If you are reading this review, you are likely already strongly considering going to see "The Hangover Part II." Being a fan of the "Hangover" series is much like being a fan of the "Jackass" series — you either are a fan or you are not, with very few people labeling themselves as being somewhere in-between. The biggest question you probably have is whether or not the second entry in the series compares favorably to the first. The answer is yes, but it's a yes with a very large asterisk.
To label the two as different films is being rather generous to "The Hangover Part II" because the plot of the film is essentially the same as the plot of the first movie. There are almost no notable differences in the plot, other than the action takes places in Bangkok instead of Las Vegas.
Justin Bartha, who reprises his role as Doug, is just as underused in this film as he was in the first "Hangover". It's a shame that the film's director, Todd Phillips, doesn't seem to feel any kind of need to use Bartha more, because he's a very talented comedic actor, as evidenced by the fact he essentially carries the "National Treasure" series by himself.
His character Doug, however, has not gone missing in this film and instead the missing member of the group is Teddy (Mason Lee, who is director Ang Lee's son) which is a problem since Stu (Ed Helms) is supposed to be getting married to Teddy's older sister, Lauren (Jamie Chung).
If you've seen the first "Hangover" film, then you know exactly what to expect. There are no real surprises and the structure of the film is almost the exact same as the structure of the first one — I won't spoil the specifics, but let's just say that I'm having a lot of trouble thinking up any events from "Part II" that don't have a clear parallel from the first film.
You might be asking yourself why you should go see this journey to Bangkok if you've already seen the first film and the answer is pretty simple: despite its similarities to the original "Hangover," "The Hangover Part II" is still really funny. I found myself laughing out loud during the film more than I do during most films because the jokes are surprisingly fresh for a plot that is surprisingly recycled.
Alan, for example, is masterfully reprised by Zack Galifianakis and he is hilarious to watch on screen. He's given most of the punch lines that the script has to offer, but he also really makes the most of them. It seems like Galifianakis was tailor-made for the "Hangover" series and he deserves credit for nailing pretty much every line he's given. Despite the fact that Helms' character is the only one that ever seems to show any kind of sanity, Galifiankis is undoubtedly the anchor that makes the series work. While that may be a carry-over from the first film, it still works here, so it's not a reason to fault the film.
Likewise, Ken Jeong shows up again and provides a lot of laughs during his second encounter with the "Wolf Pack." Director Todd Phillips wisely recognized the fact that Jeong was somewhat underused in the first film and really increased his presence in "Part II" and the film benefits from that.
The hilarious Rob Riggle, however, is sadly missing and hopefully that's because he's being saved for a larger role in the future of the series.
It is difficult to describe how funny this film is without giving away any of the jokes themselves, but "The Hangover Part II" is a worthy companion to the first film. It may quite possibly have found a place in cinematic history as one of the least original films of all time. Luckily, however, it's also one of the funniest films of the past decade or so, which is why I feel comfortable awarding the film four stars out of five.
I realize that four stars is the same amount that I gave Todd Phillips' previous directorial effort, "Due Date," but note the similarity in rankings is a compliment to both films — while "Due Date" was a nicely original, but occasionally unfunny journey away from "The Hangover" despite the similarities in the cast and crew, "The Hangover Part II" sacrificed originality to avoid any of the duller moments that held back "Due Date" from being a truly great comedy. Both films have strengths and weaknesses, the problem is that both go too far in one direction and are prevented from being truly great films.
If you go out and buy a ticket for "Part II", you may feel a little bit of deja vu when you're watching it, but I can't imagine that you'll feel disappointed after you've left the theater. You'll have laughed too hard to care about anything else.
No comments:
Post a Comment