It happened again: Hangover 2 more a remake than a sequel

Movie sequels often pale in comparison to their original counterparts. Few ever offer the same degree of originality, laughter, suspense, or entertainment value as the first films do. Many sequels often come across as trying too hard to capture the original magic, and the impetus for making a sequel can become glaringly transparent as an effort to cash in on the previous success.

The Hangover 2 fits this bill. The first Hangover was chock full of originality, comedic surprise, great characters with great chemistry, and raucous laughs. Watching Phil, Alan and Stu wake up in a trashed hotel room in Las Vegas without a clue about what transpired the night before, and their perfectly executed sense of befuddlement as they try to figure it out, is pure movie magic.

The Hangover 2 plays out the exact same way except that this time, Phil, Alan and Stu wake up in a trashed hotel room in Bangkok without a clue about what happened, and their perfectly executed sense of déjà vu is probably akin to that of moviegoers who recognize the movie because they’ve seen it before. The sequel follows the same formula and suffers because it lacks the element of surprise and unpredictability that made the first film so enjoyable.

What the writers did in the Hangover 2 is recycle the plot of the first film. They changed the locale, introduced a few new secondary characters, and made it raunchier and more over the top, but it’s still all too familiar. And they gave us more Mr. Chow – not, in my opinion, a good thing. His appearance in the first film served to shock and amuse when he leapt out of the back of a car buck naked and onto Phil. In the sequel, his appearance is again meant to shock and amuse, but after the initial shock and brief laugh his appearance affords, Mr. Chow simply becomes annoying.

Almost every element from the first Hangover is refurbished and reused in the second installment. There’s no lion, no baby, and no tasering by police, but there are obvious substitutions for these. In the sequel, the writers simply provide variations on the first film’s most memorable parts.

Perhaps the most disappointing of all is how Zach Galifianakis’ character, Alan, comes across in the second film. In the Hangover, Alan stole the show as the endearing and hilarious oddball brother-in-law. Here, he’s obnoxious, irritating and far less funny.

The common element that is a welcome reoccurrence is the interaction between Phil, Alan and Stu. Seeing these three guys bumble through Bangkok piecing the previous night’s puzzle back together and uncovering some crazy revelations along the way is the lone highlight and why a third installment is more than likely. It’s hard not to want to see what these guys will get up to next time and how they’ll react to it all because it is good for a few laughs.

Whatever Happened To...?

Rick Moranis

Of all the SCTV alumni I find it odd that Rick Moranis is not prominent in front of the camera anymore. Heck, Eugene Levy is still managing to mix his big budget works with all those straight-to-DVD American Pie movies. Could Rick Moranis not do the same? The latter part of Rick Moranis’ career has consisted of family friendly movies. He has consistently shown that his comedic timing can provide good laughs to even the weakest feature. I think it would be hilarious to see Moranis in a comedy where he plays against type. Maybe a foulmouthed role is exactly what Rick Moranis needs to break his squeaky clean image. I could see Moranis making a splash in a raunchy Todd Phillips Hangover-style comedy; or even reteaming with Steve Martin for an adult skewed comedy.

Career Highlights: Strange Brew (1983); Honey I Shrunk the Kids (1989); Ghostbusters (1984); Spaceballs (1987); Ghostbusters II (1989); Little Shop of Horrors (1986); Brewster’s Millions (2005); Parenthood (1989); Splitting Heirs (1993); Little Giants (1994);

Low Points: Honey I Blew Up the Kids (1992); Big Bully (1996); The Flintstones (1994); My Blue Heaven (1990); Brother Bear (2003)

Last Seen On The Big Screen: Brother Bear (2003)

Where You Will See Him Next?: Since bringing back the Bob & Doug McKenzie characters, yet again, for Canadian television, Moranis has been fairly quiet on the acting front. It seems he is spending most of his time on the production side of things.

Too Much Time In Hot Tub Leads To Shrinkage

Hot Tub Time Machine

There was a time in the 80’s when you needed both interesting characters and a funny premise to have a successful buddy comedy. Think back to films like Trading Places and Planes Trains and Automobiles and you get my point. The 90’s saw the rise of City Slickers and folks who inhabited Wayne’s World and little by little the situations started to overshadow the characters. Now we have reached a point in buddy comedies where both the situation and the characters can be contrasted in matchbox size outline.

If you have seen the trailer for Hot Tub Time Machine then you already know everything you need to about the plot. There is very little left to explain story wise. Adam (John Cusack), Nick (Craig Robinson) and Lou (Rob Corddry) head back to their old 80’s party-stomping for the weekend in hopes of reliving their glory days one last time. With Adam’s nephew Jacob (Clark Duke) in tow, the four men decide to drink their individual sorrows away and end up having a wild night in the hot tub. When the men wake up the next morning they are shocked to discover that they have all been transported back to 1986.

When Craig Robinson breaks the fourth wall and declares directly to the audience that “it must be some sort of Hot Tub Time Machine” he is clearly telling the viewer to officially check their brains at the door and enjoy the ride. Unfortunately we have been on this type of ride so much lately that the film runs out of steam fast than expected. Hot Tub Time Machine is very much akin to films like Old School and The Hangover. It even has all the same character types as those films. There is the good looking lead with relationship issues, the married one whose wife may be unfaithful, the man-child that refuses to grow up, and the nerd/straight man who just needs to loosen up. It was as if the screenwriters were using a paint-by-numbers book when writing the script.

While Hot Tub Time Machine does not offer much in the way of original comedy, it does have a few good laughs scattered throughout. The majority of the humour is directly correlated to the numerous 80’s references. Yet the highlight of the film in my opinion is Crispin Glover’s character, Phil. When Phil is first introduced he is a disgruntle hotel porter who is missing an arm. When the film jumps back to 1986 we see a much happier version of Phil with both appendages in tack. How does Phil lose his arm? Well that is one of the running gags in the picture. Phil always finds himself in dangerous situations though you never quite sure when, or if, the arm will go.

Hot Tub Time Machine will not be remembered as a comedy classic by any means. I would be shocked if it is even remembered by the end of this year. Still, thanks to Crispin Glover and a few well placed 80’s references, Hot Tub Time Machine is still worth a rental. It is one of those films that will play well on a boozy Friday night; or as television background noise at a party.