The Hangover: Part 2 (2011)

Demand equals Supply divided by Cost.
I'm just messing with you but seriously, that's the subtext here. And the 'sequel' in general.
And most Hollywood fare.
So The Hangover: Part 2, eh? It seems like just yesterday that we saw the first one. If I percieved the feeling or mood right... Most people loved it and even if you didn't love it, you'd put put your hands up and say, 'M'yeah it was pretty good...'.  What I do know is that I saw it at least twice at the cinema and i would struggle to name many films i've seen twice in a cinema. We're talking Inception and The Matrix here. And I didn't even think it would was the greatest comedy of that year (Funny People) but it was good enough to see a second time. Of course now, the 3 stars -Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis are major stars... well maybe not Ed Helms but Bradley Cooper is a major actor now and Galifianakis is at that level in comedy where he's up there with Sandler and Ferrell. Ed Helms didn't jump the TV ship quick enough. But it's not to late for him because now we have The Hangover: Part 2, a film that, at least in this country has come out less than 2years after the original. But it's not surprising since the original was a short-gamble as comedies are inexpensive (in comparison to other genre movies) and the hard 'R' rated comedy was, as it still is, popular with audiences stemming back to Knocked Up in 2007. It's been said before but it bears repeating- comedies are what makes studios money. If you thinking back to films of the 1920's, you're thinking Chaplin or Keaton. So I'm not saying that action blockbusters don't make money but the average one will cost 300mil after prints and advertising, and maybe make 500-600mil back. The first 'Hangover' probably cost 30-40mil and still brought in that 500-600mil.
I'm sorry-i got carried away... the thing that's going for this movie is that it unashamedly is prepared to follow the blueprint of the original. It's bigger and on location in Bangkok but it's certainly business as usual- all the favorites are back, they're retracing their steps to 'hilarious' consequences, they even do the photo bit at the end as you'd expect they might.
So obviously, my beef is with the lukewarm script. It's a shame but the original writers were seemingly not involved and it's credited to director Todd Phillips and his usual writer, Scot Armstrong and rent-a-hack, Craig Mazin. To me, the situation reeks of Warner Bros asking Mazin to knock up a script, quick-as and they just punched it up on the way. There's no sense of building on what came before- only a distinct feeling of repeating the original against a different backdrop. That's not to say there's no laughs in Part 2, but not near as many as the first. But then that's what you have to expect from a rush job. I don't want to come off too harsh because it's not terrible and i know I'll see films i like less in the next week but it's hard not to be cynical about a film that was so cynically made...

I watched The Hangover: Part 2 (2011) at the cinema.
My 2011 in Movies will return with Violent Cop (1989)...