Sequels to huge film successes are not easy. How to you satiate that appetite for the audience? All audiences want from a sequel is more of the same, only different. Easy right?! Now while there has been plenty of sequels that are worthy or even better than the original, it seems that most others are a dreadful retread of everything that had gone before. Which brings me to "The Hangover 2". Of course, the stellar business the first one achieved was nothing short of miraculous and it went on to break all sorts of box office records. In short, that a sequel would get made was a no brainer. When it was announced not long after the original release, I thought to myself one specific thing: 'As long as the plot doesn't hinge on waking up from a binge and having to piece together the lost night of debauchery, then everything will be fine'. The first films success relied very strongly on that surprise factor. The audience were complicit with the three main guys, in learning about how their madcap exploits had got them to where they are on the following day. It felt like we were taking that journey together with them. Which is were the second one goes astray, in something that had it immediately doomed out of the gate. It moves too close to the original, exact beat for exact beat. Basically, the same things happen in this film, and in the same order as they happened last time. The only thing that has changed is the location from Las Vegas to Bangkok. Either this is an experiment in seeing whether or not audiences will lap up the exact same product twice, or it is extremely lazy film making. Upon seeing that first trailer my biggest fears immediately came through, and the film only expands on them. In a film that relies so strongly on that surprise factor, how did the makers and cast think that an exact repeat of formula was the way to go? Whether or not, the film is funny, is irrelevant -(it's not incidentally) what is relevant is how ignorant did the writers have to be to shovel out the same thing twice, and charge people to see it? I am not a fan of this film to say the least.
Back in 2009, "The Hangover" was a fantastic breath of fresh air in comedy. It was lewd and rowdy, and did not come from the Apatow Camp, as most around that time seemed to be. It's director was a proven talent for delivering 'immature men behave like children and do irresponsible things' material -a sub-genre in which there are far worse ones than good. What gave the film its backbone was its cast. All three were on the rise of very big things, and it was evident that they each shared fantastic chemistry and knew how to bring the laughs with each wonderfully inhabiting their respective parts perfectly. Each of the three was crucial in getting that balance right, so when things got more and more out of hand later, we could follow, and imagine ourselves in that same position. Well thankfully, the cast somehow manage to avoid most of the blame second time around. Sure Bradley Cooper's Phil is a little more of a dick, Ed Helms' Stu does little more than scream very annoyingly at every new challenge faced his way, and Zach Galifianakis' Alan has crossed over from loveably irritating, to just irritating in his borderline sociopathic behaviour. But, for all their flaws, the cast try as hard as they can to make it all work. The action picks up in much the same way as the original: An expectant wedding looms as a Bride looks nervously at her family, ferverishly awaiting her late Groom. One phone call later from Phil to his wife, and we see that yes, somehow again these three men-boys have managed to get themselves in serious trouble and that they won't be making the wedding. Cut back to a week prior and the film begins to bring us up to speed on what got us to this stage. What struck me about this one, is how eager it is to wring laughs straight away. Whereas it's older sibling took time in building up the characters and earning it's later comic situations, this one just wants to drop you straight in and laugh at something it didn't earn, much like the rest of the film. While I did enjoy the beginning more than later scenes, this stemmed from the fact that it was something different we had not seen before; with that brief look inside Alan's room a pleasing addition to the character. From there on in, it is business as usual. Going to Thailand to celebrate Stu's wedding, the guys and Stu's future brother in law each decide to have to have one drink at the beach. Before we know it, we wake up in a seedy hotel in Bangkok with no recollection of how we got there and missing a member. Remember how funny this was last time? Those first few moments waking up, groaning, with a splitting headache after the previous nights escapades, was achingly relatable. This time it just provokes groans. Substitute finding a lost baby in their room with a lost monkey, a missing tooth with a huge face tattoo and it is clear that all the writers did when honing this script, was wipe out key nouns in the plot and scribble back in something slightly different in it's place. This is script writing via mad libs. The following could be a spoiler, but since most of you have already seen the first one, the whole sequel is a spoiler in itself. So, crowbarred in there for absolutely no good reason in a way that doesn't make sense to the plot is such 'favourite' moments from the first one as: Stu's song, Mr Chow's (Ken Jeong) very small private parts, a run in with a prostitute, those camera snaps from the night before (complete with one potentially being a step too far, as far as controversial and sickening goes) and Mike Tyson. Yes, Mike Tyson, for some reason along with everything else is in Thailand. It doesn't matter to the writers whether or not it works, rather a 'hey, this was funny last time, let's do it again'.
So shame on everyone involved on pilfering their first film so blatantly, but shame on me for paying to see it in the first place. With the sequel being the success it is then why wouldn't Warner Bros. churn these things out, with minimal care or attention to what they are actually doing? We are giving them all a reason to knock these things out as fast as they can. This is one of the reasons I refused to see the latest "Pirates of the Caribbean" film. If these studios think they can keep giving us the same product with little thought going into making it worthwhile, then the only thing we can do is not see them. Not that my little hissy fit of boycotting will make any sort of difference to box-office; nontheless the sooner audiences realise that they don't have to see the latest sequel that nobody asked for, just because it exists then the better. Anyone laughing at this I suspect is laughing out of reminiscence for the first film, not because they find it genuinely funny. I mean how funny is the same joke told to you twice? The first time around, this felt like you and all your friends going on a mission to piece together the drunken escapades of the night before. The second time, it feels as if you are hearing your friends tell that same story about that one night for the umpteenth time to you. And then charging you money to do so.
Verdict: 3/10
Although the film is stuffed full of dark outrageous behaviour, it seems that the law of diminishing returns has never applied so perfectly, as to this film here. The boys get in real danger, events carry more shock value and everyone shouts 'I can't believe this is happening again' a lot, but at the end of the day, all that is remembered is how great the first one was when it was released. This tries it's best to soil it. Useless characters (remember Doug anyone?), loud noises, and a glaring sense of cashing in spoil everything that made the first one so fun. Either way, it makes no difference, as Part 3 is on it's way. Let's hope somebody puts the wolf pack down after this.
No comments:
Post a Comment