The Hangover: Part II is a misnomer. The Hangover told a crass, yet funny, story about a bunch of guys who had a big night in Vegas that went horribly wrong. It was a self-contained narrative that set up its situation, developed its protagonist, faced its villain, took its bow, and went home. It wasn’t a Part I of anything. The Hangover: Part II tells the same basic story, but in Bangkok. The situation’s nearly identical, the protagonist is identical, the villain is extraordinarily similar to the villain in the last picture, and even the bow is the same. They should have entitled the film,
The Hangover: Let’s Make Some More Money.
Ok. But is it funny? Actually, yes. I didn’t laugh as much as I did for the first film, but I did laugh out loud once or twice and chuckled often. I liked the characters, I enjoyed the setting, I thought about 25% of the jokes worked, and I generally had a pleasant time.
Would I see
The Hangover III: Salt Lake City? I doubt it, not unless they can find somewhere else (dramatically) for these people to go. Even a reasonably funny retread is still a retread.
