This film was essentially The Hangover with just a number added at the end of the title and placed in a different city. It was almost an identical copy of the first. There was only a couple of scenes in this movie that made me laugh; nothing really special. With that said, even though it had a recycled plot it was entertaining to watch somewhat; yet at the same time it was easily forgettable after words.
Go rewatch the first one
Not as good as the first one but the pictures at the end always gets me
pretty, pretty lame
Just as outrageously messed-up as the first Hangover. Let the good times roll!
It's repetitive,still like it tho
Awesome hilarious and sick prepare yourself for a wild ride
The Hangover Part II is a mixed bag. It delivers more of the outrageous humor and wild situations that made the original a hit, but the familiar formula can feel tired at times. The Bangkok setting provides some novelty, but it also comes with some questionable humor at the expense of cultural stereotypes. Ultimately, whether you enjoy this hangover depends on your tolerance for repetition and your appreciation for the Wolfpack's brand of mayhem.
:heart::heart::heart::heart::heart::heart::heart: - Amazing stress buster film.
My rating system works:
10:heart:- Masterpiece :100:
9:heart:- Excellent
8:heart: - Amazing :ok_hand:
7:heart:- Great :sun_with_face:
6:heart: - Good :thumbsup:
5:heart: - Average :head_bandage:
4:heart: - Bad but watchable :octagonal_sign:
3:heart: - Bad :sob:
2:heart:- Awful :face_vomiting:
1:heart: - Bull Shit
Exactly what you would expect from a sequel of The Hangover. The movie follows the same basic formula as the first film, with the gang waking up in a strange place and trying to piece together the events of the night before. While there are some funny moments, the plot is predictable and lacks the freshness and originality of the first movie. The cast is still enjoyable to watch, with good chemistry and comedic timing, but the jokes and gags feel like retreads of the first film. Overall, The Hangover Part II is a good watch, but it doesn't come close to matching the greatness of the original. If you loved the first movie, you will probably enjoy this one, but don't expect it to be as good.
"It happened again."
I get it now. I think I read that each film in this trilogy was practically the same, but I guess I forgot. I suppose it's also because you have to experience it to understand it: and reading about it doesn't have much effect. I've experienced it. This film was pretty much the same as the first one with minor differences, like the setting, the one getting married, and how certain things in the first film play out in this one. I must've thought that it's not that alike. But the first film worked, so I understand why they recycled it.
I liked the little variety this time compared to the first film by using the knowledge of the previous events in a self-aware/meta sort of way, only for that to be one thing that wasn't 100% the same as before. And even though some people didn't like this one as much or disliked it, it had a box office of $586.8 million from an $80 million budget. You can't argue with those numbers: this film worked, too.
As shown by my rating, which is lower than what I gave the first one, I didn't enjoy it as much. I can't accurately say whether the similarity is to blame for that, in the sense that I already saw the first film, so this one didn't have as much of an effect. But generally, I feel like it just wasn't as good as the first one.
Even other aspects, like the soundtrack, and the cinematography, weren't as good. Don't get me wrong: both were still decent. More than that, to be fair. They just weren't quite up-to-par with the first film. Especially the soundtrack, to an extent: which seemed to disappear further into the film; the first few songs were good.
Everything seemed to blend better in the first film, the song choices, the editing, and the cinematography: things just fell into place/were right, maybe with some luck. With this film, it's like those elements were on the right track but only there, and that sweet spot eluded. There wasn't any synergism. But maybe there wasn't any of that in the first film, and the novelty aspect was what made everything feel complementary.
The performances by our three leads were good and better than in the first film. Their chemistry seemed stronger. Ed Helms ramped up his performance in this one compared to the first one, and it, surprisingly, wasn't that bad; he/his character was the weakest in the first film. Zach Galifianakis (whose performance seemed ramped up as well, or more so his character) and Bradley Cooper did a good job again, as expected. I still like Bradley's performance/his character the most, just like in the first one. I guess it's a matter of the personality his character has. It allows a charismatic nonchalant performance, and that does so much, even for the overall film.
