Film Review: The Hangover Part II

After the enormous and unexpected success of The Hangover, it seemed inevitable that there would be a sequel. Although some sequels rival the original in terms of quality, sadly this is not the case with The Hangover Part II.

Stu, Phil, Alan and Doug travel to Thailand for Stu’s upcoming wedding to Lauren. Stu is not keen on having a bachelor’s party, but the guys convince him to have one drink on the beach. When Stu, Phil and Alan wake up the next morning they cannot remember a thing. Moreover, Lauren’s little brother Teddy is missing…

The Hangover Part II follows the exact same formula as its predecessor. It is practically identical, except for the fact that it is set in Thailand for most of the duration. As such, the film offers no surprises; it is incredibly lazy story telling. It lacks the fresh ideas that made the original film so entertaining.

The only aspect of innovation to be found is the pushing of boundaries. Those who thought the first film was debauched will be even less impressed with this effort. In attempting to go one bigger, director and co-writer Todd Phillips includes material that may be offensive to some.

There are some good humorous moments, but these are not enough to sustain the entire film. In re-treading the same steps as The Hangover, Part II makes the aspects that were funny in the 2009 film appear tired and unoriginal. Moreover, elements that worked well in the first film have been pushed too far in this sequel. Alan was a genuinely funny character; an oddball who stole a lot of the scenes in the 2009 film. In realising the character was a hit, Phillips, Craig Mazin and Scot Armstrong have amplified the character’s more unusual traits. Rather than making Alan more comedic, this has the opposite effect; his childlikeness grows annoying quickly.

Performances in The Hangover Part II are fine. Ed Helms is energetic as Stu; at times the actor seems desperate to make scenes funnier than they actually are. Bradley Cooper is again attractive but of dubious morals as Phil. Zach Galifianakis is a good comedy actor, but is hampered by the writing. Similar to the 2009 film, Justin Bartha has a small role as Doug. It seems a shame to sideline this character; perhaps his inclusion in Bangkok would have added a new and interesting dimension to the fold. Ken Jeong’s over-the-top Mr Chow is hit and miss.

The Hangover Part II will probably be a success because fans of the first film will flock to see it. Many will surely be disappointed however, as the film is more Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2 than The Godfather: Part II.

Film Review: A Nightmare on Elm Street

The antichrist of Hollywood (Michael Bay) strikes again, with yet another remake of a horror classic. This new version is slick, yet this does not detract from its pointlessness.

The teens of Springwood are having nightmares, all featuring the same frightening character. Things take a turn for the worse when Freddy Krueger starts to cross the line from dream into reality…

Samuel Bayer’s remake does not stray too far from the original material. Many of the characters and set-ups are kept intact. A noticeable exception to this is the absence of Nancy’s father, a police officer. The lack of police presence in the remake is palpable. With the violent suicides and murders that occur, Bayer’s film is made all the more incredulous by a lack of interest from the authorities.

A Nightmare on Elm Street‘s chief character is of course Freddy Krueger. Jackie Earle Haley offers a performance not overly dissimilar from Robert Englund’s. However, Freddy seems to have longer strings of dialogue in this film than the original. The lack of explanation from Freddy in 1984’s A Nightmare on Elm Street certainly enhanced the fear factor of the iconic film character. You can’t help but feel that if a remake of this film was deemed necessary, director Bayer has missed a trick in not altering the antagonist to a greater extent.

Elsewhere performances are adequate, never illuminating. The effects utilised in the film are convincing, although the original seems gorier in comparison. The soundtrack works well, particularly the use of The Everly Brothers’ ‘All I Have to Do is Dream’.

With all the action and jumpy sequences that precede it, the climax appears a little lacklustre. Whilst the film is reasonably enjoyable, hopefully it will not be successful enough to spawn an unnecessary sequel. 1985’s A Nightmare on Elm Street part 2 was bad enough.