Friday, June 3, 2011

Film Review: "The Hangover Part II"

It was one of the most successful films of 2009. It was perhaps the biggest comedy of all time. In fact, it was the only R-Rated frathouse-style comedy to ever win both the Critics’ Choice Award and the coveted Golden Globe. And everyone across the world were quoting and recalling every single hilarious moment of this particular film. Of course, I am talking about Director Todd Phillips’ comic-oeuvre “The Hangover.” And, I can honestly say that it is one of my Top Five Comedies of All-Time. So you could imagine my excitement when I heard that there would be a sequel to this colassal comedy; as I would be reuniting with Bradley Cooper’s, Ed Helms,’ and Zach Galafinakis’ dysfunctional-yet-personable characters and join them for another pre-wedding celebration gone terribly wrong. However, as I watched the "The Hangover Part II," I was disheartened over the lack of unpredictability present throughout the film; since the director and screenwriters utilized the same pattern-of-events as the original film; thus making the much-anticipated sequel completely predictable, low on surprises, and only slightly different from the first. Thus, I say with serious disappointment:










“The Hangover Part II” is Not Nearly as Astounding or Memorable as the Far-Superior Original

In the continuation of Phillips’ original tour de force, Phil, once again played by Bradley Cooper with expert over-confidence, and Doug, Justin Bartha's character who the main characters were searching for in the first film, are preparing to venture out to Thailand for is Ed Helms’ panicky-yet-sensible dentist Stu Price’s upcoming wedding. Still reeling from their escapades in Las vegas from two years earlier, Stu is going through great lengths to prevent another disaster from occurring. And, to him, the best way to do so is by not having a bachelor party as well as not wanting to invite Alan ; Zach Galafinakis’ naive oddball that was primarily responsible for all the unfortunate escapes that occurred two years ago. However, Doug is asked by his wife to invite brother-in-law Alan to the wedding; leading to Stu and the guys to reluctantly ask him to venture out to Thailand for the weekend.














After the rehearsal dinner, Cooper’s Phil talks the soon-to-be groom to have a small bonfire on the beach and have some beers. Upon hearing of the guys’ plans, Stu’s fiancé Lauren, played by Jamie Chung, asks them if they could bring along her seventeen-year-old brother Teddy, portrayed by Hollywood newcomer Mason Lee. Everything seems to be going fine around the campfire; but, in the morning, Phil, Stu, and Alan wake up, only to find that they experienced another wild night of intoxicated partying. No longer in Thailand, they eventually discover that they are in a trashed hotelroom in Bangkok; and that Alan has gotten his head shaved and Stu has an authentic tattoo engraved on himself. What’s more, there is also a severed finger as well as an overly-dexterous monkey scurrying around the room. The guys also get a phone call from Doug; who’s back at the hotel in Thailand and informs the guys that Teddy is nowhere to be found. The guys realize that Lauren's brother is not in the hotel room and fear that he is most likely lost on the streets of Bangkok. Our protagonists also discover their old foe Mr. Chow, once again played by Ken Jeong, is in their presence as well; eventually finding out that Alan had invited him for the weekend as his guest. Now, just as they did in Las Vegas, our heroes have to retrace their steps from the previous night in order to find their missing companion and arrive to the nuptial. However, even though the trio of performers provide hilarity to the audience through their interactions and physical behavior, the adventures they get involved in are not as side-splittingly hilarious or totally outstanding as those they experienced previously.









Image taken from http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://playeraffinity.com/images/The%2520Hangover%2520Part%2520II%25202011.jpg&imgrefurl=http://playeraffinity.com/movies-reviews/the-hangover-part-ii-review.html&usg=__8tjlmNzhd0mO5MfMsbzvYhDwByM=&h=287&w=450&sz=26&hl=en&start=15&zoom=1&tbnid=8mUzllbL7wx5NM:&tbnh=100&tbnw=157&ei=jH3pTY62JuHx0gGW1-2TAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522THE%2BHANGOVER%2BPART%2BII%2522%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26biw%3D1177%26bih%3D567%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=273&vpy=293&dur=1438&hovh=179&hovw=281&tx=129&ty=93&page=2&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:13,s:15&biw=1177&bih=567





One of the key instances that made the original "Hangover" so wonderful and unforgettable, was that there was a significant amount of suspense present throughout the film that kept audiences holding on to their seats; all the while fearing that our heroes would not emerge victorious by the film's conclusion. The three lead characters had to endure so much hellfire in their attempt to locate Justin Bartha's Doug; and we were all anxious to find out whether or not they would always emerge victorious after every danger they faced. Who could forget the shock treatments our central characters suffered through at a Las Vegas police station in order to reclaim their friend Doug’s impounded car? Who can overlook the intense blackjack game that Galafinakis’ Alan played in order to get acquire the money needed in their attempt to possibly reclaim Doug from Mr. Chow? And we all remember the menacing tiger that our protagonists stole from heavyweight boxer Mike Tyson; as well as the difficult task they endured when returning the dangerous creature afterward. Surely, those antics were not only uproarious; but also suspenseful. We were rooting for them every step of the way; and we felt like we were part of the action.

