Warner Bros. Pictures | Release Date: May 26, 2011
5.6
USER SCORE
Mixed or average reviews based on 630 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
242
Mixed:
267
Negative:
121
WATCH NOW
Stream On
Stream On
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)
0
alhypoDec 28, 2011
This movie is deplorable. Do not believe anyone who says "The problem with this movie is that it is the same as the first one." If that were the only thing wrong with it, I could forgive them for that. While the plots are very similar, theThis movie is deplorable. Do not believe anyone who says "The problem with this movie is that it is the same as the first one." If that were the only thing wrong with it, I could forgive them for that. While the plots are very similar, the first movie was actually funny and displayed some elements of effective storytelling and character development. Part II has a handful of chuckles but nothing that will make you laugh. Also, this movie is Swiss cheese when it comes to plot holes. Any given movie can have a few logical transgressions and depict some unlikely events (like a chance encounter) but this film leaves too many events unexplained. One or two improbable events in a movie is okay because unlikely events do happen, but a movie quickly becomes unconvincing when you go beyond this. The Hangover Part II is a prime example of this. While the plot is terrible and it is not funny, the main reason this movie suffers is because the characters are so poorly developed. I can only describe them as "flat" even though the plot provided plenty of support for this. Despite its comedic nature, this movie does contain some very dark subject matters. The internal turmoil this should have elicited from these characters was glossed over with mere facial expressions and contortions of discomfort. Worse yet, the seriousness of these dark elements hindered the comedic slant they were aiming for. Although the first movie was not exceptional, I did derive much enjoyment from it. This movie is not funny enough to be considered a comedy, it is not outlandish enough to qualify as a farce, and the lackluster plot and characters prevent if from developing any dramatic or thematic elements. It is easily one of the worst movies I have seen. I am not normally compelled to write reviews for movies I hate or enjoy but this one is so bad I just had to vent my distaste. I am especially shocked to see that it scored a 44 from the professional critics making me think they need to go back to film school! Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
3
thestaticfrostMay 27, 2011
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. If you want to see this movie, rewatch the first movie and then load up the trailer. The movie only has a few extra laughs from Zach Galifianakis and Ed Helms, save your money. Expand
6 of 7 users found this helpful61
All this user's reviews
3
shnell517Jun 3, 2011
I loved the first one. This one was awful. Bradley Cooper was smokin' hot but it didn't save this one. The entire audience walked out with a puzzled look on their face.

Wait for DVD
5 of 6 users found this helpful51
All this user's reviews
3
Knicksfan7Jun 3, 2011
The first one was verrrryyyyyyy good and absolutely hilarious, but when I watched this one I felt like I was watching the first again. The same jokes, the same plot, the same story. It was almost annoying. I laughed maybe once or twice inThe first one was verrrryyyyyyy good and absolutely hilarious, but when I watched this one I felt like I was watching the first again. The same jokes, the same plot, the same story. It was almost annoying. I laughed maybe once or twice in this movie. This is the perfect example of a movie that should've been left alone at the first. The only reason why they made another was because of the money they made off of the first and are now making a fortune off of the second, and I've heard rumors that their beginning a third. They shouldve never ruined the first with a sequel. This sequel was exactly the same as the first, just a different area and a different person gets lost. 3/10 for me. Expand
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
1
loveandlaughterJul 26, 2011
Same same but different......the action relocates to Thailand while following much the same premise as the first installment. Unfortunately the move strains the plausibility of the story line, the Vegas episode was believable this is ratherSame same but different......the action relocates to Thailand while following much the same premise as the first installment. Unfortunately the move strains the plausibility of the story line, the Vegas episode was believable this is rather insincere. I liked the characters in the first movie as they unfolded, here due to familiarity they now are simply boorish and not nearly as likeable. The only saving grace is that this only points up how good the first film was. Expand
3 of 4 users found this helpful31
All this user's reviews
3
NotoriousJun 10, 2011
While the Hangover Part II is essentially a carbon copy of the original, it has it's moments but unfortunately those moments are quite short lived. This version lacked the outrageous humour of its predecessor and sadly most of the bestWhile the Hangover Part II is essentially a carbon copy of the original, it has it's moments but unfortunately those moments are quite short lived. This version lacked the outrageous humour of its predecessor and sadly most of the best moments are seen in the film's trailer. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
