Movies: 18454 | TV Series: 3282 | Added today: 0 | Storage: 65882 GB
- Forgot password?
- | Register
- | Support
- | FAQ
- | Help
Download, Watch online The Hangover Part II (LQ) Movie.
| Genres: | Com |
| Starring: | Paul Giamatti, Jeffrey Tambor, Zach Galifianakis, Jamie Chung, Sasha Barrese, Ed Helms, Gillian Vigman |
| Director(s): | Todd Phillips |
| Country: | USA |
| Year: | 2011 |
| IMDB Rating: | 6.6 |
Right after the bachelor party in Las Vegas, Phil, Stu, Alan, and Doug jet to Thailand for Stus wedding. Stus plan for a subdued pre-wedding brunch, however, goes seriously awry.
 |
The Hangover Part II (LQ) (iPod) | Resolution: 480x192 px | Total Size: 317 Mb |
|
|
 |
The Hangover Part II (LQ) (DivX) | Resolution: 720x288 px | Total Size: 1465 Mb |
|
Movie Photos: We have taken some photos of "The Hangover Part II (LQ)". They represent actual movie quality.
Visitor Reviews: (20)
16 May 2012
Todd Phillip's Time Machine
After 30 or so minutes into this sequel, I kept asking myself "did I travel back to 2009 to watch the original Hangover?" Sure,the trailers looked the same but there had to be more to it. right?Unfortunately, due to perhaps not wanting to mess with a winning formula, the only new thing Phillips brings to the table this time is a new locale, raunchier gags and,well that's pretty much it.Don't get me wrong, the movie does have its funny moments, and Alan is always funny, but it could have been much more. The twists and surprises that made the first one a delight turn the ones featured here into one predictable scenario after another, all the way to its ending.If you do want to watch this movie, I suggest to watch it in a packed theater or with many friends, otherwise you're going to be even more dissapointed.If Phillips plans to make a third one, I pray he goes a different route. Maybe we'll laugh again.
chunkylover56 16 May 2012
Boring, derivative of the first one!
I didn't want to see this (judging by the reviews), I only went to seeit because I was with my friends, I wanted to see X- Men first classfilm. The reviews were right, Hangover 2 just seems like the filmmakerswere running out of ideas. It's too much like the first one, and therewere way too many crude, raunchy humor that gets old and boring after awhile. I did laugh at the smoking monkey, and I wish there were morescenes with the monkey (despite what peta says) but most of the humorseems like they were done for just shock value (though it wasn'tsurprising at all, not like the first one), like the humor felt tooforced. And I'm sorry, but Ken Jeong as Mr. Chow is NOT a funny man. Hetries too hard to be funny, and the roles he's given are very genericand seem negative and stereotypical. Disappointing film despitecommercial success.
evan_harvey 16 May 2012
Okay, but not that great either
I haven't seen the first Hangover film. Having said that, I'm not sureI really missed much in terms of a continuation of the story, althoughobviously the characters bring with them some backstory from the firstfilm. So how does this one rate by itself? There were a couple of funnymoments, but only a couple. I kept waiting for some truly funny thingsto occur, but they never did. For a location like Bangkok, they didn'treally film that much of it. It's an epic, hot, sprawling city, butthey could have been filming it anywhere. Where were the night markets,the myriad bars and brothels, the heat, and the people? They seem to belargely absent, markedly so if you've ever actually been to Bangkok.Bradley Cooper was the star of the film. The other actors were all abit crap. Zach Gifiankidis (or whatever his name is) sucked.Ehh, not much else to say here. I was pretty disappointed all round.4 out of 10.
atp118 16 May 2012
Horrible
I am in shock of some of these reviews coming out already. I saw themidnight showing last night and was extremely disappointed. I willadmit that i had some high expectations going in, but COME ON. Thismovie is horrible. It is the exact same thing as the first one. sameplot same funny scenes and everything. Besides a couple of ZachGalifaniks funny little scenes that is the only laughing i did. I foundmyself going 20-30 minutes without laughing. Boring and so predictable.They forced this sequel and completely F uped the plot. If you thinkthis movie is by any means funny or even close to the first one, youhave some serious sense of humor issues. Bridemaids was 20 times betterthan this. and better than the original.
