The Hangover Part II

[Dukefrukem]

This is beginning to shoot. And remember the Tyson cameo from the first one?

Well it's leaked all over the internet what they plan on doing in the 2nd one. Click to find out.

Mel Gibson

[Lasse]

The first one was hysterical. I'll watch anything from these guys.


Mel Gibson

But please, no.

[MacGuffin]

Mel Gibson

Ugh. Ugh ugh ugh ugh ugh.

[baby doll]

As much as Mel Gibson playing himself, in a context that implicitly equates him with Mike "Lady-raping, Ear-biting, Child-eating, Face-tatooing, Phil Collins-lovin'" Tyson, sounds awesome, and as much as I enjoyed the first movie, I can't imagine what the point is, except "Oh, this made a ton of money so let's do a sequel."

[MacGuffin]

As much as Mel Gibson playing himself, in a context that implicitly equates him with Mike "Lady-raping, Ear-biting, Child-eating, Face-tatooing, Phil Collins-lovin'" Tyson

Yeah, but haven't we all had enough of the "Mel's gone crazy" joke?

[baby doll]

Yeah, but haven't we all had enough of the "Mel's gone crazy" joke?Maybe, but he deserves it. His movies suck.

[MacGuffin]

Maybe, but he deserves it. His movies suck.

I suppose that's pretty much in line with the immature mentality of the filmmakers. I liked the original, but for little reason other than Zach Galifinakis or Ken Jeong (it's technically awful filmmaking).

[baby doll]

I suppose that's pretty much in line with the immature mentality of the filmmakers. I liked the original, but for little reason other than Zach Galifinakis or Ken Jeong (it's technically awful filmmaking).I was actually kind of surprised at how much ensemble staging there was in the first film. The director, whatever his name is, isn't William Wyler or anything, but the direction seemed to me in keeping with everything else in the film in that it was better than it needed to be.

[MacGuffin]

I was actually kind of surprised at how much ensemble staging there was in the first film. The director, whatever his name is, isn't William Wyler or anything, but the direction seemed to me in keeping with everything else in the film in that it was better than it needed to be.

Nah, it's bland commercial Hollywood comedy filmmaking. Everything from the camera work to the quick cutting, from the lame sense of culture to the annoyingly overused pop songs. Did they manage to stick that "Waking Up in Vegas" track somewhere in there? I can't recall.

[baby doll]

Nah, it's bland commercial Hollywood comedy filmmaking. Everything from the camera work to the quick cutting, from the lame sense of culture to the annoyingly overused pop songs. Did they manage to stick that "Waking Up in Vegas" track somewhere in there? I can't recall.No, but it did have a wedding singer doing "Candy Shop" by 50 Cent, which was awesome.

[MacGuffin]

No, but it did have a wedding singer doing "Candy Shop" by 50 Cent, which was awesome.

I'm talking about the non-diegetic music.

[MadMan]

Well damnit I liked the first movie, and I thought it was funny. However I'm rather curious to see what they do for a sequel.

[lovejuice]

shooting in Bangkok! woo hoo! and mel as a tattoo artist sounds...i don't know.

[number8]

I like Mel Gibson as a comedy actor.

[Grouchy]

I like Mel Gibson as a comedy actor.
I like Mel Gibson both as an actor and as a director. And yes, he's good at comedy.

[Boner M]

Haha. (http://www.boffo.com/2010/10/warner-bros-no-mel-gibson-in-hangover-2.html?nid=2854#ixzz132qomb45)


Warner Bros. and Legendary Pictures have confirmed that Mel Gibson will not be appearing in "The Hangover 2."

Director Todd Phillips said in a statement: "I thought Mel would have been great in the movie and I had the full backing of Jeff Robinov and his team. But I realize filmmaking is a collaborative effort, and this decision ultimately did not have the full support of my entire cast and crew.”

Gibson was expected to make a cameo in Warner Bros.' sequel but actor Zach Galifianakis and others involved in the project were reportedly furious with the idea.

[Dukefrukem]

Good way to do it. Call out Galifianakis. :rolleyes:

[Boner M]

Good way to do it. Call out Galifianakis. :rolleyes:
He was actually vocal (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/10/is_zach_galifianakis_fed_up_wi .html) about not wanting Gibson on board.

[megladon8]

That's weird. I'd like to know Galifianakis' reasons for being so passionately against Gibson being in the movie.

[Winston*]

He was actually vocal (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2010/10/is_zach_galifianakis_fed_up_wi .html) about not wanting Gibson on board.

Eh. I listen to that podcast, he was pretty evasive about it.

