Movies: 16251 | TV Series: 2300 | Added today: 27 | Storage: 55543 GB
|IMDB Rating:||7.1 out of 10 (7979 votes)|
|The Hangover Part II (LQ) (iPod)||Resolution: 480x192 px||Total Size: 317 Mb||
|The Hangover Part II (LQ) (DivX)||Resolution: 720x288 px||Total Size: 1465 Mb|
Right after the bachelor party in Las Vegas, Phil, Stu, Alan, and Doug jet to Thailand for Stus wedding. Stus plan for a subdued pre-wedding brunch, however, goes seriously awry.
We have taken some photos of "The Hangover Part II (LQ)".
They represent actual movie quality.
Dear Movie Viewers Happy Memorial Day 2011 The Wolfpack is back butthis time they are in Bankok Thailand or as Alan (ZachGalifianakis)calls it "thighland" for fans of the first Hangover (ME)there are several references made here from the first movie as well asa lot of cast and cameo member "The Wolfpack" Phil (Bradley Cooper)Stu(Ed Helms)who is about to get married to a beautiful Thai girl Lauren(Jamie Chung) Alan (Zach Galifianakis)then we have the always appearingnaked Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) and as himself but not for long (Mike Tyson)The boys take Lauren's 16 yes that's right 16 year old brother Teddy onthe beach to have a celebratory beer 3 minutes later We see our boyswaking up in a hellhole of a motel in Bangkok messed up from whateverthey did the night/week before, they find a finger belonging to Teddy.
They search for clues amongst a world full of characters (Monks,Shemales, Mobsters, and Chain-smoking drug dealing monkeys) And PaulGiamatti as a Gangster who finally shaved his beard after (10 years)Not as funny as the first but still worth the time.
After the release of one of the most critically and commerciallysuccessful comedies of the modern era in 2009, it would only be amatter of time before director Todd Philips and his cast would be givena second go-round. This is in the form of The Hangover: Part 2, whichis less of a direct sequel, and more of an 'alternative retelling' of anight they'll never remember.
The film is set some months after the events of the first film. Doug(Justin Bartha) is happily married and it is now Stu (Ed Helms) who isthe groom-to-be. He opts for a traditional wedding in Thailand toappease his in-laws, but a night that starts with just one beer on thebeach with friends Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Alan (Zack Galifianakis)is a sign that the trip will be anything but smooth. Cue the followingmorning, when the wolfpack awakes to find, among other things, a monkeyin their bathroom, a tattoo on Stu's face, a barely-alive Mr. Chow (KenJeong, with a much larger role this time) and the severed finger ofStu's brother-in-law, who's nowhere to be found.
So now you know what I mean when I say the film is essentially aretelling of what happened in Vegas. In terms of plot only, theparallels between the two films are obvious, and when you see it infull, you'll realise just how similar they truly are. The monkeyreplaces the baby, Thai gangsters replace Chinese gangsters, and anunconscious Chow replaces Tyson drugged-up tiger. In fact, every majorset piece in Part 2 is in some way adapted from the original. Philipsmakes no attempt to hide this either, going so far as to recycle themajority of Part 1's soundtrack and even shoot key scenes the exactsame way.
Of course, this is not a huge issue, only because anyone who walks intothis film expecting something entirely different is either far toodemanding, or just kidding themselves. The crew applies the same styleof jokes the whole way through, and it works because, quite simply,this is a very funny movie.
I know it's a cliché, but the sequel really is on a bigger scale. Attimes, Vegas seems like a McDonald's play area compared to the horrorsencountered in the red-light district of Bangkok. Wilder scenariosresult in greater consequences for the character's actions, and you canoverlook the fact that some of these problems (which might leave aregular person at a complete loss) are simply glossed over in the filmto make way for a steady stream of gags.
But a word of warning for anyone who may have found the first filmoverly outlandish and inappropriate in its subject matter. Part 2 takesthis hilarity in a more sinister direction, resulting in more than itsfair share of uncomfortable moments, punctuated by gross-out humour andjibes at other cultures that could even be taken as racist andoffensive, depending on one's individual tastes in comedy. I didn'thave a problem with it, but I can see how those with a low tolerancefor political incorrectness would.
Finally, it was disappointing to learn that Heather Graham would notreprise her role as a genuine love interest for Stu in the sequel.Consequently, we're just supposed to accept the fact that he's gottenover his break-up, completely lost contact with Jade and moved on tosomeone we've never met. This makes the film appear just that littlebit shallow during the First Act, but it also becomes a non-issue assoon as the focus turns from the wedding to the manhunt. If TheHangover is the most highly-regarded and respected of modern comedies,then the sequel falls a little short of being its Godfather 2. However,it's hard to harshly criticise a straight-out comedy that makes youlaugh as often as this one does.
