Add a Review

  • I was really optimistic going into the theatre, I didn't expect it to as great as the original, but I thought it would still be good movie. But most of the material was stuff taken from the original only tweaked, and I hate to say it but I was actually bored for a good part of the movie. Some of the jokes/scenes dragged to long, to the point where I didn't find them funny anymore. There were some good moments, but the truly outrageous/original scenes that made the original so great were too few and far between. Some of the scenes were more outrageous in the sense that there was some full frontal nudity, but I'm not someone who finds that super entertaining. Overall it felt to me like a re-hash of stuff that had already been done with some naked people thrown in, and it just wasn't enjoyable like the first movie.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    2009 wasn't exactly the best year for movies, but out of that year we did get a comedy that will last for years to come, The Hangover. When I heard that there was going to be a sequel, I was telling my friends that I had a feeling that this was being made for the money. After all, The Hangover made over 200 million dollars world wide, they are going to milk it for everything that it's worth. Plus what made the first Hangover so great was that as crazy as their night was and outrageous, in some strange way it was believable where we've been so drunk we couldn't remember the night before and somehow did the most insane things. How is this supposed to happen again and be believable? But I loved the first Hangover so much that I went into this just hoping it was going to be a good time and sadly, it was exactly as I feared, this was made for money because it was nothing but copy and paste.

    Phil, Alan and Doug travel to Thailand for Stu's wedding, but after their escapade in Las Vegas, Stu has opted for a safe, subdued pre-wedding brunch. They go to Thailand with Allen as well, when Stud did not want to invite him due to the previous events. They all look to have one drink on the beach, however, things do not go as planned after they lose the 16-year-old brother of Stu's fiancée and somehow wake up in Bangkok. Now they must go through the whole mystery again of trying to find their missing friend, but everyone they meet tells them that "Bangkok has him now".

    See, the thing is, I did laugh a couple times, I will admit that. But the beginning and ending verbatim is the exact same thing first Hangover. A lot of the jokes are the exact same thing as the first film, the monkey was the replacement for the tiger, the silent monk was a replacement for the baby, the brother was a replacement for Doug, Paul Giamatti was a replacement for Leslie Chow, Stu's girlfriend's attitude problem from the first film is now his future father in law's attitude problem, you get the idea. Leslie Chow becomes more of a main character in this movie which I felt was another problem, as I mentioned in my review of the first film, even though he was funny he was the only thing about The Hangover that I felt was a little too over the top. He did make me laugh still, but again, it's more of the same. Also I don't know why but it seems since Stu had such an awful girlfriend in the first Hangover, they felt they had to go to the extreme opposite and give him a girl that not only looks 20 years younger than him but also is the perfect girlfriend who doesn't question anything and thinks Stu is the best man in the world.

    I really wanted this to be an excellent film, I was so looking forward to having a good laugh, but when it's the exact same thing as the first film, how could you enjoy it? There are no surprises and the magic is gone. They made Allen into a mean character that is totally unbelievable, Stu is over the top in being a sissy and Phil is now there just to be the pretty boy and I really wish they had used Doug more in this one since we didn't get to see him in the first Hangover much, he seems like a great character. Seriously, skip it, this is not worth your time or money, the first Hangover is a classic. If they make a third one, make the girls have the hangover or bring a new group in because the story is just done. This was lazy and pathetic and I want my money back.

  • Greetings again from the darkness. Two years ago, director Todd Phillips presented a highly creative, hilarious, raunchy, unique film comedy called The Hangover. And now, he does it again. He presents that SAME film again. I am unsure whether this is a sequel or remake. The only substantial change is the setting ... Bangkok instead of Vegas.

    Now I fully understand WHY most sequels follow the formula created by the successful original film. Filmmakers want to keep their audience satisfied. If it worked once, it will work again. Especially when the first film grosses a half-billion dollars! So the chances are very good that if you liked the first one, you will also enjoy this one. But for me, I get excited for creative filmmakers ... not re-treads.

    The key characters are all back and played by the same guys: Bradley Cooper (Phil), Ed Helms (Stu), Zach Galifianakis (Alan), Justin Bartha (Doug), and Ken Leong (Mr. Chow). All of these guys have worked constantly since the first film, but it makes perfect sense to return to the scene that put them on the Hollywood map.

    This time around, Stu (Ed Helms) draws the long straw and has the storyline based on his pending marriage to Jamie Chung (Sucker Punch). Stu's "wolfpack" buddies agree to a one-beer bonfire beach bachelor party, but of course, something goes very wrong. The next morning finds our boys staggering to regain consciousness in a sleazy Bangkok hotel with no recollection of the previous night's events. The only clues are a monkey, a severed finger, a facial tat and international criminal Mr. Chow.