[Spinal]

That's weird. I'd like to know Galifianakis' reasons for being so passionately against Gibson being in the movie.

Isn't it obvious?

[DavidSeven]

Call out? I'd want to be credited for keeping Mel out. Galifianakis gets points in my book.

[MacGuffin]

Isn't it obvious?

Yeah, I hate how Gibson fans tiptoe around the fact that he's a total shithead.

[Morris Schæffer]

Isn't it obvious?

You're really Zach?

[Spinal]

What interests me about this is how the story of Gibson's cameo was floated out there in the media three days before it was announced that the scene had been cut. It feels like they were trying to get a sense of public sentiment before making a decision about whether to include it or not.

[number8]

What interests me about this is how the story of Gibson's cameo was floated out there in the media three days before it was announced that the scene had been cut. It feels like they were trying to get a sense of public sentiment before making a decision about whether to include it or not.

This is what I dislike about movie reporting these days.

[megladon8]

Isn't it obvious?


Not to me.

I don't see how Gibson being a "total shithead" gives someone like Galifianakis the power to cut his cameo in the movie.

There are tons of shitheads in Hollywood, and Galifianakis isn't exactly an A-list heavy-hitter.

I'd find it more understandable if someone like Brad Pitt or Leonardo DiCaprio was able to get Gibson cut out of their next movie.

[Henry Gale]

Not to me.

I don't see how Gibson being a "total shithead" gives someone like Galifianakis the power to cut his cameo in the movie.

There are tons of shitheads in Hollywood, and Galifianakis isn't exactly an A-list heavy-hitter.

I'd find it more understandable if someone like Brad Pitt or Leonardo DiCaprio was able to get Gibson cut out of their next movie.

It's the difference between an audience having a decision as to whether or not they find the idea of Gibson as a crazy tattoo artist, obviously playing on (into?) his public perception in recent times, and then Galifianakis and everyone actually a part of the film having their name and faces on it, basically coming across as if they endorse it even if they don't. Galifianakis, as well as Cooper and Helms, have a lot of power for this particular movie and because of the first one. They all seemed hesistant about doing the sequel in the first place, and the way it plays for audiences and for the studio is big in how any one of their careers continue from here on.

I completely understand how anyone in the cast wouldn't want it to seem like they're rewarding Gibson's public behaviour by giving him a role that tries to resemble it, instead of giving the same comedic oppurtunities to someone probably deserves it more, like who they're apparently going with now.

[Raiders]

Not to me.

I don't see how Gibson being a "total shithead" gives someone like Galifianakis the power to cut his cameo in the movie.

There are tons of shitheads in Hollywood, and Galifianakis isn't exactly an A-list heavy-hitter.

I'd find it more understandable if someone like Brad Pitt or Leonardo DiCaprio was able to get Gibson cut out of their next movie.

Because people's opinions only matter once they have made a certain number of films and achieved "star status?"

Galifianakis didn't make the ultimate decision either, the producers did, so I guess they value the input of the people they are working with and who are more vital to the success of the project.

If you don't want people objecting to you and asking to not work with you, don't be a shithead.

[Spinal]

Not to me.

I don't see how Gibson being a "total shithead" gives someone like Galifianakis the power to cut his cameo in the movie.

There are tons of shitheads in Hollywood, and Galifianakis isn't exactly an A-list heavy-hitter.

I'd find it more understandable if someone like Brad Pitt or Leonardo DiCaprio was able to get Gibson cut out of their next movie.

You changed the question. Originally, you were asking why. Now you're asking how.

[D_Davis]

I like Mel Gibson both as an actor and as a director. And yes, he's good at comedy.

So do I.

[megladon8]

I still don't get how Galifianakis and others not liking Gibson could have him pulled from the movie by the producers.

I'm not siding with Gibson. I don't like him either.

But like I said, there are tons of shitheads in Hollywood. Unless this happens all the time and just isn't reported on because it's not as high-profile as this specific case, it seems weird to me that this specific time it would happen.

Particularly when someone with an equally (if not more) questionable personal life was in the first movie for similar comic relief (Mike Tyson).

[baby doll]

Liam Neeson's been floating around as a replacement. My theory: Gibson's a total homophobe (see Braveheart) and didn't want to shoot a movie in Bangkok because of all the lady men. (Before I left for a Korea, a Filippo guy told me this about Asia as if it was the single most important thing to know: "If it looks like a dude, it's probably a dude.")

[Spinal]

I've been over this before, but Gibson's shitheadedness is at a much higher level than the norm. He has had repeated incidents that demonstrate highly hateful and disturbing behavior that troubles reasonable people.

[baby doll]

I've been over this before, but Gibson's shitheadedness is at a much higher level than the norm. He has had repeated incidents that demonstrate highly hateful and disturbing behavior that troubles reasonable people.Roman Polanski drugged and raped a thirteen-year-old girl (not to blame the victim or anything, but what the hell was she doing at a photo shoot at Jack Nicholson's house in the first place? Where the hell were her parents?), but I still like his movies. Gibson called a female cop sugar tits, beat his wife, said some racist stuff while verbally abusing his wife, and his dad denies the Holocaust ever happened, but The Passion of the Christ is still a terrible movie. Lethal Weapon, on the other hand, that was badass.

Edit: Oh right, and he said that Jews were responsible for all wars. Forgot about that.

[Dukefrukem]

The real question is, will you continue to support both Polanski and Gibson after the fact? It's hard to do in my eyes. I can't say I don't like Lethal Weapon because I did before I knew Gibson was a racist, but will I support any future films? Probably not.

[Raiders]

I would have no issue with someone refusing to star or collaborate in a Roman Polanski film.

[megladon8]

I still find the facts in the Polanski case questionable.

But that's a whole other can of worms.

I do try my best to separate an actor/director/writer's personal life from their work, but sometimes it's just too hard to do. I find it hard to like Spike Lee films because of this.

[baby doll]

The real question is, will you continue to support both Polanski and Gibson after the fact? It's hard to do in my eyes. I can't say I don't like Lethal Weapon because I did before I knew Gibson was a racist, but will I support any future films? Probably not.I knew Polanski had raped somebody when I went to see The Ghost Writer, and it didn't bother me at all. Also, I was pretty sure that Gibson was a Christian when I went to see The Passion of the Christ, but that's not the reason I disliked it. After all, there are lots of Christian directors I like. Leo McCarey, for instance, and he named names. Hell, my user name comes from a movie Elia Kazan, who also named names, and unlike McCarey who actually believed in the hearings, Kazan just did it to further his career. This reminds me, though: I only found out that On the Waterfront was a coded self-rationalization for Kazan testifying after I saw the film, but it didn't change my opinion that it was a great movie. Similarly, I found the ending unpersuasive even before I knew that Kazan was such a rat. One of my favorite movies is The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, which was directed by a lifelong Tory and explicitly denies that the British committed genocide during the Boar War.

[DavidSeven]

If Gibson is playing a dramatic role completely separate from his new public persona, that's one thing (like Lethal Weapon 7). This cameo, however, seemed poised to draw off all the racist, sexist, gay hating, child taunting, wife-beating shitheadedness he's been up to lately. Probably not referencing those things directly, but most likely somehow drawing off the spotlight and notoriety associated with that vileness. That's really not that cool.

Also, let's be honest, The Hangover is Zach Galifianakis. The first movie blew up because it was basically his coming out party. No one in their right mind thinks Bradley Cooper is legitimately funny. This movie doesn't exist without Galifianakis, but it can exist without anyone else from that cast or anyone else living in the universe. For the purposes of this film, Galifianakis is an A+++ star.

[megladon8]

But the first movie also made light of Mike Tyson's being a woman-beating, rapist scumbag.

So what's the difference?

[baby doll]

I still find the facts in the Polanski case questionable.

But that's a whole other can of worms.Well, he plead guilty. One thing that's never been under dispute is whether or not he raped the girl.


I do try my best to separate an actor/director/writer's personal life from their work, but sometimes it's just too hard to do. I find it hard to like Spike Lee films because of this.Who did he rape?

[Winston*]

But the first movie also made light of Mike Tyson's being a woman-beating, rapist scumbag.

So what's the difference?

Maybe Galifianakis was against that too, but on the first movie he was replaceable.

[megladon8]

Who did he rape?


My intelligence, with his pathetically backwards race politics.

To put it simply - he's a racist douche.

[baby doll]

My intelligence, with his pathetically backwards race politics.

To put it simply - he's a racist douche.I think it's actually interesting that he thought Danny Aiello's character in Do the Right Thing was a racist, because any unbiased person looking at movie probably isn't going to come to that conclusion (then again, I'm white-ish and grew up in a white neighborhood, so maybe I'm biased in the other direction). It's one of those cases where the film seems to know and say more than the guy who wrote, produced, directed, and starred in it.

[Kurosawa Fan]

My prediction: the movie will be less funny than this thread has been thus far.

[DavidSeven]

But the first movie also made light of Mike Tyson's being a woman-beating, rapist scumbag.

So what's the difference?