daniel cann 13 May 2012
Funny but Formulaic
Two years on from their first misadventure the 'Wolf Pack' are back.The first film arrived without fanfare and was the surprise comedy hitof 2009. This one has a tougher task as the expectations will be high.This time around director Todd Phillips and co-writers Craig Mazin andScot Armstrong have the four Vegas buddies: Phil (Bradley Cooper), Alan(Zach Galifianakis), Stu (Ed Helms) and Doug (Justin Bartha) jettingoff to Thailand for Stu's wedding.All is going smoothly and they quietly enjoy a beer and somemarshmallows on the beach by a fire. The next day Phil, Alan and Stuwake up in a cockroach infested hotel in Bangkok with no memory of theprevious night's events and discover that Stu's future brother in law,16 year old Teddy (Mason Lee) is missing! Not only do they have to findTeddy they have to be back for Stu's wedding the next day.This one is much darker but is still packed with laughs. There arerecycled gags from the first film: instead of the boys being left witha baby, here they have a mischievous monkey, instead of losing thegroom they lose Teddy, instead of Stu pulling a tooth out this time hehas a tattoo on his face. Of course there are strippers and criminalsand old friend Mr Chow (Ken Jeong) thrown into the mix.I could not help but think that the people behind it were too afraid togo out on a limb and deviate from the formula of the original: Put ourthree main characters in jeopardy, then let them play detective as theytry to put the pieces back before a race against time to get the groomto his wedding. Of course it still works and its fun, but I could nothelp thinking this is basically more of the same but in a differentmore exotic location.This one does have a few gems, particularly when there is animaginative sequence that takes us into the mind and perspective ofAlan which is both humorous and explains why he is like he is. Thescripting is sharp and the chemistry between the leads is convincing.The reason this sequel works is because the audience feels we knowthese people and we can't help but like them.Before the film began there were plenty of trailers advertisingupcoming films exactly like this one but with slight variations: agroup of women planning a hen do, a group of male workers planning tobump off their bosses etc. Todd Phillips has started a new genre: theensemble dark comedy that centres on the everyman (or woman). All fine,but in this environment sorting the wheat from the chaff will becomeharder and I hope studios don't become lazy churning out an endlessstream of sub-Hangover wannabes. With this in mind it is perhaps timeto call a halt on this series while they are still ahead as it would betragic to see The Hangover ending up as a pale parody of itself.Fans of the first film will thoroughly enjoy this with its referencesand in jokes as well as the usually chaotic ride. Like Stu says 'I havethis demon inside of me.' Well let's hope that demon is now exorcisedas a second sequel maybe one too far.
Van Roberts 12 May 2012
Only Half As Good As "The Hangover"
Clearly, "Old School" director Todd Phillips subscribes to the sayingif something ain't broke, don't fix it. "The Hangover Part II"reassembles all the fellows but few of the gals from its genuinelyhilarious predecessor about the antics of an outlandish Las Vegasbachelor party gone awry. If you thought "The Hangover" was rude,crude, and morally offensive, "Hangover Part 2" makes the 2009 filmappear tame by comparison. Not since "The Crying Game" (1992) has afilm sunk to the comic excesses that "The Hangover Part II" dares.Sadly, some of the best things about the blockbuster original do notrecur in the predictable, but raunchy, R-rated sequel. Basically, "TheHangover Part II" qualifies as only half as funny as the first film.What Phillips could not replicate in terms of riotous wit, he hasreplaced with shocking revelations. Prepare yourself for something youmay have never seen. Undoubtedly, one of the reasons that Phillips setthe sequel in the exotic orient was to take advantage of a far moreliberal climate concerning sexual identity that is about as pervertedas anything that modern, mainstream Americans can imagine. Were it not for the gifted ensemble cast, including Bradley Cooper,Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms, Justin Bartha, and Ken Jeong, the half of"Hangover 2" that is hilarious wouldn't be as memorable. Galifianakistakes the smallest things and makes them side-splitting. For example,every time he says Thailand, he says 'thigh-land' rather