Bridesmaids vs. The Hangover II

All week long we debated about which movie we were going to see on Sunday night: BRIDESMAIDS or THE HANGOVER II. For my part, I wanted to see HANGOVER. The last one was legendary and I was willing to bet my money on Bradley Cooper and the boys. Despite the rave reviews, I just could not figure how BRIDESMAIDS had any chance of being funny. But, my god, everyone just carried on and on about how great it was, and how bad HANGOVER was. We were finally swayed, and off we went for a Sunday night showing of this all-women comedy.

Going into this movie I tried to think of another all-female cast that delivered a genuinely funny flick. I could not think of one, but the critics acted as if we had a modern-day DUMB & DUMBER on our hands, so I was ready to laugh.

The first scene of BRIDESMAIDS is a silly bedroom scene with Kristen Wiig’s character. There was absolutely nothing humorous about it, but people in the theatre were screaming with laughter. Huuuhhhhh? But we weren't, and I was with a woman, obviously. This same trend continued for the next hour. Without giving anything away, I will say that every punch line was dragged out to the bitter end, every conflict was ridiculous, unrealistic, and unfunny, including the 20-minute scene with the dueling engagement party speeches. Despite the thunderous laughs that filled the theatre (again, huh?), I did not crack a smile the whole time. I truly have no idea what people are talking about, BRIDESMAIDS was awful. There were characters in the movie (Wiig’s female roommate for one) that, for some reason, sported silly accents, and at one point this roommate poured frozen peas across a tattoo on her back. Huh? Was that supposed to be funny? I just did not get this movie, and I know YOU probably thought it was funny, everybody says it was SO FUNNY!But it was a cliche, borefest all the way.

I hated BRIDESMAIDS. An hour into the movie, while the women cast members were spewing vomit all over each other while trying on dresses, projectile vomiting in all directions, we did something we have never done before: We walked out of the movie. We walked out of BRIDESMAIDS one hour in, and I was with a woman! We literally could not stand another second of it. And we've sat through THE LOVELY BONES and THE SWITCH from start to finish. All these reviews about the brilliance of BRIDESMAIDS, I don’t get it, chick-flick or not. Maybe women issues just aren’t funny to me. I tried to be open minded. And maybe it became TOMMY BOY in hour 2 and we missed it, but I doubt it. We BOTH hated it! It was awful.

You're probably saying, 'Brian, you're crazy and you're a guy.' To that I say, 'I ain't crazy and I ain't a guy.'

The fundamental problem to me is that when movies try to make female characters outrageous for comedy, it comes off crazy and kind of sociopathic. Don't believe me? See Bullock's character in ALL ABOUT STEVE. This whole thing Wiig does where she mumbles sarcastic and fast under her breath isn't funny for 2 straight hours. BRIDESMAIDS has one character (Melissa McCarthy) to answer the HANGOVER's outrageous, Galifianakis character, Alan. She's the whacky sister who relieves herself in a sink in one scene. But she's not funny or likeable at all. She's insane, disgusting. As moviegoers We LIKE Alan(Galifianakis)in the HANGOVER. He's actually funny! I would laugh at Alan in real life. The bridesmaids would terrify me in real life. All I've been hearing from people is that BRIDESMAIDS is so funny they were practically 'peeing' themselves in the theatre. I believed them. Shame on me.

As we walked out of BRIDESMAIDS, HANGOVER II was starting in the next theatre, so in we went. What can I say? THE HANGOVER was funny. I liked the look of the movie and the feel of it, we both did. Bangkok, very interesting and eerie-looking city. The boys delivered once again, and I won’t give anything away, but yes, the story arc was very much like the original, which was OK with us, because the original is the greatest comedy of its generation. I thought Todd Phillips (the movie’s director) still found ways to surprise, and we genuinely laughed out loud several times, albeit between some pretty formulaic moves (see Tyson cameo for that).

The biggest knock on HANGOVER II has been that it’s a retread of the first, in so many ways. Um, yeah, that’s usually what a sequel is. Rocky was still a boxer in ROCKY II, and he still wins the big fight. Did we dislike GODFATHER II because the characters are STILL In the mob? The HANGOVER has a 300-million-dollar formula and they followed it, and it was funny. But, Brian, it’s not as good as the original. No Duh. The original HANGOVER is the best comedy since DUMB & DUMBER. By the way, making a sequel to a great comedy isn’t simple. See MEET THE FOCKERS for that. HANGOVER II was a MILLION times better than FOCKERS.

Maybe I'm alone on this, but BRIDESMAIDS was unwatchable and the HANGOVER II was pretty good, well worth $20.00 in tickets. Truthfully, I might be unable to enjoy all-female casts, I get that. In fact I can’t think of a single funny movie with this formula, but please believe me, I did go in with an open mind, and I did pay money to see it, and I was severely disappointed, we both were. If you read what everyone else says, it seems we are way off, as reviews about this movie continue to crown it a comedic masterpiece. I simply didn’t get it. HANGOVER was far more clever, quicker, sharper, edgier. It was just better, all while being a retread, with a story we’ve seen already. What can I say? It wasn’t even close.

A reasonable review of BRIDESMAIDS: http://popcornjury.com/2011/05/new-movie-review-bridesmaids/

A reasonable review of HANGOVER II: http://www.flix66.com/2011/05/30/movie-review-hangover-part-ii-the-2/

Somebody swing by the Cat's Pajamas on Facebook and write me a 'reasonable' review.

Brian Huba
5/30/11