Well, I think they were making light of his general ear-biting, tattoo-on-the-head having loonyness. I don't think his rape conviction from 20 years ago is what was supposed to make it funny. Plus, Tyson paid at least some institutional due to society. Something neither Gibson or Polanski have done yet.

[Melville]

I thought the first movie was pretty lame, and Mike Tyson's cameo fell completely flat, wholly relying on the absurdity of it being Mike Tyson. Mel Gibson can actually give a funny performance. He could've just shown up in a beard and he'd be funnier than Tyson. Not that I blame Galifianakis.

[megladon8]

What I wonder about Gibson is whether or not he has had this side to him all along. Or if it's something that's just developed in his personality over recent years, what was it that made him click?

Obviously he has an alcohol problem, but what brought that on in the first place? Usually people don't suddenly start drinking heavily and destroy a perfectly good career for no good reason.

I think he's a talented person and I'd like to see him recover from this.

[DavidSeven]

I thought the Tyson cameo was pretty stupid too. Felt like it was trying to be a half-hearted parody of the Alfred Molina scene in Boogie Nights, which is odd because its audience probably didn't see Boogie Nights.

[baby doll]

Plus, Tyson paid at least some institutional due to society. Something neither Gibson or Polanski have done yet.Polanski served his original sentence (ninety days with time off for good behavior) and was released. The judge in the case acted illegally, and I think under the circumstances, you can't fault him for fleeing to Europe.

[DavidSeven]

What I wonder about Gibson is whether or not he has had this side to him all along. Or if it's something that's just developed in his personality over recent years, what was it that made him click?

Obviously he has an alcohol problem, but what brought that on in the first place? Usually people don't suddenly start drinking heavily and destroy a perfectly good career for no good reason.

I think he's a talented person and I'd like to see him recover from this.

That you'll forgive, but Philip Seymour Hoffman comes off smug in an interview and he's forever an asshole?

[baby doll]

I thought the Tyson cameo was pretty stupid too. Felt like it was trying to be a half-hearted parody of the Alfred Molina scene in Boogie Nights, which is odd because its audience probably didn't see Boogie Nights.Only because they weren't born when Boogie Nights was released.

[baby doll]

That you'll forgive, but Philip Seymour Hoffman comes off smug in an interview and he's forever an asshole?Well, he probably is an ass-hole, but I can't wait to see him in a romantic comedy with Amy Ryan (who I think is delightful).

[megladon8]

That you'll forgive, but Philip Seymour Hoffman comes off smug in an interview and he's forever an asshole?


He's always a smug asshole, but he's also just an actor I've never liked or connected with at all.

Just like how Jen cannot stand Ethan Hawke. Even she admits there's no real reason, she just doesn't like him.

[baby doll]

While we're on the subject of actors we have an irrational dislike for, I can't stand Scarlet Johansson. I also have an irrational love for Mia Farrow, because I think you can see in her face that she's a good person.

[Boner M]

On that note...

http://img257.imageshack.us/img257/5429/scarjopopcorn.gif

[transmogrifier]

The way she presses on her own boob when putting the popcorn in her mouth - HAWT!

[Ezee E]

Yeah, I like Gibson and all, but I'm guessing the cameo would endorse his Jewhating, women-beating as a good thing. Problem is, it probably would be funny with the actors involved. I can see how that may offend people, especially with those involved.

Tyson's cameo didn't do that in the first movie, it was more the mystique of Tyson that was endorsed, something that works even better in his documentary.

[number8]

You cannot compare Tyson with Gibson.

Tyson is fascinating to me. He recognizes that he's a terrible human being and he's shown considerable remorse for his life. Seriously, read some of this interviews and watch the Toback doc. That doesn't excuse his behavior, but he's genuinely paid penance (jail + he's flat broke) and he reiterates how low he thinks of himself constantly. Plus, his rape and violence happened over a decade before his cameo. He's a different man by the time he appeared in the movie.

Mel Gibson, on the other hand, not only is he still living large and his apologies seem completely insincere, but he's since commented flippantly about his behavior ("I was drunk. It just turned into a big thing. I apologized profusely - not once but three times. So what's the problem? It's four years ago. Do I need to apologize again?") and the voicemail scandal happened earlier this year.

Of course the reaction would be different.

[Dukefrukem]

http://www.vanityfair.com/images/hollywood/2010/11/zach-galifianakis-ss01.jpg (http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/features/2010/11/zach-galifianakis-slide-show-201011#slide=1)

[Spinal]

You cannot compare Tyson with Gibson.

