The Hangover Part II: Can a Remake Be a Sequel?

[c7_assassin]

I just watched The Hangover Part II through a combination of not wanting to do anything productive today and passing a multiplex in my car at about 1 PM. I had seen The Hangover and enjoyed it...I mean, the premise was amusing and the chemistry between the three male leads was entertaining. And I suppose I have to say the same of The Hangover Part II. I mean, literally, mathematically speaking I have to say the same thing about The Hangover Part II, because it was the exact same movie.

Now, I know that a sequel by definition draws upon the original. You can't write a Karate Kid sequel where Daniel develops a pot habit and hatches a crazy scheme to drive his college roommate to suicide in order to salvage his failing grades. You can't make a Jaws movie about how Brody moves his family into suburbia and discovers his neighbours are actually a family of vampires. You can't make a Star Wars sequel starring a 9 year-old kid and a cartoon rabbit. The point is, people see sequels because they like the original and want more of the same. But there is a fine line between giving them what they want, and giving them what they've already had once before. That's the difference between eating you favourite meal at a restaurant you love and being force-fed shit from that restaurant's toilet by an angry wait staff.

I'm normally not one to throw around absolute statements, but when I say there is no difference between these two movies, I really mean it. Everything is the same. Everything. Every beat, every joke, every problem, every twist, same, same, fucking same. Same where it would have cost them nothing to be different. Same where it would have helped. Same where it could have gone unnoticed. Never have I seen a film that was so steadfastly determined to be unoriginal.

Now, normally I would have compunctions about spoiling the endings of things, but if you've seen The Hangover, you already know everything already. So maybe this will help show what I'm talking about:

Even though there are four friends in the group, only Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and Zack Galifianakis wake up with amnesia (check!)

They can't remember anything because Galifianakis drugged them (check!)

The guy they're looking for was back at the hotel the whole time, stuck someplace he couldn't escape on his own (check!)

Ken Jeong is trapped in a tiny space, and once freed leaps out and attacks them all (check!)

Ed Helms fooled around with someone he shouldn't have last night (check!)

Ed Helm's face got messed up (check!)

Ed Helms flips out on the person who's been tormenting him at the wedding (check!)

Ed Helms reminds me a lot of Andy Bernard (check!)

Ed Helms annoys me a lot (check! check! check! check! check!)

...and so on. I mean, as it's been pointed out elsewhere, it's like the producers took The Hangover script and just did a find-and-replace with 'monkey' for 'baby' (and also 'tranny Thai hooker' for 'Heather Graham and her fantastic tits'...yes, apparently the Hangover franchise can't even recycle itself properly).

Does all this make it a bad movie? Well...I honestly don't even know. I mean, it wasn't 'bad' in 2009...the question of whether Part II is 'bad' raises all sorts of existential questions about how we judge art. I will say that Part II probably does make the writers bad, and it makes the actors look pretty bad, and it probably makes the producers objectively bad people...does this mean the movie isn't worth seeing? That's really up to you. But it is perhaps the final irony of this film is that the only people who can really appreciate The Hangover Part II are those suffering from drug-induced amnesia themselves.

 

[Snail Shell]

To answer your question, yes, a remake can be a sequel.

Just ask the people who made the second Transformers movie.

SS

 

[He-Man]

Sure a remake could also be a sequel...it worked for the new Mortal Kombat game,at least. Lol.

 

[mabus]

Damn c7... was afraid of that. I had slim hope, but the trailer slooked like....the exact same movie, with every difference you listed.

Yes, it is possible to continue the story, make a different movie....damn, how much money did all parties involve make, how fucking hard can it be?

You have crappy sequels like Smokey and the Bandit II, Men In Black II, Nutty Professor 2, Hangover II....then you have great sequels like X-Men 2, Star Trek 2, Empire Strikes Back, Godfather 2....possible Green Lantern 2, when "good guy" Sinistro becomes main bad guy.

This was just Hollywood being lazy and crapping out a repeat of the first movie to cash on on that one's success. Crap, I was hoping it could have been different...how many DIFFERENT ways can they wring comedy from guys waking up after a night of debauchery - actually, a LOT!

 

[BellaRisa]

I just saw the movie this morning and I absolutely loved it, sure it used the formula of the first film but that was to be expected; it in no way detracted from how much we (myself, my hubby and all the folks laughing their asses off in the theater) enjoyed ourselves 🙂 Here's a review by James Berardinelli, the only reviewer I ever really read, it sums it up pretty well IMO:

When Yogi Berra said "It's déjà vu all over again," maybe he said it best. Then again, perhaps it was John McClane: "How can the same shit happen to the same guy twice?" While neither was specifically referring to The Hangover Part II, Todd Phillips' sequel to the unexpected 2009 blockbuster, they might have been. Using the original as a template, The Hangover Part II colors within the lines, but does so with bright fluorescents rather than drab primaries. Despite being mandated by the insane box office success of its predecessor, this movie feels anything but obligatory. It delivers what it's expected to deliver, and that's likely to make it a success with anyone who laughed his ass off two summers ago.

