I was really optimistic going into the theatre, I didn't expect it to as great as the original, but I thought it would still be good movie. But most of the material was stuff taken from the original only tweaked, and I hate to say it but I was actually bored for a good part of the movie. Some of the jokes/scenes dragged to long, to the point where I didn't find them funny anymore. There were some good moments, but the truly outrageous/original scenes that made the original so great were too few and far between. Some of the scenes were more outrageous in the sense that there was some full frontal nudity, but I'm not someone who finds that super entertaining. Overall it felt to me like a re-hash of stuff that had already been done with some naked people thrown in, and it just wasn't enjoyable like the first movie.
477 Reviews
It' Happened Again ... And Again
ferguson-629 May 2011
Greetings again from the darkness. Two years ago, director Todd Phillips presented a highly creative, hilarious, raunchy, unique film comedy called The Hangover. And now, he does it again. He presents that SAME film again. I am unsure whether this is a sequel or remake. The only substantial change is the setting ... Bangkok instead of Vegas.
Now I fully understand WHY most sequels follow the formula created by the successful original film. Filmmakers want to keep their audience satisfied. If it worked once, it will work again. Especially when the first film grosses a half-billion dollars! So the chances are very good that if you liked the first one, you will also enjoy this one. But for me, I get excited for creative filmmakers ... not re-treads.
The key characters are all back and played by the same guys: Bradley Cooper (Phil), Ed Helms (Stu), Zach Galifianakis (Alan), Justin Bartha (Doug), and Ken Leong (Mr. Chow). All of these guys have worked constantly since the first film, but it makes perfect sense to return to the scene that put them on the Hollywood map.
This time around, Stu (Ed Helms) draws the long straw and has the storyline based on his pending marriage to Jamie Chung (Sucker Punch). Stu's "wolfpack" buddies agree to a one-beer bonfire beach bachelor party, but of course, something goes very wrong. The next morning finds our boys staggering to regain consciousness in a sleazy Bangkok hotel with no recollection of the previous night's events. The only clues are a monkey, a severed finger, a facial tat and international criminal Mr. Chow.
No need for me to go into any details or spoil any moments. You know the drill if you have seen the first. What follows is nearly two hours of debauchery and moments of varying levels of discomfort, gross-out and comedic skits.
Supporting work is provided by Paul Giamatti, Jeffrey Tambor, and Mason Lee (Ang Lee's son). There is also a cameo by Nick Cassavetes as a tattoo artist. This role was originally meant for Mel Gibson, and later Liam Neeson. Cast and crew protests kept Gibson out and Neeson's scenes were cut when re-shoots were necessary.
I feel tricked by Mr. Phillips. The first Hangover had me excited that a new comedic genius had entered Hollywood and would quickly blow away the Judd Apatow recycle jobs and copycats. Instead, we get Todd Phillips copying Todd Phillips.
This is certainly an above-average comedy and there are plenty of laughs from the characters we kind of feel like we know - though, wish we didn't. Just know going in that are witnessing a clear attempt at cashing in, not a desire to wow.
Now I fully understand WHY most sequels follow the formula created by the successful original film. Filmmakers want to keep their audience satisfied. If it worked once, it will work again. Especially when the first film grosses a half-billion dollars! So the chances are very good that if you liked the first one, you will also enjoy this one. But for me, I get excited for creative filmmakers ... not re-treads.
The key characters are all back and played by the same guys: Bradley Cooper (Phil), Ed Helms (Stu), Zach Galifianakis (Alan), Justin Bartha (Doug), and Ken Leong (Mr. Chow). All of these guys have worked constantly since the first film, but it makes perfect sense to return to the scene that put them on the Hollywood map.
This time around, Stu (Ed Helms) draws the long straw and has the storyline based on his pending marriage to Jamie Chung (Sucker Punch). Stu's "wolfpack" buddies agree to a one-beer bonfire beach bachelor party, but of course, something goes very wrong. The next morning finds our boys staggering to regain consciousness in a sleazy Bangkok hotel with no recollection of the previous night's events. The only clues are a monkey, a severed finger, a facial tat and international criminal Mr. Chow.
No need for me to go into any details or spoil any moments. You know the drill if you have seen the first. What follows is nearly two hours of debauchery and moments of varying levels of discomfort, gross-out and comedic skits.
Supporting work is provided by Paul Giamatti, Jeffrey Tambor, and Mason Lee (Ang Lee's son). There is also a cameo by Nick Cassavetes as a tattoo artist. This role was originally meant for Mel Gibson, and later Liam Neeson. Cast and crew protests kept Gibson out and Neeson's scenes were cut when re-shoots were necessary.
I feel tricked by Mr. Phillips. The first Hangover had me excited that a new comedic genius had entered Hollywood and would quickly blow away the Judd Apatow recycle jobs and copycats. Instead, we get Todd Phillips copying Todd Phillips.
This is certainly an above-average comedy and there are plenty of laughs from the characters we kind of feel like we know - though, wish we didn't. Just know going in that are witnessing a clear attempt at cashing in, not a desire to wow.
A raunchy, funny roller coaster you've already ridden before
diac22826 May 2011
Select All. Cut. Open New Document. Paste. Thesaurus. Print. I can nearly guarantee you this was the process in writing the sequel to the most successful R-rated comedy of all-time. In one of the craziest and most blatant filmmaking moments of carbon copying an earlier installment I have ever witnessed Hangover II paces, moves, and delivers in the exact same method, style and speed as the original. The musical transitions are the same, some of the set-ups are the same, some of the conflicts and revelations were eerily alike and worst of all, the entire third act felt like the original----and they are thousands of miles from the United States. Every strength in this movie is deterred by the fact that Todd Phillips and company put no effort in trying to change things up a little aside from setting.
