Wordiezett So much average

FeistyUpper If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Jakoba True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

johnnyboyz It must surely be the case that "The Hangover 2" is the moment people come to realise their folly in liking the first film, and thus come to review their opinions on it. Indeed, how can one realistically claim to enjoy the initial 2009 effort, about the hijinks of three American men lost and confused in the city of Las Vegas, without proclaiming the superiority of this one too? It may, of course, be the case that you claim to like both, but this is surely mere self-delusion as this second effort is patently not good - it is about as ordinary as the first one, no better or worse - a series of chaotic sequences involving connected men in an alien locale which doesn't happen to have the raw punch of the first because neither the jokes nor the scenarios are fresh. Within the first hour, one can practically hear the voices of the producers and writers which radiated out of the well-groomed office suites of a large Los Angeles building bathed in 27 degrees of sunshine - people knocking around ideas for the sequel to the wildly successful and perhaps genuinely funny in two or three places comedy "The Hangover". Let's not mince our words: the second film exists because of the financial success of the first, nothing else. The film is, more or less, a rehash of the initial outing: the location has changed to Thailand, offering the dynamic of a language barrier for our leads to struggle through, and another character has joined the troupe in the form of the young; Asian and gifted Teddy (Mason Lee), but the formula is not one that has been strayed from especially greatly. As was the case with the first film, I did not believe for one second that the parties involved would know one another; care for one another or have anything to do with one another in the real world: Phil (Bradley Cooper), a primary school teacher who steals his pupils' money in the first film, here attempts to swipe a prescription sheet for some narcotics which will take you to a happy place whilst at the dentist. Ha ha. Said dentist is Stuart (Ed Helms), who is the series' lateral thinker and musician. Completing the foursome is Doug (Justin Bartha), whom I spent most of the first film wondering how he would know these people, and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) - Doug's somewhat retarded in-law. It is Stuart's wedding in Thailand that propels the gang off and away for their latest escapade, one which will eventually see them (minus Doug, whose presence in the franchise may now very well be redundant) charge around the noisy, squalid streets of Bangkok and its surrounding suburbs looking for soon-to-be brother in law Teddy. Todd Phillips and his creative crew tweak the 'winning' formula only very slightly, this time forcing the crew into their misadventure after they each agree to have a quiet drink on the beach rather than a boisterous night out. Things do not go entirely to plan, and someone from the original gang of course is missing when the time comes to wake up in a mysterious hotel room: Stuart does not lose a tooth, but instead obtains a tattoo; there is no tiger in the suite, but instead they have acquired a monkey; the groom is fine, but his father-in-law's pride and joy has disappeared without a trace... This propels Stuart; Alan and Phil into action, but the writing is generally lazy: Thai stereotypes, such as the monastery dwelling Buddhist monk on a vow of silence and the ladyboy whore, pepper the experience, while the film has to resort to using a monkey to boost its chuckle count. Monkeys are funny, aren't they?. If the writing is lazy, the adventure itself is mostly unspectacular: whether it was the regurgitation of old jokes or something else, very little of "The Hangover 2" is actually that funny, but then it struck me that perhaps it isn't supposed to be.... There is a strange air to the film, almost as if the predicament this time round is something to endure rather than have fun experiencing. The gang's hammering around Las Vegas and the surrounding Nevada desert carried with it a fun, punchy feeling - it was a process they sensed they'd survive, if only they could piece together the clues.... In Bangkok, the 'wolfpack' have strayed too far from home and the film plays more like an odd action/horror hybrid as the gang bear seedy backstreets; psychotic Russian cartels and friends' severed fingers... Where Doug's fiancée was afforded the opportunity to spit fire at the crew's losing the love of her life in the 2009 effort, tremendous strain is undertaken to prevent Teddy's father from ever knowing that they placed this clean-cut young man in the way of any kind of harm. Despite not necessarily having anything 'wrong' with him, it had already been established that Stuart is disliked profusely by his future father in-law - the vanishing of Teddy under his watch risks enraging him even further, potentially scuppering the wedding entirely. But without Teddy's father ever discovering he was first lost, and then retrieved, nothing is learnt and the entire arc of his coming to accept Stuart as an in-law himself is rendered totally redundant."The Hangover", not to mention this sequel, are films which most people seem to really enjoy - I think most critics seemed to realise they were had the first time round when the time came to see this second film, hence the backlash which seems to have been born out of their own frustration with themselves for not getting the review right first time round. I'd like to be able to enjoy it all with everybody else, but I just find myself unable to get involved with any of it. You could do a lot worse than this and its slightly older brother, but you could probably do better.

