You've probably heard by now that The Hangover 2 is just a carbon copy duplicate of the original. If you haven't heard that yet, let me be the one to say it. It's hilarious at times, namely from the performances of the talented top billed trio, but even that is sadly overshadowed by the lack of ingenuity from the writers. Director, producer, and co-writer Todd Phillips was more interested in making money than making art. He's playing it safe on every front and not at all straying from the winning formula of the first film. It worked then, so it should work now, right? This film is not lightning in a bottle like the original, it's more like a photo of lightning in a bottle that we already saw already.
Here's my review of the original The Hangover from back in the day:
Funniest movie I’ve seen in years! One of those perfect movies that just seems to fall together perfectly. (I’ll overlook the fact that it’s nearly the same plot and story as “Dude, Where’s My Car” because unlike that film this one was good.) I want a sequel to The Hangover soo bad, and I NEVER want a sequel.
4 1/2 Stars (out of 5)
I've changed my mind, I don't want a sequel anymore. This film makes little sense, events unfold in a forced, unnatural manner, and it repeats itself so often that even if we hadn't already seen this in the original film we'd still get tired of the repetition. I'm so sick of hearing "HOW IS THIS HAPPENING?" every 10 minutes from Ed Helms or 
"We need to stop and figure this out" from Bradley Cooper. At least Zach Galifianakis is never predictable. His portrayal of 'Alan' really carries this film, saying something funny every couple of minutes or so. Even the way he pronounces "concierge" or "THailand" is more entertaining than anything happening in the plot.
The problems start early. It takes 24 full minutes before they wake up the next day confused, and actually get the story rolling. We know the characters, we know what's coming, why the long drawn out and extremely not funny setup? Couple that 24 minutes with 35 minutes of trailers and commercials and you've got a bored audience.
Here's a list of reasons why I did not like this as much as the original.
- Monkey is not as funny as tiger.
- Monkey is also not as funny as baby.
- Face tattoo is not as funny as losing a tooth.
- Chow was funnier when he was a bad guy.
- The 16 year old kid that goes missing, is always smiling! ALWAYS!
- They don't save the severed finger! Why don't they go back for the finger? Why is Teddy okay not going back for his finger? If it's cause he doesn't want to be a surgeon or play classical music any more, than he should say so out loud. Then it would make sense that he doesn't want his finger back. But he doesn't say anything... he just keeps smiling!
- Bangkok is not as funny as Vegas.
- Stu's new fiance was under-developed as a character. Compare that to his bitchy girlfriend in the first one - she was funny and integral to the story.
- Stu's new stripper friend is only in one scene, whereas Heather Graham became intertwined in the plot of the original.
- All side-plots are useless and do not move the story forward. The Russians, Samir in the club, Paul Giamatti as a crime boss, and more are completely unnecessary to the story and not even funny.
- Bryan Callen played Samir (club owner) in this one, and played Eddie (wedding chapel owner) in the original. I hate when an actor plays a different character in a sequel. (I'm still angry about David Cross in Men in Black 1 and 2 as different people.)
- Samir doesn't mind that Alan shot an uzi in the club filled with mirrors? Someone should really have to pay for that.
- When Mr. Chow beats the shit out of the guys in the first movie, after they open the trunk of the car and he jumps out naked, it was hilarious, and the guys deserved it, since they had apparently locked him in their trunk. "Who was that guy? He was so mean?" - In the sequel, monks suddenly beat up the guys with sticks... because they are saying things aloud in their monastery. That's not very funny and seems too silly to be believable.
- Ed Helms improvised the song he sang in the first movie on the set, "What Do Tigers Dream Of," and it was AWESOME! In this film, that moment where he sings a song is written into the script, stripping it of its magic and spontaneity.
- They say bad words so often it stops being funny, including the "C" word twice. I don't mind, but it starts to lose its meaning after you say fuck two-hundred and fifty times in a row.
- I was able to figure out that the guy was on the roof in the first movie at the same time the characters thought of it. I bet no one in the audience figured out where the guy was this time until they said it, because the story was so weak.
- I wish they had included Mel Gibson this time like the director originally wanted. Using Mike Tyson again at the end just cements the fact that this is the same movie as the first.
There's a lot that's funny and some cool visuals throughout as well, including a sequence where we see the world through Alan's eyes, and everyone is a child. The backdrop of Thailand suits the film well and the filmmakers do a good job of utilizing this exotic location. Although I found it odd that the characters keep saying "Bangkok has them now." People can get lost in any big city in the world. Not sure I've heard the legends of Bangkok swallowing up people like the Bermuda Triangle. Perhaps it's something the writers want to catch on... or maybe it's just laziness. Instead of taking the effort to improve the story at the close of a scene, they say a silly phrase and just cut to the next disjointed comedic scenario.
I can see myself watching The Hangover Part II again when it shows up on cable or even Netflix. It's entertaining, just as long as you can get past its constant inefficiencies and contrivances. Between the beautiful shots and hilarious one liners, it's certainly watchable, but it's just not a good movie. Sometimes a movie comes out perfect, with everything lining up to make magic. The first one was magic, the sequel is not. As usual.