The Hangover Part II

[Kal]

THIS IS NOT A SEQUEL, IS A REMAKE.

It's the same fucking thing with a different background. All of it. I don't have to warn you of Spoilers because if you have seen the first one, you have been spoiled. Even the ending. Everything is the same. Fucking Hollywood!!!

[SiliasRuby]

EXACTLY

[MacGuffin]

You Asked For It America: Craig Mazin Hired To Write 'The Hangover Part 3' Will The Wolfpack Head To Amsterdam Next?
Source: The Playlist

Well this was inevitable. After "The Hangover Part II" shattered the R-rated comedy opening weekend numbers this past Memorial Day holiday with a ridiculous $135 million haul, plans are already moving on a sequel. And as befits a sequel that was a lukewarm and ultimately pretty boring retread of the first film, it looks like they're gonna keep watering it down for the next go-round. The Wrap reports that Craig Mazin, who co-wrote "The Hangover Part II," has been hired back to pen the third installment. To those of you who disagreed with our sentiment that the film is pale copy of its predecessor that manages to both up the raunch and the filth and remain kind of boring all at the same time (this writer began losing interest after about an hour), this would be a good time point out that Mazin's previous credits include: "Scary Movie 3," "Scary Movie 4" and "Superhero Movie." He also was one of the producers on what is arguably Todd Phillips' worst film, "School For Scoundrels." So if you want more of the same, that's exactly what you're gonna get. Mazin will probably just take the "The Hangover 2" script, scratch out wherever it says Bangkok, and replace it with something else. So where will the The Wolfpack go next? "Probably Amsterdam," Jamie Chung told THR at last week. "If you think of the coolest, craziest cities in the world, it would have to be Las Vegas, Bangkok and Amsterdam." "Amsterdam could be a different kind of hangover," Justin Bartha added. "It could be fun. And Zach [Galifanakis] will probably already be there." But by time they get to filming, Amsterdam could no longer be the pot haven of the world. The Netherlands government recently announced that they may be drastically changing the rules surrounding their famous "coffee shops": banning tourists entirely and making it more difficult for native citizens to get their brownies. Seems like a pretty effective way to kill tourism to the country in general, but what do we know. Either way, Todd Phillips recently said a third film would end the franchise, but if it keeps making this kind of mad cash we're sure Warner Bros. will want to keep it going. While we wish the original "The Hangover" writers Jon Lucas and Scott Moore would come back, but they're busy getting their own directorial career off the ground. "Rabbit Hole" star Miles Teller recently signed on in the lead role of the pair's directorial debut "21 And Over." But it doesn't seem like they're straying too far from "The Hangover" wheelhouse. The film follows "two childhood friends who drag their straight-arrow buddy out to celebrate his 21st birthday the night before an all-important med school interview. But when one beer leads to another, the evening spirals into a wild epic misadventure of debauchery and mayhem that none of them will ever forget." Is it possible to get a hangover from hangover movies? We're beginning to think so.

[modage]

It's not fun to pile on. If you haven't witnessed it for yourself, chances are you've heard "mixed things" (putting it kindly) about "The Hangover Part II" and I'll confirm what you probably already know, it's not a very good movie. I didn't think the original film was a comedy classic or anything but it was at the least, very funny and a great launching pad for Zach Galifianakis (who I'd been loosely following since his VH1 days). The second movie is yes, a complete note-for-note recreation of the first film but darker and without most of the laughs. For starters, it's almost impossible to imagine the laziness that went into crafting the screenplay that transplants every detail of the first film into the new one. We're not watching these characters on a new adventure, we're watching them relive the same nightmare in a new setting. It's like the next episode of a terrible procedural show like C.S.I., except you just paid $13 to watch it.

Bradley Cooper (who I was a fan of in his "Alias" days) is now portraying a charisma-free asshole who I'm assuming is supposed to be the hero (to frat boys, maybe?) Ed Helms does the best he can with the material and Galifianakis gets off a dozen or so one-liners but they're hardly worth sitting through the long stretches of the film that are devoid of laughs. Todd Phillips remade the first film as a darker, grosser version of itself but he seemed to forget that he was making a comedy wherein it's supposed to be funny. I'm not sure anyone who is interested in this film can be dissuaded from seeing it and while it's not a terrible, excruciating experience it's an ugly, lazy, mostly unfunny one. If you watched the trailer and wondered why they weren't showing any of the funny parts, it's because there really weren't any in the film. But don't listen to me, Videogum really says it best.