Is the movie still funny? Yes, it is funny and there are indeed some standout moments. But, all the freshness and originality of the first Hangover is definitely not present here, and it hurts more because they could have fixed some of the setbacks of the original. This time Stu (Ed Helms) is getting married in Thailand in order to gain approval from his fiancée's father. During a night of drinking with the "Wolfpack" (Bradley Cooper, Zack Galifianakis, Justin Bartha) and the fiancée's brother, something went wrong, and the crew is many miles away in Bangkok. And of course, one of them is missing. And of course, they don't remember anything. And of course, they are mixed up in multiple situations occurring within the city. The difference between this one and their stint in Vegas is that the stakes are much higher, as the adventure in Thailand is much more grim and dark than in Sin City.
Hangover part one was hilarious, unique, and had flair of comedic originality. However, it needed a few polishes in order to become a true comedic classic. Zach as Allen is the biggest of the flaws. His characterization in the original was very uneven, too random, and just didn't deliver as much sympathy as the other characters. In the sequel, he is ruder, crueler, and an absolute pain to witness. In the original his actions are mildly justified because of his stupidity. Here however the stupid act gets old extremely fast. It doesn't help that Galifianakis doesn't have the comedic timing that superior funnymen possess. The rest of the cast throughout the movie was great, with Ed Helms and Ken Jeong being the best examples.
Todd Phillips should have known better, as he is a good director with a nice track record. I am extremely disappointed that instead of taking an approach to trying something new while still offering the same type of R-rated college humor, he chose to stick to the formula far too close. You can copy some of the jokes and get away with it, but to imitate the entire three-act structure of the original Hangover is nothing more than lazy and uninspired filmmaking. He still has a few tricks up his sleeve with a few raunchy and hilarious surprises, but far too much potential was wasted in order for me to forgive him.
Bottom Line: You will most likely have a good time watching this if you enjoyed the original. That being said, it will feel exactly like the original---except it's in Bangkok and the setting is much darker. They cranked the ante in conflict, but failed to improve anything or change anything from the 2009 comedy smash hit. Playing it safe hindered this movie, as part of Hangover's appeal was its inability to stick to a formula. Hangover II is funny, but lacks the satisfaction, zaniness, and appeal of the original. Hopefully they can spice things up for the third installment (you know it's coming out, stop lying to yourself) otherwise all I have to do is copy this review and paste it to the third chapter.
diac1987.blogspot.com Entire Planet Observed on Daily Basis
Is the movie still funny? Yes, it is funny and there are indeed some standout moments. But, all the freshness and originality of the first Hangover is definitely not present here, and it hurts more because they could have fixed some of the setbacks of the original. This time Stu (Ed Helms) is getting married in Thailand in order to gain approval from his fiancée's father. During a night of drinking with the "Wolfpack" (Bradley Cooper, Zack Galifianakis, Justin Bartha) and the fiancée's brother, something went wrong, and the crew is many miles away in Bangkok. And of course, one of them is missing. And of course, they don't remember anything. And of course, they are mixed up in multiple situations occurring within the city. The difference between this one and their stint in Vegas is that the stakes are much higher, as the adventure in Thailand is much more grim and dark than in Sin City.
Hangover part one was hilarious, unique, and had flair of comedic originality. However, it needed a few polishes in order to become a true comedic classic. Zach as Allen is the biggest of the flaws. His characterization in the original was very uneven, too random, and just didn't deliver as much sympathy as the other characters. In the sequel, he is ruder, crueler, and an absolute pain to witness. In the original his actions are mildly justified because of his stupidity. Here however the stupid act gets old extremely fast. It doesn't help that Galifianakis doesn't have the comedic timing that superior funnymen possess. The rest of the cast throughout the movie was great, with Ed Helms and Ken Jeong being the best examples.
Todd Phillips should have known better, as he is a good director with a nice track record. I am extremely disappointed that instead of taking an approach to trying something new while still offering the same type of R-rated college humor, he chose to stick to the formula far too close. You can copy some of the jokes and get away with it, but to imitate the entire three-act structure of the original Hangover is nothing more than lazy and uninspired filmmaking. He still has a few tricks up his sleeve with a few raunchy and hilarious surprises, but far too much potential was wasted in order for me to forgive him.
Bottom Line: You will most likely have a good time watching this if you enjoyed the original. That being said, it will feel exactly like the original---except it's in Bangkok and the setting is much darker. They cranked the ante in conflict, but failed to improve anything or change anything from the 2009 comedy smash hit. Playing it safe hindered this movie, as part of Hangover's appeal was its inability to stick to a formula. Hangover II is funny, but lacks the satisfaction, zaniness, and appeal of the original. Hopefully they can spice things up for the third installment (you know it's coming out, stop lying to yourself) otherwise all I have to do is copy this review and paste it to the third chapter.
diac1987.blogspot.com Entire Planet Observed on Daily Basis
Unfortunately Predictable Relying On Same Gags
treeskier80227 May 2011
What made The Hangover fun and entertaining unfortunately leads to predicatability in The Hangover II. The only reason I got any enjoyment out of this movie at all was because I liked the characters in the first movie. I wish they had tried to do something fresh with the story and the characters, but it was the same old gags.
When I first saw the original Hangover, I thought the movie might become a classic comedy. But honestly after watching it a few times, it seems less funny where as many comedies you pick up on small things on multiple viewings that make the movie even funnier. With the Hangover, the element of surprise is lost the next time around and the story loses its appeal.
So taking what I just said into account, if you've watched the first movie multiple times and then have expectations that the second movie will be a fun adventure with fun surprises around the corner, you will be somewhat disappointed. The writers even wrote in another animal with the Monkey (Tiger first film) and baby with the old Monk (baby first film). The gags just didn't seem quite as funny the second time around.
There was a lot of hype leading to the release of this movie. In fact, right after the first film was released rumors that a second was on the way already surfaced. Really a disappointing film of what might have become a pretty fun movie franchise. Rating 6 of 10 and this is being nice because like I said, I got some enjoyment out of the film simply because seeing some of the same characters from the first movie was nostalgic.
When I first saw the original Hangover, I thought the movie might become a classic comedy. But honestly after watching it a few times, it seems less funny where as many comedies you pick up on small things on multiple viewings that make the movie even funnier. With the Hangover, the element of surprise is lost the next time around and the story loses its appeal.
