Starring: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and Zach Galifianakis
Directed by: Todd Phillips
Screenplay by: Craig Mazin, and Scot Armstrong
If you're interested in lack of originality, you're in the right place. While "The Hangover" was great a few years ago, was there any need for a sequel?
"The Hangover Part 2" is almost an exact copy of the first "Hangover" film. The difference, a new place (Bangkok instead of Las Vegas), and Stu (Ed Helms) is getting married instead of Doug (Justin Bartha). They also lose another person in their group, Teddy (Mason Lee), the bride's little brother.
After a night of hard partying and not knowing what on earth the wolf pack trio (Phil, Stu, and Alan) has done, they wake up to find themselves mysteriously in Bangkok, Thailand, instead of where they should be, at a resort in another part of Thailand getting ready for Stu's wedding. Nothing seems to have happened to Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu has a Mike Tyson tattoo on his face, and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) has a buzz cut. But, as they slowly find out what they did the night before, they realize they've lost Teddy and that they have a monkey in their room (that takes the place of the tiger in the first film). I'm not even going to finish summarizing this film because there's no point. If you've seen the first "Hangover" film, the story plays out the exact same way.
My biggest problem is how similar all the stupid stuff the wolf pack has done is to the first film. The difference is that they seem to be in the same amount of trouble, but with different people. They're not in trouble with cops like in the first film. While looking for Teddy, they find a different Teddy (same thing with Doug in the first film). The acting is fine, just like in the other film and Zach Galifianakis delivers a similar performance to that of the other film, like he has a pretty serious case of ADHD. I've never seen someone be so random.
I really don't know what to say about "The Hangover Part 2" other than that it is the exact same thing we saw two years ago with "The Hangover Part 1" and that it is just as funny as part 1. In short, the jokes are old, the story is old, and the whole idea is old. There just isn't anything new about it.
I'm giving "The Hangover Part 2" a C for lacking originality.
Directed by: Todd Phillips
Screenplay by: Craig Mazin, and Scot Armstrong
If you're interested in lack of originality, you're in the right place. While "The Hangover" was great a few years ago, was there any need for a sequel?
"The Hangover Part 2" is almost an exact copy of the first "Hangover" film. The difference, a new place (Bangkok instead of Las Vegas), and Stu (Ed Helms) is getting married instead of Doug (Justin Bartha). They also lose another person in their group, Teddy (Mason Lee), the bride's little brother.
After a night of hard partying and not knowing what on earth the wolf pack trio (Phil, Stu, and Alan) has done, they wake up to find themselves mysteriously in Bangkok, Thailand, instead of where they should be, at a resort in another part of Thailand getting ready for Stu's wedding. Nothing seems to have happened to Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu has a Mike Tyson tattoo on his face, and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) has a buzz cut. But, as they slowly find out what they did the night before, they realize they've lost Teddy and that they have a monkey in their room (that takes the place of the tiger in the first film). I'm not even going to finish summarizing this film because there's no point. If you've seen the first "Hangover" film, the story plays out the exact same way.
My biggest problem is how similar all the stupid stuff the wolf pack has done is to the first film. The difference is that they seem to be in the same amount of trouble, but with different people. They're not in trouble with cops like in the first film. While looking for Teddy, they find a different Teddy (same thing with Doug in the first film). The acting is fine, just like in the other film and Zach Galifianakis delivers a similar performance to that of the other film, like he has a pretty serious case of ADHD. I've never seen someone be so random.
I really don't know what to say about "The Hangover Part 2" other than that it is the exact same thing we saw two years ago with "The Hangover Part 1" and that it is just as funny as part 1. In short, the jokes are old, the story is old, and the whole idea is old. There just isn't anything new about it.
I'm giving "The Hangover Part 2" a C for lacking originality.
Matthew, this sounds like another formula movie made by a studio marketing department to turn a fast buck. The lack of originality in today's films drives me crazy and keeps me out of the theaters.
ReplyDelete