Hangover 2 movie review- by What the Flick

Full text transcript of the Hangover 2 movie review:

Give me that much, everybody, here are some fun facts. The population in Thailand is sixty three million people. It is twice the size of Wyoming. None of you know, still like I do. I can’t even tell you what we’ve been through because we made a pact. What I can tell you is this. This is not Stu’s first marriage. There was a whore in Las Vegas a couple of years.

And what the flick. I’m not sure if Ben’s hair is ready for this or not. So it’s always ready. Baby, we’re talking about Bradley Cooper today, though. You’d have perfect hair.

God, I am totally. I watched that hangover two. I am so jealous of that guy’s hair and I am not jealous of a lot of guys who have good hair. I thought during that entire movie that as you look at that guy’s hair, I thought how much time was spent getting that just perfect. It’s it’s rustled exactly the right amount.

And I’m glad the movie made you think about something because I didn’t think about anything at all.

But please explain to us the mystical magical phoned in sequel that is The Hangover to make.

It wasn’t phoned in. If you saw Hangover one, if you saw the first one, you know what happens instead of Vegas. The three guys are in Thailand. They get drunk and they don’t remember what happens. But there are a lot of significant changes. Instead of losing a tooth, Ed Helms has a tattoo. Instead of looking, instead of looking for the groom, they’re looking for the groom’s future brother in law. And instead of a tiger, it’s a monkey.

Totally, totally different from maybe they had to this happening again for his little brother is lost, not going back without Teddy. He loved the party that long and. Unidentified man.

My word. I have an issue with Ben’s assessment of the intricacies that make the hangover to so special, I think that the monkey is tantamount to the baby they found in the first one because they schlepping along with them and it leads them to the person they have to find. The tiger is just the tiger outrageous. It is outrageous incongruity. How are you even a professional film critic?

Often they don’t pay you, you bitch. I know. Know, here’s why it’s the tiger and not the baby. Please explain this because it’s in the bathroom because they’re surprised by it in the bathroom. I think this is the kind of rich debate. No know.

And I think instead of Ed Helms losing a tooth, that other dude loses the finger.

He doesn’t miss a body part there. Look, it’s a there’s a lot of subtlety on here. Yeah. It’s a rich hodgepodge. They take the best elements. No, look, I think in history, I think you’re being too harsh. Is it because you called it in your review, which I quoted in my review of having the post on that money, you called it lazy, arrogant or a combination of the two? Yes, I think that it’s lazy. I don’t think it’s arrogant. It obviously they did not sort of expand. And I think that that constricted them because I think there were moments where the film is long stretches where it gets dull, because I think that Todd’s no time Todd Phillips, who directed it as he directed the first and he co-wrote this one, that it feels like that he felt totally sort of bound in by the restrictions of having to follow the specifics.

I mean, it’s one of those examples that you think that somebody at the studio is is saying to them, this needs to be exactly like that. First one, it needs to be exactly the same thing. Let’s not do anything new. Let’s not try and come up with some other storyline, kidnapping, finding a lost person, blacking out from the night before. It’s got to be exactly the same.

Shouldn’t the only thing that had to be the same is these guys in a strange city. They’re drunk and they can’t remember what happened. But reconstructing it doesn’t have to be identity.

Right? And they and they even say in the movie it’s happened again.

I can’t believe this is happening again. They say over and over again. But, you know, we get it. It’s a sequel and there’s no creativity.

But I was kind of OK with it. I still like I didn’t think it was it’s not a great movie. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t think it’s as good as the first one. I think the first one succeeds a lot because it is such an over-the-top idea. And some of the some of the power of that is lost by repeating that exact same idea. I don’t think they go quite as far as they need to taking that same idea and kicking it up. But it was OK. There were some good laughs.

I was all right with all of the power is lost because the fun of it, the thrill of the original is it you’re solving the mystery along with them. And even though they have hangovers and they’re miserable and they’re panicking as they go along, they clearly had a blast and they made you want to go along with them. That never happened in this one. What you find out they ended up doing is dark and boring and not fun.