So taking what I just said into account, if you've watched the first movie multiple times and then have expectations that the second movie will be a fun adventure with fun surprises around the corner, you will be somewhat disappointed. The writers even wrote in another animal with the Monkey (Tiger first film) and baby with the old Monk (baby first film). The gags just didn't seem quite as funny the second time around.
There was a lot of hype leading to the release of this movie. In fact, right after the first film was released rumors that a second was on the way already surfaced. Really a disappointing film of what might have become a pretty fun movie franchise. Rating 6 of 10 and this is being nice because like I said, I got some enjoyment out of the film simply because seeing some of the same characters from the first movie was nostalgic.
Funny, but don't expect the original
KnightsofNi1128 May 2011
Remember that one movie that came out in 2009 called The Hangover? Of course you do. It was only one of the most talked about films of the summer, surprising everyone as one of the funniest comedies in a long time. Two years later it was only fitting that a sequel be made so that we could relive the original Hangover fervor and kick off summer 2011 with a bang. Well, the basic rule of thumb for a sequel is that it either a) needs to be a continuation of the story from the first film or b) tell a new story with the same characters. The Hangover Part II decided to invent their own option c) which is to tell the exact same story all over again, but just changing a few details.
And that is what The Hangover Part II is. This time Stu, Alan, and Phil are in Bangkok, Thailand for Stu's wedding. The wolfpack reunites for another awesome bachelor party, this time brining along Stu's sixteen year old brother-in-law, Teddy. Stu promises only one beer and then he is calling it a night, but of course that isn't what happened or this wouldn't be The Hangover Part II. Nope. Once again a crazy night ensues and the boys wake up the next morning with absolutely no recollection of what happened the night before. They only have small clues to go off of, but they have no choice but to use these clues in order to find Teddy, who has gone missing. From here things play out much like they did in the first film with the same elements as the original. Instead of a tiger we have a monkey. Instead of a baby we have a monk. Instead of a regular Las Vegas hooker we have, well... I won't spoil that.
I, like so many others, loved The Hangover. I was happily surprised by how funny and just how well made it was for a film that looked like it would be another silly comedy movie. Of course it was that but it had something great about the raunchiness of the jokes and the cleverness of the mystery story that unfolds. The Hangover Part II doesn't quite have that and it only seems to try as hard as possible to outmatch its predecessor. It is this excessive one-upping of the first film that also drags down the films story. For one, it is just the same story all over again, but I can get past that because it worked in the first film. I won't say it wasn't annoying seeing so much of the same things happen all over again, but I'll get over it.
I was disappointed though because I loved the mystery aspect of the first film. The process of finding out where Doug was in the first film coupled with the incredibly entertaining humor was done just right. The Hangover Part II just tries so hard to go even further over-the-top that the mystery aspect here falls flat. It isn't nearly as interesting, thus the thing that made The Hangover more than just another comedy is lost in The Hangover Part II. The film does everything in its ability to be raunchier and more over-the-top than the first film, affecting all aspects. The obviousness of this effort actually ends up being distracting and it just reminds me why sequels too often suck, especially comedy sequels.
But The Hangover Part II doesn't suck. It definitely hasn't lost all of the magic that was there in the first film. Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, and Ed Helms obviously love these characters and you can see it come through in their performances. The hilarious trifecta are just as great in this film as they were in the first, and I never thought for a second that they were losing touch with their characters in the film's attempts to one-up the original. And honestly, this film really is funny. I laughed hysterically at plenty of moments throughout the film and there is never a dull moment. Each moment just gets raunchier and and more insane, keeping you laughing from start to finish. The comedy in this film isn't as clever as the first film, and it really sort of boils down to fart, poop, and dick jokes, but I love the characters of this film too much to not be entertained by that.
I won't say that I wasn't thoroughly entertained for the 102 minutes this film ran. I still think Zach Galifianakis is one of the funniest human beings currently on this planet and I think Todd Phillips still knows how to make a funny movie. But The Hangover Part II certainly doesn't live up to the hype and it doesn't even come close to the first film. As much as I laughed during this film I really just can't think of it as much more than just another comedy.
And that is what The Hangover Part II is. This time Stu, Alan, and Phil are in Bangkok, Thailand for Stu's wedding. The wolfpack reunites for another awesome bachelor party, this time brining along Stu's sixteen year old brother-in-law, Teddy. Stu promises only one beer and then he is calling it a night, but of course that isn't what happened or this wouldn't be The Hangover Part II. Nope. Once again a crazy night ensues and the boys wake up the next morning with absolutely no recollection of what happened the night before. They only have small clues to go off of, but they have no choice but to use these clues in order to find Teddy, who has gone missing. From here things play out much like they did in the first film with the same elements as the original. Instead of a tiger we have a monkey. Instead of a baby we have a monk. Instead of a regular Las Vegas hooker we have, well... I won't spoil that.
I, like so many others, loved The Hangover. I was happily surprised by how funny and just how well made it was for a film that looked like it would be another silly comedy movie. Of course it was that but it had something great about the raunchiness of the jokes and the cleverness of the mystery story that unfolds. The Hangover Part II doesn't quite have that and it only seems to try as hard as possible to outmatch its predecessor. It is this excessive one-upping of the first film that also drags down the films story. For one, it is just the same story all over again, but I can get past that because it worked in the first film. I won't say it wasn't annoying seeing so much of the same things happen all over again, but I'll get over it.
I was disappointed though because I loved the mystery aspect of the first film. The process of finding out where Doug was in the first film coupled with the incredibly entertaining humor was done just right. The Hangover Part II just tries so hard to go even further over-the-top that the mystery aspect here falls flat. It isn't nearly as interesting, thus the thing that made The Hangover more than just another comedy is lost in The Hangover Part II. The film does everything in its ability to be raunchier and more over-the-top than the first film, affecting all aspects. The obviousness of this effort actually ends up being distracting and it just reminds me why sequels too often suck, especially comedy sequels.
