The Hangover

senordingdong

Deleted User wrote: »

he believes that the best comedy of 2008 was The Love Guru

You mean somebody actually went to see that?

Jesus.

MooseJam

Fysh wrote: »

Out of curiosity - what made you go to see this film? If it was the trailer, what aspect of the trailer led you to expect something other than the film itself? If it was something else, what did it lead you to expect that wasn't in the film itself?

(I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious about this - there seem to be a good few people who expected this to be a different film, and I'm curious as to where that expectation has arisen given my earlier comments on the trailer)

SPOILERS FOLLOW !!!!!!!!!



I was taken to see the film, was told it got 4 stars so there was me expecting it would be you know funny.

Instead I got a story comprising of ever more ridiculous happenings - as if thats funny. Wake up and theres a chicken walking about the room and a tiger in the bathroom and a baby in the closet, thats not funny its fuppin stupid. If thats funny why not an elephant or a jumbo jet - that would be hilarious yea.

Once I saw the tiger I knew thats all this is going to be - 'far out situations' lol hoho I never saw the cop car coming - never expected that after a tiger in the bathroom.

The story itself was BS - roofie's are a sedative they knock you out - you don't go running around town getting married and what not - you get knocked out - and raped yea thats why it's the rape drug not the have a crazy crazy time but forget about it drug.

There were no jokes in this film - bar the father saying what happens in vegas stays in vegas - bar herpes - that was the only 'joke' in the film at least thats all I can remember.

And yer man marrying the hooker - cliche anyone, the Simpsons even did that - not funny.

Protip - if you are going to count cards in a casino don't mouth it out you'll get thrown out.

This film in three words - shoe on head, if you think thats hilarious you will love this garbage.

Fysh

Ah, ok. Sounds like a case of divergent senses of humour. I can see how frustrating it'd be if you don't like that particular style of comedy. I felt similarly when I was advised by a few friends to go and see Borat at the cinema.

Vokes

Super film. 9/10. Highly recemmend it.

The Bruce Lee-esq toodle-loo bit was genius

Driver 8

Thought it was a fun, undemanding comedy, nothing more or less.

ASIL1983

I thought it was one of the best films i have ever seen-i never ever want to meet the people who thought it was unfunny

Shryke

It wasn't brilliant but it was good. There were some genuinely hilarious bits in there. Probably my favorite,

shagging the tiger

Some people are complaining about it being random but that's the point. Not knowing what the hell they were up to and all of this crazy stuff happening around them while they're oblivious. And hungover. Over all I liked it but it's not as good as say Old School.

kraggy

MooseJam wrote: »

SPOILERS FOLLOW !!!!!!!!!



I was taken to see the film, was told it got 4 stars so there was me expecting it would be you know funny.

Instead I got a story comprising of ever more ridiculous happenings - as if thats funny. Wake up and theres a chicken walking about the room and a tiger in the bathroom and a baby in the closet, thats not funny its fuppin stupid. If thats funny why not an elephant or a jumbo jet - that would be hilarious yea.

Once I saw the tiger I knew thats all this is going to be - 'far out situations' lol hoho I never saw the cop car coming - never expected that after a tiger in the bathroom.

The story itself was BS - roofie's are a sedative they knock you out - you don't go running around town getting married and what not - you get knocked out - and raped yea thats why it's the rape drug not the have a crazy crazy time but forget about it drug.

There were no jokes in this film - bar the father saying what happens in vegas stays in vegas - bar herpes - that was the only 'joke' in the film at least thats all I can remember.

And yer man marrying the hooker - cliche anyone, the Simpsons even did that - not funny.

Protip - if you are going to count cards in a casino don't mouth it out you'll get thrown out.

This film in three words - shoe on head, if you think thats hilarious you will love this garbage.

Out of interest, what films do you find funny?

Do you find Superbad, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Pineapple Express, Step Brothers funny?

I'm EXTREMELY fussy when it comes to comedy. In fact, I find very few films genuinely, consistently funny.

But I enjoyed The Hangover, and found it more funny than any of the films I've listed above.

Dodge

Seriously, whats this crap about complaining about a serious of unlikely events?

Its a comedy. Some of the greatest reviewed and most lauded comedies of all time are about incidents that simply wouldn't happen? Do the same people look at "Some Like it Hot" and think "he doesn't even look like a woman" or wonder how Frank Drebin got a job in "naked Gun"?

