*SPOILERS*
I say this is the most controversial movie review I have done yet because it almost seems like the mere mention of the "Hangover",in a negative light that is, evokes many a fan boy to attack. Like many people when the first film was released, I went to see it with an open mind. It turned out to be one of the funniest movies I had seen in a long time despite many jokes being ripped from "Wild Hogs". Anyways, I loved the first film. I loved the Mike Tyson cameo and I thought Ken Jeong was hysterical. Bradley Cooper was amazing in the first hangover and Las Vegas was the perfect setting for such a comedy film. The high key lighting added something unique to the film in the daytime scenes and really added comedy to it. I will get to my general point shortly with high key lighting as opposed to the new one. Stu's song was great in the original and actually inspired me to teach myself it on the keyboard. Needless to say, I loved it. Hell, I loved it so much I still attribute this to our impromptu trip to Las Vegas.
And then, news of the second film broke. It was such a hit, how could it not have a follow up? The trailer left little to be desired for and the movie was none better. That's right, I'm prepared to be attacked by the Hangover fans. Take yourself back for one second to the original Hangover film and tell me what made it successful? It was a comedic story that revolved around comedy of the acts and the OCCASIONAL Allen one liner. Was there any increment in the film of five minutes or so when you did not laugh? Not for me. All the jokes are recycled from the first film. The Hangover II is filled with zingers that make you just go "HA" and then shut up. It's not the hysterical laugh fest the first one is ; however, it is fair to say sequels are hard to live up to their predecessor. The Dark Knight proved recently though that sequels could do it though. This is the problem with many audiences these days. From those that see remakes, all the way to the people who push at these movies like the Hangover II. Again, the comedy in this movie is Allen's one liners as opposed to situational comedy.
When the "Hangover" scene starts you see that someone had lost their finger. I'm immediately thinking "YES! This is going to be awesome"...not so much. I am a HIGH proponent of cameos in sequels. I love when some characters return from previous films because I almost feel it's an homage to its predecessor. Anyone of my friends can tell you that. I'm a sucker for cameos....when done right. With that being said, Ken Jeong and Mike Tyson should not have been in this film. They were REACHES. Ken Jeong should have been in the first film and that's all. His character did nothing for this film (and quite frankly was annoying in most of his scenes with the exception of the hotel one). Mike Tyson, another REACH. They couldn't figure out how to incorporate Tyson so they just figured 'screw it...we'll bring him in as a singer!'. I love cameos when they are not reaches.
Now, we'll get to the cities comparison between Vegas and Bangkok. Film people will understand this reference and it might go unnoticed to many common film watchers. Light= Comedy. Most of the comedy you will see in the daytime is filled in sunny days or with some form of high key lighting. It adds to the comedy element. You might not be aware of that but it does, and film makers play the lighting beautifully. That's why Vegas was the perfect place for that. Trust me, I've been there. EVEN the inside shots, re watch it. A lot of lighting. Now, the Hangover II. It's very dreary and quite frankly I'm not even sure situational comedy could have saved the morbid setting of the film. It is possible as many dark low light films are dark humor as expected. And I have nothing against low key lighting in comedy films, but not this one. The setting left me just drained. By the time I saw the setting, I was already bored and wanted to jump from the top part of Cinemark, down to the floor, effectively hoping to break something. They tried to do something unique because they felt they could with the success of the first part.
No mention of the tooth being cut out either? Allen makes a zinger about it, but I know for a fact it was reported Ed Helms really does not have a tooth there. Make a reference about it. Stu's song in general in this film sucked too. This brings me to Bradley Cooper, one of the lone bright spots of the movie. I don't feel he took a step back in this film. He was right on par. They make a reference to them burning down a building but don't really explain it. They show a riot on a cell phone so maybe that has something to do with it, but again..nothing to be desired of in my eyes.
I would advise against seeing the film and remember the original for what it was. A brilliantly done comedy film even if it borrowed some of its jokes from a few other films.
