The Hangover Part II Review

When a movie no one thought much of suddenly becomes a black horse and skyrockets to a total domestic gross of $275 million and becomes the third highest grossing R-rated movie of all time, the natural Hollywood reaction is to make a sequel. There’s nothing wrong with this notion. It actually happens all the time. We as paying consumers love to see characters we know and love on the big screen a second time. But when this movie is Todd Phillips’ oddball hit The Hangover, it presents the studio with a bit of a dilemma. How many comedy sequels of even moderate success have released over the last century? The answer is very few. A Hangover sequel was going to be no easy task if any sort of quality was to be maintained. Luckily, The Hangover Part II, though honestly (and shamelessly) derivative of its predecessor, is the rare exception to this rule. It’s crude, it’s dark, and it really doesn’t care what anyone thinks of it. It’s just about giving us, the audience, a good time, though it doesn’t do much beyond just that.

Picking up a few years after the original, Part II finds innocent dentist Stu betrothed, to be wed in Thailand at a peaceful beach resort. He totes along best friends Phil and Doug and, most reluctantly, Doug’s accident-prone, always lovable brother-in-law Alan. Soon Stu, Phil and Alan wake up in Bangkok, amnesic and totally clueless as to how they’ve wound up in such a situation once again. And to top it off, Stu’s soon-to-be brother-in-law Teddy has gone missing. Faced with the prospect of losing the respect of his fiance’, Stu sets out, aided by Phil and Alan to find Teddy and uncover what ridiculous shenanigans resulted in their current state. Sound familiar? That’s because it is. Part II makes no attempt to cover up its blatantly obvious similarities to its predecessor. The strange thing is that I was never seriously bothered by this. Though it erases some of the entertaining shock value that resulted in huge outbursts of laughter in the original, Part II throws enough clever twists into the mix to keep things interesting.

Unsurprisingly, Part II nails it in the casting department. All of the original characters are back for this sequel, and they feel very familiar, almost like old friends who are back to visit. Not only does Zach Galifanakis once again deliver an outrageous, hilarious performance as he did in his breakout role in The Hangover, but Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms also give outstanding comic performances. The trio’s chemistry is remarkable, as is their very apparent experience working together. Helping these main characters along is a very solid supporting cast that includes Ken Jeong as international super-criminal Leslie Chow, Paul Giamatti playing shadowy businessman Kingsley and always-responsible Doug, played by Justin Bartha the one Wolfpack member who misses out on the amusing caper that covers most of the film’s runtime.

In The Hangover, the iconic city of Las Vegas played a huge part in the film’s overarching plot. It’s a bit disappointing then that the Bangkok setting in Part II is really never stretched to its full potential. There are a few scenes of foreign confusion, mostly involving the differentiating languages, the backdrop is a nice touch, and a certain phrase regarding the city makes multiple appearances, but outside of these details the film doesn’t exploit many of the possibilities presented by a setting outside of the USA. This misstep is disappointing at best, and a waste of creative energy at worst.

Although the narrative is inarguably cruder than that of its predecessor, a problem that Part II comes across more than once is in something rather surprising. It’s less tangibly outrageous than the original Hangover. This time around, there’s no tiger in the bathroom. There’s no equivalent of a baby in a closet. We’re definitely given a far more subdued shock value this time around, and the overall quality of the film suffers because of this. Taking a movie and creating (more or less) its carbon copy with some new elements thrown into the mix has its obvious downsides, this being one of them. Though the movie’s surreally entertaining directory style and solid performances hide this to an extent, they don’t completely cover it up and it’s no doubt that there was some creative dryness in the making of the film. However the formula of the original Hangover had enough potential to create a second film based off of the same basic story threads, and at heart, that’s just what The Hangover Part II is. It’s an extension of the first film more than a true sequel, and although that sounds like a major criticism (and in most cases would be), it’s only in part here. This is an exploration of the possibilities presented by the hilariously outlandish situations found in the original film. It’s proof that such a seemingly shallow premise has appeal even past its basic approach. Having said this, there is no doubt in my mind that another rehash of the good ol’ Hangover formula is not an option. If the Wolfpack is to become the center of Hollywood’s next quality comedy saga, we’re going to need some variation when Part III rolls around.

Don’t let that deter you from Part II if you were a fan of the first. Sure it’s quite similar to its predecessor. Yes, its many comedic elements will feel familiar this time around. And no, there’s no tiger in the bathroom. But what The Hangover Part II does provide are some very hearty laughs and a great time at the movies. You probably won’t walk away amazed, but you will leave with a smile on your face. And at the end of the day, isn’t that what a comedy is all about?

Final Score:

6.0/10
"Satisfactory"