You just had the wildest night of your life. You and your friends drank so much alcohol that bars have named drinks after you. You wake up in the most agonizing pain you ever felt. You don't remember anything. You don't remember how a tiger got into your room, you don't remember how you lost a tooth, and you especially don't remember getting married to a stripper. On top of all that, you lost your best friend who is getting married in less than twelve hours. After doing some serious detective work that would have made Dick Tracy proud, you are able to restore everything to normal, and the significant other has no idea how much craziness just happened. Why would you do it again? Todd Philips gives his answer in his follow up to last summer's mega-popular hit, The Hangover Part 2.

The first film had the “wolfpack” letting loose in Vegas, but this time they will visit Bangkok for their next intoxicated adventure. Stu is getting married, and his fiancee, who's family resides in Bangkok, wants to have the wedding where all of her family can attend. When Stu arrives he is met by his fiancee's father, who is over-controlling of his youngest son, and hates Stu with every breathe in his body. His friend's insist Stu have a bit of fun before he ties the knot, and when they wake up they realize that they have lost his fiancee's little brother.

If the story sounds familiar, it's because they used the exact same formula as the first film. Film sequels should always thrive to surprise their audience with something new, and at the same time deliver a story more grand then the previous entry, but respectful to the original material as well. This film offers nothing new, gives us a story that seemed more scaled down than the first film, and there isn't much respect in copying a film's narrative structure. Even if the idea of trying to be better than the original was taken out of the equation, learning that this film is using the same formula makes it very predictable. The discovery of their friend in the first film was clever, but the discovery of where the little brother is hidden in The Hangover Part 2 is predictable.

Even if one were to critique this film as a standalone story, ignoring that it is a sequel, there are still quite a number of issues within the plot itself. At it's heart, The Hangover is a detective story, with the group of friends acting as the detectives, trying to solve the mystery of the missing friend. That's what made the original feel fresh, especially since it was executed with an outrageously comedic tone. Detective films work best when they are either working to find the clues, or have revelations about an old piece of evidence. There were moments in The Hangover Part 2 where the clues came too easy to the characters. One in particular that I would even consider deus ex machina happens during the scene where they go to the monk temple, and Alan has a vision that leads the gang to their next clue. Random visions seems like a cheap way to advance the story.

The unpredictability of the story in the first film is what helped give the actors an edge in their acting. They were given a lot to work off of, and played off of the insanity of the situation. For The Hangover Part 2, it felt like they forgot the kind of comedic timing that worked in the first film, and desperately tried everything to re-spark the magic. Ed Helms, who plays Stu, did a good job at displaying his slow progress of self-empowerment throughout the first film. For the sequel, Stu's arc involves the same type of self-empowerment needed to stand up to his judgmental father-in-law, but this inner journey is never properly shown. By the time he arcs at the end of the film, I was surprised to even find out that the character was still trying to impress his father-in-law. Comedic-wise, Ed Helms' funny timing was based off being the most straight-minded character in the first film. The kind of character that goes to bed at 8pm, and puts more effort into not cursing then he would put into drinking. He was funny because he was the “normal” person going through this crazy ordeal. In the sequel, audiences get the sense that he has adapted to this craziness, and to the situation too quickly. As if he knew how to handle it. While this may be a good aspect, since his character has indeed gone through this before, it is unfortunate that Ed Helms didn't change his comedic strategy for the film, which is ineffective if he is displaying a sense of familiarity. The end result made his acting feel whiny more than anything else. For a character who was risking the love of his life as a result of his own self-destructing demons, I wanted more from his character.

The scene stealer of the previous film, Zach Galifianakis, returns as the off-minded Alan, and while he proved to still be one of the redeeming factors for the film, it felt like he was trying too hard to make us laugh. What made Galifianakis hilarious in the first film was his control over subtlety, giving his jokes a sense that they were true to the character. His jokes in The Hangover Part 2 were too obvious at times, making it feel like I was watching Galifianakis, and not watching Alan.

Out of all of the supporting cast, I was surprised to see Bradley Cooper as one of the only returning characters to be just as good as they were in the first film. His tactics haven't really changed, he is still the immature friend that has to hold everyone together after complete chaos. However, this time there seemed to be a bit of different nuances to his character. There was a moment before they lose the little brother where the character shows a sense of admiration. It makes his character feel more obliged to fix the situation, because he recognizes the seriousness of what Stu is risking. On top of that, the pressure to keep everyone calm weighs heavily on the character, and he even breaks down at one point. Cooper is effectively able to portray the character with all of these aspects, and while he may not be the funniest character in the film, he proved to be the most effective actor.

Ken Jeong is, unfortunately, given a bigger role in the film. His meaty cameo in the first film worked, because he wasn't the center of the story. While Ken has grown into an adequate actor, he is still not ready to take on a bigger role. Additional, his character, Mr. Chow, is more annoying as a friend then he was as an enemy, and shares the same one-dimensional problem that a Saturday Night Live character would share when put in a film franchise. I also felt the little brother, played by Mason Lee, was a huge missed opportunity for the filmmakers, and the actor. The character was being controlled by a strict parent, and aspired for a different life, however none of these aspects were ever properly explored in the film, or by the actor. I have a feeling a more competent actor would have been able to show these characteristics, with or without good direction.

Despite a few good gags and chuckles, The Hangover Part 2 fails in many areas where the first film succeeded. The jokes are often hit-or-miss, cheap, and outrageous for outrageous sake, but it has it's entertaining values as well. With it's overly similar plot line to the first film, it feels like director Todd Philips was trying to take us on a new adventure instead of giving us a film better than it's predecessor. Unfortunately, there is nothing that this adventure offers that makes me believe it's worth the price of a movie ticket.

5.5/10