Genres

Visitors Review

jjankel123 2012-05-25 09:03:38

could have chop and changed scenes with first movie but still funny

I agree with the general consensus that the plot was pretty muchexactly the same as the first movie. Literally, some scenes could havebeen chopped and changed between movies and no one would have realised. However i would say the general humour in this movie was just as goodif not better which i was very happy with. Especially with the greaterrole of Mr Chow who was incredibly funny.I definitely don't think this movie was as good as the first, mostlybecause we already knew the general plot, and part of the humour of thefirst movie was that we really didn't know what was going to happen.Again the acting was strong the effects were good and the city viewswere spectacular in theory - the streets were obviously very dirty andovercrowded but the camera work was good. Don't worry about this being a hugely disappointing sequel, i wouldhighly recommend watching, especially if you have not yet scene thefirst.Good comedy big thumbs up.

varun_120 2012-05-25 00:09:45

You don't need to get this hangover

I can't tell you how disappointed I am after watching this. It is exactcarbon copy of the prequel. But the prequel was funny. This moviebrings very few laughs, unlike the original previous one.The Hangover was so original. This film is not at all funny, despite ittries to imitate the prequel in entirety. It's better if you watchHangover another time than watching this lame sequel.I hope they don't make Hangover 3, with Alan getting married this time.But if they are poised to make it, please change the theme of 'IT ISHAPPENING AGAIN'There are a few funny moments, but for that to view the movie, is not agood idea.

jadepietro 2012-05-24 01:33:04

Monkey See, Hollywood Do

This film is not recommended." When a monkey nibbles on a penis, it's funny in any language." That'sjust an example of the typical one-liners found in The Hangover PartII, and no, this film is not funny in any language at all. ( Well,maybe in Yiddish. )This film hit the trifecta for me: I laughed a total of three times,and two of those were due to a talented imp of a monkey named Crystal.This mostly humorless sequel to the original hit comedy franchisefollows its same tired formula ad nauseam. Scene for scene is so smuglysimilar to the series' first successful film that any moviegoer mighteasily get confused, except this one cranks up the raunch factor andsprinkles in more nudity and isn't remotely as funny as the 2009version.The Hangover Part II is poorly directed by Todd Philips who was moreeffective with his original version. The film boasts lousy productionvalues and one of the worst renditions of One Night in Bangkok that hasever been recorded. The writing discredit goes to five writers thistime around and they shall remain nameless as to not further embarrasstheir family or friends, ( although the director is one of them andneeds to be held accountable for his lack of finesse and managementskills with the cast and crew in both areas of production. To say thathe is a double threat gives new meaning to the term. ). This latestscript is so disappointing and boring compared to the other film. Theforerunner, at least, provided genuine laughs back then with itsearlier unique premise and only had two different scribes for thatsurprising box office success. The same ole boys are back, with decidedly mixed results. BradleyCooper, Ed Helms, and Zach Galifianakis as Phil, Stu, and Alandisrespectively, of course. This trio of misfits seems at odds from thestart and their interactions now are mostly shrill and quite routine.Its faithful young audiences may have come to accept their roles andand expect their predictable interaction as they did before: Phil isthe leading man or ringleader in charge of the shenanigans, Stu is thehapless victim, and Alan is the crazy wiseguy type providing comicrelief. ( Justin Bartha as Doug is along for the ride and he againdisappears before all hell breaks loose in Bangkok, the scene of thecrime / wedding. ) I expected more from these talented actors. Again, they awaken from a stupor, not knowing what went on the previousnight and slowly piece together the mystery while searching for thebride's missing brother. Ken Jeong also returns as the highly volatileMr. Chow and he wears out his welcome very fast. Incidents occur thathave more long lasting repercussions to the boys, yet no one seems toacknowledge that problem throughout the film. In fact, some of theresults from their hangover are glossed over and quickly explained inthe film's end credits. I guess it's too much work to incorporate thosedetails into the formulaic plot.I couldn't wait for The Hangover Part II to be over. It's pretty sadwhen the pet monkey outshines the monkeyshines perpetrated by thefilm's human cast. Hopefully, what happens in Bangkok will stay therepermanently. However, I can already smell the stench of the nextinstallment being planned. I shall not be attending. GRADE: C-

