The Hangover 2
May. 28th, 2011 12:25 pmI know a lot of sequels share a premise with the first movie, and that's okay. John McClane is always fighting terrorists who are really thieves with a fondness for overly complicated plans, Indiana Jones is always going after an ancient relic. You rethink the premise too much, you get something like David O. Russell's proposed Uncharted movie, where Nathan Drake stops doing boring stuff like exploring ancient tombs full of traps and fighting monsters so he can have family drama.
But goddamn. I mean, goddamn. Who would've guessed that Bridesmaids would end up being less of a rip-off than The Hangover 2? It's literally like a shot-for-shot remake, only in Bangkok instead of Las Vegas. Like America remaking a J-horror film, only they're both in English. And not funny. It's kinda amazing, they do the exact same jokes as the first one, only they tweak them so they're not funny.
Hangover 1: Ken Jeong shows up as a wacky Gangster who is apparently holding the gang's missing friend hostage.
Hangover 2: Paul Giamatti shows up as a completely normal gangster who is apparently holding the gang's missing friend hostage.
Hangover 1: After a night of debauchery, someone wakes up to find a tooth missing.
Hangover 2: After a night of debauchery, someone wakes up to find a finger missing.
Hangover 1: Stu finds out he wed a hooker under the influence.
Hangover 2: Stu finds out he was raped by a transperson under the influence.
Hangover 1: The Wolfpack steals a tiger.
Hangover 2: The Woflpack steals a monkey, and it dresses up in people clothes and does people things. And mimes oral sex. Twice. BUT MONKEYS AREN'T SUPPOSED TO DO THAT! Oh, Todd Philips, you and your puckish wit!
It's so weird that at first I thought the movie was building to some sort of grand metafictional point or commentary, but they just say "Oh, it happened again" a few times and then completely forget the first movie, even when the events occurring are exactly the same.
Stu: Allen, did you roofie us again?
Allen: No... yes. So, are we still friends now that I have literally almost ruined your lives twice, as well as having caused your brother-in-law to be maimed and for you to have lost your anal cherry?
Stu: Yup.
Now I'm thinking it's some kind of Dark Knight Strikes Back thing, where everyone was under contract and the studio said "We want a sequel" and everyone was like "We can't do a sequel! What, are they going to get drugged again?" and the studio went "Yeah, do that." and so they decided to just goof around for a few months and pick up their paychecks.
But goddamn. I mean, goddamn. Who would've guessed that Bridesmaids would end up being less of a rip-off than The Hangover 2? It's literally like a shot-for-shot remake, only in Bangkok instead of Las Vegas. Like America remaking a J-horror film, only they're both in English. And not funny. It's kinda amazing, they do the exact same jokes as the first one, only they tweak them so they're not funny.
Hangover 1: Ken Jeong shows up as a wacky Gangster who is apparently holding the gang's missing friend hostage.
Hangover 2: Paul Giamatti shows up as a completely normal gangster who is apparently holding the gang's missing friend hostage.
Hangover 1: After a night of debauchery, someone wakes up to find a tooth missing.
Hangover 2: After a night of debauchery, someone wakes up to find a finger missing.
Hangover 1: Stu finds out he wed a hooker under the influence.
Hangover 2: Stu finds out he was raped by a transperson under the influence.
Hangover 1: The Wolfpack steals a tiger.
Hangover 2: The Woflpack steals a monkey, and it dresses up in people clothes and does people things. And mimes oral sex. Twice. BUT MONKEYS AREN'T SUPPOSED TO DO THAT! Oh, Todd Philips, you and your puckish wit!
It's so weird that at first I thought the movie was building to some sort of grand metafictional point or commentary, but they just say "Oh, it happened again" a few times and then completely forget the first movie, even when the events occurring are exactly the same.
Stu: Allen, did you roofie us again?
Allen: No... yes. So, are we still friends now that I have literally almost ruined your lives twice, as well as having caused your brother-in-law to be maimed and for you to have lost your anal cherry?
Stu: Yup.
Now I'm thinking it's some kind of Dark Knight Strikes Back thing, where everyone was under contract and the studio said "We want a sequel" and everyone was like "We can't do a sequel! What, are they going to get drugged again?" and the studio went "Yeah, do that." and so they decided to just goof around for a few months and pick up their paychecks.
no subject
Date: 2011-05-28 07:36 pm (UTC)