2
Sudden_VictoryJun 5, 2011
This movie is simply terrible. Worst of all, it's not even very funny. I laughed more during the 30-second preview for Bad Teacher than during the entire 1 hour and 42 minutes of the film itself. By the end I was actually embarrassed forThis movie is simply terrible. Worst of all, it's not even very funny. I laughed more during the 30-second preview for Bad Teacher than during the entire 1 hour and 42 minutes of the film itself. By the end I was actually embarrassed for the lead actors, many of whom I like quite a bit. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
2
Princess_PeachJun 4, 2011
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This movie is EXACTLY the same as the first one, but not as good. It tried too hard to be EXACTLY the same. It felt like they looked at the script from the first one, hit CTRL F, and thought, "in the first movie someone looses a tooth, what body part should someone loose this movie?" and just changed tooth to finger, and repeated that throughout the script. It also felt to me like Lee's character could have better been explained. Even though I don't really like Lee, they could have focused the movie more on him and his business and made the movie not be EXACTLY like the first one. Some of the jokes were hilarious but that is the only plus to this movie, a couple of good jokes, definitely not worth 11 bucks in theaters. Also, the way they found Teddy could have been better. I liked in the first one when they woke up with the hangover they saw the tiger, found the baby, the ring was missing, Doug was missing, and the mattress was missing, and they spent the movie figuring that out all of those things and they saved the mattress for last and that is how they found Doug. This movie finding Teddy in the elevator was pretty dumb. Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
3
The-CriticMay 27, 2011
A lesson lived is a lesson learned, but not when it comes to The Hangover: Part II. The film is both written and directed by Todd Phillips and stars Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, and Ed Helms. Both cast and crew attempt to recreate theA lesson lived is a lesson learned, but not when it comes to The Hangover: Part II. The film is both written and directed by Todd Phillips and stars Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, and Ed Helms. Both cast and crew attempt to recreate the momentum of 2009â Expand
3 of 5 users found this helpful32
All this user's reviews
2
ShiiraJul 10, 2011
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Did Alan do a very bad thing? Something even worse than burying a dead prostitute in the desert? In the 1997 Peter Berg film, it's "Heaven or Las Vegas" indeed, when a bachelor party goes horribly awry with one irrevocable maneuver by a coked-up reveler that leads to a sexually-engaged woman being impaled against the lavatory wall. Zonked out on blow, Michael unknowingly practices necrophilia for a couple of seconds before realizing that they're finished, but it's the wrong fluid coming out of the wrong body, an unhappy ending to a hotel room bacchanal which leaves him flaccid and panic-stricken. Not surprisingly, things go from bad to worse, once it's agreed upon by this assemblage of damned men to cover up the crime, because soon enough, their foolhardy conspiracy snowballs with lightning speed when a hotel security guard discovers the lifeless stripper on the bathroom floor, forcing Robert to commit premeditated murder. The tragi-comedy of errors lead the Kafkaesque suburbanites to a plot of arid land just outside the "Sin City" limits, where like mafiosos, they hollow out a trench for the bodies, their respective anatomies all intermixed, much to the disgruntlement of Adam, who believes that the commingled dead is an affront to his faith. The film itself, however, doesn't share the Judaic worshipper's earnestness. The corrected sacrilege is replaced with a sacrilege of its own, since the whole scene plays out with a tone of disaffected irreverence toward the dead that recalls both "Pulp Fiction" and "Kill Bill: Vol. 1". The black security guard corresponds to the black captive whom Vincent accidentally shoots(prompting the infamous "dead n***** storage" line), and the Asian hooker corresponds to Gogo Yubari, whose eyes leak blood after "The Bride" hits her on the side of the head with some exposed nails from a wood board. "Very Bad Things" shares with Tarantino his predilection for brutal comedic situations. The desert scene is supposed to be "funny" because the two victims' disparate skin colors makes the sorting of body parts easier for the conspirators. But unlike Tarantino, the filmmaker can't get away with murder, so what becomes foregrounded is the queasy fact that white people are dispassionately killing minorities. In "The Hangover", the moviegoer first meets Mr. Chow literally springing into action from the opening of a car trunk. Because the gangster is on the offensive, thoroughly beating his kidnappers into submission, while nude, mind you, what goes unnoticed by the moviegoer is the possibility that Alan(who in "The Hangover Part II", purposely drugs Teddy) tried to suffocate Chow after fleecing him of his eighty grand. And then there's "black Doug", the wrong Doug at the ransom drop-off, an innocent man whom Phil would willingly return into Chow's custody for the money. Black Doug could