*There's nothing I love more than a bit of feedback, good or bad. Sodrop me a line on firstname.lastname@example.org and let me know what youthought of my review.*
I expected more out of Todd Phillips.
The Hangover (2009) was hilarious, Due Date (2010), was funny but notas much.
The Hangover Part II is literally the same movie with the same plotpoints as Hangover I - phone call from Phil (Bradley Cooper) sayingthere's no wedding, flashback to the pre-bachelor party events,awkward/hilarious wake up scene (someone's missing!), wandering aroundcity in question, discovering that Alan (Zach Galifianakis) messed up,more close calls, a wedding, pictures during the credits. The missingperson in question is still in the hotel, although they do check theroof.
The sequel is seedier (it's Bangkok), but uncomfortably dark. There areplainly sad and depressing moments. Unlike the first movie, where theidea that Doug (Justin Bartha) might be dead is humorous, it's nothere. There's so much talk of murder and death that the humor of themovie slips out.
Sure there are funny moments - when Stu (Ed Helms) in a diner beforethe trip covers his cup with a napkin - "so nobody roofies me."Galifianakis is funny, although not as funny as in part one, but hegets us through. Ken Jeong returns for a few scenes as Mr. Chow, butthe movie is so familiar much of the fun is gone.
It is beautifully choreographed though - Bangkok has never been sowell-displayed, so beautiful and so dangerous, I just wish the moviehad lived up to its promise.
Greetings again from the darkness. Two years ago, director ToddPhillips presented a highly creative, hilarious, raunchy, unique filmcomedy called The Hangover. And now, he does it again. He presents thatSAME film again. I am unsure whether this is a sequel or remake. Theonly substantial change is the setting ... Bangkok instead of Vegas.
Now I fully understand WHY most sequels follow the formula created bythe successful original film. Filmmakers want to keep their audiencesatisfied. If it worked once, it will work again. Especially when thefirst film grosses a half-billion dollars! So the chances are very goodthat if you liked the first one, you will also enjoy this one. But forme, I get excited for creative filmmakers ... not re-treads.
The key characters are all back and played by the same guys: BradleyCooper (Phil), Ed Helms (Stu), Zach Galifianakis (Alan), Justin Bartha(Doug), and Ken Leong (Mr. Chow). All of these guys have workedconstantly since the first film, but it makes perfect sense to returnto the scene that put them on the Hollywood map.
This time around, Stu (Ed Helms) draws the long straw and has thestoryline based on his pending marriage to Jamie Chung (Sucker Punch).Stu's "wolfpack" buddies agree to a one-beer bonfire beach bachelorparty, but of course, something goes very wrong. The next morning findsour boys staggering to regain consciousness in a sleazy Bangkok hotelwith no recollection of the previous night's events. The only clues area monkey, a severed finger, a facial tat and international criminal Mr.Chow.
No need for me to go into any details or spoil any moments. You knowthe drill if you have seen the first. What follows is nearly two hoursof debauchery and moments of varying levels of discomfort, gross-outand comedic skits.
Supporting work is provided by Paul Giamatti, Jeffrey Tambor, and MasonLee (Ang Lee's son). There is also a cameo by Nick Cassavetes as atattoo artist. This role was originally meant for Mel Gibson, and laterLiam Neeson. Cast and crew protests kept Gibson out and Neeson's sceneswere cut when re-shoots were necessary.
I feel tricked by Mr. Phillips. The first Hangover had me excited thata new comedic genius had entered Hollywood and would quickly blow awaythe Judd Apatow recycle jobs and copycats. Instead, we get ToddPhillips copying Todd Phillips.
This is certainly an above-average comedy and there are plenty oflaughs from the characters we kind of feel like we know - though, wishwe didn't. Just know going in that are witnessing a clear attempt atcashing in, not a desire to wow.
First of all, I need to say that before going inside the cinema i wasexpecting a bad sequel, but fortunately, it was not - it was prettyfunny actually!
Well, the story, as you can imagine by watching the trailer itself, isin a similar flow in accordance to the original movie!
Though, in Hangover 2, in my opinion, the jokes are a bit more"vulgar"!! Except that everything else is almost the same. But what areyou expecting?!! Everyone wants that! We want the laughs the originalmovie gave us!
You all need to see this movie even if you have not see the first one!!It is originally hilarious! Very funny moments (although less than thefirst one) and a great acting (especially from Zach) is the ultimatecombination!