tomgillespie2002 Todd Phillips' approach to part two of his surprise comedy smash The Hangover (2009) is that if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The original made bona fide stars out of its lead trio and grossed half a billion dollars in the process, so a sequel was always going to be on the cards. The simple formula of the hapless heroes waking up from a stag night of drink, drugs and debauchery to find the groom missing and a variety of clues lying around to help them work out just what the hell happened felt fresh, and the natural charisma of its stars, particularly Zach Galifianakis, made for a hilarious experience.By sticking to the formula, Phillips has forced himself to a corner where the details have to bigger and more outlandish. Instead of Vegas, Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms) and Alan (Galifianakis) are in Thailand to celebrate Stu's upcoming wedding to Lauren (Jamie Chung). After a planned quiet night on the beach with a beer and marshmallows, they wake up in a grimy hotel room in Bangkok with no memory of the night before and inexplicably in the presence of gangster Mr. Chow (Ken Jeung) from the first film. When Chow seemingly overdoses on cocaine, they are left to piece things together themselves.If this was a stand-alone movie without the existence of its predecessor, then this probably would have been a winner. While its frequently goes overboard with the crass humour, its consistently amusing without succeeding in being quite so laugh-out-loud as the first movie, thanks mainly again to Galifianakis, whose man-child Alan is the funniest aspect of the film. Yet while his naivety and plain stupidity was so endearing in the original, the sequel also takes Alan to increasingly dark places. Here, he is not so much social inept but dangerously insane to the point that he becomes occasionally outright unlikeable.And this is the main issue - replacing charm and goofiness with extreme humour. Stu was missing a tooth in the first film, but this time he wakes up with a Mike Tyson tribal tattoo on his face. Rather than Tyson's tiger, we have a chain-smoking drug-mule monkey. Rather than finding Doug (Justin Bartha) vanished, they lose Lauren's prodigal younger brother Teddy (Mason Lee), to which the only clue to his participation is his severed finger. And having previously married a stripper, Stu discovers that - in the most uncomfortably unfunny scene - he has been sodomised by a ladyboy. Add to the mix a sub-plot involving gangster Kingsley (Paul Giamatti) and his search for Chow, the film spends too much time away from the hapless threesome's interplay in favour of watching their reactions to a variety of cruel situations.

jacobjohntaylor1 This is not funny it is just gross and stupid. Don't wast your money. Don't see this movie. I pooh on this movie because it is pooh pooh. It is badly written. It is made by people you do not know what it means to be funny. I can't believe people think this junk is funny. I swear any body could have hit comedy. Because people are just so desperate for a laugh. I know bad words and I have been on the toilet so many times in my life I could have a hit comedy movie. The monkey is the most talented actor in this overrated piece pooh pooh. It is very sick at times and that is not a good thing. And sick is never funny sick is just sick. Wast time that you will not get back do not see this awful movie.

DiCaprio74 This movie was still pretty hilarious although it was a completely different story plot with the same scenario from the first one. Bradley Cooper, in my opinion, can turn any movie around just from his acting skills. Galifianakis was his usual hilarious self along with Helms and Jeong. The only disappointment that had came out of the film was pretty much the fact that they had used the same scenario from the first Hangover movie. You would think that the director would like to go with a different type of storyline, but I guess this was the one that he was sticking to. Along with it being the easiest to come up with as well. This movie was more than the average comedy film that you would see, but it's lack of good story structure was an issue.  I'm not going to lie and say that I didn't laugh at this film, because I did, it's just that it could've went in another direction. It's claimed a movie that you either hate or love, but I simply find myself in the middle of not liking it because it really went nowhere, and loving it because it was hilarious. I would tell you to give it a try before continuing to read the rest of the reviewers ratings. Try it for yourself and find out how you like it before determining to stay away from it or not.