At this point in the review, I would usually write a synopsis describing the events of the first act, but if you’ve seen the first Hangover, you can just skip this bit. Alan, Phil join Stu in Bangkok for his wedding. However, after insisting he did nothing, we find out that Alan drugged his friends leading to the wildest night of their lives (again) of which they remember nothing. Stu’s calm and collected dentist character becomes wild and hysterical (again) as they search all over for their friend (again). There are some wild encounters with some wacky Thai people, and lots and lots of naughty words in the process.
The structure of The Hangover Part II is so similar to the original, it should just be called The Hangover Remake. Take a look at this:
It’s hard to gauge whether the writers have a serious case of amnesia, or they’ve made the same film twice. The latter is the most likely in this instance. While the original had at least some comic and cinematic credibility (I enjoyed it, not as much as some, but it was a good movie), The Hangover Remake just throws nothing out the window and re uses the same gags, only slightly more over the top. It gets so bad that there is not one single plot turn that can’t be seen coming at least 5 minutes away. However, on a lighter note, there was one scene I enjoyed – Alan’s character remembers some of the events of the night before, but all the lead characters are played by child versions of themselves. ‘This is genuinely funny’, I thought. But wait, is it possible they couldn’t figure out how to move the story forward so they just wrote ‘he remembers where they went next’ in the script? Also, simply putting songs about partying in every other scene does not give anything particularly remarkable to the film except a soundtrack the audience could consider purchasing.
Before the original was even released, the plans for a sequel were being made. What were the filmmakers thinking? Was it about bringing original comedy to a world which needs the kind of epitome of outrageous humour the first provides? Or were they thinking about the creative process, and how they would promise to offer audiences a new and interesting story, rather than having them waiting for the next gag in the oh so familiar template? Maybe, just maybe, they were thinking about the money, and grabbing some more of that revenue while the genre is still hot.