The Hangover III gets a promising, if potentially misleading trailer.

It's tempting to be somewhat intrigued by the darker tone of this initial teaser for The Hangover part III.  But let us recall that the first act or so of The Hangover part II teased a proverbial Heart of Darkness journey only to cop out during its second half into a tiresome retread of the first film.  Still, if this is really the series finale, then Todd Phillips arguably has complete creative freedom to make whatever movie he wants, including the kind of movie that I'd argue he wanted to make last time around.  Still, this does look a little better than the last film and John Gooddman's inclusion is promising (I'd argue Paul Giamatti was the best thing about the last time around).  Three final thoughts.  First of all, the final gag is a genuine winner.  Seocnd of all, what exactly is the logic of Warner Bros. not waiting a week and attaching this to their The Incredible Burt Wonderstone?  Did they rush it out so they could attach it to prints of Oz: The Great and Poweful? Finally, I can only hope (foolishly I know) that Warner Bros. chooses not to cut any more trailers for this picture, as I can't imagine anyone not knowing whether or not they want to see the movie at this point regardless.  Let's hope they keep whatever surprises the film has in store out of the marketing for as long as they can.  The Hangover part III opens Memorial Day weekend.  As always, we'll see.

Scott Mendelson

PS - I love the poster they dropped yesterday.  I hope whomever drew that Enemy Mine poster back in 1985 gets royalties.

Weekend Box Office (03/04/12): The Lorax opens to $70 million, setting an animation record, while Project X opens to $20 million.

The full weekend chart HERE.  See this is what happens when you have just two major cartoon during the Winter/Spring season instead of six.  Last year, February, March, and April saw an onslaught on high-profile animated features, five of which opened just in March and April.  Gnomeo and Juliet ($25 million opening/$99 million domestic total), Rango ($38 million/$123 million) Hop ($37 million/$103 million), and Rio ($39 million/$143 million) all did well, but were burdened by directly competing with each other.  Mars Needs Moms ($6.9 million/$21 million) was one of the biggest box office bombs in modern history while the never-had-a-chance Hoodwinked: Hood vs. Evil ($4 million/$10 million) was DOA.  This time around, it's The Lorax or nothing (that second cartoon I mentioned doesn't open until April 27th), which coupled with the absolute lack of truly new kid-friendly product and the relative disinterest in domestic audiences in Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked (which was still leggy enough to gross $130 million domestic) and The Adventures of Tintin (which is no flop with $372 million worldwide), left a very large gap in the marketplace.  No you can see how its $70 million opening is not *that* surprising.

Review: The Hangover part II (2011) teases darkness before reverting to formula.

The Hangover part II
2011
102 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

The biggest problem with The Hangover part II is not that it is a general retread of the first film.  After all, while we might have been spoiled by a decade full of part 2s that were not so much a sequel as a second chapter to a large continuing story, prior to 2001 (IE - Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings), it was not uncommon for a sequel to merely be a glorified remake of the first picture.  Sometimes it worked (Terminator 2: Judgment Day), sometimes it did not (Home Alone 2: Lost in New York).  The problem with The Hangover part II is that it's an EXPLICIT retread of the first film, hitting most of the same comic bits and character interactions but with neither the inventiveness of the first film nor the guts to go further with the premise.

The Hangover II gets a shockingly unfunny trailer, just replays the first film ala Home Alone 2: Lost in New York..

I make no bones about my admiration for the first Hangover. It had a tight mystery screenplay that worked as a light thriller first and a comedy second. And even back in June 2009, I said that I had no interest in a sequel, especially one that just repeated the story of the first one. And that's basically what Todd Phillips and his friends have done this time. Same three guys, same basic set-up, same core problem. Last time, it was a missing groom, this time it's a missing brother-of-the-bride. Oh, and it's in a totally different country this time. Oh, and the trailer fails to score a single laugh. It's been awhile since we've seen a sequel that so obviously seems to be just replaying the first film. The obvious precedent is Home Alone 2: Lost in New York. That's not good. Anyway, this one comes out May 27th.

Scott Mendelson

Right or Wrong, The Hangover 2 does not need Mel Gibson.

Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms and the rest of the cast just plain didn't want Mel Gibson in The Hangover 2. That much we know, as his cameo role as a crazed tattoo artist was announced, then retracted and recast with Liam Neeson in just a few days last week. Since then, there has been much speculation and discussion in the blogosphere, much of it centering on the alleged hypocrisy of allowing a convicted rapist (Mike Tyson) to appear in the original Hangover while crying foul at casting a man who is an occasional drunk driver and periodic anti-Semite/racist asshole. But sometimes it's really not that complicated. What if the disapproval over casting Mel Gibson in The Hangover 2 had nothing to do with morality, but with simple business sense?