Courtesy - The Sunday Leader By Sumaya Samarasinghe
There seems to be an unwritten rule that sequels of movies will always be a disappointment except in some rare cases like The Godfather II.
Only a handful of people would probably admit not knowing the story of the first Hangover movie, where four buddies decide to go on a bachelor’s party to Vegas and the adventure goes terribly wrong when after a drunken binge, the groom to be, goes missing. They wake up in a completely wrecked hotel suite with a tiger in the bathroom, bashed up faces and no recollection whatsoever about what had happened the previous night. Oops, apologies, this isn’t about The Hangover, but its sequel The Hangover II which takes place two years later and this time it is Stu (Ed Helms), the very square dentist who is getting married to his beautiful fiancé Lauren (Jamie Chung) in Thailand much to the displeasure of Lauren’s father (Nirut Sirichanya) who blurts out probably one of the most humiliating toasts to a future son in law.
In order to avoid a repetition of his Vegas adventures Stu invites Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Doug (Justin Bartha) for a wholesome breakfast lunch in lieu of a wild bachelor’s party.
Of course we know that the odds of it ending there seem unlikely especially since the future groom’s best friends decide to all travel to Thailand for the wedding.
One drug induced drunken binger later; Stu, Doug and Phil wake up in a seedy hotel in Bangkok and Teddy (Mason Lee) Lauren’s genius little brother who accompanied the foursome in their adventures is missing except for his severed finger which is still wearing his Stanford University class ring!
Sound familiar? Except for a chain smoking, drug dealing capuchin monkey wearing a Rolling Stones denim jacket some of the best elements of initial Hangover are all present. The giggly, always high gangster Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong), the long suffering wives who just have to sit still while their husbands behave like immature teens and of course the script which really does not deviate very much from the original except for the location.
And this leads to the next point.
We do understand the issue of marking the difference between the dreamlike location where the wedding is scheduled to take place and the dirty and squalid side of Bangkok; but that was a little overdone. The tattoo parlours, the strip joints and the filthy hotels becomes after a while a little too much for one’s eye. Actually some of the still pictures at the end of the film which show what our heroes have been upto are pretty raunchy and let’s say quite crude.
The cast continues to be as likeable as ever and all of them are as funny and real as in the first film.
The short sequence taking place in the US prior to their departure to Thailand somehow seems funnier than the rest of the film. Though Bradley Cooper is once again perfect as the party loving pretty boy Phil, Justin Bartha (the former misplaced groom in the first Hangover) is absolutely natural as the good and dependable husband and friend, it is once again Zach Galifianakis as Alan the “stay home son” from a rich family with terrible behavioural issues who is the most memorable character just like in the first Hangover.
One cannot help but compare both the Hangover films. A missing groom is certainly funnier than a missing brother of the bride. A groom found comatose and sleeping on a rooftop is way funnier than a young man chopping off his own finger.
Am guessing it all depends how one rates their levels of fun.
The Hangover II does generate some laughs, but the novelty of the idea has got old…already and I truly hope that we will be spared a number III, simply because those immature men are terribly likable and it would it a real shame to start hating them!
