Here are some initial thoughts on The Hangover: Part 2
-Is the monkey in all of the scenes? He should be.
-Where is the other guy?
-If The Hangover is really the Citizen Kane of bachelor party movies—what does that make Bachelor Party? The Bachelor Party of bachelor party movies?
-It can’t live up to anyone’s expectations.
Let me address that last point. Sure, I haven’t seen the movie, and I don’t really know what it’s about, but I’m already a little worried. Yes, it’s the same cast, the same cameos, and the same scenarios (wedding, party, trouble). But in a way, that’s what worries me; there isn’t enough to differentiate the sequel from the source. It’s a new locale—but I wonder if that’s just a pretext for an even more screwball plot. If anything can happen in Vegas, then anything will happen in Bangkok. The city could serve more as exotic wallpaper than anything the characters really interact with.
Of course, I like Todd Phillips’ dark sensibilities and I still like the cast. Phillips isn’t fuzzy, and he has no sentimental, Frank Capra tendencies. If his characters are self-obsessed jerks, then at least they are honestly that way. When Phil (Bradley Cooper) needs money for Vegas, he doesn’t simply come up with it off screen; he steals it from his students.
Yet none of this makes me optimistic. I still worry that this will be Sex and the City Two for bros. This isn’t just a summer break-out hit anymore, there are franchise expectations. That’s the problem with sequels; if they take too much of a tangent they lose the audience, and if they don’t they end up being boring. I’ll still watch, but my expectations are not high. Like that Orson Welles flick Phillips is so proud to mention, how much better can you get after Kane?