Film Review: The Hangover Part Two

Whilst I didn't mind the original Hangover movie, I didn't think it was as funny as everyone else seemed to at the time. I actually saw a review crowning it the "funniest movie of all time". That reviewer obviously hadn't seen Airplane. Or insert one of the thousands of other funnier films here.

But The Hangover was amusing, and original. Neither can be said for the sequel, which has to be one of the more shameless money making exercises of recent times.

Two years after the eventful bachelor party in Vegas, things have settled down for the 'Wolf Pack'. Stu (Ed Helms) is about to get married now, and is going to have the ceremony in Thailand. After a lot of convincing from Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu is persuaded to allow Alan (Zach Galifianakis) to come along, but once they hit Thailand they have another big night, resulting in another hangover and no memory of the night before.

Told you it was the same damn thing again? What was original about the first movie is obviously long gone, and just none of the humour worked for me. I could see where it was trying to be offensive (monkey smoking, full frontal shot of a ladyboy) but it all just seemed utterly puerile. And this is coming from someone who can dig offensive or immature stuff. But only if it's done correctly.

And the main plot isn't the only thing recycled. The deeply annoying Chow returns (played by the equally annoying Ken Jeong) for no real reason, other than to bring back someone recognizable from the first one to pacify the idiot public.

As the film nears it's end it goes into repetitive overdrive. Remember when Stu had his character building rant at his fiance in the first film? Same thing happens, but this time with his soon to be father-in-law. Remember when Mike Tyson showed up in the first one for no real reason? Guess who's back? For even less of a reason. And the "oh look here are some photos from the night" sequence to end the film? Oh hi, welcome back.

I can only assume that the filmmakers thought that a lot of the people who enjoyed the first film so much were absolute bone headed morons, because that's exactly who this sequel is aimed at. Just shovel the exact same film at the public, and watch them eat it up. And they did! I really do worry about the sort of person who enjoyed the sequel. I honestly think you could have put the first film on again and it would have prompted zero arguments.

I realise that there has to be some kind of similarity with the original, it has to involve some form of 'hangover', but there are plenty of ways they could have taken it, rather than just rehash the first film, but just in another country. It's such laziness, and insulting laziness at that.

Not even an appearance from Paul Giamatti can make things interesting, quite how he got involved in this is beyond me, but he does feature in the only scene that got a chuckle out of me though (the line "K as in knight", if anyone was wondering.)

I'm sure a third film in the series will be churned out in due course, but I can only hope that something different is attempted. Underneath all the failed jokes and performances (and that includes Galifianakis as the bumbling man-child Alan, even he wasn't that amusing) the talent is there. But it would take a hell of a lot to get me to watch it.

*
A dreadful humour desert. Trying to be offensive and just coming back like a 9 year old kid finding out about nob jokes, but on the big screen. A massive waste of time and talent, and almost the exact same film as the original.