Featured Audience Ratings

• Joseph M

  
  A

• Matthew Samuel M

  
  Its humor is grotesque and its writing is tired.

• Dan S

  
  A mean-spirited, often unfunny sequel to an original smash of a comedy. This time, director Todd Philips simply does "copy and paste" and changes the location to Thailand, where severed fingers, drug-peddling monkeys, and transsexual strippers meet the three unluckiest guys… More
  A mean-spirited, often unfunny sequel to an original smash of a comedy. This time, director Todd Philips simply does "copy and paste" and changes the location to Thailand, where severed fingers, drug-peddling monkeys, and transsexual strippers meet the three unluckiest guys in the world again. Despite a few, fleeting moments of laughter (mostly due to Zach Galifianakis's ability to turn sometimes dumb situations into funny ones, other times he overdoes it), this was a major disappointment. It felt like everybody just mailed this one in creatively, as there was literally no thought to altering the plot from the first move in the slightest, while not helping its case that these three guys are worth rooting for. Instead, we get an awkward Paul Giamatti cameo (love him to death, but he didn't fit in here at all), a lot of unfunny moments, and some head-scratching instances of character choices (apparently losing a finger isn't that big of a deal to one character). The first movie knew how to grasp awkward situations and deliver consistently on it, this one is a lot more hit and miss, with a lot of miss. You know how it's going to turn out, and you can call a lot of what happens before it actually occurs just because you're familiar with the first film, which in turn ruins any sort of suspense one might has concerning these characters' fates. All in all, a pretty bad movie, only worth watching occasionally just because there are a few good laughs, but it pales in comparison to the first film by a landslide.

• Cynthia S

  
  I wasn't a huge fan of the original, so it's no surprise that I expected this to be just more of the same thing...and it was. Same movie, different location.

• Eugene B

  
  Though it followed the exact same footsteps of its predecessor. Part II of this alcohol-driven picture brings and even raunchier amount of laughs and hysteria that far exuded the previous film. The chemistry still remained, but the duplicated direction and predictability toned down… More
  Though it followed the exact same footsteps of its predecessor. Part II of this alcohol-driven picture brings and even raunchier amount of laughs and hysteria that far exuded the previous film. The chemistry still remained, but the duplicated direction and predictability toned down this installment. 4/5

• paul s

  
  It sure is fun to watch human nature in action; specifically how the audience can turn on a writer or franchise if a sequel doesn't deliver the same goodness as the original film. Case in point is Hangover II, which, while not a bad film... indeed there was enough… More
  It sure is fun to watch human nature in action; specifically how the audience can turn on a writer or franchise if a sequel doesn't deliver the same goodness as the original film. Case in point is Hangover II, which, while not a bad film... indeed there was enough inventiveness and funny scenarios and glib one liners that I was entertained... sinned by not being up to the heightened standard that filmgoers, for whatever reason, put on the first film. Yes, I enjoyed the first film and laughed my butt off, but in my opinion it certainly wasn't the be all end all that so many have made it out to be. Is it a better film than the sequel? Yes, if for no other reason than the concept was fresh. Still, to trash the second film seems a bit harsh to me - there's the same feeling that "if something can go wrong, it will go really, really wrong" sensibility in this film, and since we already know the characters, it's all an easy fit. Except for a rather weak ending (and the superfluous appearance of a totally tone deaf Mike Tyson), the sequel is well paced and plotted. So what went wrong here? Why the vitriolic reaction by so many viewers? I sense that perhaps the veil was lifted on this film and you could see the man behind the curtain. It has always been my contention that comedy is a thin line; one you dare not cross by being perceived as trying too hard. The public wants comedy to seem natural - which is a difficult task when you use the comic scatter gun - throwing as much stuff out there as you can, hoping that some of it sticks (or shticks?). It is the nature of Galifanikis' style of humor that makes walking the fine line a daunting task. He is intentionally odd - and his comic connections equally so, therefore it can easily appear that, yes, he's trying too hard to be funny - which isn't funny. In both films how many times is there a scene set up where the camera pans to Galifanikis so he can create some irreverent or off the wall comment? In the first film it seemed to have worked, in the second... well you get my point, and it's not that he isn't funny... it's just as Peter O'Tool's character so aptly put it in My Favorite Year "drama is easy, comedy is hard" (which I believe to originally be a quote by Olivier). I've heard so often that this sequel is a carbon copy of the first film and that it is a prime example of lazy writing, but come on, what did you really expect. The characters were already in place, they weren't going to all of a sudden start spouting The Bard. Sure, what you have is formula, but is that really all so bad? Every comedy team since the dawn of time had a formula, from the Marx Bros. to The 3 Stooges. Maybe we are expecting more in the 21st century - but for me, other than the last 15 minutes, I was entertained and really didn't care if it's tone echoed the first film - after all, they named the film Hangover II, not "and now for something completely different that in no way resembles that other film". The highlight in both films is of course Mr. Chow, the jive talking Oriental mob boss (or whatever). Here once again, the film ratchets up a notch when he is on camera. Best line of the film IMO is when Chow sets up his laptop opposite Paul Giamatti's (who is pretty cool as a rival mob boss). After the exchange of cash is made Chow looks up over his laptop and smirks "you sunk my battleship". Final verdict - squarly between a 6 and 7 - 6.5 it is!

