|
Post by Babycakes on May 28, 2011 12:26:40 GMT -4
And that's the joke? That's supposed to be funny? Having drunken sex with a tranny is a stretch on a good day, but crying indicates pain/rape/lack of consent, and I don't find that funny at all. The first movie sucked ass, but this one sounds even worse. This brand of fratboy humor is lost on me I guess.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Dec 1, 2024 7:32:00 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2011 16:08:29 GMT -4
We were going to see it tomorrow but the reviews have been brutal. We might dollar theather this, which pains me because I loved the first one. I will say that I just read the cast's interview with EW and I kinda got the vibe that they did not think it was good as the first one either.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Dec 1, 2024 7:32:00 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2011 19:30:53 GMT -4
And that's the joke? That's supposed to be funny? Having drunken sex with a tranny is a stretch on a good day, but crying indicates pain/rape/lack of consent, and I don't find that funny at all. The first movie sucked ass, but this one sounds even worse. This brand of fratboy humor is lost on me I guess. The part that makes the photo especially bad is that we already know it happened because they talked about it. That was bad enough, the photo was completely unecessary.
|
|
|
Post by satellite on May 29, 2011 10:05:19 GMT -4
Saw this last night because a friend wanted to. Didn't see the first one. I dunno...it's kind of hit or miss with these Apatow-esque/ frat humor movies for me and this one was a miss. a) it wasn't that funny and b) the whole "culture clash" thing made me uncomfortable. Kind of like when people were panning SATC 2 for perpetuating Middle Eastern stereotypes , I felt like it was the same problem, but worse with the guys in Thailand. I actually find the SATC characters likable for the most part, and the only somewhat likable main character in this was the main dentist guy getting married.
|
|
syve
Lady in Waiting
Posts: 314
Feb 1, 2009 20:50:32 GMT -4
|
Post by syve on May 29, 2011 12:30:43 GMT -4
I saw and liked the first one, and went to see this because there was nothing else on that I wanted to see and because the worst reviews I saw said this was practially a shot for shot remake, and I figured if I liked the first one, and the worst thing about this one is it's too similar, then it wouldn't be too bad. But I was wrong. This is really, really not good. I feel like the terrible reviews lied to me by not being terrible enough.
I felt the first one was somewhat vaguely rooted in reality, but this just makes no sense, what so ever. No one in the movie acts like they are an actual human person. Everyone spends the whole movie making mind numbingly weird decisions, that no sane person would ever think to do. And they've all suddenly turned into sociopaths, all of them. Well, maybe not the women, who don't appear to have personalities besides worrying and simpering. It's just bizarre.
And not very funny, which is worse.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Dec 1, 2024 7:32:00 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2011 14:23:44 GMT -4
This. Phil was an asshole and Alan was a freaking psychopath.
And apparently the guy that played Teddy is Ang Lee's son Mason. He was the baby in The Wedding Banquet.
|
|
ross
Lady in Waiting
Posts: 496
Jul 17, 2008 13:12:59 GMT -4
|
Post by ross on May 29, 2011 16:10:15 GMT -4
Well, maybe not the women, who don't appear to have personalities besides worrying and simpering. I'm not a feminist but I was quite struck by how little female presence there was in this film, far more so than the first one which had Heather Graham in a reasonably big supporting role. I wasn't counting but I'd say that for at least 3/4 of the movie the only women onscreen were non-speaking extras. It's particularly weird that Stu's fiancée was so little fleshed out since Stu is the most likable of the three guys and the whole event was around his wedding (it wasn't so bad in the first film since Doug wasn't really a main character so we didn't need to know that much about Tracy.)
|
|
|
Post by satellite on May 30, 2011 9:33:33 GMT -4
I was discussing this with a friend last night who thought that the first Hangover was inspired by Very Bad Things, which I actually loved, but I guess that's an unpopular opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Spinderella on May 30, 2011 11:13:46 GMT -4
We saw this last night and aside from a couple random funny moments, this movie was HORRIBLE.
I'm all for some fun, raunchy humor but this was pretty ridiculous and gratuitous. I have to agree with Ebert about the photo montage at the end. There were photos that were shown that pretty much classified themselves as NC-17, IMO. We went to a drive-in (I'm not paying full price for this film after reading the reviews) and tons of families (!!!) were there and I cannot believe they were OK with showing this to their kids under the age of 16.
I don't think a lot of what was shown was even necessary and it didn't help the story at all. All it made the audience do is turn to their friends and go, "WTF??! REALLY?" It was just totally lame overall.
So sad that this has now earned the title of biggest comedy opening ever. My how comedy has changed.
|
|
|
Post by Neurochick on May 30, 2011 12:25:48 GMT -4
I haven't seen this movie yet. I'll probably wait until it's on DVD and I can get it out of the library. I did see the first one and I thought it was so silly it was funny.
As for people taking children to see this movie? Some people are stupid. When I went to see the South Park movie in 1999, there were people there with kids under 10, who left in a hurry right after the first musical number. Some people don't read the reviews.
|
|