than'tie-land.' Galifianakis and Jeong compete to see who can get thebiggest laughs. Mind you, "The Hangover 2" is not without its share ofsurprises. Some surprises are amusing, while others add nothing butcomplications to a contrived plot. Comparably, Phillips makes Thailandappear far more unsavory than Las Vegas could ever hope even with itsshady criminal heritage. Depending on your perspective, "Hangover 2"makes Bangkok look like either the most sizzling place you could setyour sights on or the last place this side of Hell that you wouldvisit. Indeed, one of the revelations about a character who vanishesturns out to be less sinister than you might expect given thereputation of this 'anything goes' Southeast Asia country.Two years after their shenanigans in Las Vegas, Stu (Ed Helms of "EvanAlmighty") is scheduled to marry Asian dish Lauren (Jamie Chung of"Sucker Punch") in her homeland on the other side of the world at apicturesque sea-side resort. Initially, Stu has agreed to invite onlyPhil (Bradley Cooper of "Limitless") and Doug (Justin Bartha of"Failure to Launch") with no thought about moronic Alan. The bachelorbrunch that Stu has in mind, however, takes place stateside at an I-HOPbefore he hops onto a jet. Eventually, an irate Phil prods Stu intothrowing a bachelor bash in Thailand. Nevertheless, Stu doesn't want torelive the wolf pack antics of their previous escapade. Just as theyare about to leave for the exotic Orient, Doug convinces a reluctantPhil to invite mischievous but well-meaning man-child Alan (ZachGalifianakis of "Due Date") on the condition that Alan doesn't spiketheir libations with roofies. Things get off to an uneasy start inThailand for poor Stu because his future father-in-law, Lauren's sternpatriarch, Fohn (Nirut Sirijanya of "Ong Bak 3"), roasts him at thewedding rehearsal party. Fohn thoroughly loathes the milquetoastdentist. Indeed, Fohn compares Stu to lukewarm rice. Meanwhile, Fohnlavishes praise and attention on his quiet, 16-year-old Stanfordfreshman son (Mason Lee of "The Wedding Banquet") majoring in pre-medwho plays the cello like a master.After the party, Phil, Stu, Doug, and Teddy gather on the beach for abenign party around a bonfire with beer and marshmallows. No sooner isall that said and done than they awaken the following morning in theseediest motel Bangkok. They are surprised to learn their old Las Vegasgangster nemesis, Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong of "Role Models"), has spentthe night partying with them. As it turns, Doug wisely left the partybefore everybody headed into Bangkok. After the guys wake up, Chowsuddenly keels over face-down into a plate-glass table from snortingtoo much cocaine. Worse, the only thing left of Teddy is his severedfinger with a Stanford ring. This time around Alan is shocked that hishead has been shaved, and Stu freaks out over a tattoo on the lefttemple that resembles the one Mike Tyson sported in "The Hangover."First, the wolf pack disposes of Chow's body. Wrapping it in towels,they stash it in an ice-making machine. Afterward, they retrace theirsteps so they can learn what happened to Teddy. The fellows find outthat they burned down a bar, cavorted with some questionable gals, andran afoul of some trigger-happy thugs. Along the way, they encounteranother equally dangerous gangster, Kingsley (Paul Giamatti of"Sideways"), who not only has a million dollar deal with Mr. Chow, butalso knows about Teddy's whereabouts. Our baffled heroes also find outthat the electricity in Bangkok has a way of going out when they leastexpect it.Phillips and freshman scribes Craig Mazin and Scot Armstrong spend thefirst formulaic thirty minutes getting the wolf pack back togetherbefore they fly them off to Bangkok. Like the first movie, "TheHangover Part 2" opens with Phil making his inevitable phone call towarn the wedding party that they have encountered some slightdifficulties. The filmmakers replace Mike Tyson's roaring tiger with adrug-dealing, cigarette-smoking capuchin monkey in a Rolling Stones'outfit. Phillips orchestrates a roller-coaster chase through Bangkokthat looks like something out of "Smoky and the Bandit." Ultimately,Stu solves a mystery about himself that will either embarrass you withits tawdry tastelessness or having you laugh so hard that you'll bursta blood vessel. Altogether, "The Hangover Part 2" is unforgettable inthe worst and best ways, but it never crackles with the spontaneitythat made "The Hangover" so insanely entertaining.
thegoodman-1 05 May 2012
Equally as good as the first!
I'm sure what you've probably heard 'It's basically the same as thefirst but dirtier' Well i'm not gonna lie, it's true, but it's still anawesome film that's equally as good as the first, the title of the filmis called 'the hangover' honestly what were you expecting? OK It'salways risky if you're gonna repeat the same gags - even in differentcontexts - but I thought it worked well. It made the actual hangoveritself seem a complete copy of the first, which almost gives it asupernatural presence like it's following them.I just think people were too hasty to point the finger at thesimilarities, simply forgetting that it was the intention and wasn'taccidental. Todd Phillips knew he wasn't going to get away with analmost carbon copy so he had to make it different; he did this bymaking the jokes a bit more vulgar and disgusting... yeah i'll admit atsome parts I did wonder if he pushed it a bit, but I found myself andmost of the people in the cinema laughing and I guarantee those whoslammed it as 'over the top' laughed themselves. The cast did a greatjob of portraying their characters, they're all believable characterswho we all probably know in real life. I thought the addition of chowwas executed well and he did a top job stealing the show along withGalifianakis (Alan) who was also brilliant.Point is, it's similar to the first... yes, but does a good job of it.It's a great comedy and will definitely make you laugh.
furkan kahya 04 May 2012
Hangover Part 2
Well I love the part one.I remember part 1, it's more beautiful. ,Istarted watching it last week again.I really this to an excellentfilm.The first of The Hangover promised to be bigger, better andfunnier than before and was highly anticipated. I think Hangover parttwo isn't good. But hangover part two is funny and interesting.And Iremember, part one excellent and excellent. Bradley Cooper was good.And Zach Galifianakis was good. Ed Helms was good. And Ed Helms wasfunny.If you like comedy movie you are watching this movie.By Furkan Kahya
javierg 01 May 2012
Never Posted Before But Had To!!
WOW!! Nevermind all the unattractive nudity (mostly gross male nudity) what was really dissapointing was that the movie was NOT FUNNY AT ALL! I usually don't go for sophmoric comedy but the first one was really funny so I said what the heck, as long as it makes me laugh I'm game.... Man, this was a piece of garbage, who approved this script???? anyway, just looking out to whomever is reading this, save your money....
GirlOfFall 01 May 2012
Isn't different enough from the first one.
I admit that I kinda might had too high expectations for this one. Thefirst movie was absolutely hilarious -you don't know what to expectwhen the guys start solve the problem. "What did we do last night?""Where's one of us?" Well, to sum it up; in first movie they have aparty night. They wake up next morning and one of the guys is missing.They start by looking for the clues one by one. There's a Chinese guy.There's a fatal mix-up when they try to find their lost mate.Hangover Part II? Well. They have a party. They wake up. One guy ismissing. They start looking for him. Oh, a Chinese guy. A mix-up justwhen they thought they'd found the lost guy. ...Wait, wasn't that thefirst movie?! So if you don't mention Bangkok or the monkey, it's allpretty much the same.Didn't pay the movie ticket myself, so I didn't lose anything by seeingthis. But would've been just a tad p**sed off if I had paid.
gregeichelberger 30 April 2012
Even Alka-Seltzer won't cure this 'Hangover'
In a classic case of going to the well just once too often, "Hangover,Part II" should be a lesson to all directors and screenwriters thatwhat sets a successful sequel apart is SOME kind of divergence from theoriginal movie's plot.But if a story about three friends who end up in crazy situations whilecelebrating their buddy's upcoming wedding can make $300 million at thebox office, why argue with success. Like most recent Hollywood tales,the writers aren't stupid, they just dupe it.Plus, I truly cannot decide what was the worst moments of this picture,the jokes, the writing, the forced nudity and vulgarity, the poorlymismatched vignettes or the assaultingly bad obscene rap soundtrack Iwas forced to endure. Let's just say it was all equally horrible andadded up to one lousy day at the movies.Director Todd Phillips (who did himself no favors in helming "Due Date"between the first and second versions of this film) brought most of thecast from the wildly popular "Hangover" back for what amounts to amajor rehashing with Bangkok substituting for Las Vegas.Here, the idiotic trio, Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu the dentist (EdHelms, "The Office") and the obnoxious Alan (Zach Galifianakis, "DueDate"), who were shanghaied in Vegas during Stu's bachelor party, nowfind it's deja vu all over again. This time, however, the raunchy funand silliness of that plot is replaced by drugs, death anddismemberment and few laughs of which to speak.Add to the mishmash a ton of completely unnecessary supportingcharacters (Stu's brother-in-law-to-be, Teddy, Mason Lee; the coked outChow, Ken Jeong; Mr. Kingsley, Paul Giamati looking like Jabba the Hutin a leisure suit; a totally unfunny Middle Eastern gun dealer; a grufffuture father-in-law, as well as a smoking, drug-dealing monkey thatreplaces part one's tiger) and you will feel like you're in the midstof an actual hangover.And that's sad, because there were a few genuine laughs in thispicture, and not the kind in which a character just repeats the F-wordover and over again (which all of the characters did, by the way) orwith homo-erotic situations that seemed more bad afterthought than realcomedic inspiration. Most of the guffaw lines came from the pompousnerd Galifianakis, his long lock now shorn as a tribute to a night ofdebauchery.Helms also gets in a few decent scenes, most revolving around hisdiscovery that the tattoo on his face pays silent homage to Mike Tyson.Cooper, on the other hand, while a pretty face, comes nowhere near alaugh in the movie's mercifully short 100-minute running time.The funniest scene in the movie, for me anyway, was Stu holding abachelor party brunch at IHOP while his disbelieving friends sitstunned. If only that kind of inspired fun could have permeated therest of the film.Don't think too much about this one, though, friends. Just get someaspirin, ginger ale, black coffee, tomato juice or the hair of the dog- anything to erase this awful hangover from your system.