    No need for me to go into any details or spoil any moments. You know the drill if you have seen the first. What follows is nearly two hours of debauchery and moments of varying levels of discomfort, gross-out and comedic skits.

    Supporting work is provided by Paul Giamatti, Jeffrey Tambor, and Mason Lee (Ang Lee's son). There is also a cameo by Nick Cassavetes as a tattoo artist. This role was originally meant for Mel Gibson, and later Liam Neeson. Cast and crew protests kept Gibson out and Neeson's scenes were cut when re-shoots were necessary.

    I feel tricked by Mr. Phillips. The first Hangover had me excited that a new comedic genius had entered Hollywood and would quickly blow away the Judd Apatow recycle jobs and copycats. Instead, we get Todd Phillips copying Todd Phillips.

    This is certainly an above-average comedy and there are plenty of laughs from the characters we kind of feel like we know - though, wish we didn't. Just know going in that are witnessing a clear attempt at cashing in, not a desire to wow.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I had modest expectations, they weren't met. This is Hollywood milking a successful movie with a contrived followup. This is the same movie. The jokes are the same, just dirtier and more low-brow to get shock reaction. This is like the joke "the Aristocrats". Same joke as before, just dirtier and more disgusting. Drug overdoses, kidnapping and hiding bodies as a premise for a comedy isn't entertainment, it's desperation to go "over the top" without originality. The interaction with the lady-boys was obvious and a cliché for Bangkok humor. It's the Heather Graham joke from the first movie with a little sodomy mixed into it. The inappropriate observations and comments by Alan that made the first movie clever just push the envelope but don't even feel awkward anymore. If your brand of humor falls along the lines of "the more disgusting and grotesque the better" than this is your movie. If you want some creativity and originality for your money, don't bother. I gave it a 4 instead of a 3 only because of the monkey.
  • Select All. Cut. Open New Document. Paste. Thesaurus. Print. I can nearly guarantee you this was the process in writing the sequel to the most successful R-rated comedy of all-time. In one of the craziest and most blatant filmmaking moments of carbon copying an earlier installment I have ever witnessed Hangover II paces, moves, and delivers in the exact same method, style and speed as the original. The musical transitions are the same, some of the set-ups are the same, some of the conflicts and revelations were eerily alike and worst of all, the entire third act felt like the original----and they are thousands of miles from the United States. Every strength in this movie is deterred by the fact that Todd Phillips and company put no effort in trying to change things up a little aside from setting.

    Is the movie still funny? Yes, it is funny and there are indeed some standout moments. But, all the freshness and originality of the first Hangover is definitely not present here, and it hurts more because they could have fixed some of the setbacks of the original. This time Stu (Ed Helms) is getting married in Thailand in order to gain approval from his fiancée's father. During a night of drinking with the "Wolfpack" (Bradley Cooper, Zack Galifianakis, Justin Bartha) and the fiancée's brother, something went wrong, and the crew is many miles away in Bangkok. And of course, one of them is missing. And of course, they don't remember anything. And of course, they are mixed up in multiple situations occurring within the city. The difference between this one and their stint in Vegas is that the stakes are much higher, as the adventure in Thailand is much more grim and dark than in Sin City.

    Hangover part one was hilarious, unique, and had flair of comedic originality. However, it needed a few polishes in order to become a true comedic classic. Zach as Allen is the biggest of the flaws. His characterization in the original was very uneven, too random, and just didn't deliver as much sympathy as the other characters. In the sequel, he is ruder, crueler, and an absolute pain to witness. In the original his actions are mildly justified because of his stupidity. Here however the stupid act gets old extremely fast. It doesn't help that Galifianakis doesn't have the comedic timing that superior funnymen possess. The rest of the cast throughout the movie was great, with Ed Helms and Ken Jeong being the best examples.

    Todd Phillips should have known better, as he is a good director with a nice track record. I am extremely disappointed that instead of taking an approach to trying something new while still offering the same type of R-rated college humor, he chose to stick to the formula far too close. You can copy some of the jokes and get away with it, but to imitate the entire three-act structure of the original Hangover is nothing more than lazy and uninspired filmmaking. He still has a few tricks up his sleeve with a few raunchy and hilarious surprises, but far too much potential was wasted in order for me to forgive him.

    Bottom Line: You will most likely have a good time watching this if you enjoyed the original. That being said, it will feel exactly like the original---except it's in Bangkok and the setting is much darker. They cranked the ante in conflict, but failed to improve anything or change anything from the 2009 comedy smash hit. Playing it safe hindered this movie, as part of Hangover's appeal was its inability to stick to a formula. Hangover II is funny, but lacks the satisfaction, zaniness, and appeal of the original. Hopefully they can spice things up for the third installment (you know it's coming out, stop lying to yourself) otherwise all I have to do is copy this review and paste it to the third chapter. Entire Planet Observed on Daily Basis
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The Hangover II is the perfect example of a Hollywood sell-out.

