During its opening weekend, “The Hangover: Part II” grossed enough money to end poverty in a small third world country, even though it received generally bad reviews. I believe the reason for its success is simple: viewers want to know how the sad sacks at the center of the movie ended up in a strange city with no memory of how they got there.
The element of mystery is crucial to the success of the “Hangover” films. In the original, three men wake up in a ransacked Vegas hotel room with piercing headaches and a profound sense of confusion. In the sequel, the same men wake up in a shabby Bangkok hotel room with piercing headaches and a profound sense of déjà vu. What’s more, Stu has acquired a tattoo like the one on Mike Tyson’s face, Alan’s head is shaved, and they’re in possession of a drug-running monkey.
There’s another surprise waiting for them under a pile of clothes, but I shudder when I think about it, so I’ve chosen to not discuss it.
And now you’re curious. See how it works?
There’s another issue, and it’s big: The men are short one member of their party: Teddy, the 16-year-old brother of Stu’s fiancée, Lauren. The night before, the group had gathered together on a beach in Thailand, everyone had a beer, and then the lights went out. When they woke up, Teddy was missing. Actually, MOST of him was missing. One of his fingers was still in the room.
And now you’re even curioser, as Alice would say.
The problem with the “Hangover” movies is that they’re all tease and no payoff. You could almost hear the air seeping out of the original as the pieces of what had happened snapped together. Although writers Jon Lucas and Scott Moore should have fixed this problem in the sequel, the same thing happens again. Up to a certain point, “Part II” has momentum, but once Lucas and Moore begin to pull back the shroud of the mystery, the movie loses steam.
The ending is so blah, it made me wonder if Lucas and Moore nailed the idea for the first act into place without knowing where the movie would go from there. The very funny John Cleese, one of the members of Monty Python, says a writer must know where a situation comedy will end before he or she types a single word. Essentially, everything must lead up to the punch line. The “Hangover” movies are like jokes with no punch lines.
Worse, the drama in the movie is resolved with shrugs and hugs, when outrage clearly would have been more believable.
The movie opens with Stu, Phil, Zach and Justin traveling to Thailand for Stu and Lauren’s wedding. Phil is still a self-absorbed jerk, Zach is as mentally unhinged as before, and how straight-laced Justin fits into this group is beyond my understanding. Stu is the only character that has changed since the beginning of “The Hangover”; in a bit of welcome continuity, Lucas and Moore carry Stu’s transformation from wimpy weakling to self-assured man over from the original.
When they arrive, Lauren’s well-heeled father hosts a dinner, ostensibly in honor of the happy couple. However, he uses it to publicly dishonor Stu, who he hates. During the meal, Teddy performs a classical composition on a cello, to his father’s beaming approval. Stu then whisks Teddy away to Bangkok for a night of unmitigated debauchery, during which Teddy loses a finger. So much for the tens of thousands of dollars dad spent on cello lessons. With this in mind, the father’s response to Stu at the end of the movie is not only implausible, it shows Lucas and Moore had no idea what they were doing as they cobbled the story together.
The other problem with “Part II” is its lack of humor. I’m not referring to the movie’s puerile hijinks, which make the original “Hangover” seem quaint in comparison, but to the utterly impotent dialogue, which fails to inspire laughs. An example:
Alan: “My cousin once saw an albino bear.”
Stu: “Maybe it was a polar bear. Polar bears are white.”
Alan: “This bear was black.”
Stu: “Then maybe it was a black bear.”
Alan: “Whatevs.”
That’s not funny, but it does represent the quality of the humor in “Part II.”
Talk of a third “Hangover” started as soon as the grosses for the opening weekend of “Part II” were in. Given the success of the second movie, I’ll be surprised if it doesn’t happen. I’ll also be surprised if Lucas and Moore come up with a story that sustains my interest for more than 20 minutes.
Rated R for pervasive language, strong sexual content, including graphic nudity, drug use, and brief violent images. Two stars out of four. Email David Laprad at dlaprad@hamiltoncountyherald.com.