But The Hangover Part II doesn't suck. It definitely hasn't lost all of the magic that was there in the first film. Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, and Ed Helms obviously love these characters and you can see it come through in their performances. The hilarious trifecta are just as great in this film as they were in the first, and I never thought for a second that they were losing touch with their characters in the film's attempts to one-up the original. And honestly, this film really is funny. I laughed hysterically at plenty of moments throughout the film and there is never a dull moment. Each moment just gets raunchier and and more insane, keeping you laughing from start to finish. The comedy in this film isn't as clever as the first film, and it really sort of boils down to fart, poop, and dick jokes, but I love the characters of this film too much to not be entertained by that.
I won't say that I wasn't thoroughly entertained for the 102 minutes this film ran. I still think Zach Galifianakis is one of the funniest human beings currently on this planet and I think Todd Phillips still knows how to make a funny movie. But The Hangover Part II certainly doesn't live up to the hype and it doesn't even come close to the first film. As much as I laughed during this film I really just can't think of it as much more than just another comedy.
Gang is back, crazier than the first
SnoopyStyle5 September 2013
The gang is back. This time Stu is getting married to Lauren in Thailand. After a quiet night, Stu, Alan and Phil wake up in a seedy apartment in Bangkok. Doug is back at the resort, but Lauren's brother Teddy is missing. There's a monkey with a severed finger, Alan's head is shaved, Stu has a tattoo on his face, and they can't remember any of it. And Mr Chow is back.
This is just like the first one, except this one is crazier and in Bankok. Everything is bigger. Alan is crazier. Mr Chow is more ridiculous. The humor is cruder. It's essentially repeating the same story and some dismiss it for that. I personally don't.
This is just like the first one, except this one is crazier and in Bankok. Everything is bigger. Alan is crazier. Mr Chow is more ridiculous. The humor is cruder. It's essentially repeating the same story and some dismiss it for that. I personally don't.
They're baaack...
paul_haakonsen2 November 2011
I enjoyed part I quite a lot and so I was looking forward to seeing part II, and it didn't disappoint me. It was actually quite a surprise, as I found part II to be better than part I.
Why? Well the story for starters, it was more clever and it had more adrenalin rush to it. There was always something really strange going on and the guys were chin-deep in trouble. I was laughing a lot through out the movie, and had my toes curling as well because of the awkwardness of some of the scenes.
And having the story set in hectic Bangkok was brilliant, because it really spiced up the movie quite a lot. However, I would personally have liked to see more of the seedy places that exist in Bangkok. There was too much focus on the rich and glamorous places. Not saying that they didn't use the seedy places, far from it, but they could have used it more, as Bangkok is well-known for them.
Bradley Cooper (playing Phil), Ed Helms (playing Stu) and Zach Galifianakis (playing Alan) really have great chemistry and together they really carry the movie with excellence. Each of them make the other stand out and support the comedy of one another. They are so well-cast for these movies. And I must admit that this was the best part I have ever seen Ken Jeong (playing Mr. Chow) portray. His quirky blunt manner was so amazing in this movie.
Be prepared for an adventure like none other. An adventure with amnesia, drug-muling monkey and lots of fun. "The Hangover II" is a great comedy.
Why? Well the story for starters, it was more clever and it had more adrenalin rush to it. There was always something really strange going on and the guys were chin-deep in trouble. I was laughing a lot through out the movie, and had my toes curling as well because of the awkwardness of some of the scenes.
And having the story set in hectic Bangkok was brilliant, because it really spiced up the movie quite a lot. However, I would personally have liked to see more of the seedy places that exist in Bangkok. There was too much focus on the rich and glamorous places. Not saying that they didn't use the seedy places, far from it, but they could have used it more, as Bangkok is well-known for them.
Bradley Cooper (playing Phil), Ed Helms (playing Stu) and Zach Galifianakis (playing Alan) really have great chemistry and together they really carry the movie with excellence. Each of them make the other stand out and support the comedy of one another. They are so well-cast for these movies. And I must admit that this was the best part I have ever seen Ken Jeong (playing Mr. Chow) portray. His quirky blunt manner was so amazing in this movie.
Be prepared for an adventure like none other. An adventure with amnesia, drug-muling monkey and lots of fun. "The Hangover II" is a great comedy.
Hilarious! A worthy sequel to a comedy classic!
garrettthebeast77 July 2011
After seeing The Hangover in 2009, I could not wait for Part II to be released and it was worth it. I really don't get why people are saying this movie sucks because it has the same plot. What do they expect? Of course Todd Phillips is gonna use the same formula as the original but it works with this one. I can honestly say while Phillips did take this one a step up with how crude and nasty the jokes are, it still made me fall out of my seat laughing, especially Alan's new attitude in this. To me, the only thing that would make The Hangover Part II a failure is if Alan was the one the trio ended up losing the night before. Without him, The Hangover movies would suck! Sure, we got Phil's sarcasm and the craziness of Ed Helms but Alan is the one with it all. Overall, I give it a 9/10.
Much better than the first one
ima-2573128 June 2020
Copy and Paste
Smells_Like_Cheese27 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
2009 wasn't exactly the best year for movies, but out of that year we did get a comedy that will last for years to come, The Hangover. When I heard that there was going to be a sequel, I was telling my friends that I had a feeling that this was being made for the money. After all, The Hangover made over 200 million dollars world wide, they are going to milk it for everything that it's worth. Plus what made the first Hangover so great was that as crazy as their night was and outrageous, in some strange way it was believable where we've been so drunk we couldn't remember the night before and somehow did the most insane things. How is this supposed to happen again and be believable? But I loved the first Hangover so much that I went into this just hoping it was going to be a good time and sadly, it was exactly as I feared, this was made for money because it was nothing but copy and paste.
Phil, Alan and Doug travel to Thailand for Stu's wedding, but after their escapade in Las Vegas, Stu has opted for a safe, subdued pre-wedding brunch. They go to Thailand with Allen as well, when Stud did not want to invite him due to the previous events. They all look to have one drink on the beach, however, things do not go as planned after they lose the 16-year-old brother of Stu's fiancée and somehow wake up in Bangkok. Now they must go through the whole mystery again of trying to find their missing friend, but everyone they meet tells them that "Bangkok has him now".