    Somehow, despite being set in an exquisitely beautiful country, there was nothing new or even entertaining in the cinematography. An amazing achievement given that Bangkok is a voyeurs dream. In the end, The Hangover II offered us nothing more than travel brochure scenes and worn out clichés.

    The story, merely reheated leftovers, is a sexually confused 12-year-old's wet dream. I've never seen so many flaccid penises in one place before. The sad fact that so many people find this movie entertaining is pathetic and down right scary. If all it takes to satisfy the males of an entire nation is a bunch of homo-erotic fantasies, stale clichés, and some exposed titties - we are all screwed - with a capital F.

    In the end I'm left with the feeling that I've been felt up, taken advantage of, and somehow have been forced to pay for the experience. If I could erase the images from my memory - even if that meant a hot poker to the ear hole - I would willingly offer myself up.

    Unfortunately, instead... I'm left with the bad after taste that The Hangover II has left in my mouth - a taste that reminds me of stale cigarettes, bad tequila and vomit.
  • The Hangover was a surprise hit in 2009 that went on to be not only a critically acclaimed film, but also a huge box office success. The Hangover Part 2 is exactly the same movie except this one takes place in Bangkok, and isn't nearly as good or as funny as the first film.

    This time around Stu (Ed Helms) is getting married and they're having the wedding in Thailand, which is his future wife's home country. Coming back along with him we have bad boy Phil (Bradley Cooper), the groom from the previous movie Doug (Justin Barth), and the person who practically stole the entire first movie, Alan (Zach Galafianakis). Once in Thailand we meet a slew of new characters who really don't ever seem to matter all that much and eventually we get to the next day and where the movie turns into an exact copy of the first one.

    Why the writers and director thought essentially remaking the first movie would be good is beyond me. Other than they figured it would make a ton of money regardless of how they made it. But to make almost exact scenes over again is just ridiculous. The gang loses one of their own again but this time it isn't Doug, it's Stu's soon to be brother-in-law Teddy. They wake up and have no idea as to what happened the previous night and have to go on another wild adventure to try and figure out everything that happened, only this time it doesn't seem nearly as interesting.

    They even go as far as to bring back characters from the first movie that have no business even being in this one. Ken Jeong comes back as Mr. Chow and while he was one of the few funny characters, he really served no purpose in being there. Mike Tyson also comes back for another cameo, singing once again. Only this time it feels like it was just crammed in because he was in the last one and had a really great cameo. In this movie it's just unnecessary and makes you wish he didn't show up.

    Our main characters this time around aren't even as funny as they were before. Alan just seems almost too outrageous and crazy, Stu freaks out every moment of the movie and Phil is just kind of there throughout. There were about two times that I actually laughed out loud and another few times where I got some chuckles but that was pretty much it.

    All in all, this movie felt like it was made just to cash in on the very successful first movie and they ended up just remaking the first one only this time it wasn't nearly as good.

    Rating: 4/10
  • Warning: Spoilers
    In a classic case of going to the well just once too often, "Hangover, Part II" should be a lesson to all directors and screenwriters that what sets a successful sequel apart is SOME kind of divergence from the original movie's plot.

    But if a story about three friends who end up in crazy situations while celebrating their buddy's upcoming wedding can make $300 million at the box office, why argue with success. Like most recent Hollywood tales, the writers aren't stupid, they just dupe it.

    Plus, I truly cannot decide what was the worst moments of this picture, the jokes, the writing, the forced nudity and vulgarity, the poorly mismatched vignettes or the assaultingly bad obscene rap soundtrack I was forced to endure. Let's just say it was all equally horrible and added up to one lousy day at the movies.

    Director Todd Phillips (who did himself no favors in helming "Due Date" between the first and second versions of this film) brought most of the cast from the wildly popular "Hangover" back for what amounts to a major rehashing with Bangkok substituting for Las Vegas.

    Here, the idiotic trio, Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu the dentist (Ed Helms, "The Office") and the obnoxious Alan (Zach Galifianakis, "Due Date"), who were shanghaied in Vegas during Stu's bachelor party, now find it's deja vu all over again. This time, however, the raunchy fun and silliness of that plot is replaced by drugs, death and dismemberment and few laughs of which to speak.

    Add to the mishmash a ton of completely unnecessary supporting characters (Stu's brother-in-law-to-be, Teddy, Mason Lee; the coked out Chow, Ken Jeong; Mr. Kingsley, Paul Giamati looking like Jabba the Hut in a leisure suit; a totally unfunny Middle Eastern gun dealer; a gruff future father-in-law, as well as a smoking, drug-dealing monkey that replaces part one's tiger) and you will feel like you're in the midst of an actual hangover.

