This browser is supported only in Windows 10 and above.

DID YOU READ

Is “The Hangover Part II” a “Good” Sequel?

Is “The Hangover Part II” a “Good” Sequel? (photo)

Posted by on

What makes a good sequel?

Steven Zeitchik wrote an interesting piece earlier this week in The Los Angeles Times crediting the box office success of “The Hangover Part II” to its “lack of originality.” In essence, he says that the most successful comedy sequels are the ones that hew closest to their predecessors. His article begins, “The raised eyebrows started pretty much the moment the trailer hit the Web.” When the trailer for “The Hangover Part II” hit the Web at the beginning of April, I wrote the following in a post about the often dubious use of the phrase “Part 2” in sequel titles:

“The trailer makes it look less like a continuation than a rehash. The location is different but the characters, narrative gimmick, and Ed Helms facial disfiguration gags are all the same. That could still make an interesting sequel if the finished film plays up the nightmarish, almost ‘Twilight Zone’-esque quality of these men’s lives. Will it acknowledge the fact that they seem almost karmically doomed to repeat the same awful misadventures over and over again? I kind of hope so.”

With the movie now in wide release, it’s clear that while my hopes were dashed, the trailer was an accurate depiction of the finished film. If it was inaccurate at all, it was in not fully representing just how faithful “The Hangover Part II” is to “The Hangover.” Contrary to what star Zach Galifianakis said in interviews prior to production about the sequel having “nothing to do with the bachelor party,” and that the scenario would involve the Wolf Pack getting “kind of kidnapped,” it absolutely does and they absolutely don’t. In fact, almost every single plot point from the first film appears in the second one: a forgotten night of debauchery, a friend missing, altercations with drug dealers, sex with prostitutes, incongruous animal sidekicks, and Mike Tyson.

Given the extreme degree to which it recycles elements of the first film, you could almost make the case for “The Hangover Part II” on the grounds that it is an experimental film. As I sit here writing, I’m actually having trouble thinking of elements from the first “Hangover” that don’t appear in the sequel; the only one jumping immediately to mind is the fact that Ed Helms’ character doesn’t fall for the hooker he sleeps with this time around. The following video mashup does a nice job of illustrating the similarities, by placing the aforementioned “Hangover Part II” trailer side-by-side with corresponding images from the first film.

As Zeitchik notes, most of the critical discourse around “The Hangover Part II” has focused around the borderline shocking degree to which it is just Mad Libs version of “Part I.” A quick scan of the film’s Rotten Tomatoes page reveals almost as much repetition as you’ll find in the film itself. “I can’t believe how precisely everything does happen again, except that what was fresh and surprising in Las Vegas turns rancid and predictable in Bangkok,” says Joe Morgenstern of The Wall Street Journal. “Trade out Las Vegas for Bangkok, a tiger for a monkey, a lactating hooker for a trannie stripper, a missing tooth for a face tattoo, and you’ve got Todd Phillips’s rote, dispiriting replica of his own surprise smash hit,” says Eric Hynes from The Village Voice. In his review, Richard Roeper proclaims that “rarely has a sequel been so lazy, obvious, such a flat out copy of the first film.”

The film certainly is a copy. But is it really that rare? “The Hangover Part II” reminded me of a lot of horror sequels, particularly long-running and heavily codified franchises like “Friday the 13th” or “Final Destination.” Genre connoisseurs come back to these movies time and time again for their faithful adherence to formula: Jason Voorhees will come back from the dead, he will wear his hockey mask, and he will kill people in incredibly violent and incredibly creative ways. True, there have been some variations, but most are cosmetic; flinging Jason into outer space so he can slaughter hotties there isn’t that much different than transplanting “The Hangover” from Vegas to Bangkok. When horror sequels stray too far from their core, they’re usually flops. See “Halloween III,” the only movie in the series that didn’t feature Michael Myers.

Why are there different standards for horror and comedy sequels? You can’t say that comedy is different from horror because jokes depend on surprise — so do horror films. We watch great comedies over and over, savoring the stars’ delivery, memorizing our favorite jokes. I couldn’t count the number of times I’ve seen “Blazing Saddles” or “The Naked Gun.” Earlier this week I was laughing out loud at “Stripes” a film I’ve seen many times. Repetition and ritualization is part of the fun of great comedy. So what’s the problem with repeating and ritualizing it in the form of a movie like “The Hangover Part II?”

I agree: the fact that Phil, Stu, and Alan undergo the exact same misadventures is impossible and ridiculous. But it’s no more impossible or ridiculous than John McClane getting into three more days just as bad as his worst day ever in the first “Die Hard.” Isn’t it weird that terrorists love to attack the things in closest proximity to John McClane? Do we care? I certainly don’t; I just like seeing Bruce Willis badass it up.

What we’re talking about here is the fundamental nature of sequels. Should sequels be bold, original undertakings or should they provide the audience with more of what they liked in the first movie? Is a good sequel like or unlike the movie that spawned it? This, I think, is a matter of personal opinion and taste. Some people love “Evil Dead II” which is so similar to “The Evil Dead” that it’s almost a remake. Some people prefer “Army of Darkness” which transposes the series’ hero to medieval times and replaces most of the horror with Three Stooges-esque physical comedy.

“The Hangover” had a very clever premise and a unique comic mystery structure. You could argue that its uniqueness was what made it so successful. In that case, maybe the only true sequel to “The Hangover” is one as unique as the first film — say, the boys have another night out on the town but this time they get brutally murdered and it’s up to their girlfriends and wives to solve the crime. Or you might argue that what made “The Hangover” a hit was the particular chemistry of the actors — Bradley Cooper’s smarm, Ed Helms’ spoiled innocence, Galifianakis’ inspired idiocy. We loved spending time with those guys in that booze and pill-fueled fog. In that case, “The Hangover Part II” is the perfect sequel, since it reunites the entire cast and provides them a forum to do the things we enjoyed watching them do the first time around.

Do I think “The Hangover Part II” is a good movie? Not really. Do I think it’s a good sequel? After a lot of thought, I’ve decided that it is. It is not a great sequel on the level of “The Godfather Part II” or “The Empire Strikes Back” — sequels that truly continue the stories and expand the universes of their first films — but it is a satisfying one on its own terms. You might subjectively say that the jokes aren’t funny; I thought a lot of them were (I also appreciated the fact that the movie was a lot bleaker and sadder than the first “Hangover,” and probably as close as I’ll ever get to my dreams of “Twilight Zone”-y nightmarishness). No, it’s not an original comedic vision. But it delivers what it promises: more of the same. And since it’s already grossed almost $150 million in just one week of release, outstanding for an R-rated comedy, I think you can expect a lot more of the same in the future.

Did you like “The Hangover Part II?” Tell us in the comments below or on Twitter and Facebook!

IFC_FOD_TV_long_haired_businessmen_table

Hacked In

Funny or Die Is Taking Over

FOD TV comes to IFC every Saturday night.

Posted by on

via GIPHY

We’ve been fans of Funny or Die since we first met The Landlord. That enduring love makes it more than logical, then, that IFC is totally cool with FOD hijacking the airwaves every Saturday night. Yes, that’s happening.

The appropriately titled FOD TV looks like something pulled from public access television in the nineties. Like lo-fi broken-antenna reception and warped VHS tapes. Equal parts WTF and UHF.

Get ready for characters including The Shirtless Painter, Long-Haired Businessmen, and Pigeon Man. They’re aptly named, but for a better sense of what’s in store, here’s a taste of ASMR with Kelly Whispers:

Watch FOD TV every Saturday night during IFC’s regularly scheduled movies.

SAE_102_tout_2

Wicked Good

See More Evil

Stan Against Evil Season 1 is on Hulu.

