So, before the movie even came out, people were complaining that it looked exactly like the first film. Then the movie came out, and people were complaining that it was exactly like the first film. As I've seen the film, I can tell you--it's literally a carbon copy of the first film. But that's not a complaint.

It's 2 years later, and Stu (Ed Helms) is getting married to Lauren (Jamie Chung) in Thailand. Along for the wedding are friends Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Doug (Justin Bartha). Also, they reluctantly invite Alan (Zach Galifianakis). Come wedding weekend, Phil, Stu, and Alan wake up in Bangkok, and Lauren's little brother Teddy (Mason Lee) has gone missing. They have no idea what happened. Their only clues are Alan's shaved head, Stu's tattooed face, a monkey, Teddy's cut-off finger, and a naked Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong). Just as before, they must figure out where their missing person is, try to remember what happened to them, battle some gangsters, and get to the wedding before it's too late.

You've heard it all before, as I've said: This movie is a carbon copy of the first film. It's the same full outline and same exact jokes, just a different setting. But did that bother me? Not really. It almost became a game trying to figure out how they were going to emulate something from the first film (this might make me sound like an idiot, but that being said, I still couldn't figure out what happened to Teddy until the reveal). The main difference, though? This film felt much darker than the first. The first was much more lighthearted; even the gangster stuff never felt threatening, but silly (in a good way). The sequel, however, ups the stakes and makes you feel there's some real danger. It's actually uncomfortable how seriously the movie is taking itself at times (though it's not the whole time, thankfully).

But because of these similarities, I have nothing to review. The only new thing I can talk about is Teddy. His acting is iffy, and the movie missed a huge opportunity to have any kind of character development with him. Otherwise, I'll just leave it at this: if you liked the first one, there's no way you can dislike this one... unless the carbon copy/been-there-done-that feel of it bothers or annoys you. If you can get over that, you'll enjoy it. If you hated the first one, you probably weren't gonna see this one anyway. I saw it. I laughed. It was a good time. Could it have been better? Sure. But I went in knowing (mostly) what to expect, and that's what I got.

I Am McLovin!


  1. My review was way more negative than yours Nick, but I do mostly agree with you. There were jokes. I laughed. But I still left the film feeling unsatisfied...sort of can't help but think I'd have had way more fun staying at home and watching Part 1 on DVD instead

  2. What Tom said.

    I've seen this written out a number of times, but I think it encapsulates the problem with #2: By treading the exact same ground, they took the best part of the first (the mystery feel to it) and completely removed it. Bad form.

    And not all that funny. A few decent jokes, but not much worth repeating.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.