See, the thing is, I did laugh a couple times, I will admit that. But the beginning and ending verbatim is the exact same thing first Hangover. A lot of the jokes are the exact same thing as the first film, the monkey was the replacement for the tiger, the silent monk was a replacement for the baby, the brother was a replacement for Doug, Paul Giamatti was a replacement for Leslie Chow, Stu's girlfriend's attitude problem from the first film is now his future father in law's attitude problem, you get the idea. Leslie Chow becomes more of a main character in this movie which I felt was another problem, as I mentioned in my review of the first film, even though he was funny he was the only thing about The Hangover that I felt was a little too over the top. He did make me laugh still, but again, it's more of the same. Also I don't know why but it seems since Stu had such an awful girlfriend in the first Hangover, they felt they had to go to the extreme opposite and give him a girl that not only looks 20 years younger than him but also is the perfect girlfriend who doesn't question anything and thinks Stu is the best man in the world.
I really wanted this to be an excellent film, I was so looking forward to having a good laugh, but when it's the exact same thing as the first film, how could you enjoy it? There are no surprises and the magic is gone. They made Allen into a mean character that is totally unbelievable, Stu is over the top in being a sissy and Phil is now there just to be the pretty boy and I really wish they had used Doug more in this one since we didn't get to see him in the first Hangover much, he seems like a great character. Seriously, skip it, this is not worth your time or money, the first Hangover is a classic. If they make a third one, make the girls have the hangover or bring a new group in because the story is just done. This was lazy and pathetic and I want my money back.
4/10
Phil, Alan and Doug travel to Thailand for Stu's wedding, but after their escapade in Las Vegas, Stu has opted for a safe, subdued pre-wedding brunch. They go to Thailand with Allen as well, when Stud did not want to invite him due to the previous events. They all look to have one drink on the beach, however, things do not go as planned after they lose the 16-year-old brother of Stu's fiancée and somehow wake up in Bangkok. Now they must go through the whole mystery again of trying to find their missing friend, but everyone they meet tells them that "Bangkok has him now".
See, the thing is, I did laugh a couple times, I will admit that. But the beginning and ending verbatim is the exact same thing first Hangover. A lot of the jokes are the exact same thing as the first film, the monkey was the replacement for the tiger, the silent monk was a replacement for the baby, the brother was a replacement for Doug, Paul Giamatti was a replacement for Leslie Chow, Stu's girlfriend's attitude problem from the first film is now his future father in law's attitude problem, you get the idea. Leslie Chow becomes more of a main character in this movie which I felt was another problem, as I mentioned in my review of the first film, even though he was funny he was the only thing about The Hangover that I felt was a little too over the top. He did make me laugh still, but again, it's more of the same. Also I don't know why but it seems since Stu had such an awful girlfriend in the first Hangover, they felt they had to go to the extreme opposite and give him a girl that not only looks 20 years younger than him but also is the perfect girlfriend who doesn't question anything and thinks Stu is the best man in the world.
I really wanted this to be an excellent film, I was so looking forward to having a good laugh, but when it's the exact same thing as the first film, how could you enjoy it? There are no surprises and the magic is gone. They made Allen into a mean character that is totally unbelievable, Stu is over the top in being a sissy and Phil is now there just to be the pretty boy and I really wish they had used Doug more in this one since we didn't get to see him in the first Hangover much, he seems like a great character. Seriously, skip it, this is not worth your time or money, the first Hangover is a classic. If they make a third one, make the girls have the hangover or bring a new group in because the story is just done. This was lazy and pathetic and I want my money back.
4/10
Great comedy sequel
masonsaul8 July 2020
Whilst the plot is basically the same as it's predecessor, The Hangover Part II is still a great comedy sequel. Once again, Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis are all great with really good chemistry and Ken Jeong is also great. Todd Philips' direction is fantastic and it's extremely well filmed and well paced. It's consistently really funny. The soundtrack is great and the music by Christophe Beck is good.
Not All Sequels Are Forgettable
PittsburghFilmCritic17 October 2011
The premise of The Hangover: Part II is nearly identical to the first – the same "wolfpack" from the first movie, Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), Doug (Justin Bartha) and the not entirely welcome man- child, Alan (Zach Galifianakis), throw a wild, out-of-control bachelor party that results in the loss of an important character.
At first blush, it seemed as though this movie, with its recycled premise and familiar characters another painfully obvious attempt to wring the last few cents out of a Hollywood cash cow. However, director Todd Phillips, easily quiets these criticisms by playfully mocking the similarities and by upping the raunchiness, insanity, and humor of the movie.
Galifianakis once again steals the show as the perfectly crafted weirdo Alan, who's sporadic and bizarre interjections enliven momentary lulls in the movie. Alan's antics are further accentuated by the return of the humorous and insane criminal, Chow (Ken Jeong). Combined with new, shockingly outrageous situations, the duo keeps the laughs coming and in doing so gets the audience to forget the movie's lack of originality.
Regardless of my strong recommendation, wholesome moviegoers and those who are wholeheartedly convinced that this movie is nothing but a remake should skip The Hangover: Part II because, to be honest, this isn't a movie to be taken seriously. It is not a cinematic masterpiece by any stretch and the storyline is weak at best, but if you're willing to venture into the bowels of Bangkok for a raunchy, silly, sophomoric, and extremely amusing movie, call up your wolf pack and head to see an amusing movie you'll never forget – hopefully.
At first blush, it seemed as though this movie, with its recycled premise and familiar characters another painfully obvious attempt to wring the last few cents out of a Hollywood cash cow. However, director Todd Phillips, easily quiets these criticisms by playfully mocking the similarities and by upping the raunchiness, insanity, and humor of the movie.
Galifianakis once again steals the show as the perfectly crafted weirdo Alan, who's sporadic and bizarre interjections enliven momentary lulls in the movie. Alan's antics are further accentuated by the return of the humorous and insane criminal, Chow (Ken Jeong). Combined with new, shockingly outrageous situations, the duo keeps the laughs coming and in doing so gets the audience to forget the movie's lack of originality.
