is that it wasn't funny. I felted bored at times, waiting for the next joke. I had to force myself to laugh at a lot of jokes. It was a mediocre.

i absolutely agree with this yet i give it a 5

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

3/10
Would give a review, and when I review, I always find something positive about a movie, and honestly, there was nothing great about this. And I'll probably get people saying, "what were you expecting?" and all those weak arguments, because the filmmakers could have made a better and more interesting story. In the end, The Hangover Part 2 is a lazy and sloppy excuse for a sequel.

 

[UltimateJustin]

Alan drugging them again changes the concept that I think people wanted to see, that whenever these three get together they are so inherently bad for each other they just go off the meat rack, like the one chick said, "what is it with you three?" But now there isn't anything about the three of them, it's just that when they get together Alan drugs them. That doesn't make the movie bad, it's just the retread that went a little too far for some people (myself included).

What makes the movie mediocre is that it feels much less natural, there is nothing to quote (by this point after the first movie was released, how many times had you heard people pronouncing "re-tArd" like Alan had, or singing the 'Three Best Friends' song?) and after a while it does become boring when you realize they are just taking individual jokes that worked last time partly because of surprise and simply increasing the magnitude. I'm not against that in theory, if it worked I would have laughed, but just going from "they get tasered" to "Bradley Cooper gets shot" just doesn't hit well.

But I didn't hate it, it's just the classic drop between Wayne's World and Wayne's World 2. I watch the first one every couple of years and never revisited the second.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Doctor Jones knock if off with that jazz. I didn't pay to see the movie, I saw an advanced screening. I didn't have high expectations because it was looking like the same movie.

My hope was the big reveals would've been stronger or more interesting but they weren't. It was the exact same **** as the first one beat for beat, scene for scene.

That's fine if the reveals and jokes didn't do anything for you.

I can't blame people for not expecting it to be beat for beat. I haven't seen the first in nearly two years now. So I can hardly remember its structure. I do remember its essentials though.

I'll have to go back and watch it again to have a proper opinion on that.

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?

Yeah the trailers and marketing made it clear it was pretty much the same movie and that is part of the problem. The movie doesn't work being the exact same situations and beats just in a different setting.

Stu is so anal-retentive and paranoid about everything he's putting a napkin over his drink at IHOP. If anything like that ever happened to me, I would never accept anything from Alan. Stu went so far as only drinking from sealed beer bottles that Phil brought. They made a point of telling us, SEALED BEER BOTTLES. Alan brings marshmallows and Phil tosses them aside. After an experience like that, I am not touching anything at all Alan brings or gives me. And it is ****ing ******ed that they ate Alan's marshmallows.

And that is why the writing works. All the big reveals and beats are the same. It doesn't work doing that just in a different setting.

Also why the **** would Lauren even be OK with what happened with Stu and her brother? She doesn't even bat a ****ing eyelash!

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Matt]

I can go with that. I'm fine with they got drugged, but just not from the person who did drugged them.

It's beyond retred. It's beyond anything....it's just horribly idiotic. It makes that character a waste of time. He didnt learn. He didnt grow...he stayed neutral. And that is what makes a bad movie.

That's like complaining that Frank Drebin doesn't learn from his stupidity over the course of the Naked Gun trilogy or that Stiffler continues to try to get laid throughout the American Pie trilogy or that Ash is still an arrogant blowhard in Army of Darkness or that Wayne and Garth are still slacker metal heads with a cable access show in Wayne's World 2.

The genre is comedy. Characters aren't meant to grow and evolve. If you're looking for that watch drama or tragedy.

 

[Matt]

That's fine if the reveals and jokes didn't do anything for you.

I can't blame people for not expecting it to be beat for beat. I haven't seen the first in nearly two years now. So I can hardly remember its structure. I do remember its essentials though.

I'll have to go back and watch it again to have a proper opinion on that.

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?



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.

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.

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.

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.

Exactly. Comedies by their very definition are meant to be absurd and lacking in logic. If you're looking for characters who act in a logical, relatable, clever, manner then watch a drama.

 

[PWN3R]

I have no problem with a sequel, especially a comedy, sticking to the original's form. The Hangover was successful because no one expecting anything, and SURPRISE, it was pretty good.

With this, it was no longer some movie that you have to check out because, "They don't remember anything, and MIKE TYSON!" Everyone was expecting something. The box office results show this. Todd Phillips didn't care.

How the hell did Stu's fiance not lose her **** when she sees her brother and Stu again? It makes no sense. One has lost a finger, the other has a tattoo on his face...on his face. Was she blind?

Just like Mike Tyson's 2nd cameo, this was pointless. At least the monkey was cool. That little dude smoked like a boss.