They had to do it! Warner Brothers couldn't help themselves. Let's face it, between the Harry Potter and Batman franchises. They don't have many big box office powerhouses. So when a comedy, costing around thirty million, that was not on many peoples radars grosses just over four hundred and fifty million dollars at the box office. You know there gonna make another. So yeah, The Hangover 2 anyone?
See, I saw the first Hangover. It was a good film, a fun comedy. I laughed many times whilst in the theatre. But then as I was walking out of my cinema, I heard things that sent shivers down my spine. Two men around my age were talking about how amazing the film was. Then one said to the other in reply, "Best Comedy Ever!". I laughed to myself and thought there is no way that a sane man could think that. I thought to myself that the men mustn't of seen Airplane, but then over the months that followed and numerous Facebook pages, groups and statuses dedicated to how seminal this film apparently was. I began to grow sick of the film and the idiots who lauded it with too much praise. It was a good film, but it wasn't even the best comedy of 2009. In my opinion In The Loop was a far superior comedy and narrative. But hey everybody loves Alan! You remember him, the one with the beard!
With the second Hangover we see "The Wolf Pack" head to Thailand for Stu's (Ed Helms) . All the gang are there, Phil (Bradley Cooper), Alan (Zach Galifianakis) and even Doug (Justin Bartha). They have a fireside drink and then yes, it happens again. They wake up in disgusting hotel room. They can't remember what happened the night before. An instead of loosing Doug, they loose Teddy (Mason Lee) the younger brother of Stu's fiancee Lauren (Jamie Chung). Then like the first film. The guys must try and remember the night before.
The big question on every ones mind is. Is it better than the first one? The answer is not really. But is it a bad film. No. It's exactly the same as the first one. It's just a fun film that follows the exact same pattern as the first. But I thought it was kind of funnier, I think it may be because between the first film and the second, I have become an avid fan of the NBC show Community. Ken Jeong plays Senor Chang on the show and I love the character, so I instantly liked Chow more than I did in the first film. I also have a funny bone for Monkeys. Monkeys dressed up, Monkeys doing human things. Monkeys doing anything usually makes me chuckle. So the addition of a monkey to the film played to my childish comedy tastes.
The problem with the movie is that I feel exactly the same as I did with the first one. When it comes to the characters I still find Phil and Stu sort of bland and boring. Alan is the same as the first film and that's fine. He was funny and still is funny. But he's not the legendary character that the general idiot suggests. I prefer Frank Drebin any day. One of the things I didn't like about the film was that it didn't try to do anything different. There were a lot of things that were cloned from the first film. In the first, Stu lost his tooth. In this film, a character loses something else from there body. Original huh? Not really. With the lack of interesting and diverse plot, director Todd Phillips tries to cover the holes with flashy substitutions like car chases, police helicopters and speedboats.
The Hangover: Part II is basically the same as The Hangover. Both are fun, and a solid comedy. But throughout the whole film, I couldn't help but think that it's a huge cash grab from a studio that I like alot. It's fun but forgettable. I watched the first one once and the second will be the same. I won't be suprised if in two years time, we see The Hangover: Part III in either Rio or London for Alan's birthday or wedding. By then they should of run out of things to shove into these films. Hopefully!
6/10
Thanks.
Chris.
completely agree !
ReplyDelete