the hangover II: is a movie i've seen

the hangover II: movie starring bradley cooper, ed helms, zach galifianakis, justin bartha, ken jeong, mason lee, and jamie chung

nice to see jamie chung again.  in a world in which some people are pretty good looking, jamie chung is so freaking beautiful.  she had no lines and wasn't allowed a character, but she was absolutely lovely, so there's that.

insofar as the premise of the hangover II is that it's a stepped-up version of the hangover I, this movie is successful.  it's a stepped-up version of the hangover, that is for certain.  instead of a tiger, you have a drug-dealing cigarette-smoking gay monkey--instead of the groom being lost, you have the brother--instead of mike tyson, you have paul giamatti (and also mike tyson)--instead of vegas, you have bangkok.  it's not funny and it's not very entertaining, but that can happen when you try to do the same thing again but different, and that's definitely what they were trying for, i think. 

i mean, the whole remaking-the-same-concept idea can go well or it can go poorly.  i haven't seen all of the road to... series, but the ones i have seen seem to be pretty consistently amusing, just as a possibly kind of dumb example.  maybe some concepts are just one-trick ponies (that sounds dirty).  for example, the blair witch project II: not a good idea!  momento II: i don't know if it exists, but if it does: so not a good idea!  the ring II (american version--i haven't seen the japanese one): oh my god not not not a good idea!  and don't get me started on 28 weeks later.  or transformers II: revenge of the fallen (dumbest...ever...why...robbed of faith...michael bay...whyyyyy).  not going to mention the heavy preponderance of horror film sequels in here.  oh wait i just did.  i may not have what is sometimes described as "taste" in my moviegoing experiences.

now, on the other hand we have movies like shrek II (one of my favorite movies ever), gremlins II (so much cuter than the original!), empire strikes back (my favorite of the original trilogy [and as always, of course my opinion counts for just everything]), and i assume chucky II has to be better than the original because the original is really really kinda stupid.  i also liked kung fu panda II very much (though i don't know if it was for personal reasons or the merits of the movie, so i'm not going to review it).  step up 2 was more fun, i thought, for reasons of the heroine being adorable, than step up.  and iron man II is hecka pretty good (scarlett johansson may or may not be wearing a freaking catsuit some of the time--that's neither here nor there).

what conclusions can we draw here?  okay.  DO NOT SEQUENTIATE YOUR MOVIE IF:
-it requires creepy little girls to drag out of wells...again.
-it will gain nothing from special effects (blair witch project II--just stick with the original budget of $50 and two free packs of teriyaki beef jerkey, i beg of you)
-it involves a major concept, like a virus or a memory deficiency
-it involves sexy sexy robots
-it involves michael bay

GO AHEAD AND SEQUENTIATE YOUR MOVIE IF:
-it involves magical furry creatures or a member of a race of space-furries
-it involves animated animals (as a main component--those deer in the ring II weren't doing it any favors)
-there is a large dancing component
-it involves sexy sexy robots
-it involves an evil doll (presumably)

ergo, the hangover II did not have enough magical/sci-fi furries, evil dolls, and dancing--it did not involve enough sexy sexy robots (though that might have worked against it)--and it had too much budget, concept, girls crawling out of wells, and michael bay, with not enough $50 and beef jerkey.

wow, how universal is this?  i have discovered the universal standard as to whether to make a sequel to your movie or not!  i am literally a genius!

and it brings up an interesting point: the reoccurance of a funny animal component was not enough to make the hangover II a good sequel.  therefore we may logically conclude that the animal component in a sequel must be more magical and/or animated than that chain-smoking gay monkey in order for the sequel to be successful.  how much mor magical and/or animated?  interesting question, and one i cannot answer.  perhaps we can find out if they (GOD FORBID) try to make a the hangover III...maybe an advice-dispensing cocaine-sniffing walrus will do the trick?  maybe if he is a main character.  perhaps zach galifianakis can be granted powers of animal speech by saving a butterfly's life and they can work it in that way.  OR, the mason lee character can fall in love with an animatronic toaster decepticon (but be careful, because if michael bay is involved, this can backfire). 

OR, maybe they'll get to meet dorothy l'amour.

i leave it to the creators' discretion.

bad teacher: or, how cameron diaz has such great gams they should just call her gam-eron di-thighs

bad teacher: movie starring cameron diaz, jason segel, j-timb, wonderful redhead, and attorney wayne jarvis...

...who a friend of mine has babysat for!  or is it "whom?"  and i know her, and he knows jane lynch, who knows the cast of glee, including jayma mays, who knows eric mabius who knows katherine moennig!!! who knows pam grier!!!  AUGH!!!!!

but this is neither here nor there.

what i have to say about this movie is that i really liked it.  it was pretty dang funny, and all the cliched moments were done really well.  like the moment when cameron diaz character finally connects with one of her students--we knew it was coming and we were kind of hoping for it, but the way she does it is funny and original.

hunh, actually i think i do have something to say about the movie besides "i unqualifiedly enjoyed it very much."  it had a lot of examples of, like, actors doing something subtly different than what i've seen them do before in a really cool way.  the most obvious example of this is jason segel, because i've seen him in the most stuff (i think).  i mean, he gives good very-sweet-guy in how i met your mother and forgetting sarah marshall; he gives good cute-idiot in freaks and geeks; and he gives good smarmy-but-fun guy in knocked up; but i don't think i've seen him do anything as...sincerely, or something, as in bad teacher.  i mean, he really gives an honest performance or something.  not that he's not honest in other stuff, just not this honest--he's really honest-appearing in this.  his eyes get darker, for instance, and his delivery gets even more subtly off-the-cuff.  he has a capital-c Character, and he acts it as such.  the p.e. teacher he plays isn't a nice guy.  he's maybe a good guy, but not a nice one, which is a distinction that doesn't immediately spring to mind when one is thinking about decency in men (for me), but he makes that distinction clear (i mean, this is one way of explaining what i'm talking about) and it's extremely enjoyable to watch.  phyllis smith is another example.  god knows how much of the office i've watched, and it's been enjoyable to see phyllis lapin turn from a very sweet, shy, unhappy woman with an inner core of bitch fighting to get out, into a confident, still-sweet, still-bitchy woman with a core of solid steel.  it's an interesting character arc, and gives phyllis smith range to act in, but i don't think i've seen her do the exact type of shy and sweet that she does so well in bad teacher.  finally, john michael higgins plays that tightly controlling and hilarious character a lot (particularly enjoyed him in fired up and of course freaking arrested development), but, again, i don't think i've seen him have the sort of human-ey integrity he plays as having in bad teache--WOAH HE'S DUCKING BEHIND THAT LITTLE GARBAGE CAR!

the man's a pro.

it's like, all these people are playing types of parts it would seem i've seen them play before, but they're doing such a good job with them that they might as well be new types.  and that's what i mean, i guess, about liking bad teacher so unqualifiedly.  it's a type of movie i've seen before, done really well.  like bad santa.  or fired up, for that matter.  these are high compliments, people.  high-ass compliments.