Great Film: C-
Enjoyable Film: C
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL
Great Film: B-
Enjoyable Film: A
I say this is the most controversial movie review I have done yet because it almost seems like the mere mention of the "Hangover",in a negative light that is, evokes many a fan boy to attack. Like many people when the first film was released, I went to see it with an open mind. It turned out to be one of the funniest movies I had seen in a long time despite many jokes being ripped from "Wild Hogs". Anyways, I loved the first film. I loved the Mike Tyson cameo and I thought Ken Jeong was hysterical. Bradley Cooper was amazing in the first hangover and Las Vegas was the perfect setting for such a comedy film. The high key lighting added something unique to the film in the daytime scenes and really added comedy to it. I will get to my general point shortly with high key lighting as opposed to the new one. Stu's song was great in the original and actually inspired me to teach myself it on the keyboard. Needless to say, I loved it. Hell, I loved it so much I still attribute this to our impromptu trip to Las Vegas.
And then, news of the second film broke. It was such a hit, how could it not have a follow up? The trailer left little to be desired for and the movie was none better. That's right, I'm prepared to be attacked by the Hangover fans. Take yourself back for one second to the original Hangover film and tell me what made it successful? It was a comedic story that revolved around comedy of the acts and the OCCASIONAL Allen one liner. Was there any increment in the film of five minutes or so when you did not laugh? Not for me. All the jokes are recycled from the first film. The Hangover II is filled with zingers that make you just go "HA" and then shut up. It's not the hysterical laugh fest the first one is ; however, it is fair to say sequels are hard to live up to their predecessor. The Dark Knight proved recently though that sequels could do it though. This is the problem with many audiences these days. From those that see remakes, all the way to the people who push at these movies like the Hangover II. Again, the comedy in this movie is Allen's one liners as opposed to situational comedy.
When the "Hangover" scene starts you see that someone had lost their finger. I'm immediately thinking "YES! This is going to be awesome"...not so much. I am a HIGH proponent of cameos in sequels. I love when some characters return from previous films because I almost feel it's an homage to its predecessor. Anyone of my friends can tell you that. I'm a sucker for cameos....when done right. With that being said, Ken Jeong and Mike Tyson should not have been in this film. They were REACHES. Ken Jeong should have been in the first film and that's all. His character did nothing for this film (and quite frankly was annoying in most of his scenes with the exception of the hotel one). Mike Tyson, another REACH. They couldn't figure out how to incorporate Tyson so they just figured 'screw it...we'll bring him in as a singer!'. I love cameos when they are not reaches.
Now, we'll get to the cities comparison between Vegas and Bangkok. Film people will understand this reference and it might go unnoticed to many common film watchers. Light= Comedy. Most of the comedy you will see in the daytime is filled in sunny days or with some form of high key lighting. It adds to the comedy element. You might not be aware of that but it does, and film makers play the lighting beautifully. That's why Vegas was the perfect place for that. Trust me, I've been there. EVEN the inside shots, re watch it. A lot of lighting. Now, the Hangover II. It's very dreary and quite frankly I'm not even sure situational comedy could have saved the morbid setting of the film. It is possible as many dark low light films are dark humor as expected. And I have nothing against low key lighting in comedy films, but not this one. The setting left me just drained. By the time I saw the setting, I was already bored and wanted to jump from the top part of Cinemark, down to the floor, effectively hoping to break something. They tried to do something unique because they felt they could with the success of the first part.
No mention of the tooth being cut out either? Allen makes a zinger about it, but I know for a fact it was reported Ed Helms really does not have a tooth there. Make a reference about it. Stu's song in general in this film sucked too. This brings me to Bradley Cooper, one of the lone bright spots of the movie. I don't feel he took a step back in this film. He was right on par. They make a reference to them burning down a building but don't really explain it. They show a riot on a cell phone so maybe that has something to do with it, but again..nothing to be desired of in my eyes.
I would advise against seeing the film and remember the original for what it was. A brilliantly done comedy film even if it borrowed some of its jokes from a few other films.
Great Film: C-
Enjoyable Film: C
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL
Great Film: B-
Enjoyable Film: A
No comments:
Post a Comment