Movie Review: The Hangover Part II
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it". That seems to have been the mentality of director Todd Phillips on set. The sequel for the surprise 2009 smash hit "The Hangover" was inevitable. How Phillips would tackle such a sequel, wasn't quite as clear. "The Hangover Part II" uses the same formula that brought the first film such success. The EXACT same formula. Here's the opening: It's wedding day, the bride is anxious, and an exasperated, beleaguered Bradley Cooper sputters from his cell phone: "We did it again". OOPS! This movie suffers from the "Sex and the City 2" conundrum, in which the screenwriters basically say, "Let's make the same exact movie.... somewhere else".
Part II takes place in Bangkok, as opposed to Las Vegas. Stu (Ed Helms) is getting married there, and he wants no issues, nothing that could even possibly recreate the horrifying events from the first "Hangover". All he wants is a "bachelor brunch" at ihop, but is eventually coerced into having just one beer down at the beach with the guys. Cue the timelapse, cut to the morning after, then to the emptying of the pockets, then to the ensuing hijinks. The biggest problem with "The Hangover Part II" is its inherent predictability. By following the same cookie-cutter formula, we as the audience aren't shocked by anything, no matter how much they try to raise the stakes (and they try constantly).
Everything is bigger, if not necessarily better, in "The Hangover Part II". Someone gets shot at one point, kidnappings and gun shootings are commonplace, drug deals, monkeys, transvestites, riots in the streets. They even have Stu strumming a guitar, singing a song about their absurd misfortunes, much like in the first Hangover! The first Hangover's charm was the insane but legitimate spontaneity of it all. We genuinely cared about what happened, how it happened, and where their friend Doug was. In this one, it's just distracting, and frankly embarrassing watching them go through the motions of the first film in a new city, as Ed Helms tries to contort his facial reactions in new, unique ways.
It probably sounds like I hate this movie, but that's not the case. I found myself laughing throughout, so it's definitely an effective film; the guy next to me certainly thought it was "way better" than the first one. "The Hangover Part II" will probably be very successful in the box office, but it will have no lasting imprint like the first one. Unfortunately, the project was doomed from the start; by following the same formula, they were setting themselves up for failure. I know I keep harping on the same point, but it's one that defines the whole movie. I truly would have liked to have seen these characters in a different scenario, but not the same scenario somewhere else! That's just absurd! "I can't believe this is happening again!" screams Stu at the top of his lungs. Neither can I Stu, neither can I.
Part II takes place in Bangkok, as opposed to Las Vegas. Stu (Ed Helms) is getting married there, and he wants no issues, nothing that could even possibly recreate the horrifying events from the first "Hangover". All he wants is a "bachelor brunch" at ihop, but is eventually coerced into having just one beer down at the beach with the guys. Cue the timelapse, cut to the morning after, then to the emptying of the pockets, then to the ensuing hijinks. The biggest problem with "The Hangover Part II" is its inherent predictability. By following the same cookie-cutter formula, we as the audience aren't shocked by anything, no matter how much they try to raise the stakes (and they try constantly).
Everything is bigger, if not necessarily better, in "The Hangover Part II". Someone gets shot at one point, kidnappings and gun shootings are commonplace, drug deals, monkeys, transvestites, riots in the streets. They even have Stu strumming a guitar, singing a song about their absurd misfortunes, much like in the first Hangover! The first Hangover's charm was the insane but legitimate spontaneity of it all. We genuinely cared about what happened, how it happened, and where their friend Doug was. In this one, it's just distracting, and frankly embarrassing watching them go through the motions of the first film in a new city, as Ed Helms tries to contort his facial reactions in new, unique ways.
It probably sounds like I hate this movie, but that's not the case. I found myself laughing throughout, so it's definitely an effective film; the guy next to me certainly thought it was "way better" than the first one. "The Hangover Part II" will probably be very successful in the box office, but it will have no lasting imprint like the first one. Unfortunately, the project was doomed from the start; by following the same formula, they were setting themselves up for failure. I know I keep harping on the same point, but it's one that defines the whole movie. I truly would have liked to have seen these characters in a different scenario, but not the same scenario somewhere else! That's just absurd! "I can't believe this is happening again!" screams Stu at the top of his lungs. Neither can I Stu, neither can I.
Very good review, I had a feeling that it would be very similar to the first movie just though the trailers. However, I understand why they did it, at the Showcase Cinemas in Dayton, the Hangover was on screens for over three months with viewers every day. Avatar, The Blind Side, and many other movies were out after only a month. So it would seem that following the same formula would be appropriate.
ReplyDeleteI might go see it, I'll more likely wait for the dvd or Netflix stream.
Avatar was out after a month??? I had the impressions that Avatar was one of the longest running movies ever. But you're certainly right, "The Hangover" had a lot of staying power. I guess they didn't have a ton of options for the sequel, as people really are expecting more of the same, but there was certainly no need for the degree of retread that you will find exists in the film. The narrative beats line up so perfectly, and the whole thing is so calculated, it's just distracting. Thanks for the comment!
ReplyDeleteExcellent review. I just got back from watching it and I agree entirely.
ReplyDeleteI just want to point out that you cited the director as Todd Haynes. You know, the guy who did Velvet Goldmine and I'm Not There. Man, I wish he'd directed this movie, at least then it may have been interesting and had Christian Bale.
ReplyDeleteHahaha. Thank you Dustin! Yes, Todd Haynes directing this movie would have been awesome.
ReplyDelete"The Hangover Part III: I'm Not There"........ Seriously, I won't be there.
ReplyDelete