Réalisation:
Todd PhillipsPhotographie:
Lawrence SherMusique:
Christophe BeckActeurs·trices:
Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms, Bradley Cooper, Ken Jeong, Justin Bartha, Jamie Chung, Mamie Van Doren, Mike Tyson, Sondra Currie, Paul Giamatti (plus)VOD (4)
Résumés(1)
Phil, Stu, Alan et Doug s’offrent un voyage exotique en Thaïlande, à l’occasion du mariage de Stu. Après l’inoubliable soirée d’enterrement de sa vie de garçon à Las Vegas, Stu ne veut rien laisser au hasard et opte pour un brunch léger, sans risque, avant la cérémonie. Mais les choses ne se passent pas toujours comme prévu. Ce qui s'est passé à Las Vegas est imaginable à Las Vegas, mais ce qui se passe à Bangkok dépasse l’imagination... (Warner Bros. FR)
(plus)Critiques (8)
I was pleasantly surprised that the next Hangover would be in Bangkok. Although for such a beautiful city, there was surprisingly little of it. I'm starting to adore Zach G. because his acting is truly incredible. The second one lags a little (really just a little) in terms of the story, but it was still a party from start to finish. After Alan's toast, half the theater even started clapping. That doesn't happen that often. End credits photo collage even better than the one from Vegas! So I'm satisfied.
()
Exactement la même chose que Very Bad Trip mais à Bangkok. En gros, un film identique avec un niveau de qualité identique mais avec un singe dealer et des transsexuelles asiatiques en prime.
()
En gros, cette deuxième partie n’est qu’un copier-coller du numéro un, à part qu’elle se situe dans une ville différente et que les scènes comiques ont été tantôt pimentées, tantôt affadies. Moi, j’ai bien aimé et ai passé un bon moment. Parfois, je me demandais pourquoi personne ne riait dans la salle, mais il est vrai que tout le monde à un sens de l’humour différent. Pour moi, c’est un pouce en l’air et je suis pour un troisième volet dans lequel Alan se marierait ; ça nous en mettrait plein la vue !
()
Where Vegas surprised with a refreshing take on summer comedies and incorrect humour, Bangkok surprises by doing EXACTLY the same. In addition to the characters, the premise and the style of humour, all the twists and turns have also remained, and some scenes look as if Todd Phillips had shot them again but with a different background. Yeah, it’s still a lot of fun even a second time, but the element of surprise is irreparably lost, which is a shame. Ken Jeong jumping out of a car boot was funny in the first one, Ken Jeong jumping out of a freezer is funny in the second one, but then, after several experiences of deja-vu, you’re certain that he will jump out of somewhere and it’s no longer effective. And Alan’s transition from a typical “moron” to almost dangerously close to a “mentally ill wreck” is no so funny as it is sad. But still, thumbs a little up, I laughed, I did…
()
The first film was such a grown and sweaty American redneck, whilst the second is spoiled rice pudding that can overcome its predecessor in every way - except in that which is most necessary, and that is humor and fun. The recycling of jokes leads to the fact that it is even a tiny bit more over the line, but also to the fact that what seemed natural and surprising in the first film is only affective and predictable here. I also really laughed at the final slideshow... As expected, The Hangover is becoming a boring franchise that will make the most of the good idea of a wolf pack and a large window. For some, that may be enough, but I say: a complete waste of time.
()
The same as last time. The originality has gone, but everything is speeded up and, it has to be admitted, Bangkok is a much more interesting location than Vegas. Everybody fits beautifully in their roles and Paul Giamatti was super. The monkey was fun.
()
Second time, but actually the first time. "Hangover in Bangkok" is a continuation of "Hangover in Vegas", but it could easily be considered a copy. Once that principle worked, so we will do it the same way again, because it will work again. The American spirit of commerce has once again shown its dull face. I can't say that I didn't smile at some scenes, but making this film is simply pathetic. The same characters, different animal, Mike Tyson back on the scene, vulgar humor, which doesn't bother me, but mainly the ending, when everything turns out well in the end, even though it seems that everything is totally... you know where. No, I'm not giving it a second chance. I don't like remakes, let alone copies. Trying to get the maximum out of the viewer without added value is the bestiality of today's film world. And do you know what? A third part is coming... Copy of a copy is approaching. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/04/diar-milovnika-filmu-c-0003-eastwood.html
()
Yes, there are a few funny moments, but compared to the first installment, it is weaker in all respects and The Hangover Part II is just a bad copy of part one, not even trying to be different. Zach Galifianakis’s performance made me give it 3 stars instead of just 2.
()
Annonces