    And that's sad, because there were a few genuine laughs in this picture, and not the kind in which a character just repeats the F-word over and over again (which all of the characters did, by the way) or with homo-erotic situations that seemed more bad afterthought than real comedic inspiration. Most of the guffaw lines came from the pompous nerd Galifianakis, his long locks now shorn as a tribute to a night of debauchery.

    Helms also gets in a few decent scenes, most revolving around his discovery that the tattoo on his face pays silent homage to Mike Tyson. Cooper, on the other hand, while a pretty face, comes nowhere near a laugh in the movie's mercifully short 100-minute running time.

    The funniest scene in the movie, for me anyway, was Stu holding a bachelor party brunch at IHOP while his disbelieving friends sit stunned. If only that kind of inspired fun could have permeated the rest of the film.

    Don't think too much about this one, though, friends. Just get some aspirin, ginger ale, black coffee, tomato juice or the hair of the dog — anything to erase this awful hangover from your system.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    If you loved the original, then you will love this one. The reason being is that part II is the carbon copy of its predecessor, and reinforces the idea that laziness is running rampant throughout Hollywood. Lets rundown the similarities, shall we: 1-Movie starts out with Stu's wedding in Thailand. 2-The men wake up and don't remember a thing. 3-Stu hasn't lost a tooth this time, he has a face tattoo. 4-No baby, but an adorable coke snorting, cigarette smoking monkey. 5-Doug isn't missing, but the bride's younger brother Teddy. 6-No missing tooth this time, but a missing finger, which just so happens to belong to Teddy. 7-Follow a hot lead to find Teddy, but it turns out to be a Buddhist monk (black Doug reference). 8-In order to piece together the previous night, the guys head to a strip club run by the very same guy that ran the Wedding Chapel from part one. 9-It is also at the strip club, like the chapel in part one, that we learn that Stu is cheating on his fiancé-part one was a stripper, this time a stripper with a weiner! 10-Then the return of Teddy lays in the hands of Mr Chow and him transferring money to a Russian mobster who supposedly has custody of Teddy, just as Mr. Chow supposedly had custody of Doug in the original, with neither having custody of their supposed missing friends. 11-The phone call from Phil claiming they had F*&*ed up. 12-Just as in the original, Stu has an epiphany and figures out where Teddy is, stuck in the hotel elevator. 13-The guys make it to the wedding just in time. 14-The guys end the film sitting together when Teddy finds his phone and all the pictures that they are going to all look at once, but then delete. Its funny, sure, but it's really just embarrassing to come to terms with the knowledge that these writers think that the viewers of this movie are so stupid that they won't mind the similarities. I say similarities, but it's just down right the same movie in a different city. My response to the writers and to the director Todd Philips is, How dare you?! Didn't you make a butt load of money? Didn't this movie get nominated for a ton of awards? You couldn't afford some real writers? Or did you just not care enough about your viewers to give us something different?
  • What made The Hangover fun and entertaining unfortunately leads to predicatability in The Hangover II. The only reason I got any enjoyment out of this movie at all was because I liked the characters in the first movie. I wish they had tried to do something fresh with the story and the characters, but it was the same old gags.

    When I first saw the original Hangover, I thought the movie might become a classic comedy. But honestly after watching it a few times, it seems less funny where as many comedies you pick up on small things on multiple viewings that make the movie even funnier. With the Hangover, the element of surprise is lost the next time around and the story loses its appeal.

    So taking what I just said into account, if you've watched the first movie multiple times and then have expectations that the second movie will be a fun adventure with fun surprises around the corner, you will be somewhat disappointed. The writers even wrote in another animal with the Monkey (Tiger first film) and baby with the old Monk (baby first film). The gags just didn't seem quite as funny the second time around.

    There was a lot of hype leading to the release of this movie. In fact, right after the first film was released rumors that a second was on the way already surfaced. Really a disappointing film of what might have become a pretty fun movie franchise. Rating 6 of 10 and this is being nice because like I said, I got some enjoyment out of the film simply because seeing some of the same characters from the first movie was nostalgic.
  • I know it's kinda similar to the first movie.. I watched that yesterday.. I really didn't laugh.. But this one is pretty funny 😂
  • Remember that one movie that came out in 2009 called The Hangover? Of course you do. It was only one of the most talked about films of the summer, surprising everyone as one of the funniest comedies in a long time. Two years later it was only fitting that a sequel be made so that we could relive the original Hangover fervor and kick off summer 2011 with a bang. Well, the basic rule of thumb for a sequel is that it either a) needs to be a continuation of the story from the first film or b) tell a new story with the same characters. The Hangover Part II decided to invent their own option c) which is to tell the exact same story all over again, but just changing a few details.

    And that is what The Hangover Part II is. This time Stu, Alan, and Phil are in Bangkok, Thailand for Stu's wedding. The wolfpack reunites for another awesome bachelor party, this time brining along Stu's sixteen year old brother-in-law, Teddy. Stu promises only one beer and then he is calling it a night, but of course that isn't what happened or this wouldn't be The Hangover Part II. Nope. Once again a crazy night ensues and the boys wake up the next morning with absolutely no recollection of what happened the night before. They only have small clues to go off of, but they have no choice but to use these clues in order to find Teddy, who has gone missing. From here things play out much like they did in the first film with the same elements as the original. Instead of a tiger we have a monkey. Instead of a baby we have a monk. Instead of a regular Las Vegas hooker we have, well... I won't spoil that.

    I, like so many others, loved The Hangover. I was happily surprised by how funny and just how well made it was for a film that looked like it would be another silly comedy movie. Of course it was that but it had something great about the raunchiness of the jokes and the cleverness of the mystery story that unfolds. The Hangover Part II doesn't quite have that and it only seems to try as hard as possible to outmatch its predecessor. It is this excessive one-upping of the first film that also drags down the films story. For one, it is just the same story all over again, but I can get past that because it worked in the first film. I won't say it wasn't annoying seeing so much of the same things happen all over again, but I'll get over it.

    I was disappointed though because I loved the mystery aspect of the first film. The process of finding out where Doug was in the first film coupled with the incredibly entertaining humor was done just right. The Hangover Part II just tries so hard to go even further over-the-top that the mystery aspect here falls flat. It isn't nearly as interesting, thus the thing that made The Hangover more than just another comedy is lost in The Hangover Part II. The film does everything in its ability to be raunchier and more over-the-top than the first film, affecting all aspects. The obviousness of this effort actually ends up being distracting and it just reminds me why sequels too often suck, especially comedy sequels.

    But The Hangover Part II doesn't suck. It definitely hasn't lost all of the magic that was there in the first film. Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, and Ed Helms obviously love these characters and you can see it come through in their performances. The hilarious trifecta are just as great in this film as they were in the first, and I never thought for a second that they were losing touch with their characters in the film's attempts to one-up the original. And honestly, this film really is funny. I laughed hysterically at plenty of moments throughout the film and there is never a dull moment. Each moment just gets raunchier and and more insane, keeping you laughing from start to finish. The comedy in this film isn't as clever as the first film, and it really sort of boils down to fart, poop, and dick jokes, but I love the characters of this film too much to not be entertained by that.

    I won't say that I wasn't thoroughly entertained for the 102 minutes this film ran. I still think Zach Galifianakis is one of the funniest human beings currently on this planet and I think Todd Phillips still knows how to make a funny movie. But The Hangover Part II certainly doesn't live up to the hype and it doesn't even come close to the first film. As much as I laughed during this film I really just can't think of it as much more than just another comedy.
  • This movie was a lot of fun to watch. The cast is funny as always and the story is very good. For those complaining just don't watch it, simple as that. A comedy is probably the hardest type of movie to write because it has to be "funny" and it hard nowadays to write something funny because most of everything funny has been done over and over.That being said, you can go different ways in your comedy but this movie is the type of comedy i like,it has a plot, is mature and it not a brain dead mishmash of stupid things or stunts or language that a lot of younger kids like. It is old fashion comedy and i hope they do more of this series.

    It is not going to change your world but if you want a break from reality, this movie is it!
  • After seeing The Hangover in 2009, I could not wait for Part II to be released and it was worth it. I really don't get why people are saying this movie sucks because it has the same plot. What do they expect? Of course Todd Phillips is gonna use the same formula as the original but it works with this one. I can honestly say while Phillips did take this one a step up with how crude and nasty the jokes are, it still made me fall out of my seat laughing, especially Alan's new attitude in this. To me, the only thing that would make The Hangover Part II a failure is if Alan was the one the trio ended up losing the night before. Without him, The Hangover movies would suck! Sure, we got Phil's sarcasm and the craziness of Ed Helms but Alan is the one with it all. Overall, I give it a 9/10.
  • Loved Hangover and was really looking forward to the sequel but... I kind of expected them to write a new story and not simply rehash the old one.

    And I mean rehash.

    It's exactly the same movie. Just not as funny.

    I know they rushed this out, but now I kind of feel they rushed it out simply to steal my $$$.

