What's the real reason why audiences flocked to see 'The Hangover Part II'?

My colleague Steven Zeitchik has made a persuasive case that "The Hangover Part II's" utter lack of originality may have doomed it with critics -- who loathed the film -- but made it a huge success with audiences, who showed up in droves over the weekend, turning it into an instant hit. (The movie raked in an estimated $137 million over the five-day weekend.) As Zeitchik points out, the comedy sequels that work the best, at least commercially speaking, are the ones that stick closest to the exact same formula as the original.

So while "Evan Almighty," the follow-up to "Bruce Almighty," was a dud, having changed lead actors and invented a radically different storyline, the sequels to such films as "Austin Powers" and "American Pie" were big hits, even though they basically recycled many of the same gags, characters and situations from the original film.

I think there is actually a familiar term for this: sitcom. Put simply, "Hangover II" was shrewdly conceived as something 13-year-old boys couldn't possibly ever see on TV -- a truly raunchy sitcom. I'm surprised the unhappy critics who were forced to sit through the film didn't figure this out instantly. "Hangover II" is not a movie, it's what might have happened if you'd unleashed Chuck Lorre and let him make "Two and a Half Men" without a network censor. Or better yet, gave Sheldon and all the Cal Tech geeks from "The Big Bang Theory" a laboratory full of intoxicants and free tickets to Thailand. 

So the lack of originality in "Hangover II" was a plus, just as it is for virtually every good network sitcom, which prides itself on finding ways to take familiar characters with familiar personality quirks and give them a new dilemma or problem to solve. "The Hangover II" may have had a bigger budget and played on a bigger screen. But at its core, it was doing what sitcoms have done from time immemorial -- letting us spend time with recognizable characters we really like. The critics may not have gotten the joke, but audiences felt right at home, watching men do what they have always done so well in comedies -- act like idiots.

-- Patrick Goldstein   

Photo: Ed Helms, from left, Ken Jeong and Bradley Cooper in a scene from "The Hangover Part II." Credit: Warner Bros. Pictures

 

Comments

[starbomb80]

Beloved characters doing funny things... People like that.

Stupid article. Can't believe you and the Reporter wasted people's time with this.

[mark georgeff]

Darn glad you guys at LA times are hired for your in depth originality.
How else would I finally realize what I never did before?
Yeah...ya hit it on the nail head.
Great expose on why H2 made so much money.
Thank you very much.
I can go to my grave knowing who Deep Throat finally is.
I take it you got your journalism degree from USC?

[wcmartell]

Could it be because the film was funny?

I think critics often miss the forest for the trees - they love films that do strange things that may alienate the audience, because the film "took chances". The problem is, a film that takes a chance... and fails... is still a failure (to the audience), but is a success to critics. They don't seem to care whether a film *works* or not. So HANGOVER 2 - which I've called a search & replace movie - is funny as hell! It works, even though it is not original. And *works* is more important than *interesting experiment... that failed*.

So: why was HANGOVER 2 a success? Not because it unoriginal, but because it was *funny*. Funny matters more than originality, just as great suspense scenes matter more than originality, or scenes that make you cry like a baby matter more than originality, or exciting action scenes matter more than originality.

Does the film *work*?

[colin flaherty]

H2 must have been a funny on the inside kind of movie. no one was laughing where i saw it.

but then again, i left two thirds of the way through.

i only stayed that long to finish my Cherry Freeze.

[Vincent]

"The critics may not have gotten the joke, but audiences felt right at home, watching men do what they have always done so well in comedies -- act like idiots."
___________________

If I'm going to watch men act like idiots in comedies, I'd prefer they act like William Powell or Cary Grant idiots instead of the idiot yahoos in beer commercials.

[Doug]

The sequels to Austin Powers were hits because they introduced some new characters.

[wcmartell]

Where the heck was the cinema where no one was laughing? That's just strange. Everyone was laughing in the one where I saw it, and since it got an A- grade from Cinemascore audience poll, obviously the vast majority of people all across the USA were laughing (or maybe laughing on the inside really hard). Was that no-laughter cinema filled with Thai monks who had taken a vow of silence?