• Chris W

  
  Aside from the locations and the specific details with events, this film is essentially a carbon copy of the first, except it is unnecessary, pointless, and shockingly stale and unfunny. I'm not kidding: all of the familiar plot points of the first are rehashed here, and the… More
  Aside from the locations and the specific details with events, this film is essentially a carbon copy of the first, except it is unnecessary, pointless, and shockingly stale and unfunny. I'm not kidding: all of the familiar plot points of the first are rehashed here, and the characters stupidly wonder how it all happened, like they didn't learn anything from the first movie. It's been two years since the Vegas incident, and this time it is Stu who is getting married, and it's a destination wedding in Thailand. Despite his efforts to keep thigns under control, things once again get out of hand and the Wolfpack have another kooky and wild mystery adventure on their hands. I was hoping that this film, even if it was a retread, would have somehting in it to make it stand out (in a good way), but my hopes were not fulfilled. I hardly laughed at all (and the times I did were far between). I spent most of the running time annoyed and broed. There's some really painfully awkward and uncomfortabel moments that just don't work, and it's a really obnoxious and somewhat offensive film, to boot. Okay, so I will admit that there were three parts I actually did like: the scene set to a very famous Curtis Mayfield song, the scene with the tattoo artist, and the scene at the whorehouse. Those worked, but even then, they could have been better. The rest of the film is just crap. None of the returning cast really lokk like they had any fun or wanted to be there, Pau lGiamatt iis wasted in a pointless subplot, Ken Jeong is just overwhelmingly obnoxious and makes me hate him. He really needs to go back to doing the menacing/funny thing schtick he did in stuff like Role Models and Knocked Up instead of this kind of junk. Mike Tyson was also pointlessly shoehorned in for the hell of it, and there's just this underlying streak of hatefulness and uncorfortable characterization that not only falsls flat, but started to really anger me. The first film didn't need a sequel, but in this day and age if it is a hit, it's guaranteed to start a franchise, whether it is warranted or not. This film could have been really good had they tried to put some effort into it instead of just rinsing and repeating, but no. That's just too much to ask for. As for the performances, when the animal costar is not just the scene stealer, but also givs the best performance, you really know that something's wrong. Skip this crap and pray that the proposed sequel doesn't end up getting made after all.

• Scott G

  
  I have to say, since watching it, I have been thinking, how on earth are they going to make it better for the third installment, A "Have you in stitches" movie with the wolfpack looking better than ever.

• Dean !

  
  More of the same really with a bit more action thrown in. Not as funny overall as the first, but still pretty good if you liked the first one.

• Directors C

  
  Try not to think of it as a sequel, but as a remake instead. And it's a remake that's fair game but doesn't exceed the hilarity of the original. That's the humongous flaw, it entirely lacks the element of surprise that the orignal film had. Despite more raunchiness… More
  Try not to think of it as a sequel, but as a remake instead. And it's a remake that's fair game but doesn't exceed the hilarity of the original. That's the humongous flaw, it entirely lacks the element of surprise that the orignal film had. Despite more raunchiness and edginess, the stakes in this sequel/remake didn't feel the same because of it. Plus, the fact of predictability. It's not entirely that bad because it is pretty funny. But I felt I'd been taken advantage of when I finished watching it. Because i've been there and done it before. Essentialy, imagine the first Hangover turned up to 11 and much darker. It's what this mildly amusing but forgettable film is.

• familiar s

  
  The weird wolf pack is back in action to tickle the funny bone.While it doesn't quite fail, it fails to succeed completely. It'd have been more effective had it been a team work rather than just Alanland in action (and the rest inaction, so to speak). Nevertheless, Alanland… More
  The weird wolf pack is back in action to tickle the funny bone.While it doesn't quite fail, it fails to succeed completely. It'd have been more effective had it been a team work rather than just Alanland in action (and the rest inaction, so to speak). Nevertheless, Alanland itself alone provides a fair share of fun, and others' more or less contribution to it makes the visit worthwhile.

• Melvin W

  
  Mr. Chow: We had a sick night bitches! "The Wolfpack Is Back" I didn't dislike this as much as everyone else. I actually enjoyed it, but I can't lie, it is a little disappointing. The laughs are still there, but mostly because of the nostalgia of the first… More
  Mr. Chow: We had a sick night bitches! "The Wolfpack Is Back" I didn't dislike this as much as everyone else. I actually enjoyed it, but I can't lie, it is a little disappointing. The laughs are still there, but mostly because of the nostalgia of the first movie. The cast is what keeps this film lively though. Ken Jeong and Zach Galifianakis are just fun to watch. Sure it isn't the original and it is disappointing, but it still is an okay, if copied, sequel. Plot details for this aren't important as you've already seen them in the first. The only real difference is that it takes place in Bangkok, not Vegas. Altogether, The Hangover: Part II suffers from being too much like the original, but the excellent comedic cast makes it go down a lot better than it should. They took some of the comedy to a higher level of rauncy and crude than they even touched in the first. For some this will be off putting to say the least. It's okay, just don't expect an instant comedy classic like the first. This is one of those forgettable comedies that we see every year. It just got panned more because it is the sequel to one of the best comedies in recent years.

