What is this? A PF Changs?The first "Hangover" in 2009 was a revelation. It brought the raunchy bromance R-Rated comedy to a new level and made the chubby bearded guy from the Kanye West youtube video a bona-fide star. In addition, it made boatloads of cash and spawned the inevitable franchise. The "party flick" has been a standard sub-genre of the comedy for years.. fueling the young nationwide. From Animal House to Porkys to PCU to Van Wilder, Old School and Wedding Crashers, these flicks become part of the greater cultural milieu and sort of define partying for a couple of years. If you're my age.. your partying years were probably spent emulating "Frank the Tank". If you were in college when the Hangover came out, I'd imagine every group of guys referred to themselves as some sort of "wolfpack" or another. The Hangover even rose to a higher level than earlier contenders for the title, becoming a legitimate cultural phenomenon... a profane, offensive masterwork that rose beyond the usual confines of the genre to be commented on and critiqued (and largely loved) by pretty much everyone.
2 years later, here we are, with part deux. Pretty much everyone knows the story by now.. a group of longtime friends, Doug, Phil and Stu (Justin Bartha, Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms) head to Vegas for a bachelor party before Doug's wedding. Doug's future brother in law, the childish and socially retarded Alan (Zach Galifinakis) tags along... and outrageous hilarity ensues from a night that none of them can remotely remember. This time around, the gang heads to Thailand, where Stu is going to be married to Lauren (Jamie from the single best season of the Real World to date) in her ancestral home. After some peer pressure and bribing, Stu is convinced to invite Alan despite everything that went down in Vegas. After a disastrous rehearsal dinner, the guys decide to have one beer on the beach with Lauren's brother Teddy and wake up amidst all sorts of mayhem in Bangkok.. without Teddy, with Chow (Ken Jeoung), with a monkey, and with varying degrees of ailments from the night before, a night none of them can remember in the slightest. Our heroes spend the next day plus retracing their steps from the night before via various clues in an effort to locate Teddy and save the wedding.
First thing first, this is the exact same movie as the first go-round.. just stepped up a level or two, largely due to taking place in Bangkok (a global den of sin) as opposed to "just" Vegas. Literally, if plotted out, the flick follows the entirely same pattern. So if what you're looking for in the sequel is something new and groundbreaking... I'm sorry, but you're going to be sorely disappointed. When they say "Part II", they truly mean Part II.. this is just the same guys doing the same shit.. and then some. If you laughed at the first one, you're going to laugh at this one. It's Thailand.. there are going to be monks, there are going to be outrageous gangsters, and you'd better believe there are going to be ping-pong balls and lady men. So the question is whether you consider more of the same to be a bad thing or not. This is our intrepid wolfpack acting outrageously and being hilarious. Galifinakis is completely outrageous, dropping one-liners left and right while acting like a potty-mouthed 4th grader, Phil is a giant foul mouthed dick and Stu is the boring guy pissed and incredulous that he's in this situation. Say what you will.. these guys know how to have a good time.
As far as I go.. I laughed at this one, a lot. If you like the first one, you're going to like this one. If you like Galifinakis.. you're going to laugh a lot. The cast has a ton of charisma and great rapport.. you can tell these guys really get along and feed off of each other. Director Todd Phillips clearly knows how to ratchet up the raunch... and just "goes for it" with abandon. This is a fun, raunchy time at the movies.. but seriously, the theater I saw it in was filled with way too many kids. That is just ridiculous. There are at least 2 scenes of full on male nudity I can recall and between 1000-1200 f-bombs (rough estimate). Someone under the age of 14 or so has no business seeing this movie. But that aside, I had a good time. It doesn't have the same pull as the first (which I loved), simply because, like I said, it's the exact same movie. So I liked it, but wasn't blown away.
7/10. But certainly well worth seeing if you're a fan.
No comments:
Post a Comment