Few people are going to argue Zach Galifianakis (Due Date) and Ed Helms (Cedar Rapids) are not a funny couple of guys, and Bradley Cooper (Limitless) is a solid straight man. Furthermore, few are going to argue that seeing these three completely befuddled by a wild night of alcohol and drug induced partying isn’t hilarious — hell, why else would 2009’s The Hangover have been such a huge comedy hit?
Then it should be no surprise that the sequel, aptly titled The Hangover Part II, has decided to retain the model; don’t fix what isn’t broken. But director Todd Phillips and his writing partners seem to have misjudged what exactly wasn’t broken about the first film. It wasn’t so much the plot that was engrossing, but the film’s originality.
The Hangover Part II, though rife with laughs that often pay off bigger than its predecessor, is essentially a carbon copy of the first film. Structurally, the sequel has all the same sorts of villains and pocket-searching party-scene investigation, with minor twists thrown in almost at random to make the plot seem just different enough from the original.
Perhaps even more annoying than the obvious plot regurgitation is the fact that the formula actually works. Many viewers will leave the theater just slightly put-off — it’s hard to hate a movie for not even trying to come up with a different take on the original when the sequel is just as funny on its own.
This time around, Stu (Helms) is readying himself for his wedding in Thailand, taking every precaution to avoid another near-disaster. Of course, nothing goes as planned and the wolf pack wakes up in a strange Bangkok hotel alongside Chinese gangster Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong, Big Mommas: Like Father Like Son) and a whole new set of problems; namely, Stu’s fiancé’s missing teenage brother Teddy (Mason Lee, The Wedding Banquet).
From here the movie rockets into high gear, as the wolf pack goes from place to place in search of clues as to their former whereabouts. The rest of the film is effectively The Hangover, but considerably darker and more brazen. Most of the things the boys do in Bangkok are beyond deplorable, but for a series that already has a sort of “bad-boy” reputation, it all works in the film’s favor.
From full-frontal male, female and transsexual nudity to smoking monkeys and intense drug use, The Hangover Part II is lovely mess from beginning to end.
Certain parts of the movie do fall flat though, especially when the narrative seams of the first film become far too obvious. Somewhere late in the movie, Stu picks up a guitar in an attempt to recreate his piano-based tiger-ballad from the group’s last adventure. With this, Phillips and company have gone too far and really uncover one of the film’s major problems.
The Hangover was an extremely quotable film, with instances such as Galifianakis’ mispronunciation of “retard.” But The Hangover Part II spends an incredible amount of time copying the first film and misses far too many chances to come up with its own memorable quotes or scenes. Everything is the same — a missing friend, a last second twist in the story when all hope seems lost and Stu learning to stand up for himself when they finally arrive at the reception.
Still, the characters are just as likable and relatable as before and the individual jokes within the larger framework are arguably funnier than the last film.
Due to all this, the best reaction coming out of The Hangover Part II is to hope for a third installment, if only to see the characters forced to deal with a somewhat different situation. There is something about the world of The Hangover that can’t be crushed by lazy plot-design.
The Hangover Part II isn’t less of a movie than The Hangover; it’s just too much of the same.
RATING: 3.5 stars out of 5
berman@umdbk.com
