Hair of the Dawgs

Hangover’s second verse, same as the first

A working theory: There is no script for The Hangover Part II. There is only a script for the first Hangover with white out on some of the verbs and nouns. After their first unabashed gross-out out-grossed all other comedies ever made, writer/director Todd Phillips and writers Craig Mazin and Scot Armstrong dropped a deuce on such pedestrian concepts as “originality” and “character development” in favor of flat-out replication. There’s giving the people what they can expect in a sequel, and then there’s The Hangover Part II: a love song to lazy, recycled screenwriting. But if you listen, you can almost hear the trio of so-called creators belching out a collective question. “Are you not entertained?” Dammit. Yes. Yes, we are. The Hangover Part II is funny. Stupid funny. Unrepentantly funny. The kind of funny that a movie this devoid of any effort has no business being. And before you go thinking “devoid of any effort” is too harsh, consider this synopsis. Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), Doug (Justin Bartha) and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) get together in Thailand for Stu’s wedding to Lauren (Jamie Chung), who is so beautiful that her union to affable everyman Stu may be the most unbelievable part of a movie that involves a smoking, drug-pushing monkey. Two nights before the wedding, the gang gets together with Lauren’s little brother Teddy (Mason Lee) for the proverbial “just one” beer and wake up the next morning in Bangkok with no memory. They must check their pockets for clues about the previous night, endure the reckless, genital-exposing antics of Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) and find their missing friend before the wedding. Sound familiar? Even with the characters’ incredulousness that they would be involved in another such affair, including Phil’s cheeky meta-acknowledgment that “it happened again,” it’s hard to totally forgive the duplications, which extend to the maximum-perversity photo montage over the credits. Or at least, it would be hard if it wasn’t for all the laughter…which has long been the remedy to cure writing ills. So why is it still gut-busting to watch this crap again? The answer comes by comparing the film to a superior one: Bridesmaids. Bridesmaids is a clever, well-penned film populated by passably real characters and full of often genuine emotion. By contrast, the subhuman pig-men that populate The Hangover movies are whacked-out caricatures devoid of morality, relative or otherwise, and completely incapable of feigning normal human emotions. Even the “good one,” Stu, does some really, really unspeakable things. Thus, the pain and suffering of these freakshow ne’er-do-wells is therapeutic. You can laugh guilt free at these cinematic voodoo dolls, rejoicing in their being repeatedly stuck with the pins of unfortunate circumstance. It’s not smart, new or inspired…but it is pretty funny. On a sheer laugh-to-laugh comparison, Bridesmaids still smokes The Hangover Part II, even out-grossing the dude-led sequel. But give this follow-up its due: Somehow, some way, they made the same jokes funny…again. Which is a fancy way of saying we pretty much know what The Hangover Part III is going to look like. Grade = B+

posted at 12:05 am
on Friday, May 27th, 2011

COMMENTS

(We're testing Disqus commenting (finally!); please let us know if you have trouble.)

comments powered by Disqus

 

« Previous Page


Worst. Children’s Book. Ever.

The horror genre is not my least favorite genre solely because white people keep making period costume dramas. At their worst, horror flicks revel in sadism and do so shoddily, with weak acting,...

more »


Happy, Little Clouded

Actual human beings made The Tale of Princess Kaguya, and you can tell. A water-colored rebuke of the robots who computer-generate most modern animation, every luscious scene is hand-crafted and...

more »


No Big Bang

In 1965, Stephen Hawking wrote his first ground-breaking thesis and wed Jane Wilde. His paper argued that if a star can collapse inwards to form a singularity, then a singularity can explode back...

more »


Leni Riefen-stalling

On the one hand, any film subtitled “Part 1” is a naked cash grab. On the other hand, shut up and take my money, Hunger Games. Mockingjay Part 1, like the rest of the franchise, is billed as “Young...

more »


Oopsie Genius

I know two things for sure: (1) Birdman aims to relentlessly drive home one singular point, one thoroughly expressed thesis about life and art. (2) It does not succeed. You would think that would...

more »







Advanced Search