fatsamuraireviews 30 April 2012
The Hangover Part Meh
This movie was a pale rehash of the exact same story from the firstmovie. Yes, it takes place in Thailand. Yes, there are new shenanigans.No, it's not original or clever or humorous. One bright note I did getto see this movie free of charge, but there was a high price for seeingthis film, it was 102 min I will never get back again. I think I gotgipped. I am at a loss for words on how bland this movie was. The onlycharacter I thought was entertaining was the monkey (Crystal). I thinkit was Penn Jillette who said it best "there is nothing funnier than asmoking monkey." Unfortunately, this comedy gold is wasted on anextravagant waste of time. Don't get me wrong: I truly enjoyed watchingthe characters get the tar beat out of them but I don't think it wasfor the reasons that the filmmakers intended. If you liked theoriginal, just re-watch it. Do not waste your time on this half-assedretread. I am obviously going to give this movie a red light, forfailing to do anything more with the characters or the storyline.
chunkybuttsam 30 April 2012
A tired and worn down sequel without heart
If you've seen the first film, you're not missing much outside of achange in scenery and more outrageous gags that will more likelydisgust than amuse. It's as if Hangover Part II didn't even try to addanything new, which becomes evident with how the story flow goesthrough the guys finding a missing person and having the usual montageat the end. The only differences are that Stu (Ed Helms) is the onegetting married and not Doug (Justin Bartha), who doesn't go missingbut instead Teddy (Mason Lee), the bride's brother. The guys go allover Bangkok and go through an endless series of quests that works outwell for everyone but Chow (Ken Jeong).Despite a serious fan base for the first Hangover film, I'm not in thatgroup. The sequel more or less shows why I don't think much of thefirst film, let alone this turgid mess of a sequel. What exactly ismissing from the first film? There's not much as far as structure goes,but there's just that empty feeling you get when you've wasted 102minutes watching the same movie twice  only in different settings.There's less character development on display, which is a good thingsince the first film established what kind of characters we would get.However, we don't get the feeling of a buddy movie that the trailerpromised us.If anything, The Hangover Part II is an uneasy and unpleasant sequelthat'll leave you not wanting to go to Bangkok. My does this film getsdeep into the heart of Thailand! We get strippers, gangsters, clubowners and a tattoo artist, all of whom are unkind and unwilling tohelp the guys find Teddy while getting Stu to his wedding. All of theseattempts at shock value left me curiously bored, and I pretty muchchecked my brain out after about an hour. There's not much in terms ofrevelations from the guys, but it's sad to see how much of the templatethis sequel uses from the first film that goes to waste.I can't believe I'm saying this, but the Transformers movies have morecreativity than the Hangover movies. The Hangover Part II is so similarto the first film that it's as if Todd Phillips didn't try to changeone word in the script. Though there are plenty of new characters here,they play a minor part in the picture. Part II is really all about theWolfpack, and quite frankly the act is getting tired. Galifianakis isstill funny in small doses, but in larger quantities he gets annoyingto the point of stupidity. Helms overacts to the point where he lookslike he's having a seizure, relying on sitcom comedy to make us laugh.It doesn't work.Cooper's talents are better than this, and it shows with a seriousdisinterest in his lines. His cocky charm from the first film is gone,going for a more muted approach that leaves his character forgettablein Part II. A supposed cameo by Mel Gibson would have helped, but sincehe got booted out there's not much to say about the cast other than howtired their gags get. The settings might be exotic, but they can'tcover up the staleness that encompasses The Hangover Part II. PerhapsPart III will alleviate some of the issues found here, but I doubt thatwill happen.Grade: C-
isa-51-503890 30 April 2012
A hot poker to the ear hole would be better.