summer_meg 2012-05-23 14:11:22

Worst movie to date

I really liked the first Hangover. I was excited to see this one.Unfortunately this sequel was one of the worst movies I have seen todate. Did they even have writers? The movie relied on the gross out,shock factor and was not funny at all. I put this movie down with Sexand the city Two. It's like they had the actors already on contract,they knew that the title would sell so why not churn this garbage outwith no thought, editing or skill. It makes me mad to think of how goodthis movie could have been. That they have missed a opportunity.If youlike the first one, don't watch this one! I wish I didn't. Save yourmoney. Don't watch sequels unless they have a good rating. Otherwiseyou like watching a sad flicker of the original.

lisa-629 2012-05-23 14:36:28

How much lazier can Hollywood get?

If you loved the original, then you will love this one. The reasonbeing is that part II is the carbon copy of its predecessor, andreinforces the idea that laziness is running rampant throughoutHollywood. Lets rundown the similarities, shall we: 1-Movie starts outwith Stu's wedding in Thailand. 2-The men wake up and don't remember athing. 3-Stu hasn't lost a tooth this time, he has a face tattoo. 4-Nobaby, but an adorable coke snorting, cigarette smoking monkey. 5-Dougisn't missing, but the bride's younger brother Teddy. 6-No missingtooth this time, but a missing finger, which just so happens to belongto Teddy. 7-Follow a hot lead to find Teddy, but it turns out to be aBuddhist monk (black Doug reference). 8-In order to piece together theprevious night, the guys head to a strip club run by the very same guythat ran the Wedding Chapel from part one. 9-It is also at the stripclub, like the chapel in part one, that we learn that Stu is cheatingon his fiancé-part one was a stripper, this time a stripper with aweiner! 10-Then the return of Teddy lays in the hands of Mr Chow andhim transferring money to a Russian mobster who supposedly has custodyof Teddy, just as Mr. Chow supposedly had custody of Doug in theoriginal, with neither having custody of their supposed missingfriends. 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 whereTeddy is, stuck in the hotel elevator. 13-The guys make it to thewedding just in time. 14-The guys end the film sitting together whenTeddy finds his phone and all the pictures that they are going to alllook at once, but then delete. Its funny, sure, but it's really justembarrassing to come to terms with the knowledge that these writersthink that the viewers of this movie are so stupid that they won't mindthe similarities. I say similarities, but it's just down right the samemovie in a different city. My response to the writers and to thedirector Todd Philips is, How dare you?! Didn't you make a butt load ofmoney? Didn't this movie get nominated for a ton of awards? Youcouldn't afford some real writers? Or did you just not care enoughabout your viewers to give us something different?