• Jason O

  
  I liked the original a lot better

• ♥˩ƳИИ &

  
  Cast: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis, Justin Bartha, Ken Jeong, Paul Giamatti, Mike Tyson, Jeffrey Tambor, Mason Lee, Jamie Chung, Sasha Barrese, Gillian Vigman Director: Todd Phillips Summary: In this booze- and laugh-soaked sequel to The Hangover, the buddies… More
  Cast: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis, Justin Bartha, Ken Jeong, Paul Giamatti, Mike Tyson, Jeffrey Tambor, Mason Lee, Jamie Chung, Sasha Barrese, Gillian Vigman Director: Todd Phillips Summary: In this booze- and laugh-soaked sequel to The Hangover, the buddies from the earlier film's bachelor party reunite for a wedding trip to Thailand where one of them, Stu Price (Ed Helms), is planning to tie the knot. Stu is determined that his own pre-wedding party should be a restrained and dignified affair, but between the habits of his friends and the multiple distractions of Bangkok, fate has other plans in store for him. My Thoughts: "Funny? Yes. Better then the first? No. But it was still enjoyable and a lot of fun. I don't know where they will go beyond this one if they decide to make a third. But I love these character's so I would definitely see it. I wish Jason Bartha had a bigger role and was included in their chaos. But it was still a good sequel as sequels go."

• Thomas J

  
  OK....if you did not like The Hangover.... you will not like The Hangover Part II because the same formula is used and it is very similar. But I liked the first one and enjoyed this one knowing not to expect different. It accomplished it goal in my book.... fun movie and made me… More
  OK....if you did not like The Hangover.... you will not like The Hangover Part II because the same formula is used and it is very similar. But I liked the first one and enjoyed this one knowing not to expect different. It accomplished it goal in my book.... fun movie and made me laugh!

• JY S

  
  Todd Phillips goes for a 2nd hangover, but <i>The Hangover Part II</i> suffers with its lack of surprises.<p>The flow of the story is as expected; a little setup followed by a whole lot of maniacal nonsense. There is actually a bunch that happens within the 100… More
  Todd Phillips goes for a 2nd hangover, but <i>The Hangover Part II</i> suffers with its lack of surprises.<p>The flow of the story is as expected; a little setup followed by a whole lot of maniacal nonsense. There is actually a bunch that happens within the 100 minutes of screen time, although things feel quite linear when played out.</p><p>The humor tends to be overly crude at times, which really isn't for young eyes. It also hampers many of the would-be laughs; however, there is so much going on that it is hard not to find at least a few chuckles throughout the picture.</p><p>A bulk of the amusing antics that take place are at the expense of Ed Helms. The higher annoyance factors overshadow the comedy of Zach Galifianakis and Ken Jeong, although they are held somewhat in check. Bradley Cooper is more along for the ride here.</p><p><i>The Hangover Part II</i> has its moments. Just not enough to categorize it as a must see picture.</p>

• Anthony L

  
  In trying to better the first film, the makers of The Hangover II forgot to inject the element of originality. I'm not saying they haven't been creative, it's just that the whole sequence of events became quite predictable and the shock tactics became a little less… More
  In trying to better the first film, the makers of The Hangover II forgot to inject the element of originality. I'm not saying they haven't been creative, it's just that the whole sequence of events became quite predictable and the shock tactics became a little less shocking each time. The overall story was fine as were the cast but I thought the ending was horrible. I also think Zach Galifianakis shelf-life is nearly up, unless he does something a bit different. The Hangover III - I don't think so.

• Roy G

  
  The guys are just as clueless after a wild night on the town, but getting lost amid the goggle-bright lights of Las Vegas seems like a fairground ride compared to Bangkok.

• Lucas M

  
  Introducing a much more darker and crueler subject, this sequence of the 2009 hit comedy, surprise the audience with the new style of comedy. But, The Hangover Part II looks more a copy of the previous picture in some scenes. In others scenes, the screenplay seems want impress more… More
  Introducing a much more darker and crueler subject, this sequence of the 2009 hit comedy, surprise the audience with the new style of comedy. But, The Hangover Part II looks more a copy of the previous picture in some scenes. In others scenes, the screenplay seems want impress more that make laugh. Anyway, Mr. Galifianakis and Mr. Jeong are really funny in a movie that is not so hilarious.

• Candy R

  
  Similar plot with original characters but based in Thailand. Stu is getting married in Thailand. His soon to be brother-in-law goes missing and they have to trace their steps to find him. There's a monkey, tattoo, riot, dead body, all in a nights work.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings