The Hangover Part II - Movie Reviews - Rotten Tomatoes

The Hangover Part II Reviews

Page 1 of 774
Super Reviewer
June 29, 2011
A pathetic excuse for a sequel, actually more of a lazy rehash than anything else. Everything is so boring and predictable, the jokes are disgusting and not at all funny, and Zach Galifianakis is absolutely unbearable. But at least it has Ed Helms in it.
Super Reviewer
May 26, 2011
Just because a sequel uses the same formula as its predecessor, it doesn't mean that it's the same movie. If you like these characters and the general idea, you're going to love it's more deranged second entry. What is most important for a comedy is the actual comedy; which is just as effective, if not more so than the original. Shenanigans don't even come close to the bizarre and demented occurrences that the Wolfpack experience. The level of destruction that occurs is so hilarious that you can't even explain it in words. I think the chemistry between Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis and Ed Helms has only gotten stronger in the two years since the first. Pretty much any joke attempted had me laughing really hard and this movie accomplishes everything it sets out to do. It really is extremely fun and in my opinion matches up to the reputation it etablished the first time around. Anyone who complains about this has only themselves to blame because you should know exactly what you're getting into from the previews and interviews. I honestly don't think you could call it The Hangover if it wasn't about a bunch of guys getting messed up and not remembering the night before.
ajaymuthecooldevils
Super Reviewer
December 21, 2010
Bangkok? Well the pacts did another crazy thing as the first movie.. The same formula was used here and for me it just as same as the first movie, they just need a better twist.. Overall, I'm not that impressed with this sequel..
Super Reviewer
½ July 3, 2011
There's little to say about it that hasn't been said: where the first movie was fresh and full of surprises, the second followed the template EXACTLY, to the point that you knew the jokes before they arrived, and when they did, they couldn't shock you, all the sting had been taken out of them. It proves that all the first movie did was unearth a formula: five minutes into this one, when one character is discovered to be missing (again), you hear the line "Did anyone check the roof?", and you know it's already gotten as funny as it's going to get. Of course a third movie was made (and sold huge), but as a one-off, The Hangover could have become a classic; with the sequels, it's exposed itself as a laugh-by-numbers project and the legacy will be forever diminished.
Super Reviewer
½ April 13, 2013
Pathetic. And I don't mean just the characters. This film's a mess.
TheDudeLebowski65
Super Reviewer
May 26, 2011
The Hangover Part II has got to be one of the most uninspired comedy sequels ever made. What's really sad is that it starts with a bang, even if it's predictable. But then the film losses it's fire and navigates the same territory as the first. For one big exception, this second entry amps up the offensive humor, and it borderlines on tasteless. That's the worst part about this film is that the humor this time around is forced, predictable and tasteless. The film suffers from predictability, and those who've seen the first, should pass up on this sequel. The film isn't worth watching, and in fact it's pretty boring with nothing new to add. This has been said in almost every Hangover 2 review, but this film adds absolutely nothing new. I didn't like this film because it was boring, a wasted opportunity and the jokes were the same, but they tried to outdo the gags and it ended being plainly messed up (not in a good way). The jokes feel wrong and forced, and you end chuckling, but never truly laughing like you were when watching the first one. The film manages to have a few laughs, but as a whole and as a comedy, it fails. The Hangover Part 2 is simply a cash grab and it's a piss poor attempt at a sequel. If you want my advice save your $$$$ and rewatch the first film. The first is the best and will always be the best. This sequel is awful, one that really doesn't deliver anything worthwhile for fans of the original. This film could have been great, but most of gags fall flat.
Super Reviewer
May 29, 2011
I watched this again yesterday and I watched it right after the first one. This sequel doesn't hold up well at all. It has a few moments, but really once you've seen it once, it becomes just a shoulder shrug. The first movie still plays fresh and funny, whereas this feels like a rehash. Here's what I wrote when I saw it the first time. Time hasn't been kind to it, and this is one "Hangover" that should be forgotten.
This is basically the exact same movie as the first one, just set in Thailand and it works great. Not as good as the first, which is fine because the bar was set so high. But since the first wasn't broke, they didn't try to fix it. It may not be very original, but it is hilarious. The characters are all back and better than ever. If you like monkeys, dicks, and Zach Galifianakis then this is the movie for you! I hope they make another one and keep this franchise rolling
Super Reviewer
May 27, 2011
This sequel is way too similar to the first one. Everyone who is involved in the movie seems to try way too hard to re-create the magic they produce in the first movie. This one is very disgusting and more outrageous and just tries way too hard, though it manages to squeeze out a couple laughs.
Super Reviewer
May 24, 2011
I am being as generous as I possibly can towards a film that relies on changing a script around to fit a sequel, but I have to say, the laughs are all there and I actually enjoyed the movie in a way. The "Wolfpack" is definitely back, but not exactly the way we wanted them back. So it changes from Vegas to Bangkok, a baby to a monkey, a tiger to a monk, and a stolen police car to a stolen boat. There really is no originality here, which I actually did not even care about, because these guys are so hilarious that it overshadows almost every lowered bar from the film. This film's story is an exact replica of it's original, but the events and locations all change. The do pull you in at the beginning and make you wonder how, but in the end, the outcome is clever, but very rushed and stupid. Overall, it is a great time at the movies once, and then you get back to reality to realize the script was lazy and outlandish. It is raunchier and darker than the first and Allen randomly becomes mean spirited, but overlooking all of this, I had a bit fun. It is extremely average for a second instalment, but I didn't mind, I mean there is only so much you can do with a premise like this. "The Hangover Part II" is a below average sequel film with stupid comedy! I recommend a quick watch if you enjoyed the first!
Super Reviewer
½ March 22, 2013
Its humor is grotesque and its writing is tired.
Super Reviewer
½ May 26, 2011
A mean-spirited, often unfunny sequel to an original smash of a comedy. This time, director Todd Philips simply does "copy and paste" and changes the location to Thailand, where severed fingers, drug-peddling monkeys, and transsexual strippers meet the three unluckiest guys in the world again. Despite a few, fleeting moments of laughter (mostly due to Zach Galifianakis's ability to turn sometimes dumb situations into funny ones, other times he overdoes it), this was a major disappointment. It felt like everybody just mailed this one in creatively, as there was literally no thought to altering the plot from the first move in the slightest, while not helping its case that these three guys are worth rooting for. Instead, we get an awkward Paul Giamatti cameo (love him to death, but he didn't fit in here at all), a lot of unfunny moments, and some head-scratching instances of character choices (apparently losing a finger isn't that big of a deal to one character). The first movie knew how to grasp awkward situations and deliver consistently on it, this one is a lot more hit and miss, with a lot of miss. You know how it's going to turn out, and you can call a lot of what happens before it actually occurs just because you're familiar with the first film, which in turn ruins any sort of suspense one might has concerning these characters' fates. All in all, a pretty bad movie, only worth watching occasionally just because there are a few good laughs, but it pales in comparison to the first film by a landslide.
Super Reviewer
May 16, 2011
I wasn't a huge fan of the original, so it's no surprise that I expected this to be just more of the same thing...and it was. Same movie, different location.
Super Reviewer
July 28, 2012
Though it followed the exact same footsteps of its predecessor. Part II of this alcohol-driven picture brings and even raunchier amount of laughs and hysteria that far exuded the previous film. The chemistry still remained, but the duplicated direction and predictability toned down this installment. 4/5
maxthesax
Super Reviewer
June 26, 2012
It sure is fun to watch human nature in action; specifically how the audience can turn on a writer or franchise if a sequel doesn't deliver the same goodness as the original film.

