May 26, 2011

Review - The Hangover: Part II

Director: Todd Phillips
Release Date: 26 May 2011
Runtime: 102 mins

Did y'all see The Hangover? Well, sure you did. It's mystifyingly difficult to find someone who didn't and won't, but very few people care to examine why they went in the first place. The actual funny part is, we all know what to expect. In terms of reviewing the film, you needn't worry about reporting on elements such as cinematography, story, or emotion. Scratch those and focus on the realities. How does one narrate a long sequence of—quite honestly—flat dick jokes and spin it into something called a feature film? Todd Phillips probably teaches a course in it at UCLA.

In The Hangover: Part II we join the 'Wolfpack' (yes, it deserves quotation marks - what a bunch of pussies) again, this time in Thailand for Stu's (Ed Helms) wedding to Lauren (Jamie Chung), who seems like a genuinely sweet girl in the five minutes of screentime afforded to her character. Or any of the women, for that matter. Feminist rant? Not really. We get that this is a movie about guys being guys. Frankly, if we knew a bunch of guys this stupid in real life, we think the odds of Darwinism triumphing over their pea-sized grey matter would be ten to one. Just sayin'.

Was this just Warner Bros. trying to cash in on a certifiable money spinner without a decent attempt to one-up the previous effort or imbue it with some modicum of originality? Will millions of people the world over still go to see it? As sure as we are that Tim Burton will work with Johnny Depp again, yes. Given this eventuality, we feel it only fair to say that there were moments—mere moments, when we laughed out loud. Phil (Bradley Cooper) dropping the C-bomb at Stu's bachelor brunch, Alan (Zach Galifianakis) accidentally shooting the roof of a Thai club to smithery smithereens, Stu sitting astride the stern of a Thai water taxi singing a sad, sad ditty about the groups travails thusfar: all very funny.

Really though, The Hangover: Part II can be likened to a drunken night out and the hangover that follows: very fuzzy around the edges during, allowing the participants of the previous night's festivities to recollect events in a way that inexplicably and against all will, purports to have been the best thing ever. This doesn't hark back to exploitation cinema. If it did, it would have some balls about it and showcase some of the funnier situations relegated to the film stills that roll with the closing credits. At the risk of impersonating a whiny three-year old, whhhhhhyyyyyy didn't you film that stuff?



Anonymous said...

I'm one of those difficult to find 'haven't seen it won't see it' persons. Clearly my view that I don't need to enter a the Hangover pig sty to know it going to stink is supported by you.
Thanks for taking one for the team, and confirming my belief that abstinence from Hangover films (collectively) is well founded. So many people saw Hangover, and many loved, nay raved, I was starting to wonder if I had miss judged. Thanks to your review, I'm at peace with myself again.
Thanks, Scott

Katia Nizic said...

Thanks for your comment Scott, much appreciated. We seem to share similar tastes, so glad to have been of some service (ie. you can go and explore more interesting films without having seen The Hangover et al).