Hangover 2

[bullets]

Wow, I found Cooper to be pretty damn funny in both. Sure, he plays more of the straight man, but his reactions to some of the situations are awesome.

Same here man

 

[Eelectro 2]

i really dont kno how to feel about this whole lawsuit bs. i dont kno why they dont just pay the tattoo artist, everybody has already seen the tattoo on stu in trailers commercials in theaters and on posters...why would they spend more money to digitally change it in so many shots in the film to where it wont even make sense given they would do that if the lawsuit isnt taken care of? i have a feeling if they do change it, it wont be much of a change, which would be pointless. and there are scenes in the film that it looks like a real healing tattoo and if its digitally altered over this i dont think it will retain that look

 

[HopeOfTheFuture]

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.

Well said, although I gave it a 1/10. What a waste of money.

 

[Midnight Black]

8/10 at the minimal a 7/10. Exactly what I expected it to be. It was fun, entertaining, and didn't make itself out to be anything more than what it advertised. Good film.

In part three they should have Alan pretend that he is getting married, and trick everyone to coming to his bachelor party somewhere, but it actually turns out he is trying to bust out Chow. OR have it that he is actually getting married, but this time Stew, Phil, and Doug plan to ruffie him to get him back for both times, but unknown to them he actually ruffies them again since it is his wedding. Stupid I know, but I could see them going in both directions.

 

[CelticPredator]

^ **** THAT **** THAT **** THAT **** THAT. Waste of money and time.

 

[MadVillainy]

Finally saw this bad boy.

ANd yes it was a retread of the original, but really that wasnt what made me not like it as much

-Idk. The jokes didnt stick as well in this one. Alot of the attempted jokes just werent funny
-I know he was a small point but that kid who played Teddy was bad
-[BLACKOUT]I REALLY didnt like the ending. For me, the movie is still good but it would have been so much better if the ending was different. The fact that all was forgiven and forgotten at the end irked me. With the first one: yeah Stu lost a tooth (that could be fixed), Doug was sunburnt but at the end it wasnt that bad. In this one: A 16 year old got his F***ing finger cut off. Phil got shot. Exactly what Stu feared would happen, happened. They had that scene where Phil said "YOURE NOT MY FRIEND" and then in the next scene be okay. And at the end they were all smiles and happy again. Idk it just bothered me and that honestly was my main flaw with the movie. They shouldve ended it with them on the roof of that building with Phil on the phone talking to Doug's wife[/BLACKOUT]

It was still decent I had some laughs. I gave the first one 7.5/10 this is about a 6.5. I wouldve given it a straight 7 if not for the ending

 

[Matt Mortem]

Finally saw this bad boy.

ANd yes it was a retread of the original, but really that wasnt what made me not like it as much

-Idk. The jokes didnt stick as well in this one. Alot of the attempted jokes just werent funny
-I know he was a small point but that kid who played Teddy was bad
-[BLACKOUT]I REALLY didnt like the ending. For me, the movie is still good but it would have been so much better if the ending was different. The fact that all was forgiven and forgotten at the end irked me. With the first one: yeah Stu lost a tooth (that could be fixed), Doug was sunburnt but at the end it wasnt that bad. In this one: A 16 year old got his F***ing finger cut off. Phil got shot. Exactly what Stu feared would happen, happened. They had that scene where Phil said "YOURE NOT MY FRIEND" and then in the next scene be okay. And at the end they were all smiles and happy again. Idk it just bothered me and that honestly was my main flaw with the movie. They shouldve ended it with them on the roof of that building with Phil on the phone talking to Doug's wife[/BLACKOUT]

It was still decent I had some laughs. I gave the first one 7.5/10 this is about a 6.5. I wouldve given it a straight 7 if not for the ending

I agree about the ending. It was very 'meh' for me

 

[MadVillainy]

ANd it especially didnt work with the whole darker tone. I mean this wasnt grimdark but I felt the amount of black comedy was upped. [BLACKOUT]Hell, I expected the elevator to start back up and cut Teddy in half when they found him[/BLACKOUT]

 

[Matt Mortem]

ANd it especially didnt work with the whole darker tone. I mean this wasnt grimdark but I felt the amount of black comedy was upped. [BLACKOUT]Hell, I expected the elevator to start back up and cut Teddy in half when they found him[/BLACKOUT]

You're right about the black comedy. It was a lot darker than I was expecting

 

[returntovoid]

2 is more outrageously funny but of course, the story is a bit recycled.

 

[Milu]

Same here man

Same here as well. I thought he was hilarious in the Ihop scene.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

Even though it was a rehash of the first film set in Thailand I found it to be pretty decent. I gave the first movie a 9 out of 10 but the second I would give it a 7.5 out of 10. I do plan on buying it tommorow on blu ray and dvd so maybe after I watch it again my feelings might change I don't know yet. Anyway, Bradley Cooper has confirmed part 3 is in the works and it looks to be set in California. He also claims that they are switching up the formula this time. Here is the link.

http://movies.ndtv.com/movie_story.a...ood&nid=155479

 

[Nathan]

Finally got to watch it at a friend's place. We both agree it's nowhere near as funny as the first one. Oh, and I ****ing hate Alan now. Funny in the first Movie, effin' obnoxious in part 2.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

For people planning on buying it tommorow, are there any deals or extras at stores like Wal Mart, Target, Best Buy etc?

 

[Webhead2006]

I was just wondering is there any director's cut/unrated cut for the film coming out like first one did?