The Hangover never tries to be anything other than a series of set piece gags, but there's nothing wrong with that in certain circumstances. Did anyone really expect a comedy from the guy who made Old School to be a thought provoking dramedy?

Jesus, stop over analysing films. If you don't find it funny, fair enough but don't be discounting films for being unrealistic

welcomeinjam

MooseJam wrote: »

there were no jokes in this film - it was just a series of ever stupider occurances

HAHAHA What a funny statement to make *extremely sarcastic*

MooseJam

Dodge wrote: »

Seriously, whats this crap about complaining about a serious of unlikely events?

Its a comedy. Some of the greatest reviewed and most lauded comedies of all time are about incidents that simply wouldn't happen?

Yes but some comedies are meant to be it's funny because it could happen to you - and this was one of them.

kraggy

MooseJam wrote: »

Yes but some comedies are meant to be it's funny because it could happen to you - and this was one of them.

No it wasn't! It's supposed to be ridiculous. That's what makes it funny.

I understand your point Moose. I'm the same when it comes to other types of movies - hate unrealistic crap.

But this never intended to be a "it could happen you" flick. If it was, they'd not have put a tiger in the bathroom.

tok9

well i saw it last night and thought it was brilliant...
So many random events.... the baby one was hilarious!:D

Solid 9/10

MikeHoncho

Ah comedy the most subjective of all genres. I thought it was a brilliant funny funny film. The funniest Ive seen in a long time. My girlfriend was in histerics and she doesnt usually like any comedies at all. Thought the 3 guys were excellent in their roles but Mr Chow stole the show in his brief few appearances.

To-da-loo, mother****a!

Edit. To the guy who said there was no jokes Spolier:

Black Doug: I always wondered why they were called roofies. Cause you're more likely to end up on the floor than the roof. They should call em floories.
Alan: Or rapies.

No jokes eh? There are dozens more if you want them.

youcrazyjesus!

Fysh wrote: »

What hype?

Eh the hype on the thread.

youcrazyjesus!

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Eh the hype on the thread.

What internet hype? You mean the positive reviews and comments. The Hangover arrived with little in the way of marketing and absolutly no hype.

youcrazyjesus!

Dodge wrote: »

The Hangover never tries to be anything other than a series of set piece gags, but there's nothing wrong with that in certain circumstances. Did anyone really expect a comedy from the guy who made Old School to be a thought provoking dramedy?

Jesus, stop over analysing films. If you don't find it funny, fair enough but don't be discounting films for being unrealistic

But it just wasn't funny and this is a film forum.

There's characters have to be interesting or humorous themselves and they then can be funny in a context. Like Dumb&Dumber, when the Lloyd is brilliant and stupid selling the decapitated bird to the blind kid. This was just

"ooh, let's stick a Tiger in the bathroom, that's crazee and out there". The lads sure did have a crazy night out didn't they, ha, crazy nights out are funny! Here's a duck and a mattress on the roof of the Bellagio.

Just sticking in things for the sake of it is lazy and doesn't make for good comedy. This is was a piss poor film. Where were the jokes?

Were any of the characters interesting? Stu's marrying the stripper? Come on dude, I said he'd marry a stripper later on the first scene with his girlfriend. The crazy gay Chinese guy, God. How did they find the drug dealer? I don't really care. Lazy. Doug just being up on the roof the whole time? He has to be the least interesting character ever to be written into a film.

I thought this film took a few ideas from Very Bad Things btw. Phil was just a watered down copy of Boyd (Christian Slater), for sure, even down to the crooked look on his face. Stu's wife was Cameron Diaz.

youcrazyjesus!

Deleted User wrote: »

What internet hype? You mean the positive reviews and comments. The Hangover arrived with little in the way of marketing and absolutly no hype.

It arrived with Heather Graham's nipples.

I saw this thread before I saw the film and was looking forward to it. There was some internet hype too. I was extremely disappointed.

Fysh

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Eh the hype on the thread.

That's a pretty stupid statement right there. At this point the thread is all of 5 pages long, and even then there are several people saying they haven't enjoyed it. Those of us who have enjoyed it have given several examples of other films we thought had similar humorous sensibilities. Unless someone who's posted about enjoying the film held you at gunpoint and made you watch it, I don't see what your issue is.

Not enjoying it is fair enough, but bitching because apparently those of us who enjoyed it somehow misled you is just stupid. Do you expect every comment about a film to be couched in terms of your specific tastes in film?You'd think this was the first time you'd been disappointed in a film that other people enjoyed or something.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

But it just wasn't funny and this is a film forum.