die. These seemingly nice guys, on closer inspection, are no better than Robert and his minions. The perception that "The Hangover" resembles "Very Bad Things" only on a superficial level is inaccurate. The broad humor obscures their diabolical natures. "I don't care if we kill somebody," goes one of Alan's patented non-sequiturs from a rooftop where this "f****** psycho(called so after Phil learns about the marshmallows, meant solely for Teddy, in "Part II") spikes the Jagermeister with rohypnol. If Phil only knew the whole story. Bold for a popular comedy, Alan seems to be a registered sex offender. Back home, Alan tells his future brother-in-law that he shouldn't "be within two-hundred feet of a school, or a Chuck E. Cheese." Since no follow-up question is forthcoming from Doug, he must be privy to his future brother-in-law's checkered past, and keeps it a secret from Phil and Stu, and more importantly, the audience, who would be repulsed by a well-delineated account. With Doug missing, Alan simulates masturbation on a baby. To Phil, it's just a harmless sight gag. Phil doesn't know that he's witnessing a relapse. Unfortunately, nobody thinks twice about "Carlos" being strapped to Alan's chest. At the police station, following their arrest for stealing a cop car, exactly what are the cops staring at which would prompt them to stage a stun gun presentation for children? Alan's rap sheet, perhaps? Quite pointedly, a child tasers Alan in the face. Thailand, of all places, a pedophile's wet dream, is the setting for "The Hangover Part II". Interestingly, there's a fantasy sequence where Alan and his friends are boys again, riding around Bangkok in a car. Could this be a veiled reference to "Little Children"? Whereas Ronnie is put through the ringer by his neighbors before he earns redemption, Alan's crimes are implicitly pardoned from the get-go, on account of his pronounced naivety. At Caesar's Palace, Alan asks the female concierge if the famed Roman general once lived here. Does he admire Julius Caesar? A child sex proponent? Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
3
BKMJan 14, 2012
Easily one of the worst sequels ever made. The Hangover Part II merely rehashes the entire plot of the first film but with far fewer laughs and surprises. Shame on Paul Giamatti for having anything to do with this stinker.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
0
blackswanrulesMay 31, 2011
Just a complete waste of time....my bad for thinking it may be decent....I left 20 minutes in.. I should never have bought a ticket to this unfuuny, predictable, boring, movie that had no surprises at all.
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
0
maxmanusJun 5, 2011
first film was good but there is nothing new and different when you compare with first film. The same jokes, the same plot, the same story. It was almost annoying. Lazy, unpleasant, witless but most of all just boring
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
3
dz9Jul 27, 2011
I'm sure everyone can agree that The Hangover was amazing, it's too bad that they remade it just a few years later. If you have seen the first one, you have seen the second one. While I was watching the movie, I tried to keep an open mind,I'm sure everyone can agree that The Hangover was amazing, it's too bad that they remade it just a few years later. If you have seen the first one, you have seen the second one. While I was watching the movie, I tried to keep an open mind, and tried not to judge it based on the first one... but it's hard to do that when it is the same movie in a different town. I can't stress this enough, this movie goes beyond having just the same structure, it is literally, THE SAME MOVIE just in a different town. The movie is darker, less funny, and more ridiculous that the first, and I mean ridiculous in a bad way. Remember the lovable odd ball Alen? Well now... he's criminally insane and should be put in a straight jacket. There were times in the movie where I just could not buy into his stupidity because there was no way this man is not in a straight jacket... and don't get me wrong, I loved his character in the first one, but a character like that rides on the line of lovable and ridiculous, and in this remake, his character goes way beyond that line. In this title, Bradley Cooper is yet again the "voice of reason" in an insane wolfpack, but his character is so neutral, he becomes irrelevant. And Ed Helms character is exactly the same except his dialogue is given a touch of corny and cheesy. It would have been nice for the writers to incorporate Doug into the story, but in a remake, that would break the rules right?? Not comparing this title at all to its predecessor, it still is flat, I only laughed out loud once and chuckled maybe twice. The raunchy no-holds-bar feeling of the first is absent and in its place is gritty crime which seems "out of place." The Good: the cast (although overblown), have good chemistry. The Bad: No originality, barely laughable, and simply unbelievable. The main problem of the movie is that it is too unbelievable that the same scenario could happen to the same people twice. Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
3
ryallenDec 26, 2011
