The Hangover Part II: The Review...
The Hangover Part II is a decidedly darker, grittier entry into what has become one of the more surprisingly popular comedy franchises cinema has seen in quite a long time.
Reactions and reviews seem to be all over the place on this one. Some really liked it, others hated it. Some thought it felt way too close to the original, others enjoyed that they didn't deviate from the formula. Some thought it was hilarious, others thought it simply wasn't funny.
In the film, Phil, Alan, and Doug travel to Thailand to support Stu in his marriage to Lauren. Stu smartly decides to not have a bachelor party, electing instead for a night of simple bottled beers opened right in front of them along the beach at the hotel.
Of course, somehow everyone gets drugged, wasted, blacks out, and completely forgets all of the events of the night before. I'll leave the spoilers out for those who haven't seen the movie yet.
When Lauren's younger brother, Teddy, goes missing during the un-remembered escapades, the Hangover formula ensues as Phil, Alan, and Stu wander through the streets of Thailand, encounter all sorts of hilarious perils and plot twists along the way, and race against the clock to try to find Teddy in order to salvage Stu's wedding.
The actors all bring it with their performances. Bradley Cooper, as Phil, is the anchor of the movie. I love that his character, who has the most machismo, who you think would be the biggest partier, is still a happily married family man. He never even comes close to cheating on his wife. Its a surprisingly noble character arc that we don't expect. Is it me, or is Bradley Cooper's screen presence just getting bigger and bigger? This guy is already a "star" but is on the verge of breaking through to mega-star.
Zach Galifianakis's Alan is just as quirky as ever. If anything, Alan's behavior starts to get just a tad creepy. His shtick starts to get a little predictable - we might be ready to see Alan gives us something new, yet we still love his "guilty innocence."
Ed Hemls as Stu is comfortable in his role in this installment.
Justin Bartha seems willing to play out his role as Doug, and yet you do get the sense that the actor might be a bit bummed out that his is the irrelevant character, relegated to scenes of talking on the phone by himself back at the hotel while the other guys get to go on the adventure. He's Bernie in Weekend at Bernie's, but even less so. It's too bad, really. The filmmakers can really only focus on "the three stooges" - "3" being the operative number here. No room for a 4th friend on the adventure, unfortunately. But Doug is just such a good dude. There has to be a way to fit him in better in a Part 3.
The Hangover Part II does everything it can do to deliver a fresh experience while sticking to the "Hangover" formula audiences expected. It's a tall order creating a sequel like this. In a lot of ways, the filmmakers are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they created a movie that stuck to the same formula, critics would slam it for sticking to the same 'ol thing, not being original, and just trying to cash in. If they reinvented Hangover to deliver an entirely different structure, critics would blame the film for "not being a Hangover movie."
The filmmakers wisely chose to go the route of the former - delivering a film essentially with the exact same structure and formula as the first, down to even the digital camera snapshots over credits at the end. It was a smart move. We go to Hangover movies to see our beloved Phil, Alan, and Stu pass out and go through hell and back to piece it all together.
Anyone remember when Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows came out? It was probably the worst movie of all time. The Blair Witch filmmakers completely disregarded their inspired brilliant convention of the "documentary-realism" style of the first film, and instead tried to deliver a real movie. The results were disastrous. No one cared, the movie wasn't scary, and everyone complained that they deviated too much from the first. In a way, they had an obligation to deliver to audiences a similar experience as the first, and when they didn't, the audiences felt cheated.
Now take a film that does the complete opposite: Paranormal Activity 2. Aside from a few minor little plot twists, PA2 is essentially the EXACT same movie as PA1. Here, I felt the filmmakers tried too hard to deliver the exact same experience, too much of the same experience, so PA2 feels like a completely pointless irrelevant entry in that series.
With The Hangover Part II, though, we have an interesting attempt to deliver the same, but do it differently, and I appreciated the effort. Where HP1 thrusts our heroes into the glamorous world of Vegas, even when they find themselves in the seedy underbelly of Vegas, at the end of the day, it's still Vegas, it's still bright and colorful, and it's still familiar to us because we've all been to Vegas.
