Review: The Hangover
by John NolteOver the past few years, Judd Apatow has unfairly forced me into sounding like something of a prude. But Todd Phillips’ “The Hangover,” an absolutely fantastic R-rated raunch-fest, has just arrived just in time with the promise of redemption.
Raunchy comedies aren’t anything new; it’s just that Apatow (and his too-many imitators) are all about the raunch. You can feel the story gears turn to get to the raunch – to get to the “big” set-piece — you can feel the strain to fashion an iconic moment. Content has little to do with whether or not something’s funny. It’s all in the set up, and with the Apatow crowd you can see the wizard pull the strings. There’s practically a sign that reads, “Cool People Laugh Here.”
No matter how dirty or over-the-top the gag, if it evolves from believable characters and situations true to the world created by the filmmaker, you’re going to laugh. No matter how many times Eugene Levy catches Jason Biggs humping that pie, it’s a thing of comedic beauty because the set-up and the character reactions show full fidelity to what we know and what came before.
For this reason, “The Hangover” is easily the best and funniest comedy to spring from this genre in years. The three main characters are well defined, the story structure is seamless and the belly laughs just keep coming. Most important, unlike an Apatow-type film, you’re laughing too hard and enjoying yourself too much to be taken out of the story with a wince and an “Oh, gross…”
A couple of days before the actual wedding, three groomsmen and the groom head out for a bachelor party Vegas-style. The next morning they wake up with no memory of what transpired the night before. The $4,000 a night suite is trashed, but… Where did the tiger come from? Is that a live chicken? Is that a baby? Where’s my tooth? Why am I wearing a hospital bracelet? And…
Where the hell’s the groom?
The story’s ingeniously structured in a way that allows us to discover what happened right along with the players. One hilarious surprise leads to another as the clock ticks and the hunt for the groom leads to increasingly bizarre situations that tell the sordid and outrageous tale of the night before. All of this leads to an end credit sequence that should put tears in your eyes.
The characters may be boilerplates, but they’re boilerplates for a reason and when crafted well, as these are, the familiar is more comforting than cliché. Bradley Cooper’s the cool one, Ed Helms plays the neurotic and Zack Galifianakis is the offbeat slob. Each has their moments to shine, but channeling John Belushi in ways I didn’t think possible, Galifianakis practically steals the show as a bighearted, not too terribly bright oddball who refuses to cuss but is more than willing to have some twisted fun with a baby. When Helms says to him, “You’re too stupid to insult,” He replies, “Thank you.”
That’s a clever piece of dialogue and the witty script, written by Jon Lucas and Scott Moore, is loaded with memorably funny lines perfectly played by the actors blessed with them. All the performances are good and nothing in the cinematography or score department took me out of the story, which means everyone did their job. There’s also no soundtrack of “familiar” oldies, which is a nice change of pace.
The only real test of a comedy is time. Will people still watch “The Hangover” decades from now – will pieces of the dialogue forever enter the pop culture — will it join the pantheon of “Caddyshack,” “Stripes,” and “Animal House?”
I’d bet money “The Hangover” passes that test. Within its genre, I’m labeling it a classic.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
52 Comments
Cool! I like that genera, but am usually disappointed by the offerings in it.
I was wondering if you liked, Very Bad Things, which is a guilty pleasure of mine. A dark comedy version of this kind of plot line.
Very Bad Things is definitely an unfairly maligned flick. Liked it enough I bought the DVD. Dark Comedy for sure, but one that keeps you guessing and keeps you saying, "They are not going to … they did!" Love movies like that.
"'They are not going to … they did!' Love movies like that. "
Except Apatow movies, apparently.
I just don't agree that they're "all about raunch". There is other stuff going on. You're on to something with the Big Moments, though. That's a problem with movies in general; they're constructed for the widest possible audience, within their genre. There aren't often enough real surprises.
Considering the competition, Apatow's films are not as formulaic as you imply. And certainly not more formulaic than "The Hangover," "The Wedding Crashers," or "Old School" (all directed by this fellow, right?). I find the former to be more naturalistic than the latter, which come off as sit-com-y.
That being said, I liked "The Hangover". Especially Galifianakis.
Will forever disagree with you about Apatow — but you're right on here. The taser bit is weak and feels like they steered the story awkwardly to get there. But mostly everything else is rock solid. And a nice, unexpected series of casting choices.