I'm not going to argue with you on whether it was funny or not, because humour is one of those subjective things and we're just not going to agree. I thought it was funny, you didnt. So far so good.

The problem is that you're talking about all the things you like in a comedy as though they were set-in-stone absolutes, rather than personal preferences. That doesn't make for a conversation, it makes for an argument. And a boring one at that.

youcrazyjesus!

Fysh wrote: »

That's a pretty stupid statement right there.

Explain how it is "stupid" please?

At this point the thread is all of 5 pages long, and even then there are several people saying they haven't enjoyed it. Those of us who have enjoyed it have given several examples of other films we thought had similar humorous sensibilities.

And the point is?

Unless someone who's posted about enjoying the film held you at gunpoint and made you watch it, I don't see what your issue is.

Have I gone mad or is this a film discussion forum?

Not enjoying it is fair enough but bitching because apparently those of us who enjoyed it somehow misled you is just stupid.

Ah quit the whinging. I wasn't complaining about being "misled". I'm saying this is one steaming ****pile of a film. Which I'm entitled to do.

Do you expect every comment about a film to be couched in terms of your specific tastes in film?You'd think this was the first time you'd been disappointed in a film that other people enjoyed or something.

What the **** are you on about? Seriously. Quit the bitching.

youcrazyjesus!

basquille wrote: »

This looks like great fun!

speedboatchase wrote: »

81% on Rotten Tomatoes, reckon could be the sleeper hit of the summer

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I'm not a big fan of Phillips' other movies, but I think a standard hangover film is ripe with comedic possibility.

TheWealth wrote: »

At least it'll be a good comedy in a while as Will Farrel won't be pissing all over it with his crap antics and terrible humour

speedboatchase wrote: »

Interesting you should mention, this pissed all over the opening weekend of Ferrell's new film Land of the Lost.

JP Liz wrote: »

I will def see for Bradley Cooper

Zach Galifianakis is such an underrated comic talent

Tyson's cameo in the trailer is hilarious

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Really looking forward to this, the main reason being Andrew Bernard from the Office and the trailors look good too

Vinny-Chase wrote: »

Is it out yet? Been hearing good things about this for ages, from very unlikey people.
Is that Zach Galafanakis the comedian? Is that his name? I seen him years ago in Kilkenny. Hilarious and a really sound guy, if is that guy like

GlindaGale wrote: »

I've seen it, it's brilliant, the funniest film I've seen in a long, long time!

gucci wrote: »

The trailer i seen before Terminator Salvation had me sold, i am going to watch this

JP Liz wrote: »

Its No. 1 in the US

Corb wrote: »

Looks great, been waiting a long time for an actual FUNNY movie! Lots of promises of the "funniest film ever"

Wacker wrote: »

My being the socialite that I am, I was at the premiere last night. This film is excellent! Soooo much better than my meager expectations. I would very much recommend it to anyone.

Deleted User wrote: »

Can't wait for this, i'm a big fan of Bradley Cooper. His comic timing is fantastic, evident in his great show Kitchen Confidential which went the way of most great shows.

senordingdong wrote: »

Just saw it tonight.

It's hilarious.
Alot of laugh out loud moments.

The first 20 comments are from a producer's wet dream.

That's what I was talking about when I said "hype".

Fysh

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Explain how it is "stupid" please?

You talk about "hype" in this thread, when the thread is only 5 pages long thus far (including at least a dozen, probably more, posts where people point out that they didn't find it funny themselves). Compare that to the threads about Star Trek, T4, or Watchmen. That's hype. This is just people commenting on a film they enjoyed. If you can't tell the difference, it's your problem, not ours.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Have I gone mad or is this a film discussion forum?

Your complaint appears to be that because your sense of humour differs from that of those of us who enjoyed this film, we're somehow wrong. Dissect the aspects of the film that you didn't like by all means, but what you've done is complain that the film had a specific form of comedy that you don't enjoy, as though humour were a black and white attribute rather than a subjective matter dependent on personal tastes.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Ah quit the whinging. I wasn't complaining about being "misled". I'm saying this is one steaming ****pile of a film. Which I'm entitled to do.

You're entitled to your opinion. I'm just pointing out that the reasons you've given for it don't hold up particularly well to scrutiny.

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

What the **** are you on about? Seriously.