Missing the originality and fun of the first film, with many jokes seemingly rehashed without any success. Few, if any genuinely funny moments, many unrealistic moments that stretch too far away from the charming unrealistic nature of Part 1,Missing the originality and fun of the first film, with many jokes seemingly rehashed without any success. Few, if any genuinely funny moments, many unrealistic moments that stretch too far away from the charming unrealistic nature of Part 1, and just a dull, poorly replicated experience overall. Do yourself a favor, and just watch the first one again... Expand
1 of 2 users found this helpful11
All this user's reviews
3
mason4tadoMay 28, 2011
People are pretty gullible when they say they love this movie. Throw in a few funny jokes and extreme scenarios into the first movie's script and that's it. It's pretty much all just for they money, other than that I see point for this moviePeople are pretty gullible when they say they love this movie. Throw in a few funny jokes and extreme scenarios into the first movie's script and that's it. It's pretty much all just for they money, other than that I see point for this movie being made. Not to mention I predicted the plot twist about 20 minutes into the movie. Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
0
Psyco6Mar 11, 2012
Just like the first one. Only thing they changed was it's in Thailand, it's a monkey instead of a baby, and it has 2 in the title. It has the same lame jokes and just about everything in this movie is predictable.
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
0
pookiepooJun 12, 2012
I know I'm late to the party here, but redbox threw me a couple free rentals and everybody makes mistakes, okay? Good god, what was this? I know the first flick is propped up because it was the only thing in a barren wasteland of comedyI know I'm late to the party here, but redbox threw me a couple free rentals and everybody makes mistakes, okay? Good god, what was this? I know the first flick is propped up because it was the only thing in a barren wasteland of comedy movies, but was it good enough to be done TWICE? With less jokes? Folks, I promise you, Zach Galifanakis is actually pretty funny. Please don't blame the man; blame the material. And what is up with this Bradley Cooper guy? He's absolutely WORTHLESS. Running around acting like a complete jerk does not a compelling (let alone likeable) character make. All people want from these movies is fatty and glasses; why do they even bother with the other two milquetoasts? Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
2
mbagelyJun 5, 2011
Absolutely horrendous. The only reason I didn't leave halfway through is because I was with two girls and didn't want to look like a dick, and didn't want to do the characters a disservice - because I truly loved the original. I came in withAbsolutely horrendous. The only reason I didn't leave halfway through is because I was with two girls and didn't want to look like a dick, and didn't want to do the characters a disservice - because I truly loved the original. I came in with no expectations - the critics said it was bad but people I know seemed to love it. In fact, everyone in the cinema was roaring with laughter. I wasn't. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
Jblack0928May 31, 2011
WHY? I so desperately wanted to like this movie. After I came out of the theater I pretty much convinced myself that it was ok. When I got home my wife asked "how was the movie"? Thats when it hit me like a ton of bricks. This movie wasWHY? I so desperately wanted to like this movie. After I came out of the theater I pretty much convinced myself that it was ok. When I got home my wife asked "how was the movie"? Thats when it hit me like a ton of bricks. This movie was awful. Every joke was blatantly recycled from the first movie. Several times they even use the exact same joke and throw in "again" at the end. IE, the group wakes up in a seedy hotel room finding clues as to what happened but still unable to piece the entire picture together, Stu has a tatoo on his face instead of a missing tooth, there's a monkey in the bathroom instead of a tiger, a mute monk instead of a baby, and guess what... their friend is missing!!! They have a revelation "the roof" Stu yells to the group. They all run up to the roof and he's not their. "I cant believe this is happening again" cries Stu. Then Phil says "wait empty your pockets, come on guys you know the drill". And as I sit their feeling a severe sense of Deja Vu I say to myself "Phil I do know the drill". A bunch of other stupid shenanigans take place and about 60 minutes later the movie wraps up, ending the same way the first one did. The only thing I took away from this movie was a little hate towards the first one and towards Todd Phillips as a writer/director. The good news, this movie made enough money already to start penning The Hangover 3 and guess what I know now from the 2nd one not to waste my money. Again if your friend says "Its the same as the first one" HE IS NOT JOKING!!! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
txrangersfan72Aug 6, 2011
Moderately funny and a complete Mad Lib rewrite of the first movie. It was unnecessary and certainly not worth the money to see in theaters. Wait for free cable.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
Iron_MalJun 15, 2011
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Let me start by saying that I actually liked the original Hangover quite a lot despite going into it with a 'this is gonna suck' mentality, I was delightfully proven wrong on that one and found the first movie to be rich in both childish in your face humour and a pretty decent narrative and story to boot.