Go watch this movie and enjoy it as i did!
The Hangover had a real hit with the original and has really lost itsway ever since. This trash is just a pale karaoke version of theoriginal. The problem with this sequel isn't that the humor is overlycrass or that it tries to be funny but fails miserably, (well, maybethat is a HUGE problem after all) it's that there's no substance orheart to go along with it. You simply don't care about these guys thistime around. Can we please end this franchise now???
Are a few laughs worth wasting 110 minutes of time? For me, the answeris a resounding "No!" There are far more promising avenues to explorewith the "Wolf Pack" but all they give us here is a rehash of a betterfilm. Putting aside the juvenile humor that is uneven, all that's leftis a woefully underwritten motion picture that spends all it's time asa rehash before taking an ill-advised detour into mawkishsentimentality.
I saw this movie last night and I thought the first movie was muchfunnier. It was less crude humor and more crazy, surprising, andoriginal humor with a relatively unique way of telling a story.
This movie follows the EXACT same format down to a slideshow at the endthat they can only view once before they have to delete. I dislikedthis movie on several grounds.
1) Raunchy/Gross/Shock-factor humor - Everyone has their own opinion onwhat's funny, I get that. But really is looking at penises,chain-smoking monkeys, naked transvestites, and amputated fingers stuckup noses what's considered funny these days? Maybe it is for some, butI personally just find it stupid and a sad state of affairs if this iswhere comedy movies are heading towards.
2) Offensive - As an Asian-American male watching this movie I couldn'thelp but be disgusted. I dislike calling out the race card but this isone movie I feel it's warranted. First, you have depicted a relativelyattractive Asian female with a white male. Now, I'm all into believingin true love and I have no problem with this by itself, but at the sametime how many times can you recollect where you've seen a movie with anAsian male with ... well, anyone? It's hard not to notice the disparitywhen it's 100 to 0. It makes you wonder about how Hollywood works ...
Secondly, one of the few Asian male appearances starts with showingwhat is likely is a pathologically small penis who of course just"happens" to be an Asian guy. How many movies have you seen an Asianguy'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), theworst you could do to a guy is question their masculinity. That's justsickening that a movie tries to perpetuate a negative stereotype. Imean, I think most of the humor comes from shock value and sensation ofsuperiority (i.e. laughing at another's misfortune). If the penis wereextra 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 obtaininga medical degree and M.S. in health policy to improve the health systemof a country that I love. But it's sad when every time I go to themovies, anyone who looks like me is often portrayed like crap. Mysuggestion is not to support this movie -- plus it's really only acruder rehash of the first one. I think I might have to rededicate mylife to improving media representation if movies like these keep comingout ...
I'll keep this simple and brief. If you are planing on going to seethis in the cinema, Don't. Its not worth the effort in any sense, justwait till it comes out on DVD. I wish there was a way to get a refund,but i blame myself, i went against the better judgment of rottentomatoes (whom i think where kind with the 33% they gave this movie).
Everyone involved in this movie should be ashamed of themselves, therewas really no point in making a sequel. Its like they failed to realizethat the world has moved on from racist/homophobic jokes. I cantcategorize this as a comedy because it's definitely not. if you mustsee a funny movie, Hall Pass should be a better option
If you can't take the heat don't go back into this kitchen. The Wolfpack is back more raunchy then before. There is something here tooffend almost everyone.
The first "Hangover" had a certain charm and freshness along with theraunch. The freshness is gone, the charm has wained and we are leftwith raunch.
If you like "Hangover" you'll like H2 as it is the same movie in adifferent location. The likable characters are all back and the plot isalmost identical. One change, the tiger was replaced by a drug dealingsmoking monkey (who looked like the monkey in the Pirate franchise.)
If dialogue containing the "f" word was deleted it would be a silentmovie.
The pictures in the camera over the end credits showed it could havebeen considerable more raunchy. Those responsible showed good judgmentby not using Mel Gibson or ping pong ball scenes.
This movie followed the exact same plot as movie 1. The only differenceis this time it takes place in Thailand and not Vegas and they lose adifferent friend. Same antics as movie one: they have a bachelorsparty, they get drugged again by the same guy, wake up in a strangeplace, spend the movie backtracking, meeting weird people, getting infights, shot at, and the whole time their friend is very close to wherethey woke up just like the first movie etc...It was horrible andtotally hyped. I laughed maybe 3 times the whole movie. The Asian guyis even more annoying in this movie than the first. He, to me, is ahorrible actor and not funny at all. Just annoying. Please skip thismovie and save your money.