Regardless of my strong recommendation, wholesome moviegoers and those who are wholeheartedly convinced that this movie is nothing but a remake should skip The Hangover: Part II because, to be honest, this isn't a movie to be taken seriously. It is not a cinematic masterpiece by any stretch and the storyline is weak at best, but if you're willing to venture into the bowels of Bangkok for a raunchy, silly, sophomoric, and extremely amusing movie, call up your wolf pack and head to see an amusing movie you'll never forget – hopefully.
It was better the first time around
Jpeffer14 August 2011
The Hangover was a surprise hit in 2009 that went on to be not only a critically acclaimed film, but also a huge box office success. The Hangover Part 2 is exactly the same movie except this one takes place in Bangkok, and isn't nearly as good or as funny as the first film.
This time around Stu (Ed Helms) is getting married and they're having the wedding in Thailand, which is his future wife's home country. Coming back along with him we have bad boy Phil (Bradley Cooper), the groom from the previous movie Doug (Justin Barth), and the person who practically stole the entire first movie, Alan (Zach Galafianakis). Once in Thailand we meet a slew of new characters who really don't ever seem to matter all that much and eventually we get to the next day and where the movie turns into an exact copy of the first one.
Why the writers and director thought essentially remaking the first movie would be good is beyond me. Other than they figured it would make a ton of money regardless of how they made it. But to make almost exact scenes over again is just ridiculous. The gang loses one of their own again but this time it isn't Doug, it's Stu's soon to be brother-in-law Teddy. They wake up and have no idea as to what happened the previous night and have to go on another wild adventure to try and figure out everything that happened, only this time it doesn't seem nearly as interesting.
They even go as far as to bring back characters from the first movie that have no business even being in this one. Ken Jeong comes back as Mr. Chow and while he was one of the few funny characters, he really served no purpose in being there. Mike Tyson also comes back for another cameo, singing once again. Only this time it feels like it was just crammed in because he was in the last one and had a really great cameo. In this movie it's just unnecessary and makes you wish he didn't show up.
Our main characters this time around aren't even as funny as they were before. Alan just seems almost too outrageous and crazy, Stu freaks out every moment of the movie and Phil is just kind of there throughout. There were about two times that I actually laughed out loud and another few times where I got some chuckles but that was pretty much it.
All in all, this movie felt like it was made just to cash in on the very successful first movie and they ended up just remaking the first one only this time it wasn't nearly as good.
Rating: 4/10
This time around Stu (Ed Helms) is getting married and they're having the wedding in Thailand, which is his future wife's home country. Coming back along with him we have bad boy Phil (Bradley Cooper), the groom from the previous movie Doug (Justin Barth), and the person who practically stole the entire first movie, Alan (Zach Galafianakis). Once in Thailand we meet a slew of new characters who really don't ever seem to matter all that much and eventually we get to the next day and where the movie turns into an exact copy of the first one.
Why the writers and director thought essentially remaking the first movie would be good is beyond me. Other than they figured it would make a ton of money regardless of how they made it. But to make almost exact scenes over again is just ridiculous. The gang loses one of their own again but this time it isn't Doug, it's Stu's soon to be brother-in-law Teddy. They wake up and have no idea as to what happened the previous night and have to go on another wild adventure to try and figure out everything that happened, only this time it doesn't seem nearly as interesting.
They even go as far as to bring back characters from the first movie that have no business even being in this one. Ken Jeong comes back as Mr. Chow and while he was one of the few funny characters, he really served no purpose in being there. Mike Tyson also comes back for another cameo, singing once again. Only this time it feels like it was just crammed in because he was in the last one and had a really great cameo. In this movie it's just unnecessary and makes you wish he didn't show up.
Our main characters this time around aren't even as funny as they were before. Alan just seems almost too outrageous and crazy, Stu freaks out every moment of the movie and Phil is just kind of there throughout. There were about two times that I actually laughed out loud and another few times where I got some chuckles but that was pretty much it.
All in all, this movie felt like it was made just to cash in on the very successful first movie and they ended up just remaking the first one only this time it wasn't nearly as good.
Rating: 4/10
It made me laugh......... Again!
jaykchan19 June 2011
Snapshot: It uses the same formula but still generates more than a few laughs.
What's Great: It's funny, there's some decent acting, the story is predictable but fast paced and keeps you engaged.
What's Not So Great: Most people are complaining about how similar Hangover II and I are, it's pretty predictable and it's gross out humor (pretty gross at times :) )
Summary: Go in expecting a movie that is funny, and not something totally fresh like the first one and you might actually enjoy the movie a lot.
What's Great: It's funny, there's some decent acting, the story is predictable but fast paced and keeps you engaged.
What's Not So Great: Most people are complaining about how similar Hangover II and I are, it's pretty predictable and it's gross out humor (pretty gross at times :) )
Summary: Go in expecting a movie that is funny, and not something totally fresh like the first one and you might actually enjoy the movie a lot.
Very Funny!
Ekatz89831 May 2011
**This contains Spoilers**
I'm not going to disagree with many negative-commentors-- it DID have the same style as the original Hangover. For example, it shows a scene close to the end from the beginning, there are VERY inappropriate pictures during the end credits, and, of course, the problem- what the **** happened that night.However, it definitely was not the same as the first. It was MUCH more inappropriate than the other one. There were many scenes with breasts, penises, and I can't remember if it showed a vagina. However, that sort of made it funnier. I did like the first one a bit better, but this was great too. It was a very guilty pleasure. I can't wait for the sequel! ( It never said what happened to Mr. Chow after his arrest, so I'm guessing he will come back.)
I'm not going to disagree with many negative-commentors-- it DID have the same style as the original Hangover. For example, it shows a scene close to the end from the beginning, there are VERY inappropriate pictures during the end credits, and, of course, the problem- what the **** happened that night.However, it definitely was not the same as the first. It was MUCH more inappropriate than the other one. There were many scenes with breasts, penises, and I can't remember if it showed a vagina. However, that sort of made it funnier. I did like the first one a bit better, but this was great too. It was a very guilty pleasure. I can't wait for the sequel! ( It never said what happened to Mr. Chow after his arrest, so I'm guessing he will come back.)