Case in point is Hangover II, which, while not a bad film... indeed there was enough inventiveness and funny scenarios and glib one liners that I was entertained... sinned by not being up to the heightened standard that filmgoers, for whatever reason, put on the first film. Yes, I enjoyed the first film and laughed my butt off, but in my opinion it certainly wasn't the be all end all that so many have made it out to be. Is it a better film than the sequel? Yes, if for no other reason than the concept was fresh. Still, to trash the second film seems a bit harsh to me - there's the same feeling that "if something can go wrong, it will go really, really wrong" sensibility in this film, and since we already know the characters, it's all an easy fit. Except for a rather weak ending (and the superfluous appearance of a totally tone deaf Mike Tyson), the sequel is well paced and plotted.

So what went wrong here? Why the vitriolic reaction by so many viewers? I sense that perhaps the veil was lifted on this film and you could see the man behind the curtain. It has always been my contention that comedy is a thin line; one you dare not cross by being perceived as trying too hard. The public wants comedy to seem natural - which is a difficult task when you use the comic scatter gun - throwing as much stuff out there as you can, hoping that some of it sticks (or shticks?). It is the nature of Galifanikis' style of humor that makes walking the fine line a daunting task. He is intentionally odd - and his comic connections equally so, therefore it can easily appear that, yes, he's trying too hard to be funny - which isn't funny. In both films how many times is there a scene set up where the camera pans to Galifanikis so he can create some irreverent or off the wall comment? In the first film it seemed to have worked, in the second... well you get my point, and it's not that he isn't funny... it's just as Peter O'Tool's character so aptly put it in My Favorite Year "drama is easy, comedy is hard" (which I believe to originally be a quote by Olivier).

I've heard so often that this sequel is a carbon copy of the first film and that it is a prime example of lazy writing, but come on, what did you really expect. The characters were already in place, they weren't going to all of a sudden start spouting The Bard. Sure, what you have is formula, but is that really all so bad? Every comedy team since the dawn of time had a formula, from the Marx Bros. to The 3 Stooges. Maybe we are expecting more in the 21st century - but for me, other than the last 15 minutes, I was entertained and really didn't care if it's tone echoed the first film - after all, they named the film Hangover II, not "and now for something completely different that in no way resembles that other film".

