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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.