In The Hangover Part 2, Stu, played by Ed Helms of "The Office," is getting married in Thailand and his friends Phil (Bradley Cooper), Doug (Justin Bartha), and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) conspire to throw him a real bachelor party, when Stu, in rememberance of the wild party in Las Vegas (The Hangover Part 1), decides he wants only a simple bachelor brunch-with no alcohol.
In both plot, and subplot, the sequel mirrors the first movie in many respects. Both films involve a bachelor party that start off with good intentions and go horribly wrong. The crux of both movies revolves around finding, and returning, a lost member of the bachelor party, and key member of the wedding to take place in just a few days. They both take you on an adventure through the underbelly of a famously seedy city, first Vegas, now Bangkok; and they both star a crazy international criminal, Mr. Chow, played by Ken Jeong.
However similar the plot and subplots may be, the sequel diverges from the original in both execution and humor. The first movie, The Hangover, is comedic brilliance at every turn. Each scene plays perfectly into the next, which is an amazing feat for any movie, especially one requiring more than a fair amount of exposition and flashback imagery. The Hangover Part 2, while funny at times, does not have the same level of story or character development displayed in the first film, and lacks the cohesive structure to keep you on the edge of your seat between scenes.
At the end of The Hangover, the characters arrive at the location of their missing friend in a much more fulfilling and funny way than in the Hangover Part 2. They had just rescued "Black Doug," the drugdealer, and get into a heated exchange about rufies, the drug that caused the night to descend into mayhem. The word "rufie" reminds Stu of the word "roof" and they are led back to where the bachelor party started, on the roof of their hotel, which is where they find the real Doug, sunburned and holding $80,000 worth of casino chips.
.jpg?t=20130517094513)
Article comments
1 - Devin
It's pretty funny witnessing the reactions to this film in Thailand, as I actually live in Bangkok. A lot of younger Thais were really eager to see this film, but maybe a little disappointed after seeing their home city portrayed the way it was. I think people should watch the film and enjoy it, but take it with a grain of salt. Remember, this film is meant to be a comedy. Yes, as any Thai police officer or lawyer will probably admit, there is a lot of drug dealing, child abuse, and other unsavory activity in Bangkok, but there is also a much nicer side like monks doing their morning alms, people enjoying a meal at the food stalls, etc. The best way to get to know this city is to come check it out for yourself, like millions of visitors do each year.
2 - Daddy by Default
Thanks for your comment Devin.
Thailand does have a reputation in the west, right or wrong, as being a wild and corrupt town, which is why, I would imagine, the movie is set there, rather than some other party town in the states.
With that said, I agree with you 100$, the city is portrayed in a pretty bad light, and I believe it is done purely to mine the comedy of the situation. I've not been to Bangkok myself, but many of my friends have been and they paint a different picture, mostly of beautiful beaches, sunsets, and very nice people.