adonis98-743-186503 Two years after the bachelor party in Las Vegas, Phil, Stu, Alan, and Doug jet to Thailand for Stu's wedding. Stu's plan for a subdued pre-wedding brunch, however, goes seriously awry. The Hangover Part II recycles the exact same plot just like the original but it's a rare recycle of a comedy Franchise that actually works although not as much as the first time for sure. The perfomances once again were very good by the 3 main leads but also i enjoyed Paul Giamatti's role too. It's a film that has it's flaws but it's also a fun sequel as well. (7.5/10)

The Movie Diorama If there is one thing I never really understood, it's comedy sequels. Why? Because it's blatantly going to rehash its predecessor recalling the exact same jokes in a nearly identical formula. This sequel is no different, and its problem is the fact it's entirely noticeable. It's another bachelor party, this time for Stu's wedding, where they all drink again which results in a killer hangover consequently removing all memories from the previous night. Someone is missing, they must retrace their steps to find that person and blah blah blah just watch the first film. It is a symmetrical premise. The plot itself is identical right down to the narrowest of margins, making it pretty difficult to review. Everything I mentioned when reviewing the first film applies here also. Rapid pacing, inventive use of the flashback structure, memorable lines of dialogue, serviceable acting (except Helms...who I still dislike in this) and the inclusion of Mike Tyson...because why the heck not. This also includes the negatives that I highlighted including the lack of comedy, minimal character development and a narrative consisting of a random string of absurd events montaged together to create a motion picture. The only essence that has changed is the location, no longer are we in crazy Las Vegas, we have ventured across the globe to Bangkok. Honestly, it only serves as an environmental plot device to include the character Leslie Chow who seemed to be a fan favourite in the previous film. That's just lazy writing and comes across as mundane. What I will say, is that there is a scene involving kathoey strippers that cracked me up. I should've saw it coming, but I didn't so I'll give some credit. Aside from that, I didn't laugh once but this is to be expected. In the end, Part 2 is exactly the same as its predecessor. If you enjoyed that, you'll enjoy this more exotic hangover. If you didn't, don't continue with this franchise...and most importantly don't drink. Alcohol is bad, children (it really isn't, I crave it...).

areatw 'The Hangover Part II' is very much a cut and paste job of the original 'Hangover', but when you consider what a huge success the 2009 movie was, can you really blame them? I found both films hilarious and am pleased they decided to go with the same approach for the second film rather than rolling the dice and risk ruining something special.Cooper, Helms and Galifianakis are all excellent and provide plenty of laughs with such ridiculous material. Galifianakis has the ability to crack you up with his facial expressions alone - some of the scenes with Alan in this film are priceless. 'The Hangover Part II' is another great comedy film, almost identical to the first film and equally funny.

tomgillespie2002 Todd Phillips' approach to part two of his surprise comedy smash The Hangover (2009) is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The original made bona fide stars out of its lead trio and grossed half a billion dollars in the process, so a sequel was always going to be on the cards. The simple formula of the hapless heroes waking up from a stag night of drink, drugs and debauchery to find the groom missing and a variety of clues lying around to help them work out just what the hell happened felt fresh, and the natural charisma of its stars, particularly Zach Galifianakis, made for a hilarious experience.By sticking to the formula, Phillips has forced himself to a corner where the details have to bigger and more outlandish. Instead of Vegas, Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms) and Alan (Galifianakis) are in Thailand to celebrate Stu's upcoming wedding to Lauren (Jamie Chung). After a planned quiet night on the beach with a beer and marshmallows, they wake up in a grimy hotel room in Bangkok with no memory of the night before and inexplicably in the presence of gangster Mr. Chow (Ken Jeung) from the first film. When Chow seemingly overdoses on cocaine, they are left to piece things together themselves.If this was a stand-alone movie without the existence of its predecessor, then this probably would have been a winner. While its frequently goes overboard with the crass humour, its consistently amusing without succeeding in being quite so laugh-out-loud as the first movie, thanks mainly again to Galifianakis, whose man-child Alan is the funniest aspect of the film. Yet while his naivety and plain stupidity was so endearing in the original, the sequel also takes Alan to increasingly dark places. Here, he is not so much social inept but dangerously insane to the point that he becomes occasionally outright unlikeable.And this is the main issue - replacing charm and goofiness with extreme humour. Stu was missing a tooth in the first film, but this time he wakes up with a Mike Tyson tribal tattoo on his face. Rather than Tyson's tiger, we have a chain-smoking drug-mule monkey. Rather than finding Doug (Justin Bartha) vanished, they lose Lauren's prodigal younger brother Teddy (Mason Lee), to which the only clue to his participation is his severed finger. And having previously married a stripper, Stu discovers that - in the most uncomfortably unfunny scene - he has been sodomised by a ladyboy. Add to the mix a sub-plot involving gangster Kingsley (Paul Giamatti) and his search for Chow, the film spends too much time away from the hapless threesome's interplay in favour of watching their reactions to a variety of cruel situations.