HP2 goes to a much, much grittier, harder, and dare I say it, less funny locale in Thailand. The stereotypes are all there - from monk temples to strip clubs with prostitutes whose genders are questionable. But there really is nothing fun about where they are, and I liked it for this reason.
Let's run through a few more examples of moments that question whether or not we are watching a comedy...
When Phil, Alan, and Stu walk through a crowded city street in Bangkok in a long shot that shows off just how dirty and gritty of a place they find themselves in, I thought I was watching something of a Bond movie or even something out of Black Hawk Down, and this is supposed to be a comedy?
Amidst the hotel room destruction when the boys regain consciousness, we discover that Teddy's ringed finger has been chopped off and left behind while he is missing. And this is supposed to be a comedy?
The monkey Alan befriends turns out to be a chain smoker drug dealer monkey who at one point gets shot. And this is supposed to be a comedy?
Stu gets violated by a male prostitute. Comedy?
Phil gets shot in the arm. Comedy?
Because of moments like these, our mindset, as the audience, transitions as the movie progresses. We start out innocently laughing, reveling in the bliss of seeing our guys on screen again ready to take on another adventure. But towards the end of the movie, we find our laughter to be almost uncomfortable. The movie takes us to a place where we really aren't sure whether we are supposed to be having a good time or not.
...and I liked it for this reason!
The filmmakers are clearly envisioning a trilogy for this comedic franchise, and if this is, indeed the case, then as all successful trilogies go, the middle act always calls for something darker - where the heroes find themselves at their darkest hour facing the hardest challenges only to resurface and complete their journey in a Part 3.
You see it all over cinema. Arguably the best chapter in the original Star Wars Trilogy was the middle act, or Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. The darkest chapter in the Indiana Jones Trilogy, was the second film, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
And I suspect this will be the "dark" installment of the Hangover series. It still is obligated to deliver laughs as best as they can, because we do demand that this series remains a comedy, but it also takes us away from the comedy in very specific ways.
In a way, HP2 reminds me of Jackass 2. With the first Jackass, we had all the familiarity of the TV series. With Jackass 2, the formula was still there, yet there's something harder, edgier, and grittier about this second installment, which really doesn't resonate until you watch Jackass 3D. In Jackass 2, they still pull of the wacky pranks and stunts, but they find themselves in a gritty India with Steve-O attaching leeches to his eyeballs. Pretty hard, uncomfortable stuff. Steve-O was personally at his lowest with his drug and alcohol issues, which the filmmakers attest to, perhaps a reason why Jackass 2 felt so raw.
But with Jackass 3D, and Steve-O completely clean and sober, you have a decidedly brighter, lighter experience. Jackass 3D feels almost like the swan song - the boys all come home and reunite for some fun. The pranks are done in good fun, not maliciously. If the original Jackass was Raiders of the Lost Ark, then Jackass 3D was Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
I would suspect, or hope, the Hangover producers had this type of arc in mind in anticipation of a 3rd installment, which will have our boys experience a much more light-hearted adventure that will leave us with that happy feeling we were hoping to get out of Hp2.
If this was the first Hangover movie, not the second, it could have been a major flop. But as a Part 2, it delivers exactly what I wanted to see: The characters I love in action one more time with the Hangover formula I was hoping for, but done in a dirtier, darker, harder way, that has me desperately, and patiently, waiting for a softer Part 3, so the boys can properly come home and settle into what will become historically as one of the best comedy trilogies of all time.
- Jeremy
Jeremy Howard is the Broker & President of Hpremiere Properties, (www.Hpremiere.com) a successful, prestigious modern real estate brokerage located in Southern California. He is also the Founder and CEO of Real Estate Dynamic (r.e.d.) (www.RealEstateDynamic.com), the most progressive and influential Social Club for entrepreneurial real estate professionals on the planet. With a separate background in the Film/Television industry, Jeremy has always had a passion for screenwriting, cinema, and the arts, and finds a particular enjoyment and love in the escapism of theme parks.
www.jerhow.com
www.Hpremiere.com
