Maybe its because I'm biased about The Hangover franchise, in a positive way, because the original is one of my favorite movies of all time, but the new addition to the series shouldn't be getting a grade in the 40's. Yes, it is a much crueler and darker film than the original and everything feels the same, but "The Hangover: Part II" is better than the dumb, crap comedies that Hollywood produces on a daily basis. Newcomer, Mason Lee who plays Teddy, Stew's new fiance's younger brother, gives a flat, half-assed performance. And at points, I didn't even want "the Wolf pack" to find him when he went missing. I was sort of happy he was gone from the whole crowd. Also in this new addition, Alan seems more or less mentally handicapped in this film and after the first few of his jokes, you just start to feel bad for him, the humor is very dark and vulgar and there is no sign of heart or just any sign of human compassion in Part II. I'm not saying Part II is a bad movie, but none the less, I'm not saying its a great one. There aren't many quotable lines while the original was probably the most quotable movie of this generation, and the movie isn't very memorable. But, on the other hand, for the time being, it is consistently funny and while it is a little disappointing, it's a fine prequel to the last of the series, Part III, which hopefully starts Pre-Production in the next few months. By any means though, Part II doesn't deserve all of this critical bash it's receiving but it will please the fans for the time being.
All in all, Part II is a meaner, cruder and much more vulgar remake of the original that is fairly funny and we'll entertain anyone in the theater, it'll just be that and will hold fans' attention spans long enough until the final part of the franchised is being released.… Expand

I really looked forward to seeing this film, reason being that I loved the first film, but this film was darker and it was not up to standard. I guess I was forced to laugh at some parts of the film, it could of been a lot better. First of all the introduction was so boring, that I questioned myself if I didn't see the first film, I would be out of there within the first twenty minutes.

Some of these Jokes, you have to wonder where they even funny or where they that shocking you wonder whether to laugh or not. The humor was nowhere near as good. I guess this is one of those failed sequels and to be honest I am not expecting a lot from the third one.… Expand

The original was AMAZING!!!! But the problem with this one is that it just feels like it's the same. The movie itself is very funny & I do like it, but it lacks originality which is why you have to deduct a few points. Otherwise this would have been a ten.

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

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

It's clear this film was made simply to make a large heap of cash. If you enjoyed the first film, you shouldn't enjoy this one. Even the always great Zach Galifianakis can't save this mess.

Much has been said about the fact that they reused almost the exact same formula for the plot on this second go-around. The truth is, for this second installment of the Wolf Pack franchise, the formula works-it's the jokes that don't hold the film together. The film begins like a comfortable pair of shoes. The film looks great, the characters are still interesting, but soon you find that this pair of shoes has some holes in it. One would imagine that finding jokes in such a foreign land for the Wolf Pack would have been easier, but the filmmakers went for shock value rather than actual belly laughs this time. The memory sequence with Allen was actually one of the more clever moments in the film because the comedy came from what we already know about the character, not by showing us human body parts in different combination. I did not have a terrible time with Hangover 2, I just expected more from a trip half way around the world.… Expand

Sadly, this movie just seems as if it's trying to hard to cash in on the success of the first, rather than try to top it. This is one of those films that "had those couple of good, funny scenes." Unfortunately, close to all of those scenes involved a penis.

I managed to watch it's predecessor 4 times in theatres, as opposed to the one time I'm ever going to see this. Maybe I'll watch it again, but not anytime soon.

If you were a fan of the first one, I would recommend seeing it, just for the sake of seeing it, but I wouldn't go in with very high expectations.… Expand

The movie is 90% "Hangover" and 10% Ken Jeong. "The Hangover Part 2" is a decent comedy that will rattle you up for several minutes, but **** plz! The movie is what you already saw in 2009.