This Hangover begins two years after the last one and features many of the same characters, including Iron Mike. Returning once again for another masochistic go-round are the four members of the "Wolf Pack": Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), Alan (Zach Galifianakis), and Doug (Justin Bartha). The occasion of their reunion is Stu's wedding to the lovely Lauren (Jamie Chung), an event occurring in her native Thailand. Stu wisely opts to skip the bachelor party, recalling the infamous night-before Doug's nuptials, but unwisely decides to join his comrades sitting around a bonfire on a Thai beach, swapping stories, drinking beer, and roasting marshmallows. Next thing any of them knows, they're waking up in a seedy Bangkok dive. It's Phil, Stu (with a new facial adornment), and Alan (with a new hairdo). Not with them are Doug and Lauren's teenage brother, Teddy (Mason Lee), although the young Stanford pre-med student was on the beach with them and has left behind his finger. Now it's up to the trio to decode what happened last night, find Teddy, and get back to Thailand before the wedding. If only things were that easy...

Rightly assuming that The Hangover Part II should not deviate from the formula that worked in The Hangover, Phillips and his crew almost remake the first movie, albeit with different setups and payoffs. The change in setting (from Vegas to Bangkok) spices things up and, while the storyline is familiar, it's not stale. It's not quite as fun solving the "mystery" of the missing night here as it was in The Hangover, but this isn't Agatha Christie. The humor is as dark, raunchy and envelope-pushing as in the original, with plenty of laughs to be had by all who appreciate their comedy closer to NC-17 than PG. Had an indie studio released The Hangover Part II, it would likely have been accorded an NC-17 by the prudish MPAA.

Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and Zach Galifianakis slide into their roles as if they didn't go on to play other characters in the interim, although at least two of the three (Helms being the exception) have seen significant career upticks. Phil is the good-looking leader, Stu is the worry-wart nerd, and Alan is quite possibly the most loathsome individual to have crawled out from under a rock. He's not a loveable loser; he's a detestable loser - and that's where a lot of the comedy comes from. Galifianakis stole the show in The Hangover and he steals it here. Refreshingly, Phillips does not feel the need to give Alan a heroic moment of redemption.

Other returning players are Justin Bartha, whose screen time is curtailed when Doug is allowed to stay in Thailand for this misadventure; Ken Jeong, whose Mr. Chow is no less coarse; and the wives (Sasha Barrese and Gillian Vigman). Improbably, there's also Mike Tyson, who enters the scene crooning the words to "One Night in Bangkok" and later growls at Stu to remove his tattoo. Newcomers to The Hangover Part II include Paul Giamatti (looking eerily like his father, Bart), Mason Lee, and Nick Cassavetes in a role originally intended for Mel Gibson.

In addition to retaining the structure of The Hangover, with the protagonists following half-baked clues to figure out their activities and whereabouts of the previous night, The Hangover Part II stays true in other areas, as well. Most of the nudity is male, which is reasonable since naked men are generally funnier than naked women. The end credits roll alongside a slideshow of still photographs from the "missing night," and many of the biggest laughs are to be found here.

Often, comedy sequels that follow the formulas of their predecessors fail miserably. The list is long and inglorious, with titles like Airplane 2 and Three Men and a Little Lady near the top. Perhaps because of its brash and unapologetic nature, The Hangover Part II doesn't fall prey to that pitfall. Although not as shockingly unexpected as the first movie, this one is still a garish orgy of bad taste and dare-you-not-to-laugh comedy. The "oods" of humor all apply: rude, crude, and lewd. As Alan remarks, "When a monkey nibbles on a penis, it's funny in any language." It will be interesting to see where the filmmakers go with The Hangover Part III, because it's hard to imagine this film not scoring big at the box office.

My husband and I can be total movie snobs, especially comedies, and we really had fun; YMMV

 

[GQguy]

Charcater performs gruesome surgery night before
Pictures of the previous events is unfolded as credits roll
2 thugs on high speed vehicles chase after the wolf pack through out the movie
Wolf pack is humiliated in front of children
Alan falls into trance and saves the day
Bradley Cooper remains relatively unphased

Good movie if it wasn't a sequel.

GQ

 

[ZenTickling]

I knew it going in so I wasn't too disappointed.

 

[Jagermeistered]

I'll wait for it to come out on DVD.

 

[AphxA]

Sure, you can make a trilogy out of it. Im pointing at you twilight saga.

 

[Rustenexcel87]

word is a third one is in the works to take place in Amsterdam. As for it following the formula of the first one, I think that is what I enjoyed the most.

 

[Flatfoot]

From a business standpoint, I can't fault the filmmakers for trying to cash in on a formula that worked. In the grand scheme, the ticket sales and eventual dvd/blu-ray sales are what matter to measure success of the franchise. I'll probably still watch it, even if it is the same shit.