‘The Hangover Part II’ Review

Published 4 years ago by , Updated May 22nd, 2013 at 8:06 am,

hangover 2 review The Hangover Part II Review
Screen Rant’s Vic Holtreman reviews Hangover II

Ah, comedy sequels… after a very successful and funny first film, the question is whether The Hangover Part II is as funny as the original (to which we gave 4 out 5 stars). I’ll just cut to the chase and answer that: No, it’s not, and that’s too bad because I was looking forward to this one.

The original film had an interesting premise and a cast that made up for a funny combination of personalities. We had Bradley Cooper as Phil - roguishly handsome but foul mouthed, self-involved and pretty much a jerk of a fellow; Ed Helms as Stu – not so handsome and more of a “regular guy” who probably hung out with Phil because he’s a “fun guy”; and Alan, played by Zack Galifianakis – the severely socially handicapped, and apparently more than slightly mentally handicapped member of the group.

The plot here is pretty much identical to that of the first film: A bachelor party ends up going terribly awry when our band of buddies is drugged by one of their own. I actually gave credit to the film when right from the start it delivers a shot of Phil on the phone with his wife saying “it happened again.” Great, let’s not dance around the issue – just call it what it is: a duplicate of the first film just set in a different location.

This time instead of Las Vegas, they’re in Thailand – Stu is getting married to a young Thai woman who is ridiculously too gorgeous for him. Her father is not shy about showing his disdain and dislike for Stu, a situation which is resolved in a very poor way at the end of the film. The fiancee (Jamie Chung) has a younger brother named Teddy (Mason Lee) who is a stereotypical Asian prodigy: He’s headed for Stanford at age 16 for a medical degree, and is a virtuoso cello player. Alan takes a dislike to Teddy, since Stu wants him to be a part of their group since he’s, you know, his fiancee’s brother and all.

This dislike is the catalyst for what was supposed to be one beer a couple of nights before the wedding turning into 24 hours of memory loss and mayhem. In the first film it was Alan’s brother who was missing and the source of their frantic quest – this time it’s Teddy. Along the way they run into Russian gangsters, Paul Giamatti (always a pleasure to watch on screen) as another bad guy, transsexual go-go dancers, and Ken Jeong as Mr. Chow, the helium-voiced gangster from the first film.

While in the first film I thought Galifianakis stole the movie, here his character was mostly irritating – while he was clueless and dim-witted in the first film, he had an endearing quality about him. Here, for  some reason, they wrote him as a completely obnoxious jerk, and it detracted from the character quite a bit. Ed Helms’ theatrics seemed like they were meant to make Stu the “steal the movie” character, but it was so over the top it actually felt kind of “self-aware”  - as if he was screaming “look at me, isn’t this EXTREME!?”

While Todd Phillips directed both films, the sequel was not written by the same folks who wrote the first one. The original film was pretty crude in its humor, with some unexpected and extreme bits, and it seems like in this film they felt like they needed to push the boundaries even further. Only it didn’t make the movie any funnier, it just made it more crass. And while in concept, the ending where Stu finally stands up to his fiancee’s father is logical and makes sense, the particulars of how they went about doing this and what Stu’s speech entailed was ridiculous.

Were there some laughs? Sure, but unless you think that penises are really LOL funny you might not laugh very much. Then again, a couple of beers prior to seeing this might make it funnier.

Here’s a trailer for The Hangover Part II:


[poll id="159"]

Our Rating:

2 out of 5

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. I enjoyed it, but it certainly wasn’t as good as the first or even good in general. I laughed a lot, but far less than the first time and I disliked the characters more. I actually enjoyed Stu in this and thought he stole the show, but agree with most of what you are saying. The tranny thing was a bit to much for me. Not all of the tranny stuff just what he actually did it was a very roll my eyes moment. Was suppose to be a laugh moment but didn’t even make a smirk. It’s not bad for one viewing, but not like the first which I can still put in and laugh at.

  2. I loved the first film, but was put off at the prospect of a sequel. It didn’t make sense to have one. You can’t just lather rinse repeat and expect the same results there will of course be backlash.

    Like him or not this is what I respect about Kevin Smith. He makes a film people love the cast and the film it’s self. Rather than repeat it he makes a new film with the same actors and a few of the same characters, but a very vastly different story and title rather than cash in on an established property. Or at least that is what he used to do. Then Clerks 2 showed up lol. Still though it happened once I can respect that. sadly he has gone a little crazy.

  3. Aww come on Daniel, you know and I both know that no one can get enough of Randall Graves LOL.

  4. Let me take an example of the The Mummy. Roger Ebert quoted on it: “There is hardly a thing I can say in its favor, except that I was cheered by nearly every minute of it. I cannot argue for the script, the direction, the acting or even the mummy, but I can say that I was not bored and sometimes I was unreasonably pleased.”
    The Mummy is one of my favourite movies of all time. Why? Cos I had fun watching it. There was nothing cheap in it, nothing crass, it was just plain fun. Again, that is just my opinion.
    But if a film is not entertaining, I criticize it. That is what my friends don’t seem to understand, calling me a critic all the time.
    Hangover 1 didn’t really wow me, so I had no expectations from its sequel. And won’t be watching it for the very reason.
    Okay, enough ranting :P

  5. always appreciate your opinion, i figured a lot of people had high expectations going in, and i knew they would try to push the envelope – but i’m sure it will still get a few laughs out of me.

    though, i hated due date.