Look, that is the beauty of the first one that there’s this sort of there’s the unknown and you sort of solve the mystery, there’s no question. But I think that this movie suffers. And I think what many critics are going to say, you included, that I think is missed is if this movie if you weren’t comparing this to the first this is sort of a fun film. These guys are really good together. It is funny. There are long, dull stretches in it, a couple of long, dull stretches. And where, again, I think that they’re pulled, but they’re forced to follow the story that they shouldn’t be forced to follow.

But if you’re not comparing it to the first right and the chemistry here goes first, but the chemistry that doesn’t make it this doesn’t have to be fun.

But to Ben’s point, I think the chemistry between these three guys goes so far that I’m kind of willing to go with it. I was it was OK with it to the point that they even kind of basically. Right. What’s his name from the first movie out of the groom?

The first time they kind of write him out of the adventure because he was written out of the first four for whatever reason, for whatever reason they did that. It kind of works. It’s I think that that would have added something to the chemistry that wouldn’t have worked here.

What if they lose a disk? So I thought of and the disk like is the if they don’t find the disk, it will cost Ed Helms future and father in law his business. That was my idea.

It’s so clear, right? Microfilm, microfiche. What happened to microfiche? Like, I don’t know.

It just something else. And obviously I shouldn’t be suggesting ideas, but I mean, anything else I just think would have given them more freedom and would have saved these stretches where it it it drags, which I think keeps it from being as funny as people expected.

You know, when you make the highest grossing R rated comedy of all time, you should have some creativity, should have some leeway. I don’t agree with the theory that they were hemmed in by studio demands to make an identical film. I think they’re just cynical and they’re going to make it as easy as possible. Have to cash in again, I think when you have that kind of power, you can make whatever kind of film you want and they just chose to make one that was lazy. You’re cynical. I am. So I want to find I want fresh, exciting, fun.

I feel like the exact opposite. Oh, no one R rated comedy all the time. Let’s make that movie. You must be safe. We must be safe. That’s absolutely the way it is.

I can stand a third one because I think this one was better than average. But but I think they can do a little better.

Well who else gets married. Does Zach Galifianakis get married?

Let’s eliminate the marriage. Let’s just get him drunk again and let’s grow it a little bit. Let’s let’s think creative of some kind of religious judge. Todd Phillips is good.

These guys know what they’re doing. They didn’t they didn’t grow up here. What do you think? What your. You know, I was OK with that. I give it a five average OK to the scene.

The obligatory scene where they wake up in the squalid Bangkok hotel room is shot really beautifully. I mean, sort of a marvel of production, design and detail. You get all the moments. They were OK. They did this. They did this, they did this. And I love the way it shot, very steamy and grimy and so woo for that one thing. So without that scene, like zero zero, the smoking monkey is not funny to me and I’m not offended by the fact that he’s a smoking drug running monkey. I just think it’s lame.

Yeah, I didn’t I could have done without the smoking monkey.

You know, one thing we should be smoking like one of the things I think we also need to break up, maybe not bring up, but we should at least warn people about or maybe not warn them. There’s a lot of dudes junk in this movie, that there’s a lot of dudes. There’s a lot of junk in this.

Well, there’s something I want to talk about later. But but but we’ll finish the numbers. I thought it was better than average. I think it’s sort of funny. I laughed. So I get a five and a half, just a little better than average. Pulls our overall number up to to four and a half.

So a recommendation if we sort of count the girl who was easily offended by penises. Yeah, I’m so if not doing very well on our tomato world is.

No, it’s not. It’s in the mid thirties, which I think is a little harsh. I think a lot of people are comparing it to the other favorably to the first one. That’s what’s killing, you know, what’s killing it. Right. If you didn’t have if the bar wasn’t set, that I think people I think would be more probably in the sixties. The first one do like a seventy. The first one is certified fresh. It’s high seventies. And by the way, I remember you being offended by penises is not what I hear.

We’ll leave it right there. Hey, guys, check it out.

Alan, cut it out with a monkey nibbles on the wieners.

It’s funny in any language.