MorgothsReach 2012-05-23 03:18:06

A Funny But Very Similar Addition to The Hangover Series

Todd Phillips' sequel to the hugely successful 'The Hangover' continuesthe odyssey of three friends attempting to find their lost companionafter a drunken night gone completely awry. In the first film it wasDoug, the groom, who went missing but this time around his place hasbeen filled by Teddy, brother of Stu's fiancé. This isn't the onlysimilarity in 'The Hangover Part 2' which has lifted proceedings out ofLas Vegas and dropped them into Bangkok. On a positive note though thefilm is still very funny in places with the biggest laughs usuallybeing at the expense of Stu who continues the habit of disfiguring hisbody: a tattoo on the face is his reward this time for his troubles.The biggest problem however with the film is its lack of imaginationwith the writers opting to reiterate the formula of the first film.This encompasses three friends: Phil, Stu and Alan travelling around anunknown city in pursuit of information to piece together the events ofthe previous night. The idea worked well as evidenced by the firstfilm's box office intake and it seems the creative team has experiencedsome trepidation in changing this method. As a result, 'The HangoverPart 2' feels like something of a missed opportunity. With the strokeof genius that was relocating to Thailand there should have been awealth of ideas pouring in to use at their disposal instead of what wehave as the finished product. For example, seeing as how it deals withthree foreign tourists in a country that's unknown to them why not havethem separated and alone before attempting to find their way back toone another or have Doug take part in proceedings this time. There isalso a palpable lack of danger in the film that could have beenexploited to good use such as the sleazy underbelly of Bangkok. We dohave glimpses of drug dealers and transsexual strippers but there is afeeling afterwards that more could have been explored and since it is afilm, exaggerated. The three leads put in pretty good shifts with EdHelms surpassing the other two with his portrayal of a Stu strugglingto cope with each new discovery with one particularly bad revelationbeing one of the funniest moments of the film. Bradley Cooper as Phildoes not actually have a lot to do in the film with the majority ofmishaps being inflicted on Stu which is a shame because Phil's positionas the head of the group could have been reverted to take him out ofhis comfort zone. Zach Galifianakis grows into the role of Alan after aclumsy opening which sees the plot signposted for the audience insteadof the easy transition of the first film. In 'The Hangover Part 2' weget a more petulant Alan than the first film but as the film continueswe are gradually introduced to the character of Alan that made 'TheHangover' such an enjoyable film. As a sequel to the original this filmdoes not quite match up to its predecessor but there are still somegreat moments such as the 'death' of Mr Chow and the realisation thatthe lead characters scaled a Buddhist Temple and kidnapped a gardeningmonk. There are disappointments such as the widely debated tattooparlour scene that saw both Mel Gibson and Liam Neeson come and go. Itis quite clear that there was a rewrite and as such it is a scene withfew laughs. Other opportunities missed could be their one and verystandard scene in a Bangkok police station with this scene inparticular an obvious platform for comedy. In the end though 'TheHangover Part 2' does exactly what it's supposed to do: provide somelaughs but you may feel like bringing out your copy of the original toplacate any longings that the sequel does not satisfy.

MaximumMadness 2012-05-22 01:36:01

"The Hangover: Part II" is a fun retread of the first movie... Had enough laughs and quirky character beats to keep it afloat...

If you can get over the fact that "The Hangover: Part II" isessentially a bigger-budget remake of the first film, instead of beinga full-on sequel, you will like it. That's how I will start thisreview.Todd Phillips returns to direct returning actors Bradley Cooper, EdHelms, Zach Galifianakis and Justin Bartha. Two years after the firstfilm, Stu is getting set to get married to his fiancée Lauren, a Thaiwoman whose family disapproves of Stu. When Stu, Phil and Allan hold atoast for Stu, they awaken the next day, again with no memory of whathappened, and must try to solve the mystery of how they ended up inBangkok, as well as find Lauren's missing brother, whom was with them.Their only clues are a severed finger and Leslie Chow (Ken Jeongreturning, even more insane this time around), whom is mysteriouslywith them.Other reviewers have pointed this out, but I will address it- this filmis cruder, ruder and at times more mean spirited than the original. Itis actually very violent at times, and the things our gang (theWolf-pack) must go through are very disturbing. I won't lie, there weremany times where instead of laughing, I simply stared in horror at whatwas transpiring. It was a bit too vulgar for its own good.All of the actors are very good, yet again. Galifianakis stands out asAllan, whom has sort-of become the mascot for the series- a man-childwho means well, but has obvious emotional and social problems, and canbe very childish when he doesn't get what he wants. However, he ispushed a bit too far towards the beginning of this film, and almostbecomes unlikable before somehow managing to redeem himself. This ismainly due to Galifianakis' performance- he plays the role just dumbenough that you will feel sympathy for him. Even when he is a totalcretin, you know Allan ultimately means well, and is a scared, lonelyman. Helms pulls through more this time, and is more fleshed out, andyou will care more about him. Cooper plays well, but I still have aproblem with his character- he is too irresponsible and at times toomean, which makes him slightly unlikable, especially after seeing atouching moment between he, his wife and his child at the end of thefirst film- his character doesn't totally "add up."Phillips shows again that he has a knack for visuals. In addition tothe gags, some of the scenes are very well shot, particularly a funchase sequence, and some beautiful shots of Thailand and Bangkok.Phillips is a gifted visual artist. And despite the mean nature of thescript by Craig Mazin, it is still a well-structured film, and iswritten reasonably well.I really, honestly enjoyed this film. Even though the set-up andpay-off are almost identical to the first film, making it feel morelike a remake than a sequel, it is still highly enjoyable. (I didn'teven mention the funny drug-monkey or Jeong's uproarious performancesas Chow.)I'm going to give this a pretty-good 7 out of 10. It's a little toodark and violent, and re-treads the original too much, but it's still afun ride, and is worth watching for fans of the original.