So a sequel to a great movie. This can't be good. Yes indeed. This movie was horrible. I couldn't enjoy watching it at all. I paid 10 bucks to watch the same movie, with a new setting. Don't get me wrong the movie had some funny parts, but it wasn't nearly as amazing as the first one. The biggest problem with the sequel, is it's structured the same as the first. Which is very annoying to watch. You feel just scammed. it's so not worth paying 10 bucks to see the same movie with a different setting, a new person getting married, with less funny jokes. Todd Phillips messed up.… Expand

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 the momentum of 2009â

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 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

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 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

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 best moments are seen in the film's trailer.

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 for the lead actors, many of whom I like quite a bit.

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

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

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.

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 movie being made. Not to mention I predicted the plot twist about 20 minutes into the movie.

The critics are right, this is the raunchiest movie ever created. It's also funny in every language and manages to mimic the original without being a clone. I love it, you will to.

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.

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

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

Don't even read what those idiotic critics have to say. I hate movie critics. How come they ever criticize a Hangover sequel? I know the jokes a re a little bit just the same as the first, but I think they changed it to a brand new look and if you haven't seen The Hangover Part II, Go rent it or buy it or save it in your wishlist! This is the best Hangover movie since the first and can't wait for the sequel in 2013.… Expand

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, 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

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...

I liked it but no where near as much as I did the first film but thats expected when its a comedy sequel, It rarely amounts to the first film. Its just as funny as the first film but its a lot of the same old same old imo. A lot more action too but Id rather have less of it, It doesnt seem to work well in the film for some reason. Its still funny though and if you liked the first film then you will like this film. Just dont go in with high expectations.… Expand

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.

The best part of the first movie is also the best part of the second film: the photo reveal during the credits. Absolutely hilarious. I jumped out of my seat a couple of times to the chagrin of my crime partners. The rest of the movie is good, just not nearly as new and fresh as the original - which is to be expected. It's not the Empire Strikes Back of comedies. It also doesn't have as many plumb supporting roles as the first. The lack of Mel Gibson in the tattoo artist scene leaves a gaping hole where some laughs should have been. And the cameo toward the end (no spoilers) was almost painfully unfunny. What salvages the movie is seeing more of the Wolfpack and Chow. On another note, how does this girl from the Real World San Diego keep getting roles? First Sucker Punch and now this? She doesn't seem to bring much to the table. But hey, to her credit, she's one of two actresses to emerge from that show with any semblance of a film career.… Expand

THE MOVIE WAS GREAT i really like it, one of my friends asked me yesterday if they have to watch the first one before seeing tis one. i dont think its neccc , i mean the idea is the same , but i guess it has to be well its a sequal. i liked it and i laughed a lot which is what i paid for.

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 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.

The Hangover, Part II is not what you expected to see, but not nearly as good as the first movie. I don't think that movie will not be the best sequel and even though the scenes are not that bad, the characters are that bad, the cinematography is not that bad, it's the story has the same plot as the first one. I just wonder that why are doing all over again and why do they do same issue all over again. The scenes could be funny sometime, but it's very vulgarly nasty and too tedious to see.… Expand

This movie had it's funny moments, but all in all, this movie's main flaw was it's unoriginality. It was basically exactly like the first movie, just in a different city.

I found this movie of the same standard as the first movie. Both were exceptionally funny and showed plots which gave good entertainment to the audience

Very entertaining and hilarious...but very similar to the first movie. It was as if they made the script from the first movie into a Mad Lib, and just replaced a few words to write the script for Part II. All you have to do is replace tiger with monkey, missing tooth with tattoo, Vegas with Thailand, roof with....well, I don't want to give the whole thing away. I wish the script was more innovative and more of a twist on the original, rather than copying it, but it was still funny and entertaining nonetheless. I'm still glad I saw it.… Expand

It's a movie about a big hangover, it fallows the premise of the 1st movie. Someone is going to get married. The guys get together to have a couple of drinks, they wake up in the middle of Bangkok and spend the next 24 hours looking for a lost crew member. The movie is very funny and the pictures at the end are even funnier,

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 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

Not much to say about this film. It

It seems like Horrible Bosses has taken over to look something forward to as a sequel. This movie lost its luster on this part II. Hangover 1 was just amazing. There was a lot of stupid sexuality that just wasn't funny. Using the monkey for jokes just does not work unless your audience is younger (which it clearly can't be with all the other sexual stuff in this movie).