102 Minutes of Garbage
IronMike8418 March 2012
I felt used after paying to see this movie. Nearly everything about it was awful.
The first half hour was spent reminding us what happened in the first Hangover (as if we forgot) and running through the exact same jokes verbatim..
The next hour was tired, boring, predictable, and pathetic. I couldn't wait for it to end so I could do anything else.
Throughout the movie, the Zach Galifianakis and Ed Helms characters were distorted into such idiotic caricatures of their roles from the original that it was insulting to watch.
Outside of a few funny moments and Ken Jeong's time on screen, this movie about as fun as getting a root canal.
The first half hour was spent reminding us what happened in the first Hangover (as if we forgot) and running through the exact same jokes verbatim..
The next hour was tired, boring, predictable, and pathetic. I couldn't wait for it to end so I could do anything else.
Throughout the movie, the Zach Galifianakis and Ed Helms characters were distorted into such idiotic caricatures of their roles from the original that it was insulting to watch.
Outside of a few funny moments and Ken Jeong's time on screen, this movie about as fun as getting a root canal.
the hangover part 1.1
mooviefan-891-87957429 May 2011
This is another movie that was just done because the first one made a lot of money. Every single element of the previous hangover is present. There are no surprises frankly. You alredy know that they are going to take things a little further in terms of scathologic jokes, nudity and some slight twists on the plot. Now if we keep in mind that this is a comedy I did not heard many people laughing out loud like in the first movie. Surely it has its moments, but most of them are already seen in the trailer. The characters still have some chemistry on screen but Zach Gialafanakis is not fun this time ( its more like annoying). In the end a very regular movie to watch on TV on a Sunday afternoon. Compared to this the first one might still be considered a classic in the future.
The Hangover Part II (2011) - What Happens in Bangkok, Stays in Bangkok!
nickmesafilms28 May 2011
The second installment of the box office hit, "The Hangover" was not that great through the eyes of critics, but I honestly enjoyed watching these guys drunk again, even if they were too lazy to come up with new material. The film reunites the gang from the previous movie, as they all celebrate Stu's wedding in Thailand, but once again, after a long night of partying, they forget everything and they have to find the missing brother of the fiancée, and go on a little drunken scavenger hunt.....again! Now, I did laugh at this movie a lot, but I honestly felt that it was too dark. Meaning that, some of the jokes went way too far. I mean, this movie was way too raunchy, when it was supposed to be raunchy at an appropriate level. But at least I laughed a lot in this movie, but it's just that the first movie was funnier. I felt that a sequel to "The Hangover" is just plain pointless. If there was a sequel, it would be too predictable, because you would already know what's going to happen next. I felt that this was a completely unoriginal sequel, with such lazy writing. I bet the writers didn't know how to make a Hangover sequel, so they decided to just add the same premise from the original, and thought nobody will notice. Not smart, and not good. But, at least I laughed throughout the movie, but there were just some scenes that just went way too far! I did enjoy the characters again, there were some funny scenes, but that doesn't mean that it's a great movie overall, just a funny comedy with an unoriginal storyline. But that's all I want in a comedy, just make me laugh! I was easily entertained by the movie, and I enjoyed watching these characters again, but just watch the movie to laugh, because you just won't care about the plot! "The Hangover Part II", in my review, "completely unoriginal, but totally hilarious".
Still fun and a good time to have to
bernierb27 June 2011
This movie was a lot of fun to watch. The cast is funny as always and the story is very good. For those complaining just don't watch it, simple as that. A comedy is probably the hardest type of movie to write because it has to be "funny" and it hard nowadays to write something funny because most of everything funny has been done over and over.That being said, you can go different ways in your comedy but this movie is the type of comedy i like,it has a plot, is mature and it not a brain dead mishmash of stupid things or stunts or language that a lot of younger kids like. It is old fashion comedy and i hope they do more of this series.
It is not going to change your world but if you want a break from reality, this movie is it!
It is not going to change your world but if you want a break from reality, this movie is it!
same formula but still very funny
sackjigler26 May 2011
there's not much to say about it here. it is the same formula here as the first yet it still feels fresh and funny to me. i laughed just as much as the first one and felt satisfied at the end. cooper held the movie as the straight men as helms was very funny as the wild party man stu and zach g was still funny as alan and still got the most laughs. if you enjoyed the first one, you will enjoy this as well. if not, than don't bother. its worth the admission price for a night out at the movies. the best part again to me is the pics at the end, only i believe this time they were funnier, but definitely stay through to see them. ken jeong has more screen time in this one but i thought he was far more annoying in the first than here so its not much of a distraction. mike tyson does make another appearance as well and that scene was also very funny. so, like i said, i would recommend to anyone who enjoyed the first one and not to anyone who didn't.
A hot poker to the ear hole would be better.
isa-51-50389029 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
The Hangover II is the perfect example of a Hollywood sell-out.
Somehow, despite being set in an exquisitely beautiful country, there was nothing new or even entertaining in the cinematography. An amazing achievement given that Bangkok is a voyeurs dream. In the end, The Hangover II offered us nothing more than travel brochure scenes and worn out clichés.
The story, merely reheated leftovers, is a sexually confused 12-year-old's wet dream. I've never seen so many flaccid penises in one place before. The sad fact that so many people find this movie entertaining is pathetic and down right scary. If all it takes to satisfy the males of an entire nation is a bunch of homo-erotic fantasies, 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, taken advantage 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 hot poker to the ear hole - I would willingly offer myself up.
Unfortunately, instead... I'm left with the bad after taste that The Hangover II has left in my mouth - a taste that reminds me of stale cigarettes, bad tequila and vomit.
Somehow, despite being set in an exquisitely beautiful country, there was nothing new or even entertaining in the cinematography. An amazing achievement given that Bangkok is a voyeurs dream. In the end, The Hangover II offered us nothing more than travel brochure scenes and worn out clichés.