Roland E. Zwick 2012-05-21 04:21:10

Dreadful rehash of the original

There's barely a laugh to be had in "The Hangover - Part 2," a dreadfulsequel to the original box office smash from 2009.This time the boys - and I do mean "boys" - are trapped in Thailand,where they've gone to celebrate Stu's nuptials and where theyimmediately fall into a series of misadventures after a riotous nightof bachelor party celebration in Bangkok, all of which has beenmysteriously erased from their collective memory.I wish I could say that, from all this, hilarity ensues. But I would belying. As with most big-budget studio comedies these days, the tone andthe performances are pitched so over-the-top that the audience winds upfeeling assaulted rather than entertained long before the closingcredits come rolling by. To that end, the screenplay by Scot Armstrong,Craig Mazin and director Todd Phillips is filled with wheezy plotmechanics, overwrought action sequences, mind-numbing slapstick, andjokes that fall consistently flat.The buddies are once again played by Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, ZackGalifianakis and a much under-used Justin Bartha (who may have been theonly one career-conscious and savvy enough to ask to be left out ofmost of the proceedings), while Paul Giamatti and Ken Jeong - who ismuch funnier on TV's "Community" - have been added to the cast.By any standard but the most crassly commercial - the movie garnered animpressive quarter of a billion dollars in domestic box office receipts- "The Hangover - Part2" is a colossal bomb.

Logiebear42 2012-05-21 15:54:57

More of the same but just as fresh

The Hangover (Part 1) was a great film - the pacing was excellent, itwas a new and refreshing idea executed brilliantly. It stands up onrepeat viewings and still surprises with how funny it is. Now we have Part 2, the set up sounds the same; one of the guys isgetting married, they (reluctantly) have a bachelor party end upgetting wasted and wake up with no recollection of the night before anda member of the gang missing. Cue surprises as they unravel themystery. Throughout the pre-hungover set up, I'll admit I was worried.There are many nudges and winks to the original that are genuinelyfunny but thankfully the writers stop making homage and the originalitybegins. I won't ruin any of the surprises as the mysteries set up are excellentand caught the entire theater by surprise every time. Be warned thatpart 2 follows the formula of the first but never feels old. Bradley Cooper largely takes a backseat as this is Ed Helms' show. SureZach Galafianakis has the bulk of the comedy and is on form as Alanthroughout the entire film but Helms grounds the film with his descentinto insanity with everything Bangkok throws at him, balancing Alan'schildlike naivety and Cooper's straight(er) man perfectly.The cinematography, soundtrack, writing and direction are all fantasticthe whole way through, showing the squalor and seedy side of Bangkok ina classy and energetic way. The verdict is go see this film. After watching it I honestly cannotdecide whether Hangover 1 or 2 is better. surely that's the sign of agood sequel. Sure Part 1 is fresh and original but Part 2 takes theformula and ramps it up as far as it will go. Enjoy the surprises andgo along for a crazy ride.

sackjigler 2012-05-21 05:52:36

same formula but still very funny

there's not much to say about it here. it is the same formula here asthe first yet it still feels fresh and funny to me. i laughed just asmuch as the first one and felt satisfied at the end. cooper held themovie as the straight men as helms was very funny as the wild party manstu and zach g was still funny as alan and still got the most laughs.if you enjoyed the first one, you will enjoy this as well. if not, thandon't bother. its worth the admission price for a night out at themovies. the best part again to me is the pics at the end, only ibelieve this time they were funnier, but definitely stay through to seethem. ken jeong has more screen time in this one but i thought he wasfar more annoying in the first than here so its not much of adistraction. mike tyson does make another appearance as well and thatscene was also very funny. so, like i said, i would recommend to anyonewho enjoyed the first one and not to anyone who didn't.

junweiHK 2012-05-20 05:59:38

Hilarious! Successful from the first movie!