The Hangover II is the perfect example of a Hollywood sell-out.Somehow, despite being set in an exquisitely beautiful country, therewas nothing new or even entertaining in the cinematography. An amazingachievement given that Bangkok is a voyeurs dream. In the end, TheHangover II offered us nothing more than travel brochure scenes andworn out clichés.The story, merely reheated leftovers, is a sexually confused12-year-old's wet dream. I've never seen so many flaccid penises in oneplace before. The sad fact that so many people find this movieentertaining is pathetic and down right scary. If all it takes tosatisfy the males of an entire nation is a bunch of homo-eroticfantasies, stale clichés, and some exposed titties - we are all screwed- with a capital F.In the end I'm left with the feeling that I've been felt up, takenadvantage of, and somehow have been forced to pay for the experience.If I could erase the images from my memory - even if that meant a hotpoker to the ear hole - I would willingly offer myself up.Unfortunately, instead... I'm left with the bad after taste that TheHangover II has left in my mouth - a taste that reminds me of stalecigarettes, bad tequila and vomit.
paudie 29 April 2012
Sequel in "Not as good as the Original" shock horror
I took a bit of a flyer and decided to see The Hangover 2. I enjoyedthe original as despite plenty of coarse moments it managed not tocross the line into complete tastelessness.Perhaps predictably the sequel makes the mistake of crossing this line,leaving the viewer feeling slightly dirty as they leave the cinema. Theplot is very similar to the original; except that it is set inThailand, where one of the lads is getting married.They again wake up having no idea what happened to them the nightbefore and have to retrace their steps to find a missing brother in lawto be.No point in describing the plot in any more detail. Zach Galifianikisagain gets the best lines, though they are not as plentiful as in theoriginal.And we now know Mike Tyson can't sing.
Jack Denison 29 April 2012
Still very funny...
The Hangover part II is still hilarious, but not as good, funny, andcrazy as the first Hangover. Don't get me wrong this movie is stillgreat, and there are various bits that make you laugh-out-loud. But thefirst Hangover was packed with outrageous laughs and was overall waybetter. This sequel to the Hangover will not let you down, but don'texpect it to be as successful as the first Hangover. If you loved thefirst Hangover you will love this too, it is still a bit predictable,and there are bits that are very similar to the Hangover, but you willenjoy it and the main characters are back. So, overall, it's veryfunny, crazy and fun!
homerandbart10 26 April 2012
Fantastic!!!
I didn't have high expectations to this movie. I loved the first one,and i wasn't sure that they could pull it off again. I saw it atmidnight, and i was kinda nervous cause i really wanted it to be good.And it was. It was absolutely hysterical, i have never laughed so muchat the theater. I like it much more than the first one and i cant waitto see it again. Allan (Zach G.) also had a bigger part in this moviethan the first, and that was great. He is so funny its amazing, ifreaking love him!! Also the credits were hilarious. I don't get why somany people didn't like it, i have no idea. But i liked it, and i am sohappy! I think i'm gonna go buy the poster now
rparham 26 April 2012
Here comes the new film, same as the old film
There are a lot phrases you could apply to The Hangover, Part II. "Ifit ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind as to what was possibly atthe forefront of director and co-writer Todd Phillips thoughts when hewas assembling The Hangover, Part II, because if there is one thing youcannot accuse the sequel to the surprise comedy hit of 2009 of being,its original. The Hangover, Part II is a near complete rehash of thefirst entry, just with different locales and certain individualsituations. That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't funny, but some ofthe sheen of the first film wears off the second time around.The Hangover, Part II finds buddies Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (EdHelms) and Alan (Zach Galafinakis) in Thailand to attend Stu's pendingnuptials 2 years after the events of the first film. Stu, notinterested in being involved in a repeat of the events of Doug's(Justin Bartha) bachelor party, has decided to eschew that traditionalpre- wedding event for a simple drink on the beach with his friends andhis bride to be's brother, Teddy (Mason Lee). The next morning, thetrio find themselves passed out in a seedy Bangkok hotel with a trainedmonkey, a pounding hangover, a visitor in the form of Mr. Chow (KenJeong), the criminal gang leader from the first film, and Teddy nowhereto be found. In short order, Phil, Stu and Alan are prowling thestreets of Thailand in search of Teddy via clues they pick up along theway as to the events from the prior evening. The search takes them to atattoo parlor, a club in a significant state of disrepair, a strip clubwith "interesting" employees and a Buhddist temple, with a threathanging over their heads from a Thailand based crime boss (PaulGiamatti) to deliver some information for a bank transfer the nextmorning or they will never see Teddy again.While it is not unheard of for sequels to films that seemed like a one-shot to try to replicate what made the first film successful, I canrarely think of one that almost completely remakes the original likeThe Hangover, Part II. Every significant plot arc, story developmentand twist is lifted wholesale from the first film. If you are reallyfamiliar with the first film, I can't see where it wouldn't beimpossible for you to guess almost every major event that is going tooccur in The Hangover, Part II and end up being correct. We are treatedto the characters reacting in very similar manners to the events in thesame way as the first film: Stu with complete, sheer bewilderment, Philwith a constant air of disbelief how things can keep getting so bad,and Alan with a degree of detached amusement. The only real elementthat is a bit different this time is that they friends are incommunication via cell phone with Doug, who had decided to turn inearly the night they were drinking. It's a way for the creators to keepBartha involved to some extent without interfering with the triodynamic that worked for the first film, I suppose.So, the real question becomes, is the Hangover, Part II funny? Well,yes, it is. Despite the familiarity of the situation in the broadstrokes, the individual segments prove to have some decent humor tothem throughout. One scene in particular, set at the aforementionedstrip club, left me roaring in laughter. Many of the other outrageousmoments provide more than just a chuckle, and a chase sequence in thelatter part of the film is about as engaging as one in any actionmovie. Some of the reason the two Hangover films work at all is that,despite the fact that two-thirds of the main trio are ratherreprehensible people, you can't help but imagine what it would be liketo be in that situation and therefore you have some degree ofinvestment in seeing them attempt to navigate themselves out of thismire they have become trapped in.As mentioned previously, there isn't a lot different to thesecharacters in general. Phil is the debaucherous friend who is seeminglyin a search of a good time to shake off the normalcy in his lifeotherwise. Stu is a straight arrow who is put face to face with his"dark side". And Alan is a clueless social misfit whose idea of gettinghis friends to have a good time is to drug them with paralyzers andhallucinogens. The actors sell their roles fairly well, especially,once again, Galafinakis, and are supported by Jeong as the subtlyhomosexual Mr. Chow, who still doesn't seem to be afraid to barehimself (entirely) to the audience. Giamatti, while scenery chewingwith the best, can graciously be referred to as giving a "cameo" in thefilm considering his very limited screen time.The Hangover, Part II's unoriginality once again spills over to its"moral message", what little there is of one, and it is once againexclusively directed at the character of Stu. In the first film, he wasable to give a comeuppance to his fiancé in a rather amusing, albeitcrowd pleasing way. In Part II, there is a similar dynamic with adifferent character, but this time the moments where Stu must come intohis own don't really work, and seem cheesy and, frankly, a bituncomfortable and unbelievable.So, when all is said and done, should you see The Hangover, Part II? Icannot deny that I laughed at it more often than not once it got goingfor the most part, but not to the degree I enjoyed the first film.However, it is also difficult to overlook the complete lack oforiginality on display in the film, so The Hangover, Part II proves amixed bag, and one that receives a mild recommendation from me.
Brandon Blackwell 25 April 2012
"The Wolfpack is back!"
Two years after the bachelor party in Las Vegas, Phil, Stu, Alan, andDoug jet to Thailand for Stu's wedding. Stu's plan for a subdued pre-wedding brunch, however, goes seriously awry.Remember the Hangover? The comedy that took away from all the clichésand made something of it's own? The comedy that shared it's own clever,comedic 'quotable' lines that will be sure to crack you up? The comedythat will surely become a (cult?) classic? I sure do, and now the wolfpack is back, and this time they're in Bangkok. Surely enough, takingthem to a foreign country could lead to some pretty genuine comedicmoments, and it surely sold off to me. They encounter a monkey, put Mr.Chow's body into a icebox, encounter a silenced Buddhist monk, and findhow much they had done wrong: just as the first. Unfortunately, theplot line is HIGHLY similar to it's predecessor. 1. Instead of a tiger,we have a drug-dealing monkey. 2. Instead of a baby, we have theBuddhist monk. 3. We have another lost member. In the first, Doug waslost and found on the roof. In the second, Teddy is missing and isfound on the top of an elevator. 4. Last of all, we have anotherappearance of Mr. Chow and Mike Tyson. Need not be alarmed, I found thesimilarities not too distracting and it didn't ruin my experience, asit did others. People believe the entire movie was a rehash, a decoy,of the first but I personally believed they did another great jobdisplaying the mishaps of the wolf pack. So this leaves me with this:if you loved the first, and aren't too concerned with similarities, I'msure you'll love the second. Now to not repeat this mistake again, thewriters need to create a bigger and badder situation for part III, andhopefully it won't be another rehash. Nevertheless, I still salute Toddfor creating yet another great comedy. 8/10.