Tyson is fascinating to me. He recognizes that he's a terrible human being and he's shown considerable remorse for his life. Seriously, read some of this interviews and watch the Toback doc. That doesn't excuse his behavior, but he's genuinely paid penance (jail + he's flat broke) and he reiterates how low he thinks of himself constantly. Plus, his rape and violence happened over a decade before his cameo. He's a different man by the time he appeared in the movie.

Mel Gibson, on the other hand, not only is he still living large and his apologies seem completely insincere, but he's since commented flippantly about his behavior ("I was drunk. It just turned into a big thing. I apologized profusely - not once but three times. So what's the problem? It's four years ago. Do I need to apologize again?") and the voicemail scandal happened earlier this year.

Of course the reaction would be different.

Very good post. I would also add that the fact that Mel Gibson has shown a potential for rallying a certain segment of our population around his sketchy political/religious ideology through his filmmaking has something to do with it as well. Mel Gibson can be a powerful figure in the right circumstances. And I don't think The Hangover guys should play a part in redeeming his public image. Let him drown in his own vile juices.

[Russ]

http://www.vanityfair.com/images/hollywood/2010/11/zach-galifianakis-ss01.jpg (http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/features/2010/11/zach-galifianakis-slide-show-201011#slide=1)
Well, where the hell have I been, and how did I miss this wonderful thread?

They seriously need this guy to bring the crazy instead of Mel Gibson:

http://img838.imageshack.us/img838/7717/ruginjpeg.jpg

[Russ]

Oh, and rep to the first poster who recognizes the looney in the inner tube with the platform heels*.



* Not to take us any further off-topic, but hey, this is such a fun thread.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Looks like Crispin Glover.

[Russ]

Looks like Crispin Glover.
Repped you are, sir.

[number8]

Well, who the fuck cares about Mel Gibson when we have this? (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20442139,00.html?hpt=C2)

[Sven]

Looks like Crispin Glover.

His cat can eat a whole watermelon, no less.

[Dukefrukem]

Well, who the fuck cares about Mel Gibson when we have this? (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20442139,00.html?hpt=C2)

So. Awesome.

[baby doll]

Well, who the fuck cares about Mel Gibson when we have this? (http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20442139,00.html?hpt=C2)Can 't be worse than Sarah Palin's Alaska.

[Spun Lepton]

Roman Polanski drugged and raped a thirteen-year-old girl (not to blame the victim or anything, but what the hell was she doing at a photo shoot at Jack Nicholson's house in the first place? Where the hell were her parents?), but I still like his movies.

Not to blame the victim or anything, but here I am blaming the victim.

[baby doll]

Not to blame the victim or anything, but here I am blaming the victim.To paraphrase Dave Chappelle, if you don't know to stay away from Jack Nicholson's house by the time you're thirteen, just give 'cause life is way harder than that. I make harder decisions than that everyday.

[Dukefrukem]

teaser trailer (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thehangoverpart2/)

[Ivan Drago]

teaser trailer (http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thehangoverpart2/)

I smell another Men in Black II.

[MadMan]

That teaser trailer was crappy. It didn't do the proper job of a teaser trailer, which is to show you enough to get excited about the movie. Meh.

[Ezee E]

That teaser trailer was crappy. It didn't do the proper job of a teaser trailer, which is to show you enough to get excited about the movie. Meh.
Disagree. I thought it did it perfectly for anyone that's a fan of the movie.

Not one thing was revealed about the sequel, and there's no need for that. People just need to see Zack G with a funny shirt on, and that the movie exists to get excited for it. "The Wolfpack is back," is a good line for the teaser too.

Shot especially well too I will add.

[MadMan]

Well I did like that bit where Zack G says "I'm glad we're all back together," and they all look at him funny. So I wonder if the sequel will involve them losing the groom before the wedding, and then having to find him? Or something entirely different? Considering the location the film is set in that Bill Clinton cameo makes more sense, now.

[Ezee E]

Well I did like that bit where Zack G says "I'm glad we're all back together," and they all look at him funny. So I wonder if the sequel will involve them losing the groom before the wedding, and then having to find him? Or something entirely different? Considering the location the film is set in that Bill Clinton cameo makes more sense, now.
Not sure if it's for a wedding, but Ed Helms gets a Tyson tattoo we see.

[MadMan]

IMDB.com's current synopsis stated "Phil, Stu, Alan, and Doug travel to Bangkok for Stu's wedding." Maybe that's not entirely accurate-I donno.

[Watashi]

So apparently Todd Phillips is trying to get Charlie Sheen to make a cameo in The Hangover 2. This is unsurprising, but how is Mel Gibson not okay, but Sheen is?

