that is my two word summary for “the hangover 2.”

last night i was really looking forward to going to a movie…kevin and i talk about going to movies sometimes, and he keeps saying he’d like to see this movie or that…but somehow we rarely actually get to the movies.  we were going to see “bridesmaids” the week of my birthday, and that was a month ago.

so, last night, randy and i decided to see H2.

I LOVED the first “hangover.”  it was SO VERY FUNNY that i laughed out loud a lot, and i usually don’t even laugh at movies because they’re not so funny.  sometimes they’re worth a smile, but not so often a laugh.  it unfolded so well, with one crazy thing after another happening, SOOOO FUNNY.

when we got to the movie last night it was almost full.  it’s been out for a while now, but it was a rainy night so people seemed to be out in droves, although maybe that’s always how it is on a saturday night at the movie show, i wouldn’t know.

we sat through some horrible-looking trailers of different scary movies; why did they show scary trailers instead of comedies?  it must have been because this is such a guy-skewered movie.


I sat there thinking, ok, they’re setting up the story, it’s gonna get funny soon…it’s going to be funny…there HAS TO BE SOMETHING FUNNY HERE SOMEWHERE.

but there wasn’t.  ed helms was getting married to a woman whose parents were in thailand, and the beautiful shots of the thai countryside makes me want to go there someday.  THIS WAS THE ONLY REMOTELY GOOD THING ABOUT THE MOVIE.

of course they started drinking, and of course they ended up in a seedy hotel in bangkok.  that looks like an awful, polluted place.

i can’t remember hangover 1 so well, except that it was REALLY REALLY FUNNY, and i’m sure they were trying to make this one funny, too, or maybe they didn’t even care about having a decent script because  they knew lots of people would come see it.  and they also figured that because the first one was so funny, that people are so stupid they’d THINK the second one was funny even though there was nothing funny in it at all.

zach galifianakis was great in the first movie; i was nothing but annoyed with him in this one.  did he act like a completely and utterly snotty and jerk who didn’t even have a rudimentary concept of polite behavior in #1?  if he did, at least he was funny about it.  ugh.

this time they lost the 16 year-old brilliant little brother of the fiancee.  he was going to be a surgeon plus he was a master at the cello.  during the night of crazy, he lost his finger.  we saw the finger early on and assumed that it would turn out to be somebody else’s finger.  but nope, the kid had cut off his own finger in one of those accidental drunk person playing with a knife scenes.

now, you’d think they’d have set up some major thing about the guy – that he didn’t really want to be a surgeon, that he didn’t care about playing the cello, that his asshole dad had forced him into it.  but nobody even bothered to do this, so it felt horribly wrong that his finger was gone, but nobody seemed to care – the uptight dad didn’t care, and instead patted ed helms on the shoulder, as if it was just all good.


and then there was the monkey…through the movie, a cute little monkey tagged along.  he smoked, although one would hope that it was a fake cigarette.  but i didn’t want to see a monkey in the crummy movie.  when i lived in LA, i went to see an amazing, wonderful lecture by Dr. Jane Goodall, who is, of course, all about the monkeys.  one thing she said that still resonates with me is that if you see a monkey on a greeting card or in a movie or on tv, it’s being abused.

now, maybe this is putting it strongly, but you know that when the monkey is being trained to do all the movie stuff, he’s not being allowed to just be a monkey.  randy said that this monkey had been in other movies; he saw jennifer aniston talking about how cute it was in some movie that it was in with her.

because jennifer aniston says the monkey is cute, does that mean it’s not being abused?  because the monkey has been in other movies, does that mean it’s a happy monkey?

maybe i’m wrong about the monkey stuff, but it didn’t do anything to make the wretched movie any better.

when we were standing in line before the movie, the young woman in front of us told the woman in back of us that H2 was actually better than bridesmaids.  i find this very hard to believe.

afterwards, we went to the dublin pub for food and drinks, and our waitress said she thought H2 was SO FUNNY.  so then i didn’t like her.  i realize this isn’t very nice, and i still feel bad about being mad at christine not liking “moulin rouge.”  but years later i found out that christine didn’t like that because she was feeling blue, probably about some dumb man who didn’t deserve her, but so at least she had an excuse for feeling that way about the movie.  what was the waitress’s excuse except for STUPIDITY?

this morning i told amy how bad it was and she asked, “so it’s not even worth renting?”


now, on the one hand, i want to go see a funny movie to get the bad taste out of my mouth, but on the other hand, i don’t want to see any more movies because of the potential to suck factor.


ok then,

mrs. sunday morning ranting hughes.