Ed Helms yanked his tooth for the movie, too (OK, it was a dental implant, but still …)
Apatow movies aren't all about the raunch – not sure how you come to that conclusion. His best directorial effort, Knocked Up, has a few raunchy moments, but its theme of a Peter Pan type finally having to grow up and accept responsibility for his decisions is a good message, and it was the rare movie that most men and women could enjoy together, neither chick-flick nor gross-a-thon. Much of his other work treads similar ground.
I love raunch, and I wish there were more of it out there – the world needs more teenage sex comedies in these depressing times.
"They aren't going to… they did!" works when it's not forced. In Apatow films it's (and usually in very, very, very, very, very long scenes.) "Very Bad Things" is set about 30 degrees off center. Within that world it works.
"Wedding Crashers" crashed in the second half, it was also obnoxiously overlong, the first half was genius, however.
"Old School" also crashed in the second half and was ruined by Will Ferrell, who gets tiring very quickly. All schtick, no wit. All child, no warmth.
"And a nice, unexpected series of casting choices."
I wouldn't have expected Galifianakis, since I'm not sure I've ever seen him act before. But Cooper is playing the same guy he did in "He's Just Not That Into You". Helms is playing the same guy he does in "The Office". Heather Graham became famous for playing a pornstar, so stripper/whore is hardly a stretch. Mike Tyson played himself.
It was apt casting, spot-on casting, type-casting, I'd say. But unexpected? I don't know.
Story-wise, Apatow movies aren't all about raunch, but the story is always FORCED to get to the raunch, usually horribly forced. The hyper-profane dialogue, pointless off-story stuff like the shots of giving birth, the guy with his face in a stripper's butt … Seth Rogan in "Virgin" going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about the horse show in Mexico.
The content has nothing to do with my finding Apatow over-rated and completely forgettable, it's how ham-handed it all is. And his stars like Rogen, Heigl and Ferrell are very cold fishes. No warmth at all.
His scenes and therefore his movies ALWAYS go on at least 35% longer than they should.
The Hangover puts Apatow to shame and proves I'm not getting prudish, he's just not a very good filmmaker.
Apatow stuff is great, but way too long. (Comedies should not be over 2 hours long!) The Hangover is hilarious and does not overstay its welcome. I agree we need more teen sex comedies (no more remakes please!!!!), but I thought you guys were all anti-teen sex. What gives?
And please don't call me a troll. I'm an occasional commenter who is liberal, but trying to keep an open mind.
Thanks, John. Now I don't have to feel guilty about laughing at the trailers. Considering that the trailers had to be no more than a strong G on television, can I assume some of the best raunchy stuff occurs where TV dares not go?
They don't look like teens to me.
I hope you’re right John I can use a laugh.
Sex Drive is a good throwback to the early 80s sex comedies, lots of big character-based laughs and some good writing.
I really don't care about toilet humor; toilet humor grows thin unless you're a teenager or immature adult. This looks like an inverted version of Tom Hank's Bachelor movie…
So, you're giving it the "Dude Where's My Car" seal of approval? Good to hear! The previews did make it look fairly funny.
I'm curious, Mr. Nolte. What did you think of Apatow's tv shows, Undeclared and Freaks and Geeks? Personally, I enjoyed them far more than his movies.
I'm glad to hear someone else echo my thoughts on Apatow. He makes some great moments, but some forgettable films. The setups seem too convenient to the ultimate joke he's going for. I wouldn't go so far as to say I don't like him…his films are enjoyable and certainly better than a lot of the crap that's out there, but people go too far the other way to worship at his alter (it reminds me of the painfully mediocre Family Guy and MacFarland). I think we've just come to appreciate anyone who knows how to make us laugh, and have given up on the idea of a comedy actually being something that will stand up for decades as a generation definer.
The days of Stripes, Caddyshack, Animal House, and Ghostbusters are over.
Woo hoo! So glad this got a thumbs up because I LOVED the trailers! They were hilarious.
You would be thinking of social conservatives, which I'm not – straight-up hedonist here. I'm not for more teenagers having sex, I'm for more teenage sex comedies (I don't think they actually have sex in those films, though they certainly seem to be in those Larry Clark movies, but those aren't really comedies). I think there are fewer things that bring conservatives and liberals together more peaceably than the anticipation of girls locker room shower scene or something akin to a teenager coitusing with a pie.