    Well you managed that. But next time... I'll be much careful about paying over my cash. It takes a lot to get me out. Gotta get the subway. Pay the money. Buy the popcorn. Next time Hollywood promises me a good night out I'll be having second thoughts... and next time I might just stay at home or spend the $11 on drinks with friends.

    Well done Hollywood!
  • j-cahill-974-38838811 December 2011
    Hangover Part II: Film Review Hangover Part II. what a great film, yet another fantastic storyline. People doubted whether or not it could top the previous film, and if the sequel would ruin the originality of the previous film... they thought wrong. Part II is still the same idea, they all go out loose there memory etc etc, but Part II offers so much more comedy and thrill, there is more at stake this time, more too loose. It was great to see the "wolf pack" back together but unfortunately Doug was not in the whole drama again, he went home early, it would have been nice to see him get more involved in the film. This time they do not live the high life glamour like they did in Vegas, they were in Bangkok, there seemed to be a much darker and depressing tone in the movie, they wake up in the grotty, dirty hotel were all the power goes off, they find themselves in the slums of bangkok. the film gets much more graphic, near the beginning and throughout there are strong drug uses and strong sexual actions and nudity. I would say that this film is really a teenage humor, for 15 to 28 maybe but adults will enjoy just as much To sum up this film i would say it is a fantastic must see, its got to be comedy film of the year, its going to win loads of Oscars and just a general fun and fantastic film to watch. A must see film. i give it ******** stars (please comment and rate my review :)for more of my reviews visit review.html
  • I recently caught up with Hangover II during an early press screening held in Tel Aviv, Israel, and it was by far one of the best films I've seen all year - and most definitely the best comedy. After being horribly disappointed by The Dilemma, grinned occasionally at Hall Pass and Just Go With It (but not really carried away by either), it was about time we got a decent 2011 comedy - and here it is.

    Plot wise, Hangover II is more of the same from what we've got in the first installment. A lot of main themes and characters from the first film return in different forms, and there are a lot of nods to the aforementioned 2009 mega-hit.

    However, I will say this. It seems as if the writers knew that the concept isn't as fresh as it was in the first film. So instead, they went for sheer shock value. As a result, some of the things our guys run into during their mess-up in Bangkok are so controversial; I was surprised they were even allowed to show it on screen. Prepare yourself for a lot of in-your-face humor, awkward nudity and misplaced violence.

    Also, the dynamics between the main protagonists were believable and hilarious. You get to learn more about the characters, and you actually feel like you really know these guys and care for them, after hanging out with them during the first film. The Bangkok location also opened up a whole new world of possibilities and mishaps for our characters to run into, and at one point things turn so crazy I just couldn't stop laughing.

    Oh yes, there's a plot to explain briefly. OK. So this time, it's Stu's wedding and instead of going to Vegas the whole gang winds up in Thailand. You see, after ditching his bossy girlfriend from part one, Stu ended up with this incredibly hot Asian American, and they decide to hold her wedding in her homeland. So Phil, Alan, Doug and Stu all hop on a plane across seas. The night before the ceremony, the guys decide to go out for a drink, and take the brides' young teenage brother, Teddy.

    The next morning, they wake up with another of their infamous hangovers. This time, they are somewhere in Bangkok, and it's not Doug that's gone – it's the adolescent Teddy. Instead of a baby, there's a monkey in the room, Stu had a Mike Tyson style tattoo, Alan's hair is shaved and somehow Mr. Chow from the first film is there.

    There. I won't say no more. But I promise you this – go watch this film in the right state of mind, and you'll laugh yourself silly. While not as refreshing as the first one, the Hangover II does deliver a fun, memorable time at the movies, and that's all I really wanted.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I have never given a movie a rating of 1 before, but this one deserves it for more than one reason. First of all, as others have stated this movie is just a copy/paste screen job from the original most brilliant piece of comedy I've seen in a while. But that doesn't bother me as much as the total lack of common sense that the protagonists seem to have in this installment.

    SPOILERS ahead ...

    All right, they wake up bricked up once again not knowing where they are and how they got there, only this time they find a cut off finger that belongs to Stu's future brother in law who is both an excellent musician and studying to be surgeon and off course he is missing. The characters express general concern for the fact that he is nowhere to be found and after discovering his cut off finger they do what??? THEY GIVE IT TO A LITTLE DRUG DEALING MONKEY!!!!! After which the finger is to be seen no more.

    Now what kind of a retard do you have to be not to put the finger on ice and preserve it (as it was already done - they found it in a glass of melted ice water) so when they actually find the kid he can at least have the chance of getting some proper medical care.

    The most idiotic thing about it all is that the father in law who is being an asshole to Stu all along and totally disrespectful as well suddenly develops a new found respect for his future son in law after he brings his "pride and joy of his life" son back mutilated after a night of "Hangover" style partying all over Bangkok.