[Ezee E]

So apparently Todd Phillips is trying to get Charlie Sheen to make a cameo in The Hangover 2. This is unsurprising, but how is Mel Gibson not okay, but Sheen is?
Sheen just goes batshit about himself. Gibson goes batshit on Jews and women.

Well... Sheen did abuse women, but that's been within a "forgivable" time for Hollywood.

[Dukefrukem]

reallyguys?

uWl7AbvY1h8

[[ETM]]

It's... the exact same film in every detail? Wow.

[EyesWideOpen]

I'm up for more Hangover. The first one was great.

[Dukefrukem]

;336000']It's... the exact same film in every detail? Wow.

Haha yup. ANd they even go on the roof in this trailer. :lol:

This will be bad.

[number8]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it? I guess?

[DavidSeven]

Well, there's a monkey.

[number8]

What's funny to me is that they lowered the stakes. Yeah, a person is missing in both and that's still a big deal, but the first one also had the ticking clock of getting the missing person to his wedding on time.

[Ezee E]

Yeah. Very disappointing trailer. Don't even know if I should bother.

[Raiders]

:: shrug ::

I found it to appear as funny as the first, which is to say sorta. Ken Jeong is still just so not funny.

[eternity]

:: shrug ::

I found it to appear as funny as the first, which is to say sorta. Ken Jeong is still just so not funny.
I hope you're talking about The Hangover specifically and not Ken Jeong in general. Because if you are, Community would like to have a word with you.

[Scar]

I've got friends saying that the trailer is the funniest thing they've ever seen.

*sigh*

I laughed my ass off at the first one, but this trailer doesn't really give me hope for the sequel.

[Watashi]

When I saw Source Code, people stood up and applaud when this trailer was over.

God, I hate the human race.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, I got funny looks at the firehouse when I said the jokes were the exact same as the first.

Then they started quoting jokes from the first and laughing all over again.

And I like the first one.

[Dukefrukem]

1.5 Stars (http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2011/05/26/theres_no_cure_for_the_hangove r_part_ii/)... Raunchier I guess and more awkward..
Galifianakis was the rogue element that put “The Hangover’’ over the top and he’s the only, I repeat only, saving grace of the sequel.

[Dukefrukem]

This made $31.7 million last night?????

[Raiders]

This made $31.7 million last night?????

It opened wide yesterday, so that total is for the whole day. Not really all that surprising given how popular the first film was and how much it made, plus the overwhelming amount of marketing for this one.

I will be seeing it this weekend as my friends and wife are practically drooling.

[[ETM]]

It's baffling, everyone is always complaining about needless sequels that offer the same formula, yet this is making money, even though it's a textbook example of sequelitis.

[Raiders]

;348426']It's baffling, everyone is always complaining about needless sequels that offer the same formula, yet this is making money, even though it's a textbook example of sequelitis.

By "everyone" do you mean movie geeks on the internet?

[[ETM]]

By "everyone" do you mean movie geeks on the internet?

True.

Although the geeks are apparently seeing it too after all.

[Ezee E]

;348429']True.

Although the geeks are apparently seeing it too after all.
Pretty much everyone in their 20's seems to be seeing it.

[EyesWideOpen]

I'm willing to bet if you asked the average moviegoer if they'd rather see a sequel or a new movie they would pick sequel.

[Ezee E]

I'm willing to bet if you asked the average moviegoer if they'd rather see a sequel or a new movie they would pick sequel.
Just look at our upcoming movie discussion. Match Cut falls in that category too.

[Watashi]

Just look at our upcoming movie discussion. Match Cut falls in that category too.
I think you mean duke falls in that category.

[Ezee E]

I think you mean duke falls in that category.
I look at the topics, and the only ones that have over 25 posts are sequels, remakes, reboots, etc. So no.

[Henry Gale]

On track to make $125 million by the end of the weekend...

I think I may just pay for another ticket to Bridesmaids when I see this.

[Dukefrukem]

I think you mean duke falls in that category.

I made this (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=3520)today.

[Watashi]

I made this (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=3520)today.
With no indication of what the movie is besides a link to a trailer.

[Sxottlan]

I liked the first film. Only saw it once and I really don't have plans to see this. Sounds like exactly the same movie.

[Henry Gale]

It's okay... I guess...

I'd say the more you like the first movie without necessarily holding it up to a standard, the more likely you are to mildly enjoy this without being too offended by how often it relies on references to the original. Whether it's the artists used on the soundtrack (really... two Kanye songs this time? Another Wolfmother song?), the same way they shoot each callback or new reveal, to the opening and endings to the movie (both the flashback devices and the credits that follow), it's almost as if their similarities are a much bigger problem once I reflect on it with things like this, because it's a movie doesn't leave much to discuss or recall otherwise.

I like the first movie, but it definitely has its lulls, its uninspired cheap gags here and there, and its dramatic stuff that holds next to no weight; but it has a nice rhythm to it, it's light and fun, and it makes good use of its setting. The sequel basically is all of that, though it turns those positives significant notch down too. I'm not sure if it's praise to say that they make a good attempt to raise the stakes by making the consequences bigger and making the elements they discover along the way significantly more gruesome (though not more realistic), because a lot of the time it feels almost as if it's working against the comedy. Just because it can do the things it does to its characters doesn't mean it should have, and I can definitely agree with Ebert when he says this just feels like their best attempt to push the boundaries of what they can have in an R-rated movie without making it straight up NC-17.

It is pretty funny though, especially Galifianakis, who strangely seems sidelined for a lot of it... except for when he gets found out for having been the cause their horrible night once again. I'm not sure if it's better or worse that I noticed him swap the marshmallows in that scene, because either way, the reveal was really weak. Wouldn't it have been better if they wrote it so that thought it was Alan for the majority of the movie, but then eventually realized it wasn't him? The way it actually is in the story, it just feels so stupid how they seem forgive him for no reason. but it embraces way too much of its been-there-done-that elements without bothering to add anything new to them. If they had just removed the word "again" from the script, maybe it would have felt less tiresome.

With any big summer movie (especially comedies), you want to leave the theatre in a sort of giddy, excited mood saying "Oh, the part where [so and so] did [such and such]...", but here, I just felt lame since I'd just have been repeating everyone and the jokes they loved so very much from the last two years. Well, I guess I could have demonstrated how hilaaaarious it was that there was a surplus of penises and gore so much of this one, but those are inherently more visual gags.

[Dukefrukem]

With no indication of what the movie is besides a link to a trailer.

ISn't your argument that I prefer sequels over original movies? Not whether I explain what a movie is in a thread I make?

Also, Cars sucks.

[lovejuice]

I care little for the movie, but it's cool to have my hometown feature so prominently in such a high profile film.

Some random geographical error: it's freaking impossible to get from Bangkok to the location of the wedding. Both are on the different sides of the peninsula, so they have to go down as far as Malaysia. We are talking about roughly four times the distance between Florida and Cuba.

[Henry Gale]

Some random geographical error: it's freaking impossible to get from Bangkok to the location of the wedding. Both are on the different sides of the peninsula, so they have to go down as far as Malaysia. We are talking about roughly four times the distance between Florida and Cuba.

Well, if we're talking about how they made it all the way to Bangkok, it's because they were just that wasted.
But in terms of finding their way back, c'mon, that scene already took long enough. But calling this movie out for having inconsistencies in its real-world geography is like the knocking down the Weekend At Bernie's movies a few points because they may not realistically portray decomposition.

Another thing that's bugged me: How have they managed to horribly underuse Jeffrey Tambor twice now? I understand people like Paul Giamatti are glorified cameos, but Tambor was a character they brought back and he was in this one even less than in the original. At least have him answer one of the phone calls along the way or something.

[[ETM]]

James Bond gets from Italy to Montenegro on a luxury train. Nuff said.

[Dukefrukem]

$118 million over four days

[Morris Schæffer]

God that's big for a comedy!

[Spinal]

America loves penis.

[Spinal]

For the third movie, they should make the location somewhere like Salt Lake City or Amish Country or Mecca or something like that.

[Scar]

For the third movie, they should make the location somewhere like Salt Lake City or Amish Country or Mecca or something like that.

How about Hell?

[Bosco B Thug]

America loves penis.
Are reviews really giving that away?

Penis and schadenfreude. The magic combo.

[Raiders]

This was funnier the first time.

[Bosco B Thug]

Oh.... and Ang Lee's son is horrible at acting.

Or he just needs some major training.

[Ezee E]

Surely Bradley Cooper and Galfianakis will be too popular/expensive for a third?

Although after making $120 million in four days, they'll probably pay them whatever they ask.

Set it in Dubai.

[MadMan]

Okay, this movie didn't reinvent the wheel, and it did copy most of the first one. But I still enjoyed it, and laughed at most of the jokes. Still some originality would have been nice, although when I think about it the first movie isn't as original as people think, although it was a fresh breath of air. I'm still a bigger fan of Hot Tub Time Machine overall, but I'm glad that (so far) they are not making a sequel to that one. And yes I will go see a third Hangover movie. I can't really blame them for not changing up the formula when it results in huge box office numbers. Ironic that young people fear change, too.

[Qrazy]

Pretty crappy flick.

[TGM]

Not since The Last Airbender have I seen a movie as ABYSMAL as The Hangover: Part II. My god this movie was bad. This was leaving the theater pissed off levels of bad. Hell, there were several times I considered walking out during the movie, but I stuck around in the false hope that it might possibly turn things around.

Hell, and I thought Bridesmaids wasn't funny, that movie's a god damn riot compared to this shit! There's not a single laugh to be had here. Not one. The movie is flat out not funny at all. Maybe if it actually tried to do something different, something vaguely original, instead of only referencing the first movie every god damn five seconds. The references just become groan inducing.

I literally don't have a single good thing to say about this mind numbing piece of crap. The first one was great, so I at least expected a shred of quality here. But no, nothing. This movie has no redeeming qualities whatsoever.

[origami_mustache]

Man, this was really unfunny aside from the Galifianakis meditation mind-warp scene and the credits.

[Qrazy]

Man, this was really unfunny aside from the Galifianakis meditation mind-warp scene and the credits.

Nah, that was also really terrible. In the same vein as the monkey smoking and playing with the Asian fellow's wang.

[EyesWideOpen]

LOL

Warner Bros. reveals plans to erase 'Hangover' tattoo for video release.

http://www.imdb.com/news/ni11531681/

[Boner M]

Warner Bros. reveals plans to erase 'Hangover' tattoo for video release.
Ironic, considering the tattoo was added to the original for sequel release.

[megladon8]

I don't understand.

I mean, I haven't seen the movie, but isn't Helms waking up with the tattoo a big scene in the movie? And I assume, a major plot point to be resolved?

Are they going to digitally replace it with something else?

If they just erase it, it wouldn't make any sense.

[Scar]

http://images.wikia.com/finalfantasy/images/c/cc/Zell_Dincht.jpg

[Spinal]

I don't understand.

I mean, I haven't seen the movie, but isn't Helms waking up with the tattoo a big scene in the movie? And I assume, a major plot point to be resolved?

Are they going to digitally replace it with something else?

If they just erase it, it wouldn't make any sense.

They say in the article that they would alter it.

[Winston*]

http://images.wikia.com/finalfantasy/images/c/cc/Zell_Dincht.jpg

Zell was a chump.

[megladon8]

They say in the article that they would alter it.


Yes but isn't the fact that it's Tyson's tattoo of some significance to the story?

[Spinal]

Yes but isn't the fact that it's Tyson's tattoo of some significance to the story?

Haven't seen the movie, but I would assume so.

[Scar]

Zell was a chump.

Very, very, very true.

[Qrazy]

Yes but isn't the fact that it's Tyson's tattoo of some significance to the story?

Somewhat, if they made a slight alteration though it would prob satisfy the lawyers and not affect the story.

[number8]

Get Ed Helms to ADR: "This doesn't even look like his at all!"

Problem solved. Pay me, WB.

[MadMan]

Well I guess I can say that I saw the original version of the tattoo, the way that Todd Phillips wanted it....hurray? What a stupid thing to sue over.

[Henry Gale]

I don't see how completely altering the movie for future releases is an easier option than just giving the tattoo artist any sort of settlement. Erasing it just seems pointless at this point, since the movie has already been out there making the majority of its money for weeks now, and changing it basically gives even more fuel to it seemingly like a huge, legitimate case.

Also, Mike Tyson's face appears in the movie too, so... was it in his original agreement with the artist that it can only appear on his face for the profit of others and not on the Ed Helms' of the world?

[Ezee E]

Copyright infringement. This has the same exact comedic beats as the first. This had to be the easiest script to write as it's quite nearly page for page. But we knew that already. Yet, it stil remains watchable for the chemistry that the three main actors have with each other. On top of that, it's a very well photographed comedy. I don't think anyone gives the movie credit for that. Paul Giamatti is a nice addition, turning what would have been a forgettable character into a worthy one.

Still remains a fratboy's wet dream of a weekend. Plenty of scenarios with no consequences whatsoever. These acts include cheating on your significant others, setting fires to police cars, hiding dead bodies, no respect for culture, etc...

Passable. That's all I can say I guess.

[Morris Schæffer]

I had a few laughs, but overall pretty unecessary. Best parts were Tyson's horrendous singing and the smoking monkey. Also, epic fail with this:

[Dukefrukem]

Yeh that happens a lot in movies. Here's an example in T3

http://bitsandpieces.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/imagesterminator-3.jpg

[Morris Schæffer]

:)

If there's one thing the movies can't fool me with, it's with the looks of a 747. It can't be done.