It's Hangover Part: Two! It follows the same amazing, hilarious successas the first movie. Everything as good as the last, only maybe just acouple of less laughs and a tad more serious. It has the same cast andthe same dynamics as 'The Hangover'. Instead of the high night life ofLas Vegas, they go to Thailand to prepare for Stu's marriage. Quitedifferent from the glamour and penthouse suite of Vegas, they are inthe gritty hard streets of Bangkok. Phil, Stu and Alan are on the runfrom gangs and drug lords in the search for Teddy (Stu's Brides littlebrother). With the expected hilarious antics of strip clubs, obtainingextra baggage, and plenty of beatings along the way. Will Stu, Phil andAlan be able to find Teddy, or will Bangkok take him first? Mr Chow.You SIR are a LEGEND! You will all enjoy this very much if you stillhave a sense of HUMOUR. A lot of people downgraded this successful part2 but really they are spoil sports. Absolutely brilliant this film!Watched it yesterday.

kat 2012-05-19 22:51:11

What!?!?

I loved the first movie. It was just incredibly funny. The second one however, was too much. Of course there were plenty of funny moments but this movie was nasty. Definitely should have been rated worse than R. I was upset to see how many young children were allowed to watch this. There were A LOT of porn-like scenes. I won't be seeing this one again.

Vinnyboat 2012-05-19 14:09:55

A soulless sequel to a classic film. It's a big disappointment.

The Hangover Part 2 is basically just like the first, almost EXACTLYlike the first film. But, this film lacks the soul and the comedy; yes,it lacks comedy. It's a pointless sequel that does nothing but dragfrom when it starts to when it ends. It literally felt like the writestook The Hangover script, photo-copied it, changed the location, madeit super unfunny, and they said, "There you have it, a sequel. We knowthis will bring in some big bucks. It's Hangover 2 for corn sake, whywouldn't it!?". That's what I kept thinking throughout the 100 minuteduration of this film. So, this time Stu is getting married. But wait, what about that blondchick from the first one? Er, I don't know. Anyway, Stu is gettingmarried to Lauren (Jamie Chung), the wolf-pack take Teddy (Mason Lee)who is Lauren's little brother along with them to the beach. They haveone beer, which turns into a sick night, and they wake up in someapartment in the city of Bangkok. They wake up, they find a bunch ofthings wrong and out of place, they realized that they screwed upagain, and Teddy is unfortunately missing. Sucks for them. But wait,what about Doug? He's with them now right? No he's not! The writersdecided to put him back at the hotel in Thailand. It would've been socool to see Doug hungover with the other guys looking for Teddy. Ugh. Allan, though, was a comic relief. He's the only element in this filmthat makes the audience laugh. In the first we had Allan and a bunch ofthings, in this we had just Allan. Allan had a couple of laugh out loudmoments, but I don't think they should necessarily call this a comedyif 3/4 of the movie isn't even funny. Ken Jeong returns as Mr. Chow,and sadly he doesn't give us much comedy. I couldn't stand the rest of the characters. Stu is somewhat the sameas the first, the panic type, but it seems all of his character in thisfilm was forced by the writers and director. I didn't like Phil at all.He was so boring in this movie! What happened to the all-out, funny ashell Phil we got in the first movie!? What else can I say, everything else is just like the first. Instead ofa missing tooth, Stu has a tattoo. Instead of finding a Tiger in theroom, there's a monkey. It's just so stupid to see them repeat the samething with some little changes. They're making The Hangover 3, and they say it's supposed to be thewolf-pack breaking Allan out of a mental institution. That is what thisone should have been, something different and exciting, but instead weget the same s*** that happened in the first. A big disappointment.Nuff' said. My Rating: 1.5/5 (skip it!)

raisleygordon 2012-05-19 01:56:23

Equally good as the first movie

If you thought "The Hangover" delivered the goods, you'll just as muchenjoy this sequel as I did. I expected not to like it as much, sincemost movie sequels are inferior to the first movie (or previous movie,if you're referring to further sequels). I expected not to like it asmuch because these guys are now outside of the U.S. (except for thebeginning). Plus, their adventures this time around are funnier. I waspleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed the movie. Don't listen tothe critics who pan it - they knew this was going to be the same movie.This (and part one) are movies you don't need to be hung-over to enjoy.I can't wait to see what part III (and there will be one) has in store.*** out of ****