What I'm on about is your inability to distinguish between you not enjoying a comedy, and the comedy inherently not being funny. I don't see what's so hard about accepting that other people found something funny when you didn't. Why not just chalk it up to experience and bear it in mind next time you see positive comments about a film from anyone posting in this thread?

Dodge

People saying they liked it isn't hype.

And 5/6 people on a cinema forum saying they're looking forward to it isn't exactly Transformers 2 hype, is it?

youcrazyjesus!

Fysh wrote: »

You talk about "hype" in this thread, when the thread is only 5 pages long thus far (including at least a dozen, probably more, posts where people point out that they didn't find it funny themselves).

I'm only guilty of not thinking about the inevitable bitchy comments from pedants. I should have said, "hype in this thread", rather than "hype". For this I am truly sorry. Please accept my apologies.

Compare that to the threads about Star Trek, T4, or Watchmen. That's hype. This is just people commenting on a film they enjoyed. If you can't tell the difference, it's your problem, not ours.


Your complaint appears to be that because your sense of humour differs from that of those of us who enjoyed this film, we're somehow wrong. Dissect the aspects of the film that you didn't like by all means, but what you've done is complain that the film had a specific form of comedy that you don't enjoy, as though humour were a black and white attribute rather than a subjective matter dependent on personal tastes.


You're entitled to your opinion. I'm just pointing out that the reasons you've given for it don't hold up particularly well to scrutiny.


What I'm on about is your inability to distinguish between you not enjoying a comedy, and the comedy inherently not being funny. I don't see what's so hard about accepting that other people found something funny when you didn't. Why not just chalk it up to experience and bear it in mind next time you see positive comments about a film from anyone posting in this thread?

Yawn. :rolleyes:

Dude go for a long walk or something. You need to relax. Seriously.

youcrazyjesus!

Dodge wrote: »

People saying they liked it isn't hype.

And 5/6 people on a cinema forum saying they're looking forward to it isn't exactly Transformers 2 hype, is it?

People saying "it's the best thing eva" is very definitely hype but besides that I'm not interested in getting into a debate on the definition of hype or the numbers involved in this thread or comparing threads in different films to come to some form of conclusion on the subject. Some people will take it personally.

In short, my Bill Hicks 3-word review for this film: piece of ****.

spear thrower

Alan and Brendan Grance have an uncanny resemblance!!! Seperated at birth.. ha ha..






Super film says the Spear Thrower..

youcrazyjesus!

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

The first 20 comments are from a producer's wet dream.

That's what I was talking about when I said "hype".

That's not hype. That's a bunch of internet people voicing an opinion. Hype is what surrounded Cloverfield and The Dark Knight last year. The Hangover arrived in cinemas with little in the way of marketing, it's the very definition of a sleeper hit. How many ads did you see for the Hangover on tv? A handful at best. I go to three films a week on average and in the past 6 months has not seen a single trailer for the film before any screeening. Now take a film such as the upcoming Transformers for which I have seen the traielr before every film released in the past two months.

ionapaul

I saw The Hangover last night and really, really liked it. The screen was full and almost everyone was falling about laughing - other than one couple who sat nearby and left within the first 15 minutes. I honestly can't understand why. I enjoyed the craziness of the situations portrayed and the dynamic of the quartet (even though the groom-to-be wasn't there for much of the film). 4/5 from me.

Driver 8

In short, my Bill Hicks 3-word review for this film: piece of ****.

Now that's funny AND original, nobody ever quotes Bill Hicks

youcrazyjesus!

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not hype. That's a bunch of internet people voicing an opinion. Hype is what surrounded Cloverfield and The Dark Knight last year. The Hangover arrived in cinemas with little in the way of marketing, it's the very definition of a sleeper hit. How many ads did you see for the Hangover on tv? A handful at best. I go to three films a week on average and in the past 6 months has not seen a single trailer for the film before any screeening. Now take a film such as the upcoming Transformers for which I have seen the traielr before every film released in the past two months.

To be honest I have seen quite a few in the last 2 weeks. It's also on the side of buses now too isn't it? It sounds like it's being marketed as a "sleeper hit".

Seems to have plenty of marketing money behind it. In fact, it exceeds the production budget.


http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2009/HNGOV.php

youcrazyjesus!

Driver 8 wrote: »

Now that's funny AND original, nobody ever quotes Bill Hicks

With a cool dry wit like that....as is your hilarious follow up.

hobochris

I saw this last night, It was good; funny etc.. but not memorable.

robby^5

Saw it last night, thought it was pretty good. Must say imo people have exaggerated how good it is though, it's a lot like Old School which is a good thing but Old School was better.

evad_lhorg

I laughed quite a lot during this and thoroughly enjoyed it but its not the funniest film ever as I was told by loads. I laughed a lot more at zack and miri but this was still excellent. I recommend it.

