Hangover 2

Where Vegas surprised with a refreshing take on summer comedies and incorrect humour, Bangkok surprises by doing EXACTLY the same. In addition to the characters, the premise and the style of humour, all the twists and turns have also remained, and some scenes look as if Todd Phillips had shot them again but with a different background. Yeah, it’s still a lot of fun even a second time, but the element of surprise is irreparably lost, which is a shame. Ken Jeong jumping out of a car boot was funny in the first one, Ken Jeong jumping out of a freezer is funny in the second one, but then, after several experiences of deja-vu, you’re certain that he will jump out of somewhere and it’s no longer effective. And Alan’s transition from a typical “moron” to almost dangerously close to a “mentally ill wreck” is no so funny as it is sad. But still, thumbs a little up, I laughed, I did… (23.10.2011)

Die Nummer eins war eine Art gut gewachsener und verschwitzter amerikanischer Rüpel, der Zweier mutet wie ein verpienster Milchreis an, der seinen Vorgänger bei allem übertreffen kann - außerdem Maß der Notwendigsten, und das ist Humor und Spaß. Recyclete Witze haben zur Folge, dass man noch etwas mehr über die Grenze hinausgeht, jedoch auch, dass das, was im Einser natürlich oder überraschend wirkte, hier bereits nur affektgeladen und vorausschaubar ist. Am meisten habe ich bei der finalen Diashow gelacht ... Aus dem Hangoverthema wird somit erwartungsgemäß nur eine langweiligen Franchise, die in höchstmöglichem Maße von der tragenden Idee eines Wolfsrudels sowie eines großen Fensters profitieren wird. Für einige mag das genug sein, doch ich sage hier: reine Zeitverschwendung. (02.06.2011)

I was pleasantly surprised that the next Hangover would be in Bangkok. Although for such a beautiful city, there was surprisingly little of it. I'm starting to adore Zach G. because his acting is truly incredible. The second one lags a little (really just a little) in terms of the story, but it was still a party from start to finish. After Alan's toast, half the theater even started clapping. That doesn't happen that often. End credits photo collage even better than the one from Vegas! So I'm satisfied. (10.06.2011)

The same as last time. The originality has gone, but everything is speeded up and, it has to be admitted, Bangkok is a much more interesting location than Vegas. Everybody fits beautifully in their roles and Paul Giamatti was super. The monkey was fun. (06.01.2012)

Der zweite Teil ist kurz gesagt eine genaue Kopie des ersten Teils, nur in einer anderen Stadt angesiedelt, die witzigen Szenen wurden zugespitzt oder abgestumpft, mir hat es gefallen, ich habe gelacht und mich gut amüsiert, stellenweise habe ich nicht verstanden, warum im Kino niemand lacht, doch jeder hat eben einen anderen Sinn für Humor. Ich sage: Daumen hoch, ich will einen dritten Teil mit Alans Hochzeit, was fürchterlich werden kann! (11.06.2011)

Second time, but actually the first time. "Hangover in Bangkok" is a continuation of "Hangover in Vegas", but it could easily be considered a copy. Once that principle worked, so we will do it the same way again, because it will work again. The American spirit of commerce has once again shown its dull face. I can't say that I didn't smile at some scenes, but making this film is simply pathetic. The same characters, different animal, Mike Tyson back on the scene, vulgar humor, which doesn't bother me, but mainly the ending, when everything turns out well in the end, even though it seems that everything is totally... you know where. No, I'm not giving it a second chance. I don't like remakes, let alone copies. Trying to get the maximum out of the viewer without added value is the bestiality of today's film world. And do you know what? A third part is coming... Copy of a copy is approaching. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/04/diar-milovnika-filmu-c-0003-eastwood.html (14.02.2013)

Yes, there are a few funny moments, but compared to the first installment, it is weaker in all respects and The Hangover Part II is just a bad copy of part one, not even trying to be different. Zach Galifianakis’s performance made me give it 3 stars instead of just 2. (10.01.2012)