If you haven't heard or watched "The Hangover" then you are missing half of your life literally. "The Hangover" is still one of the best comedies we have seen in recent times and it is then an understatement if we say that "The Hangover: Part II" has a lot to prove and (just stating the obvious here). Can it outwit and outmatch its legendary predecessor or will it go down as another sequel side note? Will it be able to capture the same formula and magic the first film showcased? You can catch our full analysis and review of "The Hangover: Part II" after the break.
Two years after the Las Vegas trip, Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), Alan (Zach Galifianakis) and Doug (Justin Bartha) travel to exotic Thailand for Stu’s wedding with his fiance` Lauren (Jamie Chung). After the unforgettable bachelor party in Las Vegas, Stu is taking no chances and has opted for a safe pre-wedding brunch. However, things do not always go as planned. Stu, Alan and Phil wakes up in Bangkok with another bout of amnesia. It was supposed to be a short bonfire toast but now, the Wolfpack finds themselves back in the same situation they were in Vegas. Worse, they lost Stu's soon to be brother-in-law Teddy (Mason Lee) and there only clue is his chopped of finger. What happens in Vegas may stay in Vegas, but what happens in Bangkok can’t even be imagined.
What makes or break "The Hangover: Part II" is the road it decides to take. In essence, the sequel has the same key scenes as the first film (and it is quite obvious it was designed this way) - the Wolfpack gets heavily drugged, someone gets lost, they need to find the missing person or else the wedding won't push through (and it even goes beyond these examples). Was this laziness or actually out of necessity? We honestly think it was more of the latter. Here's the deal, even with all the familiar elements and a predictable storyline, we still found ourselves laughing non-stop from start to finish. What made "The Hangover" so successful are the outlandish antics the group goes through and this time around, it's definitely crazier and zanier and funnier. In fact, after watching this, we even wonder how it's predecessor was tagged as an R-rated movie. You will see gore, nudity and more nudity (the kind that you don't want to see). Most importantly though, "The Hangover: Part II" is able to capture what people found so great about the first film and tries to improve on it. In our opinion, there was not a single hint of laziness or mediocrity people and this is a deserving sequel to an awesome first.
Rating: 4 and a half reels
Why you should watch it:
- same old Wolfpack, same old thrills but way more crazy
- this truly deserves its R-rating and we are definitely not complaining
Why you shouldn't watch it:
- the plotline was heavily borrowed from the first and some people may just see this as a deal breaker
- watching "The Hangover" is a must to get the gist of the movie
Two years after the Las Vegas trip, Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), Alan (Zach Galifianakis) and Doug (Justin Bartha) travel to exotic Thailand for Stu’s wedding with his fiance` Lauren (Jamie Chung). After the unforgettable bachelor party in Las Vegas, Stu is taking no chances and has opted for a safe pre-wedding brunch. However, things do not always go as planned. Stu, Alan and Phil wakes up in Bangkok with another bout of amnesia. It was supposed to be a short bonfire toast but now, the Wolfpack finds themselves back in the same situation they were in Vegas. Worse, they lost Stu's soon to be brother-in-law Teddy (Mason Lee) and there only clue is his chopped of finger. What happens in Vegas may stay in Vegas, but what happens in Bangkok can’t even be imagined.
What makes or break "The Hangover: Part II" is the road it decides to take. In essence, the sequel has the same key scenes as the first film (and it is quite obvious it was designed this way) - the Wolfpack gets heavily drugged, someone gets lost, they need to find the missing person or else the wedding won't push through (and it even goes beyond these examples). Was this laziness or actually out of necessity? We honestly think it was more of the latter. Here's the deal, even with all the familiar elements and a predictable storyline, we still found ourselves laughing non-stop from start to finish. What made "The Hangover" so successful are the outlandish antics the group goes through and this time around, it's definitely crazier and zanier and funnier. In fact, after watching this, we even wonder how it's predecessor was tagged as an R-rated movie. You will see gore, nudity and more nudity (the kind that you don't want to see). Most importantly though, "The Hangover: Part II" is able to capture what people found so great about the first film and tries to improve on it. In our opinion, there was not a single hint of laziness or mediocrity people and this is a deserving sequel to an awesome first.
Rating: 4 and a half reels
Why you should watch it:
- same old Wolfpack, same old thrills but way more crazy
- this truly deserves its R-rating and we are definitely not complaining
Why you shouldn't watch it:
- the plotline was heavily borrowed from the first and some people may just see this as a deal breaker
- watching "The Hangover" is a must to get the gist of the movie
Comments
Post a Comment