When you saw the trailer for the Hangover in 2008, you probably thought the same thing I did; “Oh look, here’s another lame hollywood by-the-numbers comedy that will almost certainly be laden with fart jokes and people getting punched in the crotch. IT’S ALWAYS A WINNER”.
As western comedy films have consistently adhered to the same trite formula, you’d be forgiven for looking at the trailer with no more than a smirk of derision, and a well founded logic that those gags you just saw were probably the funniest of the film.
And then you saw the movie. As soon as the credit’s rolled you probably bounded home to your facebook account to ‘like’ quotes from the film, then to go on referencing scenes from the movie mid conversation with your friends.
The conversation could have been about Plato, it doesn’t matter. I’m sure you found an excuse to bring out that wolf-pack speech.
You realised that it was probably one of the most refreshing comedies of the past few years. It had that Jerk Guy from the Wedding Crashes, and that Awkward Dude from The Office and then there was the Bearded Stoner Man from… uhh…
But anyway, you probably really enjoyed it,. The jokes were clever and specific and the protagonists were sharp and humorous to sit in on. I think the main reason why that was is because there was a great synergy between the characters and the plot arc.
This is essential to a decent comedy; a plot development which compliments the lead characters personalities. The ideal plot I’m talking about should be a prop for the actors.
You know; the one where the characters have to get somewhere by a specific time but are faced with many obstacles in the process. People like those kinds of films, and why shouldn’t they? They’re genuinely fun to watch, and that translates to box office gold for the theatrical fat-cats.
Which is exactly why they probably thought The Hangover Part 2 HAD to happen.
Part of the reason why the original Hangover was so popular was because of two things.
1. The plot revolved around a static situation, that every person who’s ever woken up after a big night could relate to, AND;
2. It drew strength from the fact that the cinema going public thought it would be uninspired drivel – people’s collective expectation was lowered which increased the chance of it receiving a good reception.
This is why the sequel pretty much falls flat, it totally ignores this.
The movie is essentially an exact replica of the first film’s structure. The awkward speech by Zach Galiflianikofraditokas is there, the guys get inadvertently drugged and Mr Chao the ostentatious Asian gangster makes an appearance as well – basically to appease the ‘OMG LOL!’ demographic I guess.
And when I say that, I don’t mean the younger generation, I mean anyone who enjoyed the movie ‘Paul Blart: Mall Cop’.
Seriously, it’s basically the same characterisations and plot that’s been cut/copied from the original. Granted there are some funny, albeit cringe-worthy moments, the movie is essentially ruined by its lack of dynamism. Apart from the setting and the introduction of one or two new characters (none of which are central to the story), there are absolutely no new elements.
It’s like the director was so afraid of straying from his original ‘winning’ formular, that he took the cheap way out and blatantly cloned it to be devoured by the masses. Because I mean obviously, if you saw the first one and enjoyed it, there’s no reason why you won’t like the second one.
Just bugs me I guess. WHY COULDN’T YOU JUST TAKE A RISK MR DIRECTOR MAN?
If you enjoyed the first one and aren’t in the mood for something that will challenge your preconceptions about what a Hangover movie is like, then you’ll go home with you fingers clicking firmly on the ‘like’ button. If you were after something which added to the franchise, then son, you may be disappointed.
xoxo gossip girl