The highlight in both films is of course Mr. Chow, the jive talking Oriental mob boss (or whatever). Here once again, the film ratchets up a notch when he is on camera. Best line of the film IMO is when Chow sets up his laptop opposite Paul Giamatti's (who is pretty cool as a rival mob boss). After the exchange of cash is made Chow looks up over his laptop and smirks "you sunk my battleship".

Final verdict - squarly between a 6 and 7 - 6.5 it is!
cosmo313
Super Reviewer
December 31, 2010
Aside from the locations and the specific details with events, this film is essentially a carbon copy of the first, except it is unnecessary, pointless, and shockingly stale and unfunny. I'm not kidding: all of the familiar plot points of the first are rehashed here, and the characters stupidly wonder how it all happened, like they didn't learn anything from the first movie.

It's been two years since the Vegas incident, and this time it is Stu who is getting married, and it's a destination wedding in Thailand. Despite his efforts to keep thigns under control, things once again get out of hand and the Wolfpack have another kooky and wild mystery adventure on their hands.

I was hoping that this film, even if it was a retread, would have somehting in it to make it stand out (in a good way), but my hopes were not fulfilled. I hardly laughed at all (and the times I did were far between). I spent most of the running time annoyed and broed. There's some really painfully awkward and uncomfortabel moments that just don't work, and it's a really obnoxious and somewhat offensive film, to boot.

Okay, so I will admit that there were three parts I actually did like: the scene set to a very famous Curtis Mayfield song, the scene with the tattoo artist, and the scene at the whorehouse. Those worked, but even then, they could have been better. The rest of the film is just crap.

None of the returning cast really lokk like they had any fun or wanted to be there, Pau lGiamatt iis wasted in a pointless subplot, Ken Jeong is just overwhelmingly obnoxious and makes me hate him. He really needs to go back to doing the menacing/funny thing schtick he did in stuff like Role Models and Knocked Up instead of this kind of junk. Mike Tyson was also pointlessly shoehorned in for the hell of it, and there's just this underlying streak of hatefulness and uncorfortable characterization that not only falsls flat, but started to really anger me.

The first film didn't need a sequel, but in this day and age if it is a hit, it's guaranteed to start a franchise, whether it is warranted or not. This film could have been really good had they tried to put some effort into it instead of just rinsing and repeating, but no. That's just too much to ask for. As for the performances, when the animal costar is not just the scene stealer, but also givs the best performance, you really know that something's wrong.

Skip this crap and pray that the proposed sequel doesn't end up getting made after all.
Super Reviewer
March 24, 2012
I have to say, since watching it, I have been thinking, how on earth are they going to make it better for the third installment, A "Have you in stitches" movie with the wolfpack looking better than ever.
Super Reviewer
November 1, 2010
More of the same really with a bit more action thrown in. Not as funny overall as the first, but still pretty good if you liked the first one.
Directors Cat
Super Reviewer
½ December 22, 2011
Try not to think of it as a sequel, but as a remake instead. And it's a remake that's fair game but doesn't exceed the hilarity of the original. That's the humongous flaw, it entirely lacks the element of surprise that the orignal film had. Despite more raunchiness and edginess, the stakes in this sequel/remake didn't feel the same because of it. Plus, the fact of predictability. It's not entirely that bad because it is pretty funny. But I felt I'd been taken advantage of when I finished watching it. Because i've been there and done it before. Essentialy, imagine the first Hangover turned up to 11 and much darker. It's what this mildly amusing but forgettable film is.
Super Reviewer
½ February 18, 2012
The weird wolf pack is back in action to tickle the funny bone.While it doesn't quite fail, it fails to succeed completely. It'd have been more effective had it been a team work rather than just Alanland in action (and the rest inaction, so to speak). Nevertheless, Alanland itself alone provides a fair share of fun, and others' more or less contribution to it makes the visit worthwhile.
blkbomb
Super Reviewer
February 11, 2012
Mr. Chow: We had a sick night bitches!

"The Wolfpack Is Back"

I didn't dislike this as much as everyone else. I actually enjoyed it, but I can't lie, it is a little disappointing. The laughs are still there, but mostly because of the nostalgia of the first movie. The cast is what keeps this film lively though. Ken Jeong and Zach Galifianakis are just fun to watch. Sure it isn't the original and it is disappointing, but it still is an okay, if copied, sequel.

Plot details for this aren't important as you've already seen them in the first. The only real difference is that it takes place in Bangkok, not Vegas.

Altogether, The Hangover: Part II suffers from being too much like the original, but the excellent comedic cast makes it go down a lot better than it should. They took some of the comedy to a higher level of rauncy and crude than they even touched in the first. For some this will be off putting to say the least.

It's okay, just don't expect an instant comedy classic like the first. This is one of those forgettable comedies that we see every year. It just got panned more because it is the sequel to one of the best comedies in recent years.
Page 1 of 774