PCros

robby^5 wrote: »

Saw it last night, thought it was pretty good. Must say imo people have exaggerated how good it is though, it's a lot like Old School which is a good thing but Old School was better.

How is it like Old School?

Same director thats about it.

Dodge

PCros wrote: »

How is it like Old School?

Same director thats about it.

About 3 guys. One of whom is suave and hates his family life (but ultimately doesn't), one is succesful at work but his wife is a bitch, and the other is a bit of a weirdo/loser. All of them longing for male bonding...

Add in a touch of juvenile humour and there you go...

rovert

hobochris wrote: »

I saw this last night, It was good; funny etc.. but not memorable.

+1

Anyone who called this the most funniest film of 2009 and not In The Loop needs their head checked.

Currahee01

Saw this at the weekend with the OH and we are still laughing at some of the scenes. On a par with Superbad and Zach Galifianakis is this years cult hero

GlindaGale

They're making a sequel.

Wonder how that'll work.

robby^5

PCros wrote: »

How is it like Old School?

Same director thats about it.

Well you have characters in both films with very similar backgrounds and situations, both films involve the characters reclaiming their youth/freedom, both films involve the characters getting plastered and in general the humour is very similar. Oh and an obvious one is the return of the wedding singer from the start of Old School

But I still liked it, it wasnt anything spectacular or original, but it was still good.

youcrazyjesus!

Another snippet for those saying it has no marketing behind it, or is a "sleeper hit":

"The fates of "Land of the Lost" and "The Hangover" contrast directly with their budgets. Universal's effects-heavy film cost about $100 million to produce, while "The Hangover," which has no big stars, cost only $35 million.

Warner's comedy benefited from a hefty marketing campaign for a film of its size, around $40 million. Universal didn't spend much more to sell "Land of the Lost" despite the higher stakes for its movie."

Pound for pound is has a monster of a marketing budget.

youcrazyjesus!

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Another snippet for those saying it has no marketing behind it, or is a "sleeper hit":

"The fates of "Land of the Lost" and "The Hangover" contrast directly with their budgets. Universal's effects-heavy film cost about $100 million to produce, while "The Hangover," which has no big stars, cost only $35 million.

Warner's comedy benefited from a hefty marketing campaign for a film of its size, around $40 million. Universal didn't spend much more to sell "Land of the Lost" despite the higher stakes for its movie."

Pound for pound is has a monster of a marketing budget.

Very little of that marketing budget would be spent in Ireland. A big marketing budget does not mean a film is hyped up it merely means that the studio believes that the film will be a success.

MooseJam

well It's on the side of buses here - hardly a sleeper

senordingdong

Yeah but all the advertisment of the film appeared about a week before the movie was released.

It's not like they were advertising it months in advance.

Dodge

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

Pound for pound is has a monster of a marketing budget.

As opposed to what other way of measuring the marketing budget?

Can you get us the figures for T4 and Transformers 2?

Venom

Saw it tonight and enjoyed it for what it is, a funny road movie that didnt follow the usual run of the mill formula.

Also youcrazyjesus what the hell is your malfuction? Whats so hard about accepting some people like things you dont?

youcrazyjesus!

Venom wrote: »

Saw it tonight and enjoyed it for what it is, a funny road movie that didnt follow the usual run of the mill formula.

Also youcrazyjesus what the hell is your malfuction? Whats so hard about accepting some people like things you dont?

I could say the same thing in return though. It's just the internets. Relax.

Fysh

youcrazyjesus! wrote: »

I could say the same thing in return though. It's just the internets. Relax.

You've posted 13 times in this thread, mostly to insist that it's not funny because you didn't find it funny and/or to try and back up your claim that there was a lot of unjustified hype for this film (although whether it's just in this thread or everywhere seems to depend on which post of yours I read).

It's clear that you didn't enjoy it; what else are you hoping to get from further discussion of this film? (I'm honestly curious about this, not trying to be snarky or anything).

Killme00

I generally dont like these types of films. This one was stupid and dumb and i loved every minute of it. It was also great to see the Dan Band on screen again.

NTLsucks

Funniest film in a good while. You'd have to be one sad pr*ck not to find this funny.