    And yeah they actually go through with the wedding once again. All right it was fun and believable the first time, but this one was simply over the top.

    One more thing about the finger. If you are a musician, none the less a wannabe surgeon, than you sure as hell will care about what happens to your fingers. That's just bellow than average script writing.

    Apart from all of the above mentioned anomalies, the beginning and middle part of this movie are quite great, as a matter of fact as great as the first one, but the ending just ruins it all.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I adored the original Hangover, and while I didn't expect this to be quite as good I didn't expect it to be this bad.

    I don't mind the rehashing... with a sequel to that Hangover it has to be a bit tongue in cheek. But this is like a dark twin to the original movie.

    The Vegas setup made, despite someone being missing, for a fun, uplifting movie. A sense of "oh I've been there" but with an exaggerated tone. It was all about what a great night they'd had and were trying to piece it together.

    The sequel is the opposite, it's a dangerous, anxious movie. They are in a strange lady, and they've lost a 16 year old and his finger is in a bucket. It's a race to find this kid, and work out if he's even alive. There's someone who has unprotected sex with a ladyboy. Someone gets shot. Even the wedding was anxious because of the father-in-law. While I knew they'd find the boy in the end, it still leads to tension while they piece together a bad night (rather than the good night of Vegas).

    In terms of humour, it wasn't also very funny. There were nuggets of potential jokes but they didn't feel well executed, which is surprising given it's the same director as last time. Mr Chow is excellent, but underutilised in this movie.

    Then it ends with them finding the boy, who's missing a finger and laughs it off. Erm, yes. This guy who is a gifted musician and wants to be a doctor has lost a finger and doesn't care. And Stu isn't running to get an STD test before he marries his wife, which he would do if some random transsexual prostitute ejaculated into him. Maybe I'm taking this too seriously, but it snaps me out of the movie as a 'step too far'. Or maybe the step too far is the desperate inclusion of Mike Tyson at the end.

    All in all, I was very disappointed - mostly that it took a fun evening with the lads where while they got up to mischief no harm was done and gave you a feeling of "what an epic night" in Vegas to this dark tale where there's just no enjoyment as to what they got up to the night before.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Hangover 2 is actually better than the first one. Many have complained that the plot is total reprise of the original, but a classic comedy can be seen over and over, and it's still funny. Both Hangovers are classics, and the sequence of events is secondary to the relations between the characters. Hangovers one and two can be watched as a double feature, and they're both hilarious, but number 2 is actually the superior movie.

    In both it's Stu who is the character that grows during the movie. When we first meet him he is a total weakling and a phony buffoon, abused by his vicious fiancé, and always lying to her so she won't get mad at him. A truly pathetic figure. By the end he actually gets one of his nuts back, and breaks off their engagement. One point for Stu. But the other members of the wolfpack really don't develop at all. Phil is still a dick, Alan is still a retard, and Doug is the nice guy who avoids all the insanity.

    In Hangover 2, Stu gets his other nut, and finally embraces his inner demon. In the process, he becomes a man. All the plot twists, the absurdity, the impossible challenges surmounted by luck, pluck and guile - they merely form the backdrop for a voyage of self-discovery by a pompous sissy-dentist on the way to becoming a man. And it's funny as hell.

    Bangkok makes the "sin city" of Las Vegas look like Disneyland in comparison, and all the challenges are amped-up in proportion. In Vegas, Stu marries Jade, a very nice girl who happens to work as an escort. In Bangkok, he gets sodomized by a she-male - and he loves it. It's pretty nasty, but it's part of the strange alchemy required to turn a sissy- dentist into a man.

    Watch this movie and learn. You'll laugh like crazy while doing it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Hmmm, where to begin? I'm guilty of laughing out loud while watching the first hangover, I have to admit. Therefore I have the capacity to enjoy silly comedies...but this...this was painful to watch. The humour was really low quality, as if the writers did not give a flying truck about a viewer. It was in fact so bad that I felt embarrassed for them. In general they used the oldest (and least funny) stereotypes, the stupidest jokes, and the cheapest tricks. Let's take the scene with a monkey smoking a fag. How was exploitation of this animal funny? Yes, 'no animals were harmed during the making of this movie' (probably) so what? What is the message they are sending across? Entertainment it is not. Is Thailand really just lady-boys, drugs, fakes and huge disparity between very rich and very poor? Maybe...But rather than exploiting this painful reality they should stigmatise it in my opinion (Monty Python style!). Instead, a disappointment. Don't get me wrong, I sometimes enjoy silly stuff-who doesn't-but this film was disrespectful: 'just take the horse poo we serve and shut up'. There is nothing else to write about this movie except: don't pay for it it is sooo not worth your money. I would certainly give it a zero on a voting scale.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I'm afraid if I start talking about this movie then I'll keep going on and on and on, so I'll just keep it simple and not give away anything that might ruin it for you all. I had the opportunity to see the pre- screener of Hangover Part 2, and it was amazing. This was my first pre- screening, and everything about the experience was brilliant. The excitement, anxiety, and even the two hours of waiting.. Totally worth it! I'm sure most of you know by now that the movie is based in Thailand, if you people have seen the trailers, then it is pretty obvious that this time the "wolf-pack" is in Bangkok, Thailand. And today all the things that I have heard about Thailand has been confirmed (that it is a beautiful place and all, no pun intended…..OK maybe a little) This movie offers exactly what you expect from it, hilarious, a bit gross at times, but definitely worth every penny. The first one has a 7.9/10 rating here, and I'll give the second part a 9/10 rating just because it is even crazier than the first one. Well I did get mixed response from my friends some liked the first more and some liked the second. But the common denominator was that they all enjoyed the second part... so folks have fun with this one and enjoy!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Quite possibly one of the worse films of 2011, (and its been a bad year for films) with out doubt the most over rated so far, Where do I start? the reason the first one was so good was because of how original the concept of the film was, so using it again for part 2 takes away the feeling of watching a new idea, part 2 was just a carbon copy, pretty much a scene for scene remake with slightly different jokes, there were quite a few things that in particular annoyed me 1, smoking monkey! just not cool 2,everything was in the trailer and merchandise, from Stu's awful tattoo too knowing Mr chow was alive all the time because the trailer told us so, the vast of Alans funny bits...... also in the trailer 3, predictable, OK so they in Bangkok, there was only a matter of time before we see a 'ladyboy' and given how the film lacked anything remotely funny there was only a matter of time before we get to see the proof that Stu's prostitute wasn't quite what he thought, this is just one of so many jokes that was so predictable because straight from the off you know where this film is going 4, I'd be pretty annoyed if i lost some fingers, (couldnt tell how many he lost) 5, there was no Mel Gibson cameo on account of Zach Galifianakis protesting about his past racist slurs........ this film was racist from beginning to end 6, Phil...... quite possibly the most annoying character I've ever seen, if this blokes hates his job so much then why is he a teacher? he comes across as a clever guy who could talk himself into pretty much any job he wants, he hates his family yet in part 2 we see him with a new baby, would have been better off he got locked in toilet with the tiger in the first one this list could easily reach 20 points but the more i think about the film the more i hate it, so a few more things i hated, swapping the baby from the fist one with a monk, how did Stu manage to pull Jamie Chung, Mr chow in general, Alan's evil side towards Stu's new bother in law, Alan just shouldn't have a nasty side... thats it for now, hope you enjoyed my first review, and i apologise for any spelling mistakes or grammar errors, its never been my strong point
  • Snapshot: It uses the same formula but still generates more than a few laughs.

    What's Great: It's funny, there's some decent acting, the story is predictable but fast paced and keeps you engaged.

    What's Not So Great: Most people are complaining about how similar Hangover II and I are, it's pretty predictable and it's gross out humor (pretty gross at times :) )

    Summary: Go in expecting a movie that is funny, and not something totally fresh like the first one and you might actually enjoy the movie a lot.
  • The dentist Stu Price (Ed Helms) is getting married with Lauren (Jamie Chung) in Thailand and his best friends Doug Billings (Justin Bartha), Phil Wenneck (Bradley Cooper) and Alan Garner (Zach Galifianakis) travel for the wedding. After the dinner party, Doug, Phil and Alan invite Stu to drink a beer around a bonfire on the beach with Lauren's brother Teddy (Mason Lee). Phil brings a pack of beers and marshmallows to the group.

    On the next morning, Phil, Stu and Alan have a hangover and they do not recall what they did last night; their room is upside down; Teddy is missing; there is a little monkey in the room; Teddy's finger is in a glass of water; Alan's head is shaved; and Stu has a tattoo on his face.

    The trio tries to track down last night to find what happened and sooner they discover Mr. Chow on the floor under the carpet. They learn that they are in Bangkok and Mr. Chow sniffs cocaine before telling what happened last night. However he dies and Phil, Stu and Alan follow a lead to begin to unravel their crazy night.

    "The Hangover Part II" is a replay of the same jokes of the first film. The main difference is the location, changed from Los Angeles to Thailand, and the animal with a monkey instead of a tiger. But the rest is the same structure and similar jokes, with Stu hysterical and Alan very stupid. My vote is five.

    Title (Brazil): "Se Beber, Não Case! Parte II" ("If You Drink, Do not Marry Part II")
An error has occured. Please try again.