[Mr. Merrill Lehrl]

Right now's not at all the time to have this conversation because legitimized film fans are circling their wagons, but as a trash culture guy let me tell you what's pretty obvious:  this is the better film.  I actually didn't realize until the Videogum article.  It does all the same things and makes all the same jokes but it's more offensive and less sympathetic?  Oh, I mean clearly this will be a great midnight screening about a decade from now.  I'll probably wait until then to see the movie.

[Sleepless]

Haven't seen this yet although I will inevitably netflix it when it comes on DVD. I'm not expecting it to be any good based on the trailer and the general consensus here.

I can confirm, however, that having met Craig Mazin at AFF last year he does indeed come across as a lazy dick.

[Kal]

this is the better film.  

Not true. The other one is not a masterpiece and this one sucks Not because its predictable but because its not even funny. When you write something and you know exactly how you want everything to be scene to scene, it's impossible for it to result in anything good.

[Mr. Merrill Lehrl]

Sometimes the bad ones stay bad throughout the years and develop a kind of charm, while the mediocre ones lose their appeal.  No one wants to revisit some middleroad shit, but a failure retains certain interests.  That's what I mean.  The reason I made my comment is because people are speaking out against the film and criticizing it for how bad it is and how stupid people are for seeing the movie and how the world sucks and all that.  So it sounds like a real snapshot of idiocy in 2011, and may continue to be that for the future, while the first may just seem like some obviously lame and mechanical Las Vegas comedy.  But I'm only being speculative and haven't even seen the movie.

[Reel]

I agree with you, Merril. I had major qualms with the first one, and this will be the movie I revisit more often . It's just more visually satisfying, and I like the atmosphere better. However, I'm not really a fan of the franchise and I'll probably tune out once I got Alan's lines down pat, as is usually the case with most of us amirite?

[squints]

as is usually the case with most of us amirite?

no.

[MacGuffin]

Warner Bros. Planning To Digitally Alter Ed Helms Tattoo In 'The Hangover Part II' Due To Lawsuit
DVD Release Planned For December
Source: Playlist

You can bet Warner Bros. was hoping this issue would go away. Just in time for the film's theatrical release last month, tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill filed a lawsuit seeking damages from the studio for replicating Mike Tyson's tattoo that he designed—and claims he own's the copyright too—without his permission. Whitmill sought to have the film barred from release while it was all sorted, and while he lost that battle, he may have won the war. Hollywood Esq reports in arguing against an expedited trial date which would have seen the studio and Whitmill lock horns in a courtroom as early as August, Warner Bros, in what is seemingly an admission of guilt and a bit of cost control, say they plan to digitally alter the tattoo for the planned December home video release, thus lessening the amount of money Whitmill can claim he's owed for infringement of his copyright. Got all that? So basically, Whitmill can only claim for what he would have earned in licensing his tattoo for the theatrical release, not from any future revenues, because by then Warner Bros. will have changed it enough to keep them legal. It's a rather unprecedented—and very, very expensive—move by the studio (who knows what it will cost to go through the film frame by frame making changes). Typically, Hollywood likes to drag out court cases for years until their opponents give up or can't afford to continue, but it seems Whitmill had everything in order and the studio realized it was probably in their best interest to squash this case as soon as they could. The trial is now set for February 21, 2012 at which time damages and a decision on whether or not to pull the film will be made by a jury. But we'd guess by then Warner Bros. and Whitmill will have come to an understanding and we wouldn't be surprised if an out-of-court settlement is reached. It will be interesting to see what the mouthy director Todd Phillips will have to say about this and moreover, just what they will change about the tattoo that is on Ed Helms' face for pretty much three-quarters of the movie (not to mention featured extensively in the marketing materials for the film). What happens in Bangkok, stays in Bangkok but apparently, not this. It looks like the next sequel to the "The Hangover" will play out in the courtroom.

[cronopio 2]

America: Where even a tattoo artist is a fucking lawyer.

[Stefen]

"I only do law shit when I got spare time."

[Reel]

that tattoo doesn't even serve a purpose besides establish Mike Tyson's presence somewhere along the lines in what happened the night before, then he shows up and it's like "BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO." They should've gone for more than just one-upping the 'crazyness' of the original. Getting a facial tattoo is really not that funny.

[Jeremy Blackman]

Just in time for the film's theatrical release last month, tattoo artist S. Victor Whitmill filed a lawsuit seeking damages from the studio for replicating Mike Tyson's tattoo that he designed—and claims he own's the copyright too—without his permission.

What a mess of a sentence.

I'm assuming modage didn't write this.