Then came the sequel, the first thing I have to say is what everyone else has been saying, it's the same damn movie! Just with the setting changed to Bangkok, with every mischevious deed turned up to eleven and with our not-so-heroic punching bags of the first film turned into people we're supposed to sympathise for and want to succeed in escaping.

Another issue I had was that while it copies the first film without shame, all the characters from the first have either changed dramatically or have gone missing completely. Alan has changed from being an oddball manchild who was too simple minded to know any better into a raging **** who is selfish, self-centered, out of touch with reality and sometimes borders on being a dangerous psychopath. Stu has changed from the hen-pecked and whipped 'yes dear' boyfriend into a guy who claims to 'struggle with a raging transexual sex demon' (a plot point which comes out of nowhere and never goes anywhere or gets resolved I might add, more on that later) and for some reason has completely abandoned the promising relationsip with the Hooker with a heart of gold from the first film (I think they give an off handed explanation as to why but it's easily missed so I'm just assuming it's because they needed an excuse for the film to take place in Bangkok, cue foreign wedding!). Phil...hardly does anything in this film, I swear the only scene I can remember him being the central focus of outside his introduction at the beginning was him getting shot...that's it, just him getting shot in the arm, and he's supposed to be one of the central characters.

Unlike the first film where the characters have their comuppances from their various wrongdoings and get beatings, finger wagging and other very clear explanations that they've been ****s and it's their own damn fault for thinking of Vegas as their own personal playground, no such rebukings come in this film, everything that goes wrong they either get away from scott free or it actually turns out to work in their favour (they start a riot that literally levels part of Bangkok and nothing ever comes as a result of this, it's as if no-one cares about mass death and destruction but I slept with a transexual hooker? I'M A MONSTER!), in the first film, the Wolf Pack are the philandering bastards who did wrong and now must make amends while in the second they're apparantly just normal innocent guys who got mixed up in the perverse trappings of the 'evil city' and must now need to make their way out while still looking like the good guys, something that made me come to realise just how much I did not like the main characters as people at all.

Plot points also have a point of just being dropped at a moment's notice or being introduced with no rhyme or reason, for examle: at the beginning it's established that Alan intensesly hates Stu's younger brother-in-law to be, Teddy, to the point where he wants him drugged so he can be taken out of the picture. This would be all fine and good if it weren't for the fact that we're not really given a reason as to why he hates him ('he's not one of the wolf pack' didn't sell me, sorry) and later he either resolves and corrects his hatred of him off-screen and without mention or the writer's just forgot because it's pretty much never mentioned again except for one shouting match which also ends disappointingly, is never mentioned again and only served to highlight more plot holes (like why are they still friends with Alan? He has no redeeming qualities in this movie). Even the way they got to Bangkok is never explained, a lot of clues as to what happened either go literally nowhere or are ommitted until the ending credits (where we finally learn how Teddy lost his finger).

Overall, this was an awful film. It had it's funny moments, sure, but most of the time they were just either slapstick violence, immature 'tee hee' laughs that stopped being funny the first time or lazy rehashings or subversions of jokes we saw the first time around. Don't watch if you can help it.