The story, merely reheated leftovers, is a sexually confused 12-year-old's wet dream. I've never seen so many flaccid penises in one place before. The sad fact that so many people find this movie entertaining is pathetic and down right scary. If all it takes to satisfy the males of an entire nation is a bunch of homo-erotic fantasies, 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, taken advantage 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 hot poker to the ear hole - I would willingly offer myself up.
Unfortunately, instead... I'm left with the bad after taste that The Hangover II has left in my mouth - a taste that reminds me of stale cigarettes, bad tequila and vomit.
superb comedy better than Vegas
gerold-firl30 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Hangover 2 is actually better than the first one. Many have complained that the plot is total reprise of the original, but a classic comedy can be seen over and over, and it's still funny. Both Hangovers are classics, and the sequence of events is secondary to the relations between the characters. Hangovers one and two can be watched as a double feature, and they're both hilarious, but number 2 is actually the superior movie.
In both it's Stu who is the character that grows during the movie. When we first meet him he is a total weakling and a phony buffoon, abused by his vicious fiancé, and always lying to her so she won't get mad at him. A truly pathetic figure. By the end he actually gets one of his nuts back, and breaks off their engagement. One point for Stu. But the other members of the wolfpack really don't develop at all. Phil is still a dick, Alan is still a retard, and Doug is the nice guy who avoids all the insanity.
In Hangover 2, Stu gets his other nut, and finally embraces his inner demon. In the process, he becomes a man. All the plot twists, the absurdity, the impossible challenges surmounted by luck, pluck and guile - they merely form the backdrop for a voyage of self-discovery by a pompous sissy-dentist on the way to becoming a man. And it's funny as hell.
Bangkok makes the "sin city" of Las Vegas look like Disneyland in comparison, and all the challenges are amped-up in proportion. In Vegas, Stu marries Jade, a very nice girl who happens to work as an escort. In Bangkok, he gets sodomized by a she-male - and he loves it. It's pretty nasty, but it's part of the strange alchemy required to turn a sissy- dentist into a man.
Watch this movie and learn. You'll laugh like crazy while doing it.
In both it's Stu who is the character that grows during the movie. When we first meet him he is a total weakling and a phony buffoon, abused by his vicious fiancé, and always lying to her so she won't get mad at him. A truly pathetic figure. By the end he actually gets one of his nuts back, and breaks off their engagement. One point for Stu. But the other members of the wolfpack really don't develop at all. Phil is still a dick, Alan is still a retard, and Doug is the nice guy who avoids all the insanity.
In Hangover 2, Stu gets his other nut, and finally embraces his inner demon. In the process, he becomes a man. All the plot twists, the absurdity, the impossible challenges surmounted by luck, pluck and guile - they merely form the backdrop for a voyage of self-discovery by a pompous sissy-dentist on the way to becoming a man. And it's funny as hell.
Bangkok makes the "sin city" of Las Vegas look like Disneyland in comparison, and all the challenges are amped-up in proportion. In Vegas, Stu marries Jade, a very nice girl who happens to work as an escort. In Bangkok, he gets sodomized by a she-male - and he loves it. It's pretty nasty, but it's part of the strange alchemy required to turn a sissy- dentist into a man.
Watch this movie and learn. You'll laugh like crazy while doing it.
Its getting old Todd..
aakash_vasudevan29 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Hangover I was so good because of its originality, unconventional narration, suspense and of course, dirty humor. Now, slash out everything except dirty humor and you have got Hangover II.
Hangover II could have been so much more than it is. It might be too much to say that the plot was predictable, but it sure as hell did'nt surprise me. Sure, it was loaded with dirty (almost inappropriate) humor but thats pretty much all that is enjoyable.
Hangover 3 better be something very different. Otherwise, even the mildly enjoyable dirty jokes are going to turn into worn-out clichés.
Bottom line: Go there and pretend to enjoy it. Thats the best you can do!
Hangover II could have been so much more than it is. It might be too much to say that the plot was predictable, but it sure as hell did'nt surprise me. Sure, it was loaded with dirty (almost inappropriate) humor but thats pretty much all that is enjoyable.
Hangover 3 better be something very different. Otherwise, even the mildly enjoyable dirty jokes are going to turn into worn-out clichés.
Bottom line: Go there and pretend to enjoy it. Thats the best you can do!
Predictable to the point of boredom
pauljraab28 May 2011
Warning: Spoilers
I had modest expectations, they weren't met. This is Hollywood milking a successful movie with a contrived followup. This is the same movie. The jokes are the same, just dirtier and more low-brow to get shock reaction. This is like the joke "the Aristocrats". Same joke as before, just dirtier and more disgusting. Drug overdoses, kidnapping and hiding bodies as a premise for a comedy isn't entertainment, it's desperation to go "over the top" without originality. The interaction with the lady-boys was obvious and a cliché for Bangkok humor. It's the Heather Graham joke from the first movie with a little sodomy mixed into it. The inappropriate observations and comments by Alan that made the first movie clever just push the envelope but don't even feel awkward anymore. If your brand of humor falls along the lines of "the more disgusting and grotesque the better" than this is your movie. If you want some creativity and originality for your money, don't bother. I gave it a 4 instead of a 3 only because of the monkey.
Great sequel, worth watching
iLikeMoviess26 May 2011
I have to admit this one was a bit raunchy even for me - do not recommend seeing this with the parents. That being said, the film was hilarious and a good sequel to a hard to follow first film. The wolfpack is back and they are having a great time in Thailand.
I liked how they really took part in the Thai culture and all the exposure the great city of Bangkok received. There was some racism but it was funny and not especially offensive.
The only thing that bugged me about the film was that after watching the first Hangover, it was a but predictable. Thank goodness they were in a foreign land to make it interesting otherwise it would have been boring to watch. Overall a must see for Hangover fans and rated R comedy fans.
I liked how they really took part in the Thai culture and all the exposure the great city of Bangkok received. There was some racism but it was funny and not especially offensive.
The only thing that bugged me about the film was that after watching the first Hangover, it was a but predictable. Thank goodness they were in a foreign land to make it interesting otherwise it would have been boring to watch. Overall a must see for Hangover fans and rated R comedy fans.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