Add a clash between jocks and nerds, and you have yourself a franchise. And agreed, rowdy comedies should never go more than 100 or so minutes – if they're lot laughing by that point, they're not gonna laugh.
I'm beginning to think you don't like Apatow mainly because his movies are long. Which is a legitimate criticism. I happen to love long movies. David Lean is my favorite director. I could watch "The Deer Hunter" a thousand times.
Didn't hate "Very Bad Things". It did have its moments, but I found it overall far too depressing, especially the end. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I recall something about Daniel Stern dying genuinely surprising me. So it had that going for it.
I agree about "Wedding Crashers". Refreshingly brisk up until they got to the island retreat. Thereafter, it went broad, broad, broad. When they got back to civilization, it didn't just drag, it stuck. Then Will Ferell showed up, and the light in my head blinked out.
My favorite part of "Old School" was the wedding reception band, which delightfully showed up in "The Hangover".
If I get nothing else out of Big Hollywood, it was worth spending time here to discover Sex Drive (as a highly rated review). Along with Forgetting Sarah Marshall, my favorite comedy of the last few years. It's a ridiculous spoof, but a brilliant one, with unexpected laughs that show serious chops among the writers, actors, and director.
Maybe this is a generational thing (sorry John not calling you an old man). Most of my friends and I are in our early 30s, all professional, most married, yet when we get together – assuming no children around – it is X-rated vulgar most of the time, and I doubt we're out of the norm.
Regardless of the Apatow, I can't wait to see The Hangover and glad it got your seal of approval.
This is by far the most overrated film of the summer. It's not that funny. It's not that wild and crazy. And I miss the days when comedies had to be real movies made with actual skill and vision to be considered particularly good. It's like a wannabe 90s indie at halfass speed.
Oh my gosh. They go to Vegas and someone drunkenly marries a stripper. OMG!!!!! Where did they ever get that idea?
What? Someone leaves a baby behind?! Really!!!!!! That's a crazy plot idea!!!! And three men have to take care of it? Even though they don't know how? Where do they get this stuff????????????????
"but the story is always FORCED to get to the raunch, usually horribly forced. The hyper-profane dialogue…Seth Rogan in 'Virgin' going on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about the horse show in Mexico."
I don't know how much time you spend around young male adults, but I find 'those movies fairly realistic.
Some of the stuff, especially male frontal nudity and the crowning shot, are not necessary. However, I wonder how you reacted to the gratuitous male nudity in "The Hangover". Or Heather Graham's breast, for that matter. Can't think of a compelling story reason for her to show her boob. Unless it was to prove Alan was a pervert, which I already suspected.
I really admire the stones on the administrator who disabled the comments on Konig's inane gay marriage column.
Just kidding, of course.
I don’t think it’s a question of length per se. And I certainly don’t see any reason for favoring “long” versus “short” films—or vice versa—in the abstract. The relevant issue is this: what has the filmmaker actually done with the running time he’s been allotted? James Cameron’s extended version of “Aliens” runs 154 minutes—over 2 and a half hours—and there isn’t a moment wasted, no point at which you’ll ever even think to check your watch. On the other hand, I have had the rather unpleasant experience of having to sit through the extended version of Judd Apatow’s “Knocked Up” on DVD, and over the course of its run time I could not help but think to myself, over and over again: “When, o when, Dear Lord, is this film ever going to END?”
I’ve not seen the theatrical release version of “Knocked Up,” but I have to believe it’s better than the extended cut I sat through. In any case, I’ve definitely seen enough “extended versions” and “director’s cuts” of various films on DVD over the years to know that the longer version is not necessarily better.
Thanks for the unannounced *Very Bad Things* spoiler, jackass.
Best fun I've watched in years. Completely agree with everything the reviewer said. A believably hilarious picture of grown men (well 3 out of 4) in an insane situation. The Asian shtick went a little too far for me but it's a minor flaw to me.
"Comedies should not be over 2 hours long!"
Few movies should be over two hours long. For every movie that needs to be that length, there are at least ten that could have easily come in well under 120 minutes without losing anything even slightly important, and been better for it. And that's before the 'Special Edition' DVD adds another 40 minutes…
Why was it disabled? Might be nice if a reason was given. I'm guessing the majority of people disagreed with the author.
