THE HANGOVER PART II

BY CHRISTOPHER HASKELL
MAY 26, 2011

Producing a film sequel too different from the original can kill a franchise. Making a film sequel in precisely the same way as the original is not healthy for a franchise either, and I feel like Todd Phillips will learn that with “The Hangover Part II.” With the same format, same cast, and attempt at the same general humor, the portions of the film that do stray from the original fall flat and uninspiring. A movie widely admired for its distinct originality that turns the page and completely copies everything it portrayed in the original loses most of my respect.

Too much pressure is placed on directors to recreate genius. The problem is that that pressure can kill a sequel. “The Hangover” was one of Hollywood’s best comedies in the last decade. But the sequel, announced days after the original was released, induced groans from this critic when the news hit the internet. “The Hangover” was a great standalone film with so much going for it that recreating it could only spell disaster.

There was little to no hype for this second film, as hype eventually killed the original, unable to live up to the impossible standards that the satisfied audiences placed on the comedy. Any buildup placed on “The Hangover Part II” was damaging. Walking out of the midnight screening, I admit my thoughts went there for several reasons.

If I wanted to watch “The Hangover” all over again, I would have popped in the Blu-Ray and saved myself the $7.50 it cost to see the film in theaters. “The Hangover Part II” is paced and formatted to fit frame-for-frame, gimmick-for-gimmick the original movie. Even the music placement feels contrived. What was foremost in the first “Hangover” was now mediocre and tired in “Part II.” We have the events leading up to the night. Then we skip the night of the party and BAM! We are back following the same clues to the same conclusions; everything feels monotonous and painfully repetitive.

Zach Galifianakis reprises his role of Alan in “Part II”. Due to his success in the first film, Alan becomes the center of attention instead of a side character that chimed in at perfect moments. He is timid and awkward initially and eventually becomes a prima donna involved in every facet of the film, which continues to kill the sequel. Though I adore Galifianakis and his character, he does not work in a leading role. Speech after endless, awkward speech, you grow to hate Alan, while the rest of the characters appear to treat him as though you would treat a differently-abled child, instead of a misguided adult, as in the first film. Each character eventually wants to tear at Alan’s throat in the original, being the source of most of their problems. The same issues come from Alan in the second film, but hardly anyone feels animosity without any explanation.

“The Hangover Part II” feels like a mad lib created from the original. Replace a misplaced child with a misplaced monkey. Turn the villain Ken Jeong into Paul Giamatti. Take out the missing groom-to-be Justin Bartha and put in the brother-in-law-to-be Mason Lee. These swaps of the first film with the same tones and jokes derive from the same essential elements. Is it funny when they think they are getting their friend back but get someone completely different? Is it amusing that they get beat up by gang members in both films almost the same way? Of course, then we start in on capitalizing off the first film like an unnecessary repeat cameo from Mike Tyson. Who wants to see a complete reimagining of the first “Hangover?”

The string of events that the wolfpack endures feels completely glazed over. Nothing is hilarious (minus a few reactions to events, specifically with an ice box and a she-male) and comes off like slapstick humor or a pun that only a middle schooler would find hilarious. The writers go for cheap thrills, like the irony of a monk drinking with the guys. None of it causes the laugh-until-you-cry mentality brought on by the original.

There is also no time crunch in the film, which negatively strays from the original. In “The Hangover,” the guys must find the groom because they are dangerously close to missing the wedding. The same scenario tries to play out in “Part II,” but you never feel rushed. And since you know how the first film ended, you assume the same rescue will occur anyways, so it does not matter what happens in between or whether it makes sense. A friend pointed out that the original had a depth to its humor. Stu pulled out his teeth to prove how good of a dentist he was. Why, then, did Teddy cut off his finger? It makes no sense.

The story and pacing were better in the first film, the acting was much better, and even the song that Stu sings is one hundred percent better in the first film, proving that Hollywood should leave well enough alone. “The Hangover” was remarkable; a comedy that struck America’s hearts and funny bones. Why attempt to tarnish that with a “Part II,” which is the same film revisited? Sure, it will make tons of money. But what movie wouldn’t when it is banking off the first film’s popularity instead of its own creative elaboration? Though the writers and director dropped the ball on the sequel, you have to take the movie for what it is worth, enjoy the continued characters, and pray to God they get it right in “Part III” if and when the day comes.