The Hangover: Part II

My Grade:  C

Have you seen Part One?  Then you’ve seen the second one.  It plays out more like a remake than a sequel.  But I’m not going to follow the herd and say this is a bad thing.  The Wolfpack’s night in Vegas was… well we didn’t really see it which is genius.  And there’s something so delicious in the simplicity of losing the groom at a wild bachelor party.  It would be tough to out-do or even live up to the originality of the first, so why not just copy it?  Warner and Legendary Pictures did and they got over 200 million dollars for it in 5 days.  That’s because they stuck with the recipe that worked:  let the ensemble cast have fun.

            

With a different set of actors, this (and the first installment) would have been more miserable than what happened to Stu with the hooker in Bangkok (no spoilers… yet).  No matter how appalling, disturbing, or vulgar you think the movie is, you cannot deny that Ed Helms, Bradley Cooper, and Zack Galifianakis are a threesome made in raunchy-comedy heaven.  Their timing is impeccable; no one hogs the spotlight; and, most of all, they are clearly enjoying themselves.

            

Phil (Bradley Cooper), the quasi-leader of The Wolfpack, is a jerk.  He was a jerk in the first and he is a jerk in the second.  The problem is that he’s more of a jerk this time around.  How he is still married is as much of a mystery as how they lose Stu’s future brother-in-law, Teddy, in Bangkok.  Zack Galifianakis is always funny, but I liked him much better in the first.  His portrayal of Alan seemed so much more naturally child-like and innocent (which played against the bawdy Cooper and Helms nicely) where in Bangkok he seems child-ish (immature and unstable).  Child-like is much more endearing than child-ish.  Stu (Ed Helms), however, made a change for the better from part one to part two.  It seems that having a sane woman in his life (even if she has a mean-spirited father) has done him some good.  He is (slightly) more stable; he is certainly more confident; and, best of all, he writes funnier songs (guitar vs piano… watch it and you’ll agree).  The new Dr. Stuart Price is refreshing enough to make up for the negative changes in Phil and Alan.

WARNING:  SPOILER ALERT

The worst thing about this film (other than Hollywood’s never ending willingness to forgo creativity for a quick payday) is that it trades the genuinely funny for shock humor.  Possibly the funniest scene in the first film is the taser scene in which there is little or no profanity, no nudity, only minor violence, and no transvestite hookers.  That is what we call a “showpiece scene” or a scene people talk about as they throw away their half-eaten tubs of overpriced popcorn on the way to their cars.  The scene I have heard talked most about from the second installment is the disturbing transvestite scene that will haunt me for years to come (especially the two pictures of the act during the credits).  All the audience can do is laugh at this scene to keep themselves from crying, clawing their eyes out, or regurgitating the Reece’s Pieces they paid 6 dollars for.  I will say this for the scene, though:  it is well-written.  The reveal of her/his genitalia… status, was at the exact right time and the characters reactions were perfect (well, what I could hear of them over the shrieks and groans from the audience).  To those that find this film dark, disturbing, disgusting, etc:  I agree; but what did you expect?  The first film pushed the limits of raunchy (namely with the photos at the end) so it’s easy to assume that the second would go even further.