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.

Not nearly as funny as part 1, which till date its considered one of the funniest movies of all time. This sequel ripped off everything part one was made of and duplicated the plot, jokes, and premise. Its basically how The Hangover 1 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE. Lack of creativity and some boring slow parts made this one a lack luster movie, DVD material. Hangover 1 is still king.

Fun to watch, however, what made the original Hangover so good was the surprise element throughout and the wackiness of Galifianakis. Neither of these elements are fresh in this sequel and as a result the makers felt they needed to push the bar to new extremes, but perhaps pushed it a couple of clicks more than I would have liked them to.

I Can't rate this movie any higher, because though this movie had some laugh out loud moments, for me it was just too much like the first one. I'm sure that the filmmakers wanted to follow the same format, but for me it just doesnt work. I think they over thought this one.......

The first one was surprising: madcap situations, wacky characters and outrageous humor. The sequel is more of the sameâ

I can't blame the wolf-pack here. The movie wasn't lacking because of the acting chops. In fact, everyone did a fantastic job of pushing the movie forward as best they could. Special props to Ed Helms for being particularly funny in relatively unfunny moments. However, the prime issue with the movie is that the script itself just wasn't funny. There's hilarity and then there's shock value. Here we aimed for shock as humor and it wasn't convincing. Zach Galifianakis has convincing moments, but the naive character from the first flick is no more, and that's a shame. All in all I laughed here and there, but I laughed more at the photos during the credits. It's a rental movie for a few chuckles, but the writing just isn't enough to warrant a buy.… Expand

It has moments where it's self-referencial, given it's Part 2, but overall, just as funny, witty, and clever as the first! As sequels go, this is a great follow-up!

I laughed a lot at this movie. Yes, the premise is the same as the first one, but the gags were different and I was entertained the whole way. If I were seeing this film without seeing the first one I would rate it a little higher, but because the characters aren't new and fresh anymore it isn't as good as the first one. There were a couple of hilarious scenes, a lot of mildly amusing scenes, and it has a monkey. Who smokes. I never expect sequels to be as good as the originals so maybe I went into it with lower expectations than other people, but I thought it was a success. Did I mention it has a monkey? :)… Expand

It was ok, Too similar to the first and lacks originality however the original parts in it are hilarious and just as good or better. Still a solid comedy none the less.

This movie had the exact same formula as the first one, just different places and different situations. Which, in a way, was a little bit predictable. I was disappointed that Doug (Justin Bartha) wasn't a part of the problem. I wanted to see him doing some crazy stuff to. It had a lot of funny moments, especially with Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong). Personally, I think that the first one was better, because it was funner. I would prefer to get lost in Las Vegas, then rather being stuck in Bangkok. This one was awesome too. Even with the same structure, it's still interesting to see how these guys will solve their problem.… Expand

Control + c. Control + v. There was no creativity in this movie, but it still manages to get a few deserving laughs. The full frontal (Yes, there are multiple of men and women) were disturbing and unneeded. Definitely, the metascore does a good job of representing this movie.

Maybe it looks like the first, but it is definitely very funny and I really like it. Definitely don't listen critics, they don't know what they saying. Amazing film, should be watched.

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It's 'The Hangover' just set in a different place. But then 'The Hangover' was great so why wouldn't this one be? Just as funny as the first even if it was basically the same. It's not a concept which has been done to death yet so it doesn't deserve to be panned for being the same as the first. Lack of involvement of Doug was a disappointment. I thought he may have joined in for some shenanigans. A third might be taking it a step too far but I reckon this one was alright.… Expand

It's kinda sad that I didn't feel that this one was as good as I thought it would be. I loved the 1st movie, when this trailer came, I was so excited. I was with my friends in theaters to watch this. When it was over, we kinda felt that something felt wrong about it, it's just the same **** as the 1st one with a lil change on it. I think that I was lil too hyped for it. So, I went to see it again, by myself this time. Again, I had that feeling, it didn't hold-up as I really want it too. If you already saw the 1st movie, you don't have to see this one. It doesn't hold up as you think or how much you want it to. I felt the same. It really pains me to say it, but this is a skip.… Expand