This time, however, such was not the case. Since Director Todd Phillips and Screenwriters Craig Mazin and Scot Armstrong are employing the same story structure as the first film, there is hardly any heavy anticipation present in the film whatsoever. In fact, when watching the beginning portion of the film, you are basically just waiting for the trio to awaken from the crazy night before and begin their search for rediscovery. In other words, they are simply in the same boat as before and we know they are going to work together every step of the way in order to find out what they did the night before. Furthermore, by using the original film as a blueprint for the sequel, we can predict some of the outcomes of different scenarios that were presented throughout the film. Additionally, it should also be stated that it wasn’t as exciting to see Ken Jeong’s Mr. Chow working alongside the group during their quest; as it was more hysterical and intimidating seeing him as a crazy villain rather than just a funny cohort. With all of these concepts taken under consideration, many of thee scrapes that our heroes got into this time were not as cleverly-developed or invigorating as those they experience in the original . And that takes away much of the excitment from the sequel





It should also be mentioned that "The Hangover Part II" also suffers as a sequel due to Director Todd Phillips and screenwriters Craig Mazin and Scot Armstrong deciding to recreate different aspect of the original film in order to distinguish it from the first film. In the original “Hangover,” Ed Helms’ Stu is constantly at the mercy of his soon-to-be-fiancé Melissa; portrayed with great sternness by Rachel Harris. Throughout the 2009 blockbuster, his character had to fearfully lie out of every situation in order to prevent her from unleashing verbal abuse onto him. And now, two years later, while Stu actually has a nice fiancé, he fears her intimidating father Fohn, portrayed by Nirut Sirichanya, who does not favor his future son-in-law and condemns the upcoming wedding. Basically, the writers are just poorly-trying to give Ed Helms' character a foe of his own that he has to face throughout the whole affair. Additionally, as the first film featured the hilarious revelation that Stu married Heather Ghraham's Las Vegas stripper during their wild night, Director Todd Phillips tries to recreate the magic once more with the revelation that Stu had sexual interactions with a Bangkok stripper; portrayed by Yasmin Lee. However, the humor in this scenario does not live up to the original; as the entire affair appears tacked-on and not remarkable at all.





Another noteworthy difference between the films is that while Ken Jeong played Mr. Chow, the original’s principal villain, the writers and director needed to create a new foe for our heroes. Enter Academy Award Nominee Paul Giamatti; who plays Kingsley, a supposed drug kingpin who has unfinished business with Mr. Chow. While Jeong’s villain in the first film was fully-developed and given plenty of opportunities to be both hysterical and intimidating, Giamatti was sadly given nothing memorable to do or say; and was essentially used as a plot device to movie the film along. It was a very wasted opportunity for a great performance and I feel that anyone could have played his role. Therefore, its slapdash differences like these that caused "The Hangover Part II" to not be as perfectly-executed or cherished as the far-superior original.





Image taken from http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.flicksandbits.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ken-jeong-int.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.flicksandbits.com/2011/05/23/ken-jeong-mr-chow-interview-for-the-hangover-part-ii/11842/&usg=___X7vyvJr-oMY7tcRVo_e4p_mbCQ=&h=450&w=800&sz=131&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=PizKrplK3WOxqM:&tbnh=119&tbnw=211&ei=t3bpTfX8E-na0QHb6eiwAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522THE%2BHANGOVER%2BPART%2BII%2522%2B%252B%2B%2522MR.%2BCHOW%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26biw%3D1259%26bih%3D621%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=442&vpy=104&dur=1344&hovh=168&hovw=300&tx=140&ty=100&page=1&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0&biw=1259&bih=621






However, one great aspect both films have in common, in a more-than-postive way, was the ideal chemistry between stars Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and Zach Galafinakis. As their immenserepertoire shined brightly throughout the original “Hangover,” the trio once again brought their A-game to audiences everywhere as their continue to riff on each other with panache and delight. And each of them possesses different characteristics that further make their group come off as actual people; and not just written characters in a film. For instance, Bradley Cooper is once again great as Phil; who serves as the straight man of the trio-- constantly trying to keep the other two in line and focused as they go from one escapade to the next. Also, Ed Helms is once again wonderful as the always-jumpy Stu; who always manages to end up suffering the most during their night of debauchery; as he got temporarily married in the first film and having unpleasant sex two nights before his wedding. Finally, Zach Galafinakis, once more hilarious as Alan-the clueless misfit of the group that has good intentions but only ends up causing the evening’s damage- is a master of both physical and verbal comedy; further providing many laughs for the audience. And, every time the performers’ characters are together, even if the set-up isn’t at all well-developed, they bring the laughter and enjoyment required to make everything better. In fact, I really wish that Cooper’s, Helms,’ and Galafinakis’ characters would be given an entirely new predicament to face. That way, the performers’ humor could be put to tremendously good use; further giving moviegoers many laughs and memories. In other words, put them in an entirely different movie. That way, everything would be completely thrilling; just like in the original.



Image taken from http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Hangover-Part-2-Trailer.jpg&imgrefurl=http://screenrant.com/hangover-2-trailer-rob-108687/&usg=__HKrywcWRDYoefij-1LuA3T5ud3Q=&h=300&w=570&sz=56&hl=en&start=49&zoom=1&tbnid=xXBhVtPWVR0j7M:&tbnh=115&tbnw=219&ei=DHXpTY-1BMH50gHPo5WYAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dthe%2Bhangover%2Bpart%2Bii%2Btrailer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1259%26bih%3D621%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=63&page=4&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:7,s:49&tx=167&ty=30






Nevertheless, I really do feel that, if it weren’t for the tro of great performers, “The Hangover Part II” would not be a worthwhile film at all. I could see why Todd Phillips wanted to do a sequel; so people everywhere could see and enjoy the characters party again. And, while the change of location was a nice change of pace as well as a great opportunity for moviegoers to get a taste of Bangkok, the utilization of the same formula removes all the wonder and anticipation of the movie. And, with a third installment reportedly being discussed, I fear that things are going to turn out ever worse for, not only the performers’ characters, but also the original movie's legacy. After all, too many Hangovers are never a good thing.







Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)