Film Review with Robert Mann – The Hangover Part II

10th June 2011

The Hangover Part II **

Two summers ago, a Hollywood movie came seemingly out of nowhere to take cinemas by storm. For once it wasn’t a big budget effects blockbuster that was busting blocks at the box office but rather a low budget raucous comedy named The Hangover, a film that not only proved hugely successful in its own right but gave some of summer 2009’s biggest movies a run for their money, an impressive level of word of mouth being generated after the film brought down the house at film industry conference ShoWest with its debut trailer that showcased the film’s simple but ingenious concept, smartly handled gags and hilarious appearance by Mike Tyson and tested very strongly with audiences at test screenings. Warner Bros Pictures clearly knew they were on to something big before the film was even released as they had already set director Todd Phillips to write a follow up alongside Craig Mazin and Scot Armstrong – replacing first film writers Jon Lucas and Scott Moore – in April 2009 and actively committed to making the sequel that same month, a full two months before the film’s release on June 5th – something which is unusual for any movie studio, the common practice being to wait to see box office results before announcing a sequel to anything that isn’t based on an established property.
And with the likes of Bradley Cooper and Zach Galifianakis having been transformed into big stars following the success of The Hangover – although not so much Justin Bartha and Ed Helms, the former last year starring in romantic comedy The Rebound which flopped here in the UK and hasn’t been released at all in the states while the latter recently starred in the barely promoted limited release box office flop Cedar Rapids – along with director Todd Phillips – who was around for a long time before directing that film but whose name carries a lot more weight now than it did before – the sequel is understandably a film that many have very high expectations for, both in terms of box office and quality. Now it is upon us, however, it is worth highlighting that while it is a film that has the potential to be one of summer 2011’s greatest successes, it is also one that has the potential to be one of its biggest disappointments. As has been demonstrated on numerous occasions over the years, sequels to comedies, particularly ones with such an ingenious concept as that in The Hangover, don’t always manage to repeat the success of their predecessor, sometimes illustrating that the original film is a one hit wonder with a concept that doesn’t work nearly as well a second time and also failing to repeat the commercial success of the first film.

Also, while The Hangover may have been a big winner both with at the box office and in terms of word of mouth, the next film Todd Phillips made, Due Date which co-starred Zach Galifianakis, was considerably less well received, doing well at the box office but nearly as much so as The Hangover and receiving a generally lukewarm reception from critics and moviegoers alike. Such things as this highlight that The Hangover Part II, while showing a lot of potential with its very funny trailer, could just as easily turn out to be a big letdown and a film in a closer vein to Due Date than to The Hangover, the reaction of some to the trailer being that it looks like this sequel is just an unimaginative copy of the first film. The film’s performance, however, certainly won’t be stunted by a lack of awareness of its release. The production of and pre-release marketing and publicity for The Hangover Part II have been fraught with controversy, ranging from the proposed cameo by Mel Gibson as the tattoo artist who features in the film, which was dropped following his taped rants against ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva, which included a torrent of sexist and racist remarks, and protests from the cast and crew – prompting his replacement by Liam Neeson, who too was eventually replaced by Nick Cassavetes (whose name is probably most recognisable for him having directed The Notebook and My Sister’s Keeper but who also done a fair amount of acting in the past) when Phillips wanted to reshoot his scene and he was unavailable as he was filming Wrath of the Titans – to controversy over the initial release of the trailer in the states with a version of it featuring, among other scenes, a visual gag involving a water bottle and a monkey performing a simulated sex act being attached with films it was inappropriate for, an interview with Phillips in Total Film Magazine in which he jokingly said that the monkey featured in the film had actually been trained to smoke for one scene and had subsequently become addicted to cigarettes and a lawsuit filed by S. Victor Whitmill, the tattoo artist responsible for Mike Tyson’s trademark facial tattoo, over the copying of it in this film for the tattoo that Ed Helm’s character finds himself inked with – the latter almost threatening to delay the release of the film before being the lawsuit was dismissed.

All these things have certainly gone a long way to bring attention to the film. But, with anticipation so high, can Todd Phillips and the wolfpack deliver another comedy that really stands out or will The Hangover Part II leave you feeling like they should have just left it at one movie.

