Time To Take Some Panadol – The Hangover: Part II

What exactly does it take to make a sequel that is just as successful as the original? In the case of Hangover, apparently the answer is in defiant repetition. With a series like Harry Potter it is easy to create a successful movie sequel, because there’s already source material to draw from, already a successful sequel has been written in book form so it’s easy to copy that. I won’t go into how I would have done the Harry Potter movies different just to mess with people, because this is neither the time nor the place. It’s easy to make a successful sequel with a series like Terminator, which for some reason is the first to come to mind. Terminator 2: Judgement Day was easy to make because basically it was like “Hey we made Arnold the bad guy in the last one, let’s make him the good guy in this one” and the story came from that.

It is much harder to make a successful comedy sequel because everyone just wants the same thing; they get angry if it’s different. But on the other hand everyone’s expecting it to be unrecognisably different, and get angry if it’s the same. It’s an annoying paradox, so people get annoyed when Ghostbusters 2 basically repeats the plot from the first movie. People get annoyed when Evan Almighty takes it into an entirely different direction. So what’s the answer? How do we please everyone? The answer is simple, the same… but different. It has to be different… but familiar. This seems oxymoronic but really it makes a lot of sense. Now in the past, I’ve only ever seen two movies that are able to pull this off successfully. The first one is Harold & Kumar: Escape From Guantanamo Bay and the second one is Wayne’s World 2. Now I know what’re thinking; these movies weren’t exactly received so well critically, but for some reason I don’t think Margret & David or Roger Ebert are the best people we should go to for reviews on stoner comedies.

I’m only going to talk about one of these, and that one being Harold & Kumar: Escape From Guantanamo Bay. Harold & Kumar 1 had a simple plot; two stoners attempt to make their way across New Jersey in order to eat some burgers from White Castle. Along the way they ran into various obstacles, but eventually through the power of friendship they made it and ate some burgers. Now Harold & Kumar 2 manages to take that same formula but turn it on its side. Because this time, they aren’t trying to go somewhere in particular they’re trying to stay out of prison. Now again along the way they run into various obstacles and they learn some lessons. Now do you see what I mean the same but different? It’s the same formula but in a different way.

Now the real question here is; if Hangover: Part II managed to make it the same as the first movie, but different at the same time. Well certainly it’s got all the makings of being the same. Our protagonists Stu, Phil and Alan wake up in a hotel with no recollection of the night before and missing someone. They spend the majority of the movie trying to find this person, running into various obstacles. The movie is so similar in fact that it even has many of the same comedic beats. Similarities like something funny and permanent happening to Stu’s face, an exotic animal in the bathroom, Chow jumping out and attacking the protagonists, as well as many other similarities.

So it’s obvious what has been done exactly the same here. The question now becomes what the sequel does differently to the original, to achieve that same effect Harold & Kumar pulled off so well. So what are the differences? Well let’s look at the most obvious ones first. Instead of Las Vegas, they are in Bangkok, that much is obvious. It isn’t Doug getting married; this time the one to tie the knot is Stu who unfortunately isn’t marrying the prostitute from the original, but an entirely new character played by Jaime Chung. They haven’t lost Doug in this one either, no this time they’ve lost Stu’s soon to be brother-in-law Teddy. Now those are the most obvious differences, now those are just cosmetic differences, but the real genius of the film lies within where it’s completely different.

One thing you’ll notice is that the characters are more developed this time around. Alan played by Zach Galifianakis is a much more sympathetic character, with an actual arch. He has never been able to get over the trip from the previous movie and get out of this fantasy of “walking the night looking for hookers and cocaine” with his Wolf Pack. He is jealous of Teddy because he’s getting attention. It’s not like he’s even getting more attention than Alan, it’s just that he’s even getting some at all that annoys him. Eventually Alan learns to accept Teddy, he learns his lessons and his arch comes full circle with his wedding present for Stu.

Phil, played by Bradley Cooper, was the main character of the previous film, the level-headed protagonist created to act as a contrast between the craziness of the other two characters. In this film however, although he is that grounded character, he is no longer the main character, he takes a back seat to Stu played by Ed Helms. This is one of the reasons I think the film is so good. Because it manages to make the switcheroo in such a believable and natural way, the sequel manages to humanise the characters a bit more than the previous. Stu has an arch just like Alan, wherein he must learn how to embrace his inner demons instead of shying away from them. Once he accepts within himself that yes he likes to do crazy things and yes he “likes hookers, okay” everything becomes just that little bit easier for Stu.

The first movie looked amazing, it managed to capture the beauty of Las Vegas and the Mojave Desert in such a way that had never been done before. Hangover: Part II kicks it up a notch by showing just how beautiful Thailand is, the movie could serve as a travel advertisement for Thailand it’s done so well. It says, yes this place is beautiful and yes you can party like crazy here, satisfying everyone’s holiday needs. One of the best things about Hangover: Part II is the soundtrack, it is easily one of the best soundtracks for a comedy film ever to be put on screen.

So sure, Hangover: Part II does switch it up a fair amount, while keeping the core of it exactly the same. But does it do it successfully? When I walked out of the theatre after watching this film the first thing that came to my head was, “Wow I haven’t laughed this much in a theatre since… Well since Hangover: Part I”. So as a film that wanted to recreate the hilarity of the original in a way that is just as fulfilling, I would say yes, it is very successful.

Direction: 4/5

Writing: 4.5/5

Acting: 4.5/5

Presentation: 5/5

Overall: 4.5/5

The Hangover Part II is rated MA15+ in Australia, for Strong sexual references, nudity, coarse language and drug use.