June 2, 2011

5 Reasons Why The Hangover Pt. II Is The Same Movie As Hangover Pt. I

I saw my good friend Joe Esq last week and asked him if he wanted to go see the Hangover 2 that weekend. After all, everyone loves the first movie and I had been eagerly anticipating the second installment. But Joe just looked at me while shaking his head no, a smirk on his face. I couldn't believe it... so of course I asked "Why Not????". Joey just smiled at me and in the snarky way that only he can speak he muttered "Because I liked better the first time I seen it... when it was called The Hangover". I had to smile... sure, there was a potential of the Wolfpack rehashing the exact same style of adventure in part 2, but would they actually do that? I went to see the movie later that weekend, and my short answer is: Yes... yes they can. Exactly the same situations. EXACTLY!!!!!!


Now before the hate spews forth, let me say that there were a few minor laughs and some funny shit in the movie. But since it has its own high expectations based on how hysterical the first one was, it doesn't live up. Not even close. I can't understand it, since both are written and directed by the same team and they feature relatively the same cast. How can it not be funny? Oh yeah, I know how: By making the exact same movie, scene for scene. Don't believe me? Here are 5 (there are many more, but these were the ones that stuck out to me) parts of the film that mirror something from the first film. SPOILERS AHEAD!!!!!!

5 Reasons Why The Hangover 2 Is the Same Movie as Hangover 1
 
  1. In the first movie, they lose Doug on their wild night. In this one, they lose Teddy, the younger brother of Stu's new bride (a smoking hot Jaime Chung... ming!!!). The exact same thing. They wake up, someones missing. That's weak. They didn't even attempt a twist or change. Straight up 3 against the world, trying to find a missing drunkard.
  2. In the first movie, the guys wake up and find a baby in there room. This lead to some hysterical scenes (Galifinakas smacking the baby's face into the car door and the jacking off at the table scene) as well as furthered the story once they linked back up with the kid's stripper mother who Stu married (Heather Graham). No baby in this one.... but we do get Chow's monkey!!! (meh). The monkey is subbed in for the baby as just another hindrance to the gang and even help connect them to the criminals that will help this story come to a close. They even allow Allan to become the closest to the monkey, just like he did with the baby. Wow, that's original.
  3. In the original Hangover, the gang stole Mike Tyson's tiger and had to return it to his home. This is extremely funny because of the impending danger and the cameo from Iron Mike that stole most of the movie. No tiger here... but this time these wild and crazy guys stole a Shaolin monk and have to take him home to his monastery!!!! That's funny.... wait, what? Why do I compare the monk to the tiger? Because they have an out of place character that is in their possession and needs to be returned to its foreign home. The character doesn't talk and can't help the guys with info. It's exactly the same thing, minus the tiger song and attack in the back of the Benz. Way to take something that was hysterical and make it terrible.
  4. Mr. Chow was the one of the best parts of the first movie. He get kidnapped by the gang and they lock him in the trunk of the Benz. They hear him moving and think it may be Doug, so they open the trunk and Chow springs out, totally naked, wielding a crow bar and uttering the best lines of the movie. "You wanna fuck on ME!!!!!". But in this one Chow is invited to party with the gang. He organizes the whole debaucherous night in Bangkok and is there to explain what happen to guys in the morn. But then he OD's on coke. There goes that explanation. So the guys take his body up to the ice machine and lock him in. What happens later? They realize that Chow may have info on his body and race back to the hotel to search his pockets (Why didn't they do this earlier? Oh yeah, because the writers of this movie shit the bed). What happens when they open the doors to the ice machine? Here comes Chow, flying out naked and attacking the guys... again. Exact. Same. Scene. Terrible.
  5. The first film gave the guys some hope when they met Chow and he said he had Doug. They use their Rain Man card stunt to win the money to pay for Doug, and then get Black Doug instead. It was a huge scene because it seemed like things were looking up for our gang, and then they get the rug pulled out from them AGAIN. So what happens in this one? Paul Giamatti (he was funny) plays a rival crime lord who wants the codes Chow had in his pocket. He gives the guys till the next morning to bring the codes and then he will give them Teddy back. But what happens when they come with the codes? Turns out Giammati was a cop and arrests Chow, and then brakes the news that he doesn't have Teddy. Wait... not only did they use the same tactic as the first film, but they abandoned the funny aspect of having THE WRONG guy? How great would it have been if he would have turned over Black Doug (Mike Epps) again... could have been great. Ended up being shit.  
These are just the worst offenses. Teddy loses a finger like Stu lost a tooth, they spend a wild night in the strip club (this was funny, the tranny fucking Stu was the best part of the movie), they have a wild motorboat ride to the wedding instead of the wild car ride, Allan gives awkward speeches, there is a crazy wedding band (although not The Dan Band, who stole the fucking movie while performing Candy Shop), Allan drugs the gang on accident AGAIN, Yada Yada Yada. All in all, it stunk. Some funny parts, but it was supposed to be much more then that. Maybe it will grow on me after a few viewings. I doubt it... should have listened to Joey! Watch it at your own risk and prepare to be disappointed.

5 comments:

  1. Katie wanted to go this weekend to see it and I am happy I declined. (I really declined because I have a rule about going to the movies. I just can't see one!)

    Thanks for the review Mike!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm going to have to disagree with you with #2 and #3, I think you mixed those up.

    I thought that they went the other way and, instead of a baby, they had the old monk. Both have the same lame outcome. Conversely, the monkey and tiger are parallel in that the return of both animals resulted in a conflict that led to serious damage to their car.

    I do agree with you on everything else, though. You're right on target. Plus, You also forgot the "Stu plays an instrument and sings a narrative song" part and, of course, the crazy slideshow/credits sequence.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can see your point Dave. I just tied the Monkey to the Baby because its the first clue they find when they wake up hammered... again. The monk reminds me of the tiger because they had to return it, where as they actually seek out the monkey again after he goes a-wall.

    Either way, they are both rehashes and blatant rip offs of things from the first film. Thanks for the comments!

    ReplyDelete
  4. A few laughs but definitely a let down. For me the similarity wasn't even the downfall it was simply that the script was very weak and the jokes weren't as good. If this was the first movie it wouldn't have been as popular.

    The biggest problem for me was having Alan responsible again. That was a huge mistake and the absolute destruction of his character. The kid should have been the one responsible.

    He should have been oppressed by his father so much on the surface, but underneath was a maniac that drugged them for a good time. That would have also lent itself to the resolution.

    Everyone was WAY to calm and forgiving about everything. I mean I get it, but like, my son lost his finger, this whole day is fucked up, I'm gunna be pretty mad. If it was the kid who was responsible, that alleviates some of the problems.

    And I certainly hope Stu is planning to not have sex with his new bride for like a year. As a hooker came in his ass in a Bangkok strip club. When he was screaming "not relevant" at Alan I thought...well...maybe just a little relevant.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well said Rob. Your right, they should have made Teddy the culprit. Not only that, but the kid was all set to be a surgeon and he was a concert cellist. Hows that gonna keep going on with no finger??? Unrealitic and silly.

    I loved the ladyboy part. That was funny. But it being ok... a bit sick. You are correct once again.

    ReplyDelete