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

Loved the first film, but was nervous about how a sequel would turn out considering how unnecessary one was. In the end it's good but isn't as funny as the first movie. One big flaw is how it fails to do anything new. The setting is dirtier and grittier, and the content is a lot darker, but most of the movie is just slightly altered content from the first movie. Still I enjoyed and fans of the first will as well. Just don't expect anything we haven't seen before in the first movie.… Expand

Like Caddyshack 2 and Animal House 2 and _______________ (pick another studio-driven comedic cash cow) 2, the second Hangover was sentimentally funny and all too forgettable (except The Crying Game allusion...well done there, boys). That said I laughed my ass off a few times and, once again, hardest of all during the closing credits. It was essentially the same template as the first, but I had a couple of beers and popcorn all ready, so I knew what I was getting into.… Expand

Its okay, there is not really anything funny in the dialogue, i think it is mainly just slapstick comedy, the most basic of things. The situations are outrageous so we are supposed to laugh.. and I did if only Ken Jeong could save the whole film..

So wanted to like The Hangover Part II but even though it was OK, it just could not live up to the brilliant original. Yes I did laugh out loud many times but the fact that its the exact same movie was so disappointing. This movie proves the point about what is wrong with Hollywood.

Not at all a good as the first one. I generally like when they do not mess too much with a formula that was working but this installement somehow felt quite uninspired. Actually there was not that many places where I lauched. Most of the time I was just feeling annoyed that the bloody bearded idiot actually did the same thing again.

Unfortunately, part II doesn't bring as much laughter as it did the first but it was still enjoyable. Justin Bartha's character didn't miss much as he was the smart one to leave early back to Thailand. The hype of the movie spoiled the true fun as this would've been a great ride if it were to replace the first Hangover.

I didn't expect Part II to be anywhere as good as the original, but it was disappointing nonetheless. I wouldn't have minded the fact that it was basically the same movie, if it had at least been a little bit funny. I was mildly laughing for the first 20 minutes, but after that, when all the hilarity was supposed to start, the film just became boring and hard to watch. The plot stopped making sense, and got really confusing. Too many things were happening, and there wasn't enough comedy to keep me interested. The first movie will forever be one of my favorite comedies, but I'm really hoping to just forget that the second part exists. I didn't rate this too low, because, as I've mentioned before, I found the first 20 minutes funny.… Expand

Don't listen to critics, they're just always depressed. Even though this movies followed the same path as the first one, THAT WAS THE POINT of this movies!!!!!! This movies is far funnier than the first one. Easily.

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It is the same thing just in a different location, sometimes that can be good but this movie is not as funny as the first, that had charm and actually good jokes, this has as much charm as a bangkok ladyboy and only a few good jokes, good if you go with your friends that are all guys as there is a point were we find out that Stu has had sex with ladyboy and its just a weird and awkward moment that you don't want to experience on a first date.… Expand

The makers of the Hangover have accomplished the seemingly difficult task of creating a film to rival the aforementioned Las Vegian laugh-fest in both quality and originality.
The Hangover Part 2's opening scenes will initially spark fears that it will be nothing more than a Zach Galifianakis show, with nine tenths of the gag material coming from him. And despite Galifianakis' impending foray into the comedic elite, multiple hours of just this clueless and inappropriate hilarity would inevitably become sickening.
Nevertheless, once the 'wolfpack' are thrown into their 'hangover', this film picks up where their last one left off. The colourful and erratic nature of Bangkok is the perfect contrast to the setting of their previous wild escapade and the suitably action-accompanied plot line moves along with the velocity of a steam train. However, what is particularly appreciable about this film is the resistance by Phillps et al to not transverse complete rationality - despite gunfights, car chases and drug-dealing monkeys, the basic premise of this film remains within the relative boundaries of reason, particularly when considering the foundations for this film: being part 1.
The Hangover Part 2 is by no means a masterpiece. It is the film that fans of its predecessor want to see, and the creators could not ask for more than that.… Expand

Nice comedy. Not perfect, but i liked The Hangover II. But some moments are nauseous (I meant scene with transvestite in whorehouse). The movie is funny for one time.

I gave the original a 9, but this one just falls short. They basically remade the first one and though I laughed pretty hard a couple times, most of the time I was bored.

As you might've guessed, this movie is essentially the same as the original. Different city, different wedding, same scenario...but what else could you do with a sequel like this? Much of the humor is unoriginal and borrowed from part I. It just felt stale throughout. Sure there are some funny moments, but part II fails to differentiate itself enough from its predecessor to warrant the price of admission. Part III is already on the way... whose wedding could it be this time?… Expand

The Wolfpack is back. And according the critics thats a bad thing!? I dont think so. After watching The Hangover Part 2 I really have to ask what they were smoking? Just what movie did they see. I'll be honest I had my doubts because the first film was amazing and the success it had was incredible so following the original was always going to be a tall order but I now feel stupid for ever doubting this film. Firstly it's not the carbon-copy of the original - their are refernces made to it but they bring out the laughs remebering what went down. Yes it follws the same structure but I don't see the huge problem people have with that. If it ain't broke why fix it? This time around its Stu's wedding in Thailand and after joining The Wolfpack for a drink the night before the big day they wake up the next morning with a familiar feeling- it happened again. As Stu faces a races against time to get to his wedding they realise that he has lost brides brother, cue the madness and laughs as they try to figure out exactly what happened and where he is whilst evading the city of Bangkok! Ed Helms really steps up in the sequel and is great as Dr. Stu. Zach Galifiniakis is once again in fantastic form as the legendary Alan Garner, Bradley Cooper is once more mr cool Phil but the standout, besides that monkey, is Ken Jeong as the not-so-gangster Leslie Chow. Forget what the critics have said and just take the film for what it is. Its not as fresh and new but it was never going to be what you get is a hilarious sequel full of entertainment and ofcourse the LOL moments the first one was famous for and a marvellous little monkey! What more could you want?… Expand

Seems like they took 90 percent of the script from the first movie, added a car chase and replaced the baby with a monkey and a hotel roof for a hotel elevator. That being sai,d I went to see this movie to smile and laugh, as most people do when they go to see a comedy and I did both.

Yes it was virtually the same film in a different location but it was STILL very funny.

To say that The Hangover Part II is anywhere close to being as good as the original should be a crime. The original Hangover is a masterpiece when it comes to vulgar jaw dropping comedies, in my opinion it is one of the best comedies in years, but part II failed to measure up to it's previous story. It is what it looks like, a less funny, carbon copy of the first film. Maybe Part III can win back my love for Todd Phillips.… Expand

While this film may not be very original (the critics are correct, it follows the first film to a T), it is by no means a bad or even terrible film. It has it's ups and downs like every comedy, and ultimately ends up being a satisfying experience, but it just doesn't have the charm of the first film because it's nothing new. At the very least, it's worth a rental, and at most, a packed midnight showing with a fun audience.… Expand

Very funny sequel to one of the most funniest movie's yet to release in the last couple years. The concept is equal to the first one so, you already will know what could happen or imagine the mysteries of the story. The story is well scripted . But, see the first one if you haven't seen the movies .

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Hangover Part II. what a great film, yet another fantastic storyline. People doubted whether or not it could top the previous film, and if the sequel would ruin the originality of the previous film... they thought wrong. Part II is still the same idea, they all go out loose there memory etc etc, but Part II offers so much more comedy and thrill, there is more at stake this time, more too loose. It was great to see the "wolf pack" back together but unfortunately Doug was not in the whole drama again, he went home early, it would have been nice to see him get more involved in the film. This time they do not live the high life glamor like they did in Vegas, they were in Bangkok, there seemed to be a much darker and depressing tone in the movie, they wake up in the grotty, dirty hotel were all the power goes off, they find themselves in the slums of bangkok. the film gets much more graphic, near the beginning and throughout there are strong drug uses and strong sexual actions and nudity. I would say that this film is really a teenage humor, for 15 to 28 maybe but adults will enjoy just as much