Well, I guess they just didn't want anyone roasting Konig with the stupidity of his own 'logic'. I swear, if he'd screamed any louder for gay marriage so Hollywood wouldn't treat him like Carrie Prejean, I would have gone deaf.
And then?
Debbie Downer Schlussel REALLY hates The Hangover, so I'll be sure to catch it tonight, knowing I'll have a good time at it!
Good to see the horrid "Land of the Lost" being left in the box office dust by both "The Hangover" and "Up" this weekend. Even though I loved "Elf", I will be glad to see Ferrell's reign of movie terror come to an end.
An idiotic movie written by children that wears on your good faith (kind of sacrilege for a comedy, no?). I was surprised I lasted an hour. The characters were stupid and unlikeable and, predictably I suppose, the story spends the most time on the least likeable and most stupid. I wondered if I should stick around to figure out the mystery but after the trio's choice to steal a police car (an act which made no motivational sense) I decided I wouldn't be further insulted. But people around me were yukking it up, so who knows.
I never knew there was a 'raunchy' genre. In any event, this film did have its laughs. But, it was too much raunch.
Overall, I'm not in the 'can't wait to tell my friends to see it' kind of mood. Perhaps I'm a bit of a prude.
This is definitely the very raunchy version of 'Bachelor Party.'
*****SPOILER ALERT******
The movie did not need every one of the f-bombs and the bit with the baby (not too mention some of the pictures in the camera).
This review doesn't give up any spoilers. But, yes, watch the movie. Enjoy the ride. I bet many folks can recall similar episodes from the characters' hijinks from our own adventures in a misspent youth.
We went and saw it and weren't disappointed.
This movie offered what it advertised. It's raunchy frat boy humor but well written and acted raunchy frat boy humor. It's not for the Love Actually crowd. I was shock and horrified by the number of trashy-ass young parents who actually had their children in tow at this movie. Children as young as 5 and 6 years old were watching this film which in my opinion was totally unacceptable. Up was playing in the same theater. Maybe the knuckle-dragging, good for nothing parents should have been there instead. Just a thought.
"Thanks for the unannounced *Very Bad Things* spoiler, jackass"
Come on, that movie is 11 years old.
Here's another "spoiler" for you, Rosebud is a sled.
"And I certainly don’t see any reason for favoring “long” versus “short” films—or vice versa—in the abstract."
I don't either. But that was sorta my point. Nolte seems to hate longness as such, which I find odd, given how many seemingly interminable films I love.
The two funniest lines in "The Hangover" – both by Galifianakis, who is going to be huge – are about 9/11 and the Holocaust. It's a very special movie that can pull off something like that.
Say what you will about Ferrell, but I'd MUCH rather see the reign of bad movies from bad TV shows circa 35+years ago that no one really cares about (LOTL, Speed Racer, et al) put to an end!
I loved the movie as well, the only thing that does suck is that i do believe that Galifinakis will be huge. He's been around for a while but hasn't hit it big, just afraid hes gonna be cast in every shitty movie trying to capitalize on his role in this one. Hopefully they don't ruin it by making a sequel like almost every other smash hit comedy. But on one last note I think that some of the humor goes over some people's heads so maybe it won't turn into a sequel and the whole thing I mentioned about Galifinakis doesn't come to fruition
40-YO Virgin > Caddyshack (because of Choady Chase and too much Kenny Loggins tunes)
40YO Virgin was helped immensely by the likable charm of Steve Carell and Catherine Kenner (who's usually cast as a cold-hearted type, but is a welcome change-of-pace in this instance)
Will Ferrell has never been directed by Judd Apatow (thankfully), though Apatow co-wrote the script to Step Brothers (which I haven't seen)
Yes, you are a prude (and I should know); probably a minger as well…
*Citizen Kane* is a part of popular culture. Almost everybody knows what Rosebud is, even people who have never seen and never will see that movie. *Very Bad Things*, on the other hand, is a just a movie. There is no more expectation that I should know about the death of Daniel Stern's character than there would be that I would know any other plot point in any other movie. I recently bought *Very Bad Things*, but I haven't got around to watching it yet. By unnecessarily giving away what you, yourself called a genuine surprise, you have ruined that aspect of the movie for me. And by being smug in your reply, you have proven yourself to be a complete dick.
I'm glad Debbie Schlussel reviewed this film.
You must be logged in to post a comment.