Here comes the new film, same as the old film

Rating: 7/10 (5 June 2011)

There are a lot phrases you could apply to The Hangover, Part II. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" comes to mind as to what was possibly at the forefront of director and co-writer Todd Phillips thoughts when he was assembling The Hangover, Part II, because if there is one thing you cannot accuse the sequel to the surprise comedy hit of 2009 of being, its original. The Hangover, Part II is a near complete rehash of the first entry, just with different locales and certain individual situations. That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't funny, but some of the sheen of the first film wears off the second time around.
The Hangover, Part II finds buddies Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms) and Alan (Zach Galafinakis) in Thailand to attend Stu's pending nuptials 2 years after the events of the first film. Stu, not interested in being involved in a repeat of the events of Doug's (Justin Bartha) bachelor party, has decided to eschew that traditional pre- wedding event for a simple drink on the beach with his friends and his bride to be's brother, Teddy (Mason Lee). The next morning, the trio find themselves passed out in a seedy Bangkok hotel with a trained monkey, a pounding hangover, a visitor in the form of Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong), the criminal gang leader from the first film, and Teddy nowhere to be found. In short order, Phil, Stu and Alan are prowling the streets of Thailand in search of Teddy via clues they pick up along the way as to the events from the prior evening. The search takes them to a tattoo parlor, a club in a significant state of disrepair, a strip club with "interesting" employees and a Buhddist temple, with a threat hanging over their heads from a Thailand based crime boss (Paul Giamatti) to deliver some information for a bank transfer the next morning or they will never see Teddy again.
While it is not unheard of for sequels to films that seemed like a one- shot to try to replicate what made the first film successful, I can rarely think of one that almost completely remakes the original like The Hangover, Part II. Every significant plot arc, story development and twist is lifted wholesale from the first film. If you are really familiar with the first film, I can't see where it wouldn't be impossible for you to guess almost every major event that is going to occur in The Hangover, Part II and end up being correct. We are treated to the characters reacting in very similar manners to the events in the same way as the first film: Stu with complete, sheer bewilderment, Phil with a constant air of disbelief how things can keep getting so bad, and Alan with a degree of detached amusement. The only real element that is a bit different this time is that they friends are in communication via cell phone with Doug, who had decided to turn in early the night they were drinking. It's a way for the creators to keep Bartha involved to some extent without interfering with the trio dynamic that worked for the first film, I suppose.
So, the real question becomes, is the Hangover, Part II funny? Well, yes, it is. Despite the familiarity of the situation in the broad strokes, the individual segments prove to have some decent humor to them throughout. One scene in particular, set at the aforementioned strip club, left me roaring in laughter. Many of the other outrageous moments provide more than just a chuckle, and a chase sequence in the latter part of the film is about as engaging as one in any action movie. Some of the reason the two Hangover films work at all is that, despite the fact that two-thirds of the main trio are rather reprehensible people, you can't help but imagine what it would be like to be in that situation and therefore you have some degree of investment in seeing them attempt to navigate themselves out of this mire they have become trapped in.
As mentioned previously, there isn't a lot different to these characters in general. Phil is the debaucherous friend who is seemingly in a search of a good time to shake off the normalcy in his life otherwise. Stu is a straight arrow who is put face to face with his "dark side". And Alan is a clueless social misfit whose idea of getting his friends to have a good time is to drug them with paralyzers and hallucinogens. The actors sell their roles fairly well, especially, once again, Galafinakis, and are supported by Jeong as the subtly homosexual Mr. Chow, who still doesn't seem to be afraid to bare himself (entirely) to the audience. Giamatti, while scenery chewing with the best, can graciously be referred to as giving a "cameo" in the film considering his very limited screen time.
The Hangover, Part II's unoriginality once again spills over to its "moral message", what little there is of one, and it is once again exclusively directed at the character of Stu. In the first film, he was able to give a comeuppance to his fiancé in a rather amusing, albeit crowd pleasing way. In Part II, there is a similar dynamic with a different character, but this time the moments where Stu must come into his own don't really work, and seem cheesy and, frankly, a bit uncomfortable and unbelievable.
So, when all is said and done, should you see The Hangover, Part II? I cannot deny that I laughed at it more often than not once it got going for the most part, but not to the degree I enjoyed the first film. However, it is also difficult to overlook the complete lack of originality on display in the film, so The Hangover, Part II proves a mixed bag, and one that receives a mild recommendation from me.