Posted by on
GIFs via Giphy

Okay, so you missed the entire first season of Stan Against Evil. There’s no shame in that, per se. But here’s the thing: Season 2 is just around the corner and you don’t want to lag behind. After all, Season 1 had some critical character development, not to mention countless plot twists, and a breathless finale cliffhanger that’s been begging for resolution since last fall. It also had this:

via GIPHY

The good news is that you can catch up right now on Hulu. Phew. But if you aren’t streaming yet, here’s a basic primer…

Willards Mill Is Evil

Stan spent his whole career as sheriff oblivious to the fact that his town has a nasty curse. Mostly because his recently-deceased wife was secretly killing demons and keeping Stan alive.

Demons Really Want To Kill Stan

The curse on Willards Mill stipulates that damned souls must hunt and kill each and every town sheriff, or “constable.” Oh, and these demons are shockingly creative.

via GIPHY

They Also Want To Kill Evie

Why? Because Evie’s a sheriff too, and the curse on Willard’s Mill doesn’t have a “one at a time” clause. Bummer, Evie.

Stan and Evie Must Work Together

Beating the curse will take two, baby, but that’s easier said than done because Stan doesn’t always seem to give a damn. Damn!

via GIPHY

Beware of Goats

It goes without saying for anyone who’s seen the show: If you know that ancient evil wants to kill you, be wary of anything that has cloven feet.

via GIPHY

Season 2 Is Lurking

Scary new things are slouching towards Willards Mill. An impending darkness descending on Stan, Evie and their cohort – eviler evil, more demony demons, and whatnot. And if Stan wants to survive, he’ll have to get even Stanlier.

Stan Against Evil Season 1 is now streaming right now on Hulu.

IFC_ComedyCrib_ThePlaceWeLive_SeriesImage_web

SO EXCITED!!!

Reminders that the ’90s were a thing

"The Place We Live" is available for a Jessie Spano-level binge on Comedy Crib.

Posted by on
GIFs via Giphy

Unless you stopped paying attention to the world at large in 1989, you are of course aware that the ’90s are having their pop cultural second coming. Nobody is more acutely aware of this than Dara Katz and Betsy Kenney, two comedians who met doing improv comedy and have just made their Comedy Crib debut with the hilarious ’90s TV throwback series, The Place We Live.

IFC: How would you describe “The Place We Live” to a fancy network executive you just met in an elevator?

Dara: It’s everything you loved–or loved to hate—from Melrose Place and 90210 but condensed to five minutes, funny (on purpose) and totally absurd.

IFC: How would you describe “The Place We Live” to a drunk friend of a friend you met in a bar?

Betsy: “Hey Todd, why don’t you have a sip of water. Also, I think you’ll love The Place We Live because everyone has issues…just like you, Todd.”

via GIPHY

IFC: When you were living through the ’90s, did you think it was television’s golden age or the pop culture apocalypse?


Betsy: I wasn’t sure I knew what it was, I just knew I loved it!


Dara: Same. Was just happy that my parents let me watch. But looking back, the ’90s honored The Teen. And for that, it’s the golden age of pop culture. 

IFC: Which ’90s shows did you mine for the series, and why?

Betsy: Melrose and 90210 for the most part. If you watch an episode of either of those shows you’ll see they’re a comedic gold mine. In one single episode, they cover serious crimes, drug problems, sex and working in a law firm and/or gallery, all while being young, hot and skinny.


Dara: And almost any series we were watching in the ’90s, Full House, Saved By the Bell, My So Called Life has very similar themes, archetypes and really stupid-intense drama. We took from a lot of places. 

via GIPHY

IFC: How would you describe each of the show’s characters in terms of their ’90s TV stereotype?

Dara: Autumn (Sunita Mani) is the femme fatale. Robin (Dara Katz) is the book worm (because she wears glasses). Candace (Betsy Kenney) is Corey’s twin and gives great advice and has really great hair. Corey (Casey Jost) is the boy next door/popular guy. Candace and Corey’s parents decided to live in a car so the gang can live in their house. 
Lee (Jonathan Braylock) is the jock.

IFC: Why do you think the world is ready for this series?

Dara: Because everyone’s feeling major ’90s nostalgia right now, and this is that, on steroids while also being a totally new, silly thing.

Delight in the whole season of The Place We Live right now on IFC’s Comedy Crib. It’ll take you back in all the right ways.