To sum up this film i would say it is a fantastic must see, its got to be comedy film of the year, its going to win loads of Oscars and just a general fun and fantastic film to watch. A must see film. i give it **** stars
(please comment and rate my review :) )… Expand

It's a good film, but sometimes the jokes seem a bit overdone. Even if the film follows the same concept, I really had to laugh often in this movie. Why should you change something which worked perfectly in the past? Also they at least tried to make the film a bit more unexpected.
It's a good movie, but don't watch it if you hate the fact that the concept was taken from the first Hangover.

The plot is exactly the same as the first one and the jokes aren't quite as funny as before. However, if you enjoyed the original, there is plenty to enjoy here. It is not as good as the first film, but it was never going to be able to top that. If you are willing to ignore the identical plot, and just embrace the humour of the film, you will enjoy the Hangover Part 2 immensely, but don't expect it to be as good as the first.… Expand

So what if it follows the same formula as the first? So what if the humor is super crude? What did you honestly expect? Once again, this wonderful cast comes together for another crazy night out, and the result is another film that made me laugh, and made me laugh hard. While it just isn't as quite as good as the first, I still thoroughly enjoyed this film, with "Alan" stealing the show again with his every line.… Expand

This movie is really hard to review, because, as a stand alone movie, it's brilliant, but as a sequel to the first hangover, it is a complete copy of the first movie with a few different jokes and a new setting. It isn't just similar, it is almost completely identical to the first movie, especially the beginning, where the format is exactly the same. I can't say I didn't enjoy watching the movie, because I did, but if the writers of the the hangover are considering making a third installment, they really need some new ideas.… Expand

I really enjoyed this, even more then the first. I would say both movies have about the same amount of good laughs, but unlike 1, part 2 is has so much more adventure going for it. Good laughs in a more interesting city is good to me.

It's not that it's not very funny in parts, because it is, but the lack of originality, in that the structure of the plot is EXACTLY the same (the way they've shot it seems like they were deliberately trying to make it the same, with the beginning, end credits and even the general storyline ), which brings it down as you know exactly what's going to happen before it happens most of the time. It's a shame, but there wasn't really anywhere exciting they could go with the "hangover" concept, should really have just stuck with the first one and used it as a blueprint on how to make other films with seemingly stereotypical ideas and themes original and exciting. Instead, they've cashed in on an idea that seems tired five minute into the film.… Expand

I know that probably every person on the world knows by now that The Hangover: Part 2 is a duplicate of the first film and it is true. From the first scene it feels like you are watching the same movie just set in a different location. It does have humorous moments but I think it got a little more disturbing than the first. It was a funny movie but i would stick to the first

It was very similar to the first, but with a plot twist and two here and there, and many guffaw-worthy moments everywhere, this is the winning formula that made the original so incredible. However, this movie is much more dirty and filled with "adult content", but this does coincide with the movie's darker setting. I loved it, and will be laughing for awhile.

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 bad secuels in the movies history!

Not quite on par with the first one, but still very funny and well worth seeing. Great to see the "wolf pack" back together again for another adventure.

The movie is quite good in its own right, by all means. However, compared to the original, a great degree of flair was lacking in this sequel. Simply, the movie is nowhere near as outrageous as the original was. Now, this may well be due to the original becoming a fixture in American culture, but regardless this new one simply cannot provoke the same fits of laughter for swaths of time as the original one. Truly Ed Helms outdoes himself in this one, and it shows. The other acting is excellent, but Ed helms showed a full range of character traits, and, if for no other reason than his and Ken Jeong's good acting, this is a wonderful movie to see.… Expand

Just let go of expectations, this isn't going to top the original. Once you've gotten past that, the sequel can stand on its own. While not as good, it's funny in it's own right. Several scenes will make you laugh, while a few are actually rather serious. It's generally predictable as they follow the same direction that the first did... which isn't necessarily a bad thing. What was tied into the 2nd from the 1st works, and it works well for the most part. Some parts seemed forced, others flow. If your a fan of the original, go with some friends and enjoy seeing what the cast gets themselves into. It's nothing mind blowing and it isn't going to win any awards, but it's worth seeing.… Expand

A classic example of a good comedy sequel. Truly fantastic. I saw this to make me laugh and make me laugh it did. Just take the film as it is - a comedy sequel. You'll love it.