One thing that took me by surprise and realization was Yasmin Lee. I remember knowing she appeared in one of these films, and that was so long ago, so I completely forgot. I think I already knew who she was, but I'm not sure. I don't think that's how I came to know about her. Now, I can confidently say that I do know who she is. She is hot, attractive, beautiful, gorgeous, stunning, etc. You guys should check out some of her "stuff."
So, yeah. This film was enjoyable enough, and aspects like the soundtrack, cinematography, and performances were good, although the first two seemed better in the first one. Even though my rating may imply otherwise, this film was entertaining; I still enjoyed the first one more.
"There is a reason its called Bangkok, sweetie."
This is definitely the first movie but with a relocation. Still has some funny moments but nothing is ever better than the original. I do think it is funny that even Doug plays the same formula has the first film as well. Not sure we needed a third one after this.
I knew this was a rehash of the first one, but boy I forgot how much it is a rehash. Again, someone is missing, monkey = tiger, missing tooth = tattoo, ruffies = medicine, song = song, almost marrying a prostitute = marrying a prostitute, monk Teddy = black Doug, both have a chase scene in a vehicle, high speed car right to the wedding = high speed boat right to the wedding, walking around with the monk = walking around with the baby, finding out where the missing person is both happen during Phil's phone-call to said wife, same ending with finding the photos of the night before and Chow jumping out of the trunk of a car onto someone's face = Chow jumping out of the ice machine onto someone's face.
It is a exact copy and it tries to be more over the top. I still had a few laughs which is the saving grace of Part II. Now I'm afraid to watch Part III again because when I saw it at the cinema I hated it....
"It's true, he has semen in him."
The Wolf-Pack its back with a another very good movie
The first Hangover was the only film that i've watched the all credits... now this is the second one! I like the fact that they have repeat the exact same storyline.
Alan is really amazing, that character is so dumb ahah Him and Phil, are completely opposite of each other and Alan is trying so hard to be like him, that is so funny ahah
I will never forget chow's dick <3
They have not chastised, it happens again.
A totally amusing movie :D
why the almost SAME PLOT!
Loved the first one, could feel myself hating this one as the minutes tick by. It's not in the same spirit as the first, although exactly the same film. Alan has a very different vibe to him, a spitefulness, that just didn't land for me. I found myself disliking him more than I should which tainted the rest of it.
The thing that struck me most was an incidental behind the scenes issue. There was a fuss made that Mel Gibson was going to cameo as Tattoo Joe and supposedly Galifanakis didn't want him because Gibson hates Jews. Liam Neeson was then going to do it but was unavailable for reshoots (oh please some random deity, let Wrath of the Titans be good), which was pretty much the whole scene. Nick Cassavetes replaced Neeson because "We were in a complete time crunch so I called up [my friend] Nick". Tattoo Joe was an absolute nothing cameo. Unless Gibson was intending to go a step beyond his cameo in "Father's Day" as Scott the Body Piercer and the scene was very different, what was the fuss all about? And because there was a fuss you would think Phillips would write something killer for someone who, to a vast majority of people, is no one. Anyway, I digress.
Overall...
Totally Meh!
Skip to the end and watch the photos. It's the best part of the movie...
Meh.. The first one was kind of funny, this second one didn't make me laugh at all. Not recommended at all.
Dude, Where's My Car is still the funniest hangover movie!
The first movie was a genius approach to making a unique comedy. This movie attempts to draw off of the first one, and in the end only succeeds at making the original movie seem less funny.
To make matters worse, they don't really even keep to the continuity from the first movie, which really does make it even more aggravating than it would have already been.
Some funny stuff but it was pretty much the first movie...set in Bangkok. It should be expected though really.
cmon there were some good parts ;p
If you haven't seen the first one, see this one first, then be amazed at how much better the first one is. This one felt a bit like a bad remake.
Loved the 1st one, hardly liked this one.. was ok as a time filler if you have nothing better to watch... But like most sequels it wasnt that great...
Funniest thing in the whole movie was a monkey !
pretty much the first movie set in another city
Shout by AlessandroBlockedParent2011-12-06T01:25:56Z— updated 2016-10-23T10:10:44Z
Also liked more the first movie, but this one is very funny too. The photos at the end are the best!