James 2012-05-18 15:50:08

Fanaticalaboutfilms Review: The Hangover Part II

Hot off the heels of The Hangover, a massive summer success in 2008,The Hangover Part II reunites the wolfpack and the adventure begins allover again in another country and city.This time around the setting is Thailand and Stu (Ed Helms) is thelucky groom to be. With the wedding taking place in Thailand to helpStu get along with his new relatives, the rest of the gang- Phil(Bradley Cooper), Doug (Justin Bartha) and Alan (Zach Galifianakis)head out planning for a more relaxing version of their Las Vegasdebauchery. This time however there is another party goer in the formof the brides 16 year old brother Teddy (Mason Lee).Suffice to say the unthinkable happens and they wake up in the middleof Bangkok and each sporting a very impressive hangover again. Mr Chow(Ken Jeong) also returns and is given a more prominent role in this onewith his extreme character providing some of the films more amusingmoments.The writers and director seem to have stuck to the same winningprincipals of the last film almost identically which you might considerto be a good thing. Yes it is more vulgar and over the top than thelast one and they have tweaked it slightly but there is no realvariation whatsoever from the original. The tiger is now a monkey, thebroken tooth is now a tattoo, a character goes missing etc. Thisresults in a very disappointing movie as not only are you getting thesame jokes in the same order with the same characters but you can workout exactly what is going to happen next.The original won us over due to it's outrageous and original scenarios,this just increases the outrageousness/nudity and thinks that's allthat's required to create another success. Completely wrong. In factmost of the best moments come from the characters reminiscing aboutwhat they got up to in the first movie. If it wasn't for the nostalgiaand likability of the characters that was build up from the first film,I would have struggled to laugh more than once or twice.Although I wasn't expecting it to be as good as the first one, I wasstill hoping for an entertaining movie that could have at least triedto break slightly from the template of the first. Alas it fails toachieve this and the result is a distinctly average film that's justbeen rehashed. I'd rather have just watched the first one again to behonest.For further reviews feel free to check out:http://www.fanaticalaboutfilms.com

Spazz 2012-05-18 03:34:17

The Hangover 2 is a lifeless and empty comedic experience.

Not as bad as Caddyshack 2 as some are claiming but probably becauseThe Hangover was no classic like Caddyshack. So, it has less farther tofall. The Hangover 2 is a below average follow up to an above averagecomedy. I really didn't share the over-the-top love for the first filmeven though I did enjoy it very much. The same can't be said for thisgo around. This particular incarnation isn't all that witty, sexy oreven gross enough to distinguish itself from any number of similarcomedy efforts. I hope fans of the first haven't set their expectationstoo high because this thing really isn't that funny. Releasing it inthe summer means it will fade from memory FAST as other moreentertaining films are released in this jam packed season.Bromances may have been all the rage a few years ago but I think mostof us are sick of films like this one at this point. The writing isfull of lazy clichés and the lowbrow alleged laughs on display arecompletely dumb and almost never funny. I couldn't decide who was moreirritating Zach's character, Bradley and his arrogant one-liners or thethought that the writers of this trash actually got a huge paycheck todraft this nonsense. The Hangover 2 is a lifeless and empty comedicexperience.Instead of a sequel to a funny film all they've given us an insanelyunfunny and unlikable film. Way to cash in but phone in a sequel.

emo_boi1012 2012-05-16 22:36:49

Copy and Paste the first Hangover = Hangover 2

If you haven't seen the first film, you will love this film. theoutrageous moments and the character's quotes will keep you laughingtill the end. You would think that the whole script is well written andlots of comedy humor is added in the script which makes it a brilliantfilm.However, If you've seen the first film, you will feel annoyed when youget out of the cinema. The whole structure of this film is very similarfrom the first. the beginning, the middle and the end. the elementsused in the first film is also used in the second film. the script issimilar to the first but with different scene, new characters, and someimprovementsIn my conclusion, i thought the film was brilliant, i just wasn'tsurprised and think that it would be better than the first film.

borninbeds1981 2012-05-16 18:45:16

good effort, but same stuff...different setting.!?!

