The Hangover Part II

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.

"The Hangover Part II" Trailer

Due Date

Last Summer, "The Hangover" went on to become the highest grossing R-rated picture of all time in the States. Its success came out of nowhere. It was a film that reveled in its debauchery, and lack of maturity. It was also, very, very funny. Director Todd Phillips benefitted from a very strong cast with impeccable chemistry and comic timing. That was where its success lied. You wanted to go on this adventure and no matter how zany everything became, it was the cast that held it together. Wether or not Phillips can capture lightning in a bottle twice will have to remain to be seen next May when its sequel is released. For now, we will have to make do with "Due Date" unfortunately. For everything that "The Hangover" achieved, it only goes to add to the glaring errors in "Due Date". Of course, expecting another film as surprising and absurdly hilarious as that would have been wishful thinking, but considering the talent involved, would it have been too much to ask for some decent and well earned laughs during its running time. Phillips et al, seemed to think so.

Peter Highman (Robert Downey Jr.) is on his way home to LA, to reach his heavily pregnant wife (a wasted Michelle Monaghan) in time for her induced labour in only a matter of days. A very highly strung architect, things immediately go from bad to worse the moment he meets Ethan Tremblay (Zach Galifianakis), an incompetant bumbling fool, slash would-be actor. Of course, Peter immediately has nothing but disdain for the man, so imagine his shock, when through a series of apparantly 'hilarious' events, he renders himself on the 'no fly list' and is forced to drive cross country with Ethan. Ethan, carrying a coffee canister filled with his recently deceased Fathers ashes gets the the duo into an increasingly bizarre series of accidents and incidents along the way, all the while ever more enraging the straight laced Peter. Obvious comparisons are there to be made to "Planes, Trains and Automobiles", John Hughes' beloved 1987 comedy. However even despite the alarming similarities, it also bears resemblance to almost every road trip comedy ever produced, including Phillips own "Road Trip". This again would not be a problem had Phillips chosen to litter the film with confidant tone and pace. As it stands, the out and out shock comedy does not blend well with the obvious emotional undercurrents Phillips was aiming for. If this was to be more of a 'mature' departure before delving straight back into the bawdiness of "The Hangover Part II" then why pepper the film with increasingly shocking and mean spirited humour? This might be down to Phillips desire to strike more darker sensibilities, but it really does not blend with the overall tone of the film. It seems that no matter how much I wanted it to be what I wanted it to; a hilarious throw back to the road movies of the 80's and 90's, it veered off into more confused and uncomfortable territory.

When a film comes from a Director and Cast that you're a fan of, it is quite surprising what you will forgive in terms of the overall quality of the film, that you wouldn't with other less favoured features. Unfortunately, there is only so much you can let go before you the film truly reveals itself. This is apparant near the start when Downey Jr's character punches a child in the stomach for supposed hilarious effect. Now far be it for me to suggest that certain humour is ever too uncomfortable or too taboo; I am a firm believer in the "South Park" tradition of holding either everything funny, or nothing. But what all this comes down to, is tone. Peter punches a very young child for no true deserving reason and gets away with it. As an expectant Father this renders the character thoroughly unlikeable and almost ugly from the off. Spitting on a dog and mocking a disabled Army veteren doesn't do the character any favours either. Downey can portray likeable in his sleep. The man was born with God given charm and charisma. It could be argued that playing someone like Peter is a way out of becoming typecast in those types of roles, but it does a huge disservice to his talent here. Not even he can save it come the 'lessons learned' finale. Galifianakis fares mildly better. A bloated, camp, man child, his innocent naivety, while at times slightly grating, does provide most of the laughs in the film. Of course Galifianakis has portrayed this character enough times at this stage; it may seem that after playing Alan once more he could give it a rest for a while. After all, he certainly does have range as his role in HBO's "Bored To Death" can testify to, along with his upcoming part in "It's Kind of a Funny Story" out early next year. The man does have incredibly honed comic timing, and can make next to anything seem funny. Paired with Downey Jr. should have been a match made in heaven, however the two share almost no chemistry, and in a feature like this it is the most important ingredient.

So what is the film at the end of the day? An immature musing on Fatherhood? An emotionally in touch comic road movie? A funny contrast of different relationships put under extreme pressure? Unfortunately nothing seems to truly work. Some weak plot devices (nay, holes) only add to the confused feel. It's clear that there was certainly something here, but most of the promise falls by the wayside. The film does offer laughs occasionally (Ethan displaying his acting skills in a roadside toilet), but for every half decent line or joke, there are three missteps in the opposite direction. Phillips for the forseeable future it seems should stick to what he knows best; immature men doing stupid things that rarely learn the error of their ways. In short then, the best bits are in the trailer.

Verdict: 49%

While not a cataclysmic failure it surprises all the more coming from a team that promised so much. Downey Jr. comes off as violent and cruel and Galifianakis' shtick shows signs of wearing a bit thin. Some laughs are there and unassuming audiences will lap it up on a Friday night but for now, this does not bode well for the imminent release of "The Hangover Part II".

"Due Date" Trailer