I mean seriously. Take a look.
Does it not seem that what the writers/producers/studio did was copy the script from the original movie and tweak it ever so slightly?
- It’s the same guys.
- Yet again, one of them is about to get married.
- They take a bachelor party trip.
- They get so drunk they wake up the next morning and can’t remember what happened.
- They find a monkey in their hotel room instead of a tiger.
- Instead of broken teeth, the character who’s a dentist has a tattoo on his face.
- They set about trying to figure out what happened the night before.
- The fiancee calls frantically to say, “Where are you???”
- High jinks ensue.
- They come home.
- Funny pics accompany the end credits.
I usually defend the movie business when people say, “There’s no originality in Hollywood anymore.” Not this time. Even I have my limits.
But don’t take my word for it. Read today’s review in The New York Times.
Before you get some of the expected tut-tuts and other obvious negatory comments in agreement…
This has gotta be a guy thing. I was either smiling or laffing thru the entire trailer, and thinking, “ohhh, boy — here they go again!!”
Yes, it’s surely a crass, shameless, cynical regurgitated plot calculated to remove your hard-earned $$ from your pocket. Yes, all men ARE dogs…or monkeys…and STOOPID enough to do something like this again, esp. if it involves likker or wimmen (or other provocative influences). And I promise I won’t run out to the theaters when on vacation (we go to N.C. in June) to watch this. But when it comes to my local Redbox for 99 centavos, yup, you got me…I confess, I’ll likely waste a dollar and indulge in guilty man-boy pleasures, AGAIN…I’m so ashamed…
I have no doubt that the movie will do tremendous business at the box office, Dave, and that guys will make up the primary demographic. My problem isn’t that the movie is a guilty man-boy pleasure. Nothing wrong with that at all. I just wish they’d played around with the original A LITTLE.