Well where to start, I just saw 'The hangover part 2', which I havebeen looking forward to since I first heard it was being made(which wasa no brainer considering the success of the first). So I went into thisexpecting a lot I guess, as the first blew me away with laughs and acertain level of originality. But that was the completely wrong way togo into this film!. I mean to put it bluntly, Its very much "worked inthe first, will work in the 2nd", even though some aspects of this ideafrom the director/co-writer Todd Philips works, you just don't havethat wow factor as in the first!. So even though there is a lot of thesame in this, you still laugh due to the brilliant chemistry thesecharacters have together, and how they deal with each crazy,ridiculously (funny at times) situation they fall into. For me its ZachGalifanakis who makes it work, His silly out-of-this-world one linersand comments about whats happening, and his reaction to each situationour boys find themselves in. I know most people think he is likemarmit.....but if you get this kind of humour, it works!. As for theother two leads,its the same effort as the first film,but still worksand keeps the film afloat, just a shame the rest of the film with thesame efforts does'nt. As the credits roll...its the same set up....Guyshave few drinks...Guys wake up with serious hangover....guys find theyhave lost someone in their group(this time Teddy, Stu's partner'slittle brother).......guys try to remember what happened by backtracking the events of the messy night which there cantremember.....even the ending is more or less what happened in thefirst. But besides all this, it still has that tinkle most comedieslack these days, you really like the character's. And it does have afew shocks-laughs that you will either make you want to be sick or turnaway! 'There's a reason they call it Bankok sweetheart'.Its worth watching if you loved the first, just try to really notexpect better, at times it really shines, its just a shame those timesare like a giant slice of deja vu .

doctormd 2012-05-16 11:38:12

Unoriginal, crude, and offensive to AsianAmericans

I saw this movie last night and I thought the first movie was much funnier. It was less crude humor and more crazy, surprising, and original humor with a relatively unique way of telling a story.This movie follows the EXACT same format down to a slideshow at the end that they can only view once before they have to delete. I disliked this movie on several grounds.1) Raunchy/Gross/Shock-factor humor - Everyone has their own opinion on what's funny, I get that. But really is looking at penises, chain-smoking monkeys, naked transvestites, and amputated fingers stuck up noses what's considered funny these days? Maybe it is for some, but I personally just find it stupid and a sad state of affairs if this is where comedy movies are heading towards.2) Offensive - As an Asian-American male watching this movie I couldn't help but be disgusted. I dislike calling out the race card but this is one movie I feel it's warranted. First, you have depicted a relatively attractive asian female with a white male. Now, I'm all into believing in true love and I have no problem with this by itself, but at the same time how many times can you recollect where you've seen a movie with an asian male with ... well, anyone? It's hard not to notice the disparity when it's 100 to 0. It makes you wonder about how Hollywood works ...Secondly, one of the few asian male appearances starts with showing what is likely is a pathologically small penis who of course just "happens" to be an asian guy. How many movies have you seen an asian guy's penis? Yet this is the one time they do show one?! In my opinion, and probably as any guy will tell you (just ask your bf/husband), the worst you could do to a guy is question their masculinity. That's just sickening that a movie tries to perpetuate a negative stereotype. I mean, I think most of the humor comes from shock value and sensation of superiority (i.e. laughing at another's misfortune). If the penis were extra large on an asian or black male, would it still be funny? Anyway, on a side note, I've spent the better part of my 20s obtaining a medical degree and M.S. in health policy to improve the health system of a country that I love. But it's sad when every time I go to the movies, anyone who looks like me is often portrayed like crap. My suggestion is not to support this movie -- plus it's really only a cruder rehash of the first one. I think I might have to rededicate my life to improving media representation if movies like these keep coming out ...

Carrie U 2012-05-15 16:12:08

Save your money!!!

This movie was pure crap! Don't waste your time or money~the only thing I liked was the popcorn and I could have had that at home watching reruns on TV.They crossed the line with all of the nudity and He-She BS. I am not a prude and love racy but this was just plain awful!