In 2009, "The Hangover" was a shocking comedy hit. Audiences found it refreshing, using new faces and constructing elaborate farces that added to the chaos of the movie. "The Hangover" was a cultural phenomenon that will become iconic in years following. It almost doesn't matter whether it was ultimately good or bad; it will always be remembered as a surprise hit that would be quoted endlessly by everyone for the next year. The interesting thing is that "The Hangover: Part II" could have been all of this as well, had it only been released before "The Hangover."
I walked into the movie hoping that there was no way that "The Hangover" series could fall for the obvious trap of using all of the same tricks twice. These are people who are far too intelligent to try and give us a movie using the exact same set-up as the last one. The film had the courtesy of waiting until the first frame to stop any hope of this being a dynamic sequel.
The film starts out with Phil (Bradley Cooper) calling Tracy (Sasha Barrese) to inform her how much the three friends had screwed up this time, which leads to some ironic dialogue on how the group can't seem to change their screwed up ways. The credits then begin in the exact same way that the first "Hangover" did, just merely in Thailand. This sets up a film that makes no attempt to become an original story.
As the opening credits rolled, I began to wonder whether I could find a way to accuse the studio of false advertising for implying this is a continuation of the story, and not just a remake of a movie released nearly two years before. While watching "The Hangover: Part II," I was reminded of a review of a sequel by Roger Ebert I read once. Ebert criticized the movie for not having it's own identity, and that all of the jokes and moments in the movie didn't belong to it. The scenes belonged to the first film, and thus this sequel wasn't even a new movie in and of itself.
While I realize the irony of using someone else's argument to criticize the lack of originality, I also don't charge $10 a pop for someone to read my ideas, and Ebert's point sums up the whole story of "The Hangover: Part II." At no point during this crude, misguided movie does it ever attempt to carve out an identity for itself; instead it would rather delve into transsexual humor and genitalia jokes as the film's only forms of original entertainment. At times, it's almost baffling how truly unoriginal "The Hangover: Part II" is. The writers plot action at the same pace, build to the same climaxes and virtually have the same reveal at the end in another location, like anything else in this movie.
The performances are probably the only saving grace in this movie. Ed Helms has always had nice delivery, Cooper remains as charming as possible and Zach Galifianakis still manages to punch some jokes home. The actors actually make me want to like the movie, something nothing else in the film attempts to do.
As you leave the theater you'll realize "The Hangover: Part II" was okay. You'll have laughed a few times, then realized it wasn't worth the time you invested in it. In fact, the movie is kind of like its crude transsexual joke. Just like a transsexual joke not being funny just because it is a transsexual joke, a sequel is not good just because the original was.
"The Hangover: Part II" receives 4/10
Read More
Three Air Jam teams take home the win
October 12, 2012Nineteen teams shimmied, shook and flipped for a sold out John R. Emens Auditorium on Thursday night during the 25th annual Air Jam.
Bill Clinton Speaks at North Central High School
October 12, 2012Former President's Speech Could Have Effect on State Senate Race
