Reviewed by

Christopher Armstead

It’s not as good as the first one. Not even close. Wish we could let it go at that and move on to something else but alas I’m not allowed to do this so we will prattle on. I guess the question would be: How many times can three guys take a drug the night before a wedding and forget everything that happened that night? Seriously? I guess we’ll find how this can happen a third time, probably around this time next year, since WB is loading the chamber with a third ‘Hangover’ movie. The only single guy left is Zach Galafianakis character of Alan so get ready to see more of Bradley Cooper cursing, Ed Helms and his various fun times with prostitutes, a missing whoever that needs to be found… probably Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong)… and don’t forget to suppress your strong urge to reach through the movie screen and choke Alan to death. It’s not possible to do that because he’s not real. The ‘Hangover Part III’ will be upon us before you know it.

I’m going to go ahead and with the description of this film even though you’ve seen it, even if you think you haven’t. Right. So Stu (Helms) is getting married to Lauren (Jamie Chung). Lauren has a pretty nice rack for an Asian. That’s Phil (Cooper) talking inappropriately, not me. Stu is no fool, considering what happened last time, so he informs his good friends Phil and Doug (Justin Bartha) that this breakfast they’re having at the local IHOP is his bachelor party. That’s it. And Alan isn’t invited to the wedding which will be taking place in Thailand. No way. Doug convinces Stu to reconsider this, considering Alan is his brother in law and all. I’m thinking that’s a bad move.

Outstanding. So it’s off to Thailand for the glorious nuptials where we meet Lauren’s asshole father who absolutely despises Stu, and we also get to hang out with Lauren’s gifted baby brother Teddy (Mason Lee). So the night ends, the friends and young sixteen year old Teddy enjoy a beer by a bonfire on the beach, and the scene fades to black.

The next day they wake up in a seedy hotel in Bangkok, miles upon miles away from where they need to be. Phil casually informs Doug’s wife Tracy (Sasha Barrese), via

cell phone, that they’ve screwed up again, Stu is sporting a Mike Tyson styled face tattoo, Alan has a bald head and a monkey, for some reason Mr. Chow is sleeping on the couch and Teddy is missing. Well, most of Teddy is missing.

So… you know the routine. The wedding will be taking place in less than a day. The first order of business, before they can get back to the wedding, is to find the rest of Teddy. They have no idea what happened after the bonfire and thus our heroes must backtrack through the rough streets of Bangkok and piece together the clues of the night before to find out what they did, hope like hell Teddy is still alive, wherever he may be, and of course make it to the wedding on time. Why does this sound so damn familiar to me?

The truth of the matter is that ‘The Hangover Part II’ is more of a remake than a sequel, but we’re not complaining. It’s still funny, somewhat, and it is still amusing, if only marginally so in comparison… but the thing is this still puts it ahead of the game on most movies, but still… Oh hell, I guess we are complaining.

It’s almost as if director Todd Phillips, realizing that surpassing the shocking success of the first film would be damn near impossible, so why even try. Let’s just do the same, exact thing again, only this time around make it raunchier, with the theory being that massive amounts of comedic gold will sprout organically from these raunchy roots. That really didn’t happen. This movie was raunchier, no doubt about that, it was more violent, it was certainly darker but it wasn’t funnier or even as funny as ‘The Hangover’.

I hate to keep comparing this to ‘The Hangover’ but it is called ‘The Hangover Part II’ and it is a virtual remake of the first movie with the same cast in a different location with a new wild animal, so what can you do but compare? Here’s the main difference I think. While watching ‘The Hangover’, which was clever and delightfully subversive, I’d often put my head in my hands and mutter to myself, ‘I can’t believe they just did that’. This time around it felt as if the filmmakers looked out into the audience and said, ‘Guess what, you’re gonna put your head in hands because you won’t believe what we just did! Huh? Huh? How’d you like that! We just sodomized a guy! That was funny, right?’ Well…

Not to be too hard on this movie because it did have its moments and I did laugh out loud on more than one occasion. More importantly, I do believe it will serve its main purpose, that being filling the Warner Brother coffers with a bunch of loot. But how often can a group of guys blackout the night before wedding and awaken in parts unknown in possession of a wild animal? More times than we all realize, I imagine.