The Hangover: Part II (June 2011)

Still from years ago, slightly improved on the criticism of content, and talking about underlying racism and sexism in this film, but I still had a way to go.

hungup

In the early stages of this film, the future father-in-law of happless dentist Stu compares him to a bland, watery, milky rice substance, which is enjoyed by infants, the old people and those with learning disabilities. I would compare this pointless second outing to that very substance, but to do so would be to insult those three groups, who I would credit with having more intelligence than to enjoy a ‘comedy’ so criminally bereft of invention, originality and wit.It would also be an inaccuracy. The Hangover: Part 2 is actually more comparable with the character Alan (Zach Galifianakis), a desperately unfunny, bloated, crass brat incapable of realising it’s own wrong-doings or learning from it’s mistakes. Baron of fresh ideas, it simply recycles old material to a painfully loud, crude and offensive level, in the hope no-one will notice it is essentially the same film I wish I hadn’t paid to see the first time round.

It’s so predictable to anyone who has seen the first film, it is hardly worth me giving any rough guide to the plot. But that would be cheating, so here is what passes for a story:

We’re back with the ‘Wolf-pack’, who apparently have learned literally nothing from their first jape-filled outing in which they allowed themselves to be drugged by a spoilt, selfish man-child (Galifianakis) who allegedly is the driving force/farce behind much of the film’s ‘comedy’. This time, instead of Vegas, they’re heading to Thailand (repeatedly refered to by Galifianakis as “Thigh-land” harharhar…) for Stu’s (Ed Helms) wedding to a woman I can’t remember the name of, who’s basic role in the film is wall-paper that occassionally says something sickly. But shock-horror, her father doesn’t approve, and so enters racial stereo-type 1, the over-bearing Asian Dad, who is pushing his prodigious 16 year-old son to become a doctor. But hillarity ensues, Phil (Bradley Cooper) insists everyone goes for “JUST ONE DRINK” and guess who ends up spending a crazy night in Bangkok with the wolf-pack! The 3 original members wake up in some grimey establishment, the prize son GONE, to standard ripples of laughter from the audience which crushed my soul a little more with every guffaw. Incidentally, never has my hope for humanity been dampened more than during the scene when we find Galifianakis has shaved his hair, a scene that EVERYONE KNEW WOULD OCCUR AS YOU CAN SEE IT IN THE POSTER, BUT STILL LAUGHED FOR SOME TIME AT! It soon becomes apparent “we’ve done it again” and the search begins for the 16 year-old boy the men plied with alcohol in Bangkok. Various scenarios occur in which the tourists patronise, insult and exploit the locals in the quest to find him in time for the wedding. And that’s as far as I care to go. If you can’t guess the rest of the story from here, you’re probably illiterate, and so you won’t be reading this review at all anyway.

There is literally nothing more to this film than that and the formula from the original, so I won’t elaborate on what is not just tedious, but often openly nasty cinema. I will however elaborate on the three groups will most likely feel insulted by this film, as the three demographic most openly exploited by this shambles of a production:

  1. Women – your purpose is to act as passive observers, the only women I can even vaguely remember in this film are wives. That is their role: to be married, and to talk to their husbands and boyfriends in order to give the men a chance to say something dumb, or to set up a piece of the plot. Then their basic role is either not to exist or to exclaim “WHAT HAPPENED?” as if they don’t already know. You talked your husbands into go drinking with an imbecile who keeps drugging them, what do you expect has happened?
  2. Foreigners – the ‘Asiatics’ as the gawping man-child labels them exist in this film purely to facilitate the needs and vices of western tourists. The film uses them in the same exploitative manner. As far as this film goes, anyone who isn’t from America is a two-dimensional plot device (though the Westerners aren’t especially well-rounded either), as opposed to a genuine human being. This not only denotes lazy writing (as if we needed more of that) but also the sheer level of ignorant contempt present in the minds of the ‘writers’ who worked on this.
  3. The audience – that’s right, YOU! This is on par with a Hollywood exec force-feeding you his fecal matter, allowed you to digest it, then collected your leavings and force-fed you them as “Fecal Matter: Part II”. Is that how you enjoy being treated? Really? This film, as I said, is like Alan, in that it is incapable of seeing what it’s done wrong, and will continue to leach off any audience presented to it, genuinely believing it’s a well received friend. The only solution is to starve it of attention and hope it goes away forever.

In conclusion then, there are a variety of more entertaining things you could spend your time and money on, including self-castration by repeatedly smashing your testicles between two bricks. And that would be mildly less painful than sitting through The Hangover: Part II.

Wash, rinse, and blow your brains out. But please, for Christ’s sake don’t repeat. 2/10

Charming, wasn’t I?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s