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. This is part 2? of thought it was a remake of the original so really it should be named 'The Hangover 2011'.
At the start I thought they were making reference to the original with the phone call and the wedding but as it 'progressed' into the film I realised that I was watching the exact same film for the same amount of money. Trust me the whole film it just the same plot. The 'Wolfpack' get drunk, they lose somebody, they make a deal to find somebody, the deal goes wrong, etc.. it's all the same. (N.B: I am required to hide spoilers although if you saw the original thats basically a major spoiler)… Expand

It was a blast! Sequels are tough. Of course the inevitable comparisons to its predecessor come into play, but 2 delivers.

Yes, we all know "who" the characters are, and we all know what Hangover inevitably becomes, and that may take some of the punch away - but that also means if this is your first Hangover, then you'll find it even more of a blast.

Wasn't sure the cameo worked, but I guess its a way to bring back one of the characters involved in one of the funniest situations of the first.

Yes, my rating is based on the fact that I fell prey to what I already mentioned - I saw the first and no matter what will always have that "comparison" in the back of my mind. But make no mistake, this is a hilarious sequel and adds to the Hangover cult status. Let's see, the finale should be Zach's turn, right?… Expand

The critics are expecting Shakespeare, which is the only way they can be panning this great sequel. If you set realistic expectations, you will leave the theater completely satisfied.

I don't get all the negativity. It's a buddy comedy, what did you expect? This isn't some pretentious arthouse film, guys. It made me and my friends laugh loudly the entire way through, and that's all that matters. One of the main complaints I'm hearing is that it was basically the same as the first movie except in a different location. OK, let's analyze this: it's called THE HANGOVER PART II. Meaning, an extension of the first movie. They weren't going to make any radical changes, and they didn't have to. They met my expectations, and it was 10 dollars well spent.… Expand

Cash crop, that's all this movie is now. The fresh are ideas from the first one are recycled. The movie weighs too heavily on the things that worked the first time. The saying "if it ain't broke don't fix it" yeah that applies to everything except movie sequels, or people who are trying to be original. I didn't totally hate it. I mean I didn't expect much. It still had it moments but not even close to the very first Hangover.… Expand

â

The hangover 2 differs from the hangover in that all the crude parts are in the movie and not at end credits. The hangover 2 sticks to the original formula as the first movie and relies on crude potty humor and an overly abudence of F bombs to pull off a few chuckles. Save your money, wait for on demand and in the mean time watch the first one again.

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 just encouraging them.

I don't really understand what people's expectations were for this movie, but after reading reviews on here and THEN seeing the film, I thought it was hilarious ! Ton's of over the top dark humor, man/lady private parts, and a monkey ! Although the plot was more or less the same as the first, it still found ways to surprise you. Not a movie for everyone, but if you enjoyed the first movie and aren't sitting there trying to find the flaws you should find yourself satisfied and laughing throughout the most part.… Expand

Overall I thought the movie was funny. I know that I laughed just as much or even more during this movie as I did the first Hangover. The concept was the same which brought the movie down a little bit, however, this was a comedy and it brought the laughs I was looking for.

Hilarious movie but had all the same jokes and whatnot. The real disappointment, for me, with this sequel is that I definitely won't be seeing it more than once. I can always pop in the original whenever I want and still find it equally funny. Unfortunately, I won't be seeing this again. Definitely worth seeing once, though.

When all is said and done it is more raunchier than its predecessor and manages to serve up the same level of laughs yet it lacks on what the first one succeeds in, which is the mystery angle.