julian-mumford 24 April 2012
A lazy remake of the original and a poor facsimile
The second in what is sure to become a trilogy, breaks a cardinal rulefor a comedy, it forgets to be funny.The cast get to say "I can't believe it's happening again" and theaudience feels the same way, the movie is a carbon copy of the firstfun and mostly inventive film.The "Wolf Pack" are back but this time they are somewhere way moredangerous than Vegas, Thailand and more specifically Bangkok. As ismentioned in the tagline "Bangkok has them now", although mostaudiences will realise that Bangkok has merely replaced Las Vegas, aslittle else is different.Still with over $500 million at the the box office director TodPhillips must have got something right? Meek dentist, Stu (Ed Helms) isgetting married to an Asian beauty complete with stereotypicaloverbearing father, meek mother and idolized talented younger brotherTeddy (Lee), a nod to the younger demographic.Of course his buddies are invited to the bash at an upmarket resort inThailand, Phil (Cooper) & Doug (Bartha), although man child Alan's(Galifanakis) invite is not forthcoming. Unsurprisingly left on thesidelines due to his errant behaviour in the first film, will he beleft behind this time, need we even ask that question.Everything is going swimmingly apart from the usual inappropriatebehaviour by Alan, until the "one beer" before the big day, turns intoanother mammoth hangover wake up scene.Substitute missing teeth for tattoo's, tigers for a monkey, add in asevered finger, several cocaine "bumps" to clear the head, Mike Tysonand stir fry quickly. We are then treated to the stereotypicalunderside of Bangkok which will do nothing for the Thailand touristindustry. Seedy rooms, criminals in the form of Paul Giamatti and thepredictably unpredictable Mr Chow (Cheong), not quite as out of placeas some recent films he has appeared in, perhaps the milieu suits hisweird character or acting traits better.Will the "Wolf Pack" be able to re-assemble the night before in timefor the nuptials to occur on time with everyone happy, if you thinknot, then maybe you are watching the wrong film.The journey is the thing and this is where the film deviates from whataudiences expect, by providing exactly what audiences expect with novariation on the original film. Less funny, same "F & C" bomb heavydialogue, more raunchy situations, reversing the recent trend frommostly female nudity to a combination of both in the same body.Certainly Ed's new bride seems more understanding than one might expecta new bride to be, stag party mayhem maybe but....Galifanakis again reprises his role carried across the original"Hangover", "Due Date" and now the sequel, seemingly popping up inevery movie playing a similar part. Cooper of course has gone all "A"List since the first film and Helms is also now gainfully employed inthe American version of "The Office".Cooper is clearly now too good to be in this tosh and his star qualitydoes show through despite the obvious flaws of the film, Bartha islargely sidelined again and Giamatti obviously fancied a free holiday,with almost a cameo part. Tyson apparently taking singing lessons forhis big scene, if this is the result post training then clearly theboxing ring was the right career choice.Do we need another sequel, do the actors need another film to bolstertheir careers, of course not. With box office receipts north of half abillion dollars, this however will be a foregone conclusion.Inversely proportional monetary returns against critical or enjoymentvalue, we are clearly heading in the wrong direction and this trend isunlikely to be reversed in the final installment. Clearly poor reviewsnor bad word of mouth will stop the "Wolf Pack" juggernaut, bigbusiness has them now.Curiously the closing credits on the Blu-Ray version, retains thecontroversial fake recreation still of a real life execution, which isodd bearing in mind the offence the shot has caused. This perhapsemphasizes the apparent contempt director Phillips has for hisaudience.Summary A lazy remake of the original and a poor facsimile. Might raise theoccasional titter but largely can be avoided unless the "Wolf Pack",the Asian version, really appeals.Disappointing http://julesmoviereviews.blogspot.com/