I'll have to disagree with the majority of viewers here, and err on the side of the movie critics. It was a clone of the first, but the first was far superior. This one felt contrived, laughs were fewer and further between filled with long scenes of awkward tension for me. I did like the monkey. And the beginning of the film pre-Bangkok was promising. Bradley Cooper was great as Phil. But character conflict and resolution with Stu's In-Laws was not satisfying at all and too cliche. First one felt more believable and organic. The audience I saw it with, practically dead- not much laughing going on at all. I love these guys and I love the first film, so i wanted it to be good, but to me, it fell short. There was a lot of potential here, but I felt Todd Philipps just phoned in the flick, pretty much. Speaking of which, did he make a cameo in this one like he did in the first? If so, I missed it.
That is really all I can say about the film. There is too much one could discuss and I'd be here forever. It's like, overwhelming me right now just thinking about just exactly why the film was beyond. So I'll just focus on the underrated character. CHICAGO. Holy fruckin' beautiful, Batman! I was born and raised, a native, but to see Chicago on IMAX, and to see all the sequences shot in IMAX, at Navy Pier, on opening night, at 9pm, in the very center of the theatre... I will remember that for a very long time. Chicago was absolutely breathtaking. The film in IMAX was absolutely breathtaking. And I'm so with Chris Nolan, man... that's how all movies should be shot from now on. I loved everything about this film. EVERYTHING. I've seen it twice. Can't wait to see it again... in IMAX, because now I'm spoiled and I can't ever see it in any other format, ever, again. :) Every actor was amazing in this, but yes, I agree with the hype. Heath Ledger deserves the oscar.