  6. it was fricking terrible!!! total waste of money!! everything was the exact same!!! that movie just made me really angry

    • There wasn’t a monkey in the first one.

      • They were in Las Vegas in the last one so it can’t be the same

        • SAME premise, DIFFERENT location

  7. a little “safe” — true to the original movie, yet very entertaining. A nice escape from the ‘real world’, with some good old fashion Hollywood fun and action.

    (your Key) लेखक डैन ब्राउन स्टीव meyer संत anthonys चर्च पिता mollinger

    Coming off the heels of his very suuccessful Limitless Motion Picture, coming out soon on DVD and Blu-ray, Bradley Cooper has cemented his place presently as one of the hottest (I don’t mean looks wise) Actors on the planet right now. Steve Meyer

  8. It was less genuine funny and more shocking funny. Still, I liked it. Maybe I just have lower standards.

  9. Thats why the movie felt different because of different writers. Still funny but the review is spot on right.

  10. This movie is like going to McDonald’s for a meal. You don’t go in looking for a gourmet or even nutritious meal, it’s junk food that you have a taste for. If you want a five-star meal that is balanced and high quality you don’t go to the clown at the drive-through and then feel cheated and probably a little sick and act shocked. Don’t go watch this movie and expect anything but a quick, greasy guilty vice trip and it goes down better. Or if you know it makes you puke five minutes later, stay away.

  11. Just came from the theater, saw this movie with my girlfriend. Neither one of us thought it was funny. Oh well…

  12. On another note, I would have to agree with someone’s sentiment here that the character Alan was much worse in this movie. I also agree that they simply made him a complete douche bag in this movie and there was nothing entertaining about it. In the first, he was stupid but he was lovable. In this one, I would have just punched him in the face if I was one of the characters…

    • I felt that way too, Ken, from this film, and the first one :)

  13. What they did to Phil’s character was the biggest let down for me.

    He really tempered the 1st movie with his humor and easy-going run-with-the-punches approach. Despite all the madness that was flailing out of control around them, Phil was having the time of his life, and in turn so were we.

    That was missing completely, and the whole film lacked that fun element because of it.

    And as for Alan’s Dad??? Man, cut out those moronic song performance things and add a longer cameo for the guy. Seriously.

  14. “a shot of Phil on the phone with his wife saying “it happened again.”” <– WRONG!! It was Doug's wife.

    "In the first film it was Alan’s brother who was missing" <— WRONG AGAIN!!! It was Tracy's Brother.

    Did anybody read this??

    Btw i agree, the movie sucked.

  15. Excuse me i am wrong in this… LOL!!

    “In the first film it was Alan’s brother who was missing” <— WRONG AGAIN!!

    It was Doug!! the groom. Alan is Tracy's brother.

  16. wasnt there supposed to be a bill clinton cameo in this?? was looking forward to that the entire film and it never happened!

    • Hillary probably told him that he cannot do it. And you know who wears the pants in that house… :-D

      • Clinton was in Asia for a conference when they were filming there, and he ended up having lunch or dinner (not sure which) together. And the media being what it is, immediately reported he had a cameo in the movie, which for publicity sake (I assume) no one ever outright denied it.
        My problem with people giving this movie a poor review, is that at no point watching the trailers, or reading interviews did they even pretend that this film was going to be anything but a rehash of the first one, I enjoyed it for what it was, 90 minutes of filthy comedy, if you were looking for more then you were expecting too much.

  17. I gave this 3 stars, would give the first one 2. I just found this one much funnier.

  18. I really dont care what anybody says that movie was funny to me really messed up do it was awesome

  19. I thought this movie was funny but i do not think it was as funny as the first one. but i bet if no one ever heard about the first hangover and had never seen it but than seen this one they would think it’s hilarious. everyone is holding it up to these crazy standards compared to the first one.

  20. I dont care if it was the same theme as the first one. As long as it has funny jokes its good. And it did have funny jokes.

  21. So much better than the first one. Not that the first film was bad, but I barely laughed at it. I have been to Vegas a few times, but couldn’t buy the concept. However, I have also been to Bangkok and I can actually believe that the stuff that occurred would have occurred. From getting roofied to katois and the likes. Overall, I laughed a lot and it hurt my stomach afterward. This time I didn’t hate Alan, Phil carried the movie, and it showed you can redo a flick with the same premise, but with a different location.

  22. I thought the first one sucked so I was not going to waste money on the second…I have a great sense of humour but it just was not funny!

  23. I like the movie hangover1 and 2