Two years ago, Stu (Ed Helms), Phil (Bradley Cooper), Alan (Zach Galifianakis) and the soon to be married Doug (Justin Bartha) went to Las Vegas to have a bachelor party that they would never forget. What followed was a disaster of epic proportions as they awoke from their sordid and drunken night to find the groom missing and all sorts of crazy shit going on. Having sworn an oath to never speak of what went down in Vegas ever again, they never expected that the same thing might happen again but, as they head off to Thailand for the wedding of Stu to his new fiancée Lauren (Jamie Chung), they are in store for even crazier escapades. Despite Stu vowing that this time will be different and only wanting to have a bachelor brunch, things take a major turn for the worse when Phil and Alan drag Stu along to have a beer, Lauren’s younger brother Teddy (Mason Lee) accompanying them.

Awaking the next morning in a sleazy hotel in Bangkok, they discover Teddy’s severed finger floating in a bowl of melted ice, Alan having lost all the hair of the top of his head, Stu with a facial tattoo just like that of Mike Tyson and a monkey dressed in a vest with a thing for cigarettes and male genitalia. And if that wasn’t bad enough Teddy is missing. “Bangkok has him now” is what everyone tells the guys but they know they cannot return without him and what follows is a sordid debacle of events as they attempt to retrace their steps and discover what went down the night before. Their adventure sees them reuniting with an acquaintance from their escapade in Las Vegas in the form of wanted criminal Chow (Ken Jeong), facing up to some rather aggressive and very pissed off monks at a monastery, getting shot as by drug dealers and getting on the wrong side of powerful criminal Kingsley (Paul Giamatti), not to mention so much more besides, as they discover that it isn’t just Teddy that Bangkok has but them as well.

As Stu’s wedding threatens to fall apart, despite Doug’s best efforts to keep things together, can the wolfpack find out what sordid antics they got up to, find Teddy and make it to the wedding on time?

It’s a safe bet that The Hangover Part II ranks among the most eagerly anticipated Hollywood movies of summer 2011 but it is also safe to say that this is a film that was set up to be a major disappointment in terms of its quality from the very beginning. The vast majority of film sequels (obviously not counting those sequels in the name only that have little or no connection to their predecessors and only bare the name in order to cash in on it) will either continue the story of the first film or tell a new story based around the same characters but, rather than continuing the story of the first film or telling a new one with the same characters, this film instead chooses to just do the original film all over again but changing a few details. The result of this is something that is only superficially different to the original and that ultimately feels like a hugely inferior rip-off of its predecessor.

Instead of Las Vegas, Bangkok provides the setting for the guys’ wild and raucous antics; instead of losing Doug (i.e. the groom) they lose Teddy (i.e. the brother of the bride), although, like with the first film, Doug still spends most of the duration on the sidelines; instead of losing a tooth, Stu finds himself with a facial tattoo; and instead of finding a tiger and a baby in their room they find themselves with a drug dealing and smoking monkey in a vest. That is as far as the differences really run and beyond this is it hard to escape a major sense of familiarity, the characters following the clues to retrace their steps just like they did in the first film and, also like in that film, eventually finding the person they have lost in the most obvious of places. Whereas the first film surprised with every twist and turn, this sequel just feels formulaic and predictable, lacking imagination and completely failing to offer any surprises – anyone who has seen the first film will have a pretty good guess as to where Teddy actually is – and it constantly struggles to escape the big shadow that the first film casts upon it, ultimately, on occasion, choosing to just embrace that shadow, early scenes in Alan’s room recalling the first film’s events through photos from the guy’s drunken antics plastered all over his walls while the way that the guys check the roof first this time is an in-joke aimed directly at fans of the first film.

Todd Phillips clearly realised that he was never going to be able to repeat the success of the first film and instead of trying to deliver more of the smart crude humour of that film he has rather just made everything a hell of a lot cruder. More disgusting than funny, what made the first film good has been mostly sacrificed in favour of disgusting and repulsive gross-out humour that is wildly inappropriate and likely to prove as offensive to some as it outright foul. Predictable and obvious and lacking wit or invention of any kind, the humour here includes such genius (a distinct note of sarcasm there) gags as a monkey simulating an oral sex act, Alan recalling what down the night before through meditation with the guys being replaced by child versions of themselves, Alan firing an uzi machine gun in the middle of a night club, the guys getting beaten up by a monk, a graphic full frontal shot of a ladyboy and a car chase through the streets of Bangkok that sees the guys being drenched in pig’s blood, and also not forgetting the closing credits which feature rather explicit photos of the sordid antics that the guys got up to the night before.

If that sounds like your kind of humour then I dare say you may hold a great deal of appreciation for this film but if you have more discerning tastes and were hoping for a repeat of the smarter humour of the first film you will be sorely disappointed by everything that this sequel has to offer. The film is not without its strong points, however, for instance a fantastic finale featuring a singing Mike Tyson and a fiction reflecting reality as Mike Tyson tells Stu “You really need to lose that f****** tattoo from your face” but this terrific finish is not enough to save the film from mediocrity.

Even looking beyond comparison to the first film and viewing this sequel on its own merits, it is hard to find much positive to say about it. Starting near the end of the story then going back one week to the beginning proves tired and somewhat pointless considering that this time we already have a pretty good idea of where things are headed and the plotting here is never anything more than passable, the film coming across like a series of sketches rather than one cohesive narrative in light of the absence of the smarter execution of the first film. The character development generally proves decent at least, Stu actually growing as a character as the film progresses but, other than being very crude, the dialogue really fails to prove in any way remarkable, thus sealing the fact that not only is the writing here far behind that of the first film but it also proves disappointing in itself.

The cast here are on top form but with weak material to work with they never prove as good as they could be. Bradley Cooper, for instance, is undeniably entertaining but it occasionally seems as though something is missing from his performance, it lacking some of his charisma and seeming a bit too much like he is just going through the motions. As a very arrogant, self important and inappropriate character and a bit of a prick, Zach Galifianakis proves entertaining also but too falls somewhat short although he does at least prove unwaveringly convincing in the role. Ed Helms, meanwhile, is probably the cast member who gets the most to actually do, his character being the only one who really seems to be developed much and this development giving him much more to work with than the other cast members as we see his character discover and embrace the demon lurking within him, his performance being a two sided one, one side being that of a bland and dull kind of guy while the other is a wild party animal for whom almost anything goes.

And while he and Jamie Chung don’t seem like the most likely couple but they are quite cute together. Ken Jeong has a much bigger role his time, his character being integral to the plot, but he is more irritating than funny here and, like with the first film, Justin Bartha is out of the picture for most of the duration, not being given much to do and, without him being the person who the guys have lost, not having much role to play in the plot at all. Sadly little use is made of Jeffrey Tambor (playing Alan’s father) or Paul Giamatti, their roles being very brief and the former’s character barely figuring into the plot at all, while, as the tattoo artist, Nick Cassavetes is no Liam Neeson or Mel Gibson. Beyond this the only other thing to say about this film is that it does occasionally look pretty good, the natural unspoilt landscapes of Thailand providing a beautiful backdrop for some of the film’s events while the sprawling and overcrowded metropolis of Bangkok makes for a very wild and raucous setting for the main events and the opening credits sequences showing scenes around Bangkok featuring some very good camerawork. So, despite some strong points, The Hangover Part II demonstrates that the formula employed in the first film just doesn’t work a second time around and a result is a film that is closer in quality to Due Date than The Hangover but even falling short of that one. I found the first film to be highly overrated but still have to admit that it was pretty funny but this, the same thing as the first film only without everything that made that film good, just isn’t worthy of being associate with it. If you want to be grossed out this film may satisfy you but if you want to laugh your ass off you might leave the cinema feeling as though this is one hangover that you really will want to forget.

———————————————————————————————————————————–
Review by Robert Mann BA (Hons)

————————————————————————————————————————————
NOTE: Film Review with Robert Mann will be on hiatus for a while now. I have personal issues that need to be attended to and don’t have the time right now to keep up with the reviews. I intend to return to writing the reviews at some point later this year.

Facebook

Google

Twitter

We hope you're enjoying BRWC. You should check us out on our social channels, subscribe to our newsletter, and tell your friends. BRWC is short for battleroyalewithcheese.