2009's The Hangover was undoubtedly a funny film. That might be one of the most noncommittal statements one could put in a movie review, but it's really the only thing I can say for sure about it. It was one of those movies that combined so many unique elements that shouldn't have worked, and yet somehow did. It avoided being too cliche' while being wholly familiar. When a sequel was announced, I wondered how the writers, director, and cast could continue to evolve the series into new horizons.After watching Hangover: Part II, it's obvious they didn't ponder that same question. Does that make this Hangover any less funny?
WHAT'S THIS MOVIE ABOUT?
The Hangover: Part II takes place two years after the soul branding trials the Wolf Pack of Stu (Ed Helms), Phil (Bradley Cooper), and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) went through in Las Vegas. Now, it's Stu's turn to get married and attempt to settle down, but first he must survive the pre-wedding nuptials that have proven the bane of him and his comrades. This time, the venue has changed to Thailand, but the predicament remains the same. The boys wake up, lose someone with a trail of destruction and debauchery as the only clues to what happened, and must make things right before their friend gets married. If that sounds identical to the events of the prior film, that's only because it is.
WHAT'S GOOD ABOUT THIS MOVIE?
Once again, the film is driven by its characters and the performances behind them. Cooper anchors the cast with his half douche/half straight man Phil. Ed Helms provides the unstable wild-card who you cannot help but relate to when he begins freaking out about the revelations the group makes. Of course, more than anything, though, The Hangover is Zach Galifianakis' show, and he does yet another phenomenal job here. His character is innocent, yet sociopathic, and Galifianakis plays it so convincingly that he mesmerizes whenever he does anything on-screen. Paul Giamatti also does a great job in a very limited, but very intense role that he's given. It also must be credited how well The Hangover: Part II is filmed and scored, especially for what is essentially fodder for dumb teenagers. The licensed music juxtaposes perfectly with the movie's ridiculous situations, and there is some surprisingly avant garde direction going on.
WHAT SUCKS ABOUT THIS MOVIE?
Many sequels suffer from being too similar to the movie that came before. The Hangover: Part II does not avoid this. Although it doesn't commit such grave sins as something like Austin Powers II, in which the same exact jokes and dialog are shoved awkwardly and lazily into the film as if to say, "HEY, REMEMBER THIS?", it still makes the movie feel a little more than tired in certain parts.
As I said, so many things shouldn't have worked in The Hangover, but somehow managed to come out successful overall. Here, those parts don't come together quite so well. Bits seem more aimed at straight shock rather than shockingly funny, and the flow and pacing is much more sporadic this time. The Hangover was not a realistic or a serious film in the least, but the amount of deus ex machina that the movie tries to get away with and drag the audience along with are a bit much. Also, a couple of performances that are meant to hinge the movie, Mason Lee's Teddy and Ken Jeong's Mr. Chow, are just sub-par. Lee is just not a strong enough actor, and Jeon isn't as likeable as he was in the first film (probably because of over-utilization).
ANYTHING ELSE?
I know I'm not the only one who heard that when the plot of this movie would revolve around Ed Helms' character getting married, they instantly thought he'd be getting married to Heather Graham's character from the first. And just what DID become of her character and that inconclusive plot thread? NEVER EXPLAINED!
WHAT'S THE FINAL VERDICT?
The Hangover: Part II is not a bad film by any stretch. It attempts to replicate the feeling and plot arc of the first and, for the most part, succeeds. The problem is that it re-treads a road that its previous installment only barely escaped unscathed. This time, the polish has come off, and what we're left with is a good, if not underwhelming comedy movie that is not only eclipsed by the first, but has already been thoroughly bested by other movies in theatres right now.
Check out my other recent movie reviews:
We have the same thoughts, BROTHER.
ReplyDeleteIt's an alright film, but it tries way too hard to stick to the formula of the first film instead of taking a risk to become a great sequel & a great movie on its own merits.