movie review: The Hangover: Part II
Forgive me for splitting hairs, but if I can begin this review with setting one distinction straight: Those who complain that The Hangover Part II is "more of the same" are simply foolish; of course it's more of the same, it's what we bargain for when we decide to watch a sequel. Those who complain that The Hangover Part II is too similar to its predecessor have a legitimate complaint.
Interestingly, the common, and perfectly reasonable, assumption that Part II was rushed into production because of the runaway success of The Hangover is incorrect; development of the sequel started months before The Hangover was even released. But regardless of whether or not Part II was as rushed as people are assuming, it does lack something that the first film had, and I'll get to what that "something" is in a minute. First, let's do a brief recap of the storyline:
The first film introduced us to our main characters -- hapless whiner Stu (Ed Helms), level-headed everyman Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Alan, played by Zach Galifinakis with a mixture of naivete, stupidity, sympathetic vulnerability, and enough "wackiness" to border on outright insanity. The three of them went off to Las Vegas, and had such a crazy bachelor party that they woke up with no memory of the night before -- and missing Doug (Justin Bartha), the bachelor. The rest of the movie details their attempts to figure out what had happened the night before, so that they could find out what happened to Doug and get him to the wedding in time.
Part II takes a longer time to get there, but ends up being an identical storyline: Alan, Doug, Phil, and Stu reunite for a bachelor party in an exciting location, and the same three again wake up with no memory of the wild night before, and again have to search an exciting, infamously sinful, city for the missing fourth person. The extremely minor variation: This time, Doug is almost immediately established as safe and sound at the hotel, and the missing reveler who Alan, Phil, and Stu have to find is Teddy, Stu's soon-to-be brother-in-law.
The first Hangover is, in my opinion -- and in the opinion of many others -- one of the funniest movies ever made. If I had to use only one word to describe the first movie's brilliant screenplay, it would be "inspiration." The set-up has been done before. (Subtract the missing bachelor, and you have the exact same story idea as the under-rated Dude, Where's my Car?) But by plugging three normal guys (if you can call Alan "normal") into what is basically a "private eye" adventure, writers Jon Lucas and Scott Moore found a way to peel the plot twists and surprises away like the layers of an onion. Simply put, an often overlooked fact is that The Hangover succeeds as a mystery story, but we are constantly distracted from that fact because the dialogue is so damn funny.
And it's that inspired dialogue that's missing from The Hangover Part II. Whereas nearly every line of The Hangover packed a comical punch, you'd be hard challenged to find a quotable line in Part II. It's not bad writing, not by any means; the dialogue still sounds natural, and goes a long way of establishing new characters' personality, while maintaining consistency of characters we met in the last film. But it's just too functional to be funny. The writers try so hard to duplicate the comic success of the first film that even the characters are sometimes aware they have to go through the paces; they remember, of course, the events from the first film, and so they go through the same routine: blame Alan, check the roof, check their pockets for clues, etc. At one point, Phil even says, "you know the drill." I guess it's a nice touch that the writers are at least acknowledging the repetition, rather than insulting the audience by hoping we won't notice. But still, the inspiration is gone.
That's not to say that this is a bad film. There are still plenty of laughs, both in the surprises the heroes encounter, and also in Alan's pure bizarreness. And the "missing person" mystery concocted by writers Scot Armstrong, Craig Mazin, and Todd Phillips (who also directed both films) is just as well written as the mystery in the previous movie. Bradley Cooper is once again excellent as everyman Phil, who, in both movies, just wants to chill out, but is constantly forced into a leadership role because somebody has to keep a check on Alan's randomness and Stu's growing panic.
I hear another sequel is in the writing stage. This may cause some people, even fans of the first two films, to groan, but I'm looking forward to revisiting these characters. But I'm also glad to hear that the writer wants to stray from the formula of the first two films. I'd be interested to see how Alan, Phil, and Stu deal with a new set of circumstances. Bottom line: I liked The Hangover Part II. The first movie was great, the second one, pretty good. No more, no less.
Interestingly, the common, and perfectly reasonable, assumption that Part II was rushed into production because of the runaway success of The Hangover is incorrect; development of the sequel started months before The Hangover was even released. But regardless of whether or not Part II was as rushed as people are assuming, it does lack something that the first film had, and I'll get to what that "something" is in a minute. First, let's do a brief recap of the storyline:
The first film introduced us to our main characters -- hapless whiner Stu (Ed Helms), level-headed everyman Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Alan, played by Zach Galifinakis with a mixture of naivete, stupidity, sympathetic vulnerability, and enough "wackiness" to border on outright insanity. The three of them went off to Las Vegas, and had such a crazy bachelor party that they woke up with no memory of the night before -- and missing Doug (Justin Bartha), the bachelor. The rest of the movie details their attempts to figure out what had happened the night before, so that they could find out what happened to Doug and get him to the wedding in time.
Part II takes a longer time to get there, but ends up being an identical storyline: Alan, Doug, Phil, and Stu reunite for a bachelor party in an exciting location, and the same three again wake up with no memory of the wild night before, and again have to search an exciting, infamously sinful, city for the missing fourth person. The extremely minor variation: This time, Doug is almost immediately established as safe and sound at the hotel, and the missing reveler who Alan, Phil, and Stu have to find is Teddy, Stu's soon-to-be brother-in-law.
The first Hangover is, in my opinion -- and in the opinion of many others -- one of the funniest movies ever made. If I had to use only one word to describe the first movie's brilliant screenplay, it would be "inspiration." The set-up has been done before. (Subtract the missing bachelor, and you have the exact same story idea as the under-rated Dude, Where's my Car?) But by plugging three normal guys (if you can call Alan "normal") into what is basically a "private eye" adventure, writers Jon Lucas and Scott Moore found a way to peel the plot twists and surprises away like the layers of an onion. Simply put, an often overlooked fact is that The Hangover succeeds as a mystery story, but we are constantly distracted from that fact because the dialogue is so damn funny.
And it's that inspired dialogue that's missing from The Hangover Part II. Whereas nearly every line of The Hangover packed a comical punch, you'd be hard challenged to find a quotable line in Part II. It's not bad writing, not by any means; the dialogue still sounds natural, and goes a long way of establishing new characters' personality, while maintaining consistency of characters we met in the last film. But it's just too functional to be funny. The writers try so hard to duplicate the comic success of the first film that even the characters are sometimes aware they have to go through the paces; they remember, of course, the events from the first film, and so they go through the same routine: blame Alan, check the roof, check their pockets for clues, etc. At one point, Phil even says, "you know the drill." I guess it's a nice touch that the writers are at least acknowledging the repetition, rather than insulting the audience by hoping we won't notice. But still, the inspiration is gone.
That's not to say that this is a bad film. There are still plenty of laughs, both in the surprises the heroes encounter, and also in Alan's pure bizarreness. And the "missing person" mystery concocted by writers Scot Armstrong, Craig Mazin, and Todd Phillips (who also directed both films) is just as well written as the mystery in the previous movie. Bradley Cooper is once again excellent as everyman Phil, who, in both movies, just wants to chill out, but is constantly forced into a leadership role because somebody has to keep a check on Alan's randomness and Stu's growing panic.
I hear another sequel is in the writing stage. This may cause some people, even fans of the first two films, to groan, but I'm looking forward to revisiting these characters. But I'm also glad to hear that the writer wants to stray from the formula of the first two films. I'd be interested to see how Alan, Phil, and Stu deal with a new set of circumstances. Bottom line: I liked The Hangover Part II. The first movie was great, the second one, pretty good. No more, no less.
posted by Movie Man at
3:36 PM
0 Comments