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
Luisjoao33Jun 13, 2011
One of the most studid films I have ever seen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I culdn´t wait to the final. But the part I saw was just a patetic tring to emulate the firs one. Just one of the very badOne of the most studid films I have ever seen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I culdn´t wait to the final. But the part I saw was just a patetic tring to emulate the firs one. Just one of the very bad secuels in the movies history! Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
c-chopsJun 2, 2011
If you've seen the first one... Scratch that - if you've seen the trailer for the first one, you've seen this movie. Lazy, unpleasant, witless but most of all just boring. I think I laughed once. Not nearly good enough. Don't go - you're justIf you've seen the first one... Scratch that - if you've seen the trailer for the first one, you've seen this movie. Lazy, unpleasant, witless but most of all just boring. I think I laughed once. Not nearly good enough. Don't go - you're just encouraging them. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
zerodotsJun 10, 2011
The second movie is trying too hard to shock and surprise, but fails miserably as the first movie has already done it all. There is just nothing new in the this one.
The acting is bad, the plot is predictable and far too simple... and just not funny.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
WarriorV1Jun 14, 2011
The first part was definitely better than the sequel. This fell back, BADLY. The trailers and build up for the movie was better than the actual movie itself. Actors didn't live up to their rolls like in the first movie, and I just couldn'tThe first part was definitely better than the sequel. This fell back, BADLY. The trailers and build up for the movie was better than the actual movie itself. Actors didn't live up to their rolls like in the first movie, and I just couldn't seem to get into the "humor" and "excitement" in the movie. It seemed bland and unoriginal. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
chicagopianoAug 12, 2011
If you have seen the first Hangover then don't bother watching this one. It is basically the same thing but in Thailand and with darker humor, I'm not exaggerating, everything happens like it did in the first one. Don't get me wrong thoughIf you have seen the first Hangover then don't bother watching this one. It is basically the same thing but in Thailand and with darker humor, I'm not exaggerating, everything happens like it did in the first one. Don't get me wrong though there are some funny parts but all in all it's the same as the first one. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
rxqueenDec 13, 2011
I turned this movie on for 30 minutes. it didn't make me laugh once, and thus I turned it off. oh great, Ed Helms wakes up with more stuff done to his face - Zach Galafawhatshisface clearly is here for just the paycheck, and oh! look! moreI turned this movie on for 30 minutes. it didn't make me laugh once, and thus I turned it off. oh great, Ed Helms wakes up with more stuff done to his face - Zach Galafawhatshisface clearly is here for just the paycheck, and oh! look! more "funny" shenanigans featuring animals. not funny. such a disappointment. the first one is and should have been enough. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
AlambnaDec 16, 2011
The only scene I found truly funny in this movie was the scene where they went to visit Zach Galifianakis's character, Alan, at his home, and we get to see what a rich, spoiled brat he truly is. There are other funny moments with Alan dappledThe only scene I found truly funny in this movie was the scene where they went to visit Zach Galifianakis's character, Alan, at his home, and we get to see what a rich, spoiled brat he truly is. There are other funny moments with Alan dappled through the movie, but that is because the actor is funny, not because the movie is funny. Beyond those select moments, the movie is not worth seeing. It is just not funny. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
GlooneDec 17, 2011
I really enjoyed the original. This movie is a literal copy and paste job. That wouldn't be so bad if it was funny, but it isn't. The overall concept and the escalation is no longer funny, there's nothing new (car chase, getting involved withI really enjoyed the original. This movie is a literal copy and paste job. That wouldn't be so bad if it was funny, but it isn't. The overall concept and the escalation is no longer funny, there's nothing new (car chase, getting involved with criminals, bodily deformation, random animal and mini sidekick... it really is a shamefully unoriginal sellout), and the dialogue isn't funny... I think I laughed twice during this film. Avoid, even, or in fact especially, if you liked the original. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
csw12May 12, 2013
The Hangover part 2 is almost identical in every way as the first. Problem is the comedy was almost non existent. A lazy, witless film that provided maybe two laughs that I forgot as soon as the movie ended.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
Trev29May 12, 2013
A recycled plot from the first one, except this time around it was monotonous and I hardly even chuckled. It was an obvious attempt to try to create the same success as its predecessor, but it failed big time.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
dev92Aug 25, 2012
Wasn't anywhere near the high standards set in the first film, The Hangover Part II is a big disappointment and strikes the question, why did Todd Phillips makes this film? I think he has been corrupted by success as he used to always makeWasn't anywhere near the high standards set in the first film, The Hangover Part II is a big disappointment and strikes the question, why did Todd Phillips makes this film? I think he has been corrupted by success as he used to always make solid films but this makes two poor films in his last two attempts. Not a great record from someone so talented. I didn't even watch this in the cinema because, quite frankly, even the advert looked bad. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
2
MordreadOct 12, 2012
Its the same plot and jokes as hangover 1...even the characters experience similar strife and so on. Think I chuckled once during whole movie...not worth even renting it.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
cameronmorewoodNov 7, 2012
The first film was brilliant and hilarious, but this sucky sequel is absolutely miserable. Everyone tries way too hard to best the original. Instead, they just make a gross, offensive, pointless, brainless, dickless, tasteless, racist,The first film was brilliant and hilarious, but this sucky sequel is absolutely miserable. Everyone tries way too hard to best the original. Instead, they just make a gross, offensive, pointless, brainless, dickless, tasteless, racist, sexist, misogynistic anti-farce that makes you want to rip your eyeballs out. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
TheWalrus2000Mar 11, 2013
The sequel is the same thing as before only its forgettable. It lacks humor that isnt raunchy or sexual one of the worst sequels ever.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
SimpleMethodJul 8, 2013
Weak, lazy sauce. Why make a sequel to such a great and original comedy? They really dented the reputation with this stinker. Part III is hardly any better. What a waste.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
0
ThegodfathersonJul 8, 2013
Let me cut the crap, this sequel was worse than rancid apples. I hated The Hangover Part 2, it was unfunny, full of monkey dick jokes and sexual dialogue used at the freakin wrong time.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
1
rawslApr 26, 2013
While the first Movie is funny and entertaining, this one is just boring. I am not sure if I laughed at all. Towards the end of it, I skipped some parts because I just wanted to finish it as quickly as possible. I always thought Charlie'sWhile the first Movie is funny and entertaining, this one is just boring. I am not sure if I laughed at all. Towards the end of it, I skipped some parts because I just wanted to finish it as quickly as possible. I always thought Charlie's Angels 2: Full Throttle is hard to overcome in its boredom and lack of gags, but I guess we have a new winner. Watching this was a waste of my time. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
ExKingApr 14, 2013
the hangover 2 is a massive disappointments and cash-in on the fans. that's what happen when you take the movie add few elements to it re-circle it and cash it with no creativity or spin or another direction of the story my guess is thethe hangover 2 is a massive disappointments and cash-in on the fans. that's what happen when you take the movie add few elements to it re-circle it and cash it with no creativity or spin or another direction of the story my guess is the producer thought that he gonna make a ton load of money just because of the title but that's not how it's work let's hope the hangover 3 will be different. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
BarneyOnMTJan 6, 2016
WHAT I LIKED: It has all the great things about the first one - a fun mystery story, a group of guys enjoying themselves, funny one liners...
WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE: It literally is the first film all over again with nothing inventive or new to
WHAT I LIKED: It has all the great things about the first one - a fun mystery story, a group of guys enjoying themselves, funny one liners...
WHAT I DIDN'T LIKE: It literally is the first film all over again with nothing inventive or new to add to the story or even any more character development
VERDICT: A great film, but a sequel that is literally the first film repeated isn't really a worthy film at all. Couldn't they have been more inventive?
Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
3
shiftworkerNov 30, 2016
Comedy sequel. The characters are not funny in themselves and nothing funny happens to them in the first 25 minutes. Then they wake in Bangkok with no memory of the night before, but plenty of reminders to help them. After another half hour IComedy sequel. The characters are not funny in themselves and nothing funny happens to them in the first 25 minutes. Then they wake in Bangkok with no memory of the night before, but plenty of reminders to help them. After another half hour I didn't care what happened in the last bit, so walked away. Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews