Start to Download Movies in Seconds!
Downloading movies has never been so simple! Now with Movies you can easily find and download any movie you want. Our website guarantees fast download speed, no codec problems and of course - best quality. You can search our database and download the most popular hits or some rare classic movies that you always wanted to see. Movies guarantees your satisfaction as soon as you open the downloaded movie!
Buy The Hangover Part II (LQ) Movie. Watch online or Download
6.6
Genres are Com Produced in 2011, USA
Available Quality: DivX, iPod
Rating: 6.6 out of 10 (104600 votes)
 |
480x192 | 317 MiB |
|
 |
720x288 | 1465 MiB |
|
| Actors | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Paul Giamatti | Jeffrey Tambor | Zach Galifianakis | Jamie Chung |
| Sasha Barrese | Ed Helms | Gillian Vigman | |
| Directors | |||
| Todd Phillips | |||
Storyline
Plot Summary:
Right after the bachelor party in Las Vegas, Phil, Stu, Alan, and Doug jet to Thailand for Stus wedding. Stus plan for a subdued pre-wedding brunch, however, goes seriously awry.
More Movies
Comedy, Fantasy
Action, Comedy, Romance
Action, Comedy
Comedy
Comedy
frank3132
23 May 2012
No good at all
I was bored to death really. To be honest a sad set of superficial andrtather illiterate jokes and scenes. To me and my friends it was the typical experience of not laughingwhile some people beside you actually were laughing. And when there wasfinally a better, little bit more deep joke nobody had to laugh but me.Maybe I am not made up for this. The experience was reminiscent of whenI watched Hotshots many years ago. Many people laughing at the stupidscenes and really getting into the low level of the movie, while I wentaway after the break.I would NOT recommend this movie to anyone in for a more intelligentset of jokes, but hey, who am I?
David Ferguson
23 May 2012
It Happened Again ... And Again
Greetings again from the darkness. Two years ago, director ToddPhillips presented a highly creative, hilarious, raunchy, unique filmcomedy called The Hangover. And now, he does it again. He presents thatSAME film again. I am unsure whether this is a sequel or remake. Theonly substantial change is the setting ... Bangkok instead of Vegas.Now I fully understand WHY most sequels follow the formula created bythe successful original film. Filmmakers want to keep their audiencesatisfied. If it worked once, it will work again. Especially when thefirst film grosses a half-billion dollars! So the chances are very goodthat if you liked the first one, you will also enjoy this one. But forme, I get excited for creative filmmakers ... not re-treads.The key characters are all back and played by the same guys: BradleyCooper (Phil), Ed Helms (Stu), Zach Galifianakis (Alan), Justin Bartha(Doug), and Ken Leong (Mr. Chow). All of these guys have workedconstantly since the first film, but it makes perfect sense to returnto the scene that put them on the Hollywood map.This time around, Stu (Ed Helms) draws the long straw and has thestoryline based on his pending marriage to Jamie Chung (Sucker Punch).Stu's "wolfpack" buddies agree to a one-beer bonfire beach bachelorparty, but of course, something goes very wrong. The next morning findsour boys staggering to regain consciousness in a sleazy Bangkok hotelwith no recollection of the previous night's events. The only clues area monkey, a severed finger, a facial tat and international criminal Mr.Chow.No need for me to go into any details or spoil any moments. You knowthe drill if you have seen the first. What follows is nearly two hoursof debauchery and moments of varying levels of discomfort, gross-outand comedic skits.Supporting work is provided by Paul Giamatti, Jeffrey Tambor, and MasonLee (Ang Lee's son). There is also a cameo by Nick Cassavetes as atattoo artist. This role was originally meant for Mel Gibson, and laterLiam Neeson. Cast and crew protests kept Gibson out and Neeson's sceneswere cut when re-shoots were necessary.I feel tricked by Mr. Phillips. The first Hangover had me excited thata new comedic genius had entered Hollywood and would quickly blow awaythe Judd Apatow recycle jobs and copycats. Instead, we get ToddPhillips copying Todd Phillips.This is certainly an above-average comedy and there are plenty oflaughs from the characters we kind of feel like we know - though, wishwe didn't. Just know going in that are witnessing a clear attempt atcashing in, not a desire to wow.
Jin Maruhashi
22 May 2012
After the comic high wears off, little is remembered
Relentlessly abiding by Murphy's law, "The Hangover Part 2" projectsthe very definition of mayhem to a completely new state of hilariouscatastrophe. Overflowing with opportunities to laugh at thediscombobulated pack of stooges who survive through a chain reaction ofdisastrous occurrences, this film quickly induces a comic high thatought to last until the very end. Per contra, filtering out thehumorous hallucinogen from the recipe allows the spectator to return tohis senses and realize how predominantly tasteless yet slightly acerbicthe overall composition of the film truly is. Though addicted toqualityless acting and purely nonsensical events, "The Hangover Part 2"is just able to make itself amusing while it lasts. There is noguarantee, however, that the audience will remember anything they sawon the following day.
MorgothsReach
22 May 2012
A Funny But Very Similar Addition to The Hangover Series
Todd Phillips' sequel to the hugely successful 'The Hangover' continuesthe odyssey of three friends attempting to find their lost companionafter a drunken night gone completely awry. In the first film it wasDoug, the groom, who went missing but this time around his place hasbeen filled by Teddy, brother of Stu's fiancé. This isn't the onlysimilarity in 'The Hangover Part 2' which has lifted proceedings out ofLas Vegas and dropped them into Bangkok. On a positive note though thefilm is still very funny in places with the biggest laughs usuallybeing at the expense of Stu who continues the habit of disfiguring hisbody: a tattoo on the face is his reward this time for his troubles.The biggest problem however with the film is its lack of imaginationwith the writers opting to reiterate the formula of the first film.This encompasses three friends: Phil, Stu and Alan travelling around anunknown city in pursuit of information to piece together the events ofthe previous night. The idea worked well as evidenced by the firstfilm's box office intake and it seems the creative team has experiencedsome trepidation in changing this method. As a result, 'The HangoverPart 2' feels like something of a missed opportunity. With the strokeof genius that was relocating to Thailand there should have been awealth of ideas pouring in to use at their disposal instead of what wehave as the finished product. For example, seeing as how it deals withthree foreign tourists in a country that's unknown to them why not havethem separated and alone before attempting to find their way back toone another or have Doug take part in proceedings this time. There isalso a palpable lack of danger in the film that could have beenexploited to good use such as the sleazy underbelly of Bangkok. We dohave glimpses of drug dealers and transsexual strippers but there is afeeling afterwards that more could have been explored and since it is afilm, exaggerated. The three leads put in pretty good shifts with EdHelms surpassing the other two with his portrayal of a Stu strugglingto cope with each new discovery with one particularly bad revelationbeing one of the funniest moments of the film. Bradley Cooper as Phildoes not actually have a lot to do in the film with the majority ofmishaps being inflicted on Stu which is a shame because Phil's positionas the head of the group could have been reverted to take him out ofhis comfort zone. Zach Galifianakis grows into the role of Alan after aclumsy opening which sees the plot signposted for the audience insteadof the easy transition of the first film. In 'The Hangover Part 2' weget a more petulant Alan than the first film but as the film continueswe are gradually introduced to the character of Alan that made 'TheHangover' such an enjoyable film. As a sequel to the original this filmdoes not quite match up to its predecessor but there are still somegreat moments such as the 'death' of Mr Chow and the realisation thatthe lead characters scaled a Buddhist Temple and kidnapped a gardeningmonk. There are disappointments such as the widely debated tattooparlour scene that saw both Mel Gibson and Liam Neeson come and go. Itis quite clear that there was a rewrite and as such it is a scene withfew laughs. Other opportunities missed could be their one and verystandard scene in a Bangkok police station with this scene inparticular an obvious platform for comedy. In the end though 'TheHangover Part 2' does exactly what it's supposed to do: provide somelaughs but you may feel like bringing out your copy of the original toplacate any longings that the sequel does not satisfy.
Mia Manns
20 May 2012
Comedy or Drama?
So, personally, I just didn't find Hangover II very funny. There weresurprisingly few jokes. The jokes were great, don't get me wrong, but Ifound myself really waiting for something funny to happen. This sequellargely focused on the emotional trauma of the characters repeatingtheir weekend from hell, rather than keeping the laughs coming. Itdidn't aaall need to be as over the top as Stew sleeping with thehermaphrodite, but why couldn't we have something subtler between thatand the scene with Paul Giamatti? In fact, THAT scene wasn't evennearly as funny as it should have been.Greatly underwhelming. Not worth the movie ticket. And it's sodisappointing, because I went in with high expectations. Just wasn'tthat funny.
mbgraue-68-828674
19 May 2012
Big Swing and A BIG MISS!
ALL of the elements were there...but the whole movie came up short onbeing anywhere close to being the side-splitting comedy that theoriginal was. I sat there with my 19 year old son, waiting to laugh... wanting tolaugh... It got almost uncomfortable waiting for the movie to hit us asfunny. There are plenty of wild and outrageous situations, but reallaughs are very few and far between. As we walked out of the theater, Isaid, "It all worked the first time...what happened the second timearound?" The comic energy, that made the movie work the first timewasn't there. As my son said, the writers concentrated Too Hard onmaking it outrageous, and MISSED OUT ON MAKING IT FUNNY. It is not the actors' fault, they delivered what was in the script.This might not even work on DVD. It will make a lot of money in thefirst couple of weeks, based upon the audience anticipating it will begreat, but the word of mouth will keep it from being a Blockbuster.
endura-1
19 May 2012
Do avoid paying for it.
Hmmm, where to begin? I'm guilty of laughing out loud while watchingthe first hangover, I have to admit. Therefore I have the capacity toenjoy silly comedies...but this...this was painful to watch. The humourwas really low quality, as if the writers did not give a flying truckabout a viewer. It was in fact so bad that I felt embarrassed for them.In general they used the oldest (and least funny) stereotypes, thestupidest jokes, and the cheapest tricks. Let's take the scene with amonkey smoking a fag. How was exploitation of this animal funny? Yes,'no animals were harmed during the making of this movie' (probably) sowhat? What is the message they are sending across? Entertainment it isnot. Is Thailand really just lady-boys, drugs, fakes and huge disparitybetween very rich and very poor? Maybe...But rather than exploitingthis painful reality they should stigmatise it in my opinion (MontyPython style!). Instead, a disappointment. Don't get me wrong, Isometimes enjoy silly stuff-who doesn't-but this film wasdisrespectful: 'just take the horse poo we serve and shut up'. There isnothing else to write about this movie except: don't pay for it it issooo not worth your money. I would certainly give it a zero on a votingscale.
Neil Welch
18 May 2012
Good fun, but lightning didnt strike twice
With sequels, the question is always whether to do more of the same, orwhether to do something completely different. Wisely, perhaps, theproducers of Hangover 2 have decided to go for more of the same. Theyhave correctly concluded that what enabled them to catch lightning in abottle first time round was an engaging mixture of an intriguingpremise, well conceived characters, a plot line which held yourattention as the mystery of what had happened was gradually unwrapped,excellent ensemble playing, and a very funny script.All the above are present and correct second time round, with the addedbonus of some exotic locations - the disastrous bachelor party takesplace in Thailand instead of Las Vegas - and, perhaps, a more dangerousset of problems to unravel.While this is all very enjoyable, it remains essentially a re-run ofthe first film in a more humid climate, so it doesn't have the benefitof unexpectedness from which its predecessor benefited. When theinevitable Hangover 3 appears, I think it needs to investigate going ina different direction.This film does not need the bad language which is in it. Some wouldhave been OK, but there are places where it is distractingly unwelcome.While Zach Galifianakis reprises the idiot from another planet whichwas his breakthrough role in the first movie, Ken Jeong remains, forme, the jewel in the crown.
Paul Haakonsen
16 May 2012
Theyre baaack...
I enjoyed part I quite a lot and so I was looking forward to seeingpart II, and it didn't disappoint me. It was actually quite a surprise,as I found part II to be better than part I.Why? Well the story for starters, it was more clever and it had moreadrenalin rush to it. There was always something really strange goingon and the guys were chin-deep in trouble. I was laughing a lot throughout the movie, and had my toes curling as well because of theawkwardness of some of the scenes.And having the story set in hectic Bangkok was brilliant, because itreally spiced up the movie quite a lot. However, I would personallyhave liked to see more of the seedy places that exist in Bangkok. Therewas too much focus on the rich and glamorous places. Not saying thatthey didn't use the seedy places, far from it, but they could have usedit more, as Bangkok is well-known for them.Bradley Cooper (playing Phil), Ed Helms (playing Stu) and ZachGalifianakis (playing Alan) really have great chemistry and togetherthey really carry the movie with excellence. Each of them make theother stand out and support the comedy of one another. They are sowell-cast for these movies. And I must admit that this was the bestpart I have ever seen Ken Jeong (playing Mr. Chow) portray. His quirkyblunt manner was so amazing in this movie.Be prepared for an adventure like none other. An adventure withamnesia, drug-muling monkey and lots of fun. "The Hangover II" is agreat comedy.
MBunge
16 May 2012
A whole lot of crappy sequels have been made this same way
Boy, there's every reason in the world for this movie to suck. Itbasically tells the exact same story in the exact same way as the firstfilm, but a little more sloppily constructed and just taking whatpeople loved in the original and cranking it up a notch or three. Thatapproach has produced some truly awful sequels. However, The HangoverPart II is not one of them.Why? Partly because the script is still full of laugh-out-loud moments.Partly because the three main characters and the actors who play themstill connect with the audience. Mostly, though, it's because thesefilmmakers made a pretty bold creative choice that aestheticallyredeems the otherwise repetitive nature of this motion picture.This time around, timid dentist Stu (Ed Helms), his inappropriatefriend Phil (Bradley Cooper) and the socially inept Alan (ZachGalifianakis) wake up in Bangkok with no memory of what happened thenight before. The three are in Thailand, along with themissing-for-most-of-the-first-movie Doug (Justin Bartha), for Stu'swedding to the lovely Lauren (Jaime Chung). Only now, it's Lauren'slittle brother Teddy (Mason Lee) who's missing after his night ofdebauchery with The Wolfpack and the boys have to retrace their stepsthrough the fetid streets and around monkeys, international criminalsand transsexual strippers to find him.That sounds exactly like the first film, doesn't it? Well, it is inmost ways. To the folks put off by that, there's really no arguing thepoint. If you're rubbed the wrong way by seeing another version of whatyou've seen before, that's not an invalid reaction, especially as thisis an inferior version in one big way. While the first movie was aboutall three main characters, each playing a part and having their ownstory being told, The Hangover Part II is dominated by Stu and Alan.Phil, who was one of the best things about the first movie, is reducedto tagalong. Frankly, if Bradley Cooper had held out for more money,they could have replaced Phil with Doug and it wouldn't have made muchof a difference.What saves this film from disaster is that these filmmakers chose tomake a much darker movie than the first one. Not only in beingraunchier and more outrageous, but in generating a sense of menace anddanger that didn't exist before. I mean, nobody ever thought somethingreally bad would happen to Doug in The Hangover, did they? Yes, theymight not find him in time for his wedding, but there was never anydoubt that he'd eventually turn up, was there? The Hangover Part IIstarts its search for Teddy by finding his severed finger, setting atone that continues through the whole story. From the squalor ofBangkok to the more extreme physical transformations of Stu and Alan tothe enhanced isolation of being in a foreign country without anythingfamiliar to fall back on, this has such a different and more intensefeel to it that you're not bothered when it duplicates what happenedbefore. If this wasn't a blockbuster sequel and therefore required tohave a happy ending, The Hangover Part II should have logicallyconcluded with a wickedly black moment of comedy that would make evenNorm Macdonald a little uncomfortable. We don't get that ending, butthat sense flows through everything leading up to the conclusion,giving this film a decidedly different vibe.I'm not sure they'll be able to get away with it a third time but whileslightly inferior to the original, this is one sequel that manages tovalidate its existence and reward everyone for coming back for more.
vetteparty
15 May 2012
Predictable, superficial humor
Predictable, childish, bad acting, waste of time, predictable (I know Ialready said that), repeat of part 1...altogether horrible.OK, it's fair to say I wasn't a big fan of the first Hangover to beginwith. It seems the style of this movie series to make the jokesvery...very predictable...you can see them coming from a mile away.That having said...yesterday I was unfortunately invited to the cinemawith some friends, tickets were already ordered, so no way out.I wanted to sleep the first 90% of the movie...only the last 15 minutesbrought some original jokes and got me to smile a little bit.I really became annoyed when Alan fell backwards over a table and theaudience bursted into laughter...I mean COME ON, the guy just fell! (Itwasn't even funny if you have the context in which he fell).Furthermore it was a repetition of "jokes" we've already seen before.As usual the scenes are acted in such a bad way you can just see itsstaged, I know its comedy and all, but put in some effort please.To make sure you guys now what taste I have in comedy and you can judgefor yourself if my review is suited for you, I hated Hangover 1 AND 2,but LOVED Sexdrive!Hope this review will help determine you to decide if you're gonna seeit in the cinema...where I silently hope you won't so that none otherof these monstrous pieces of work ever see the light of day.
jtye20
15 May 2012
.
A decent sequel to a great comedy its basically the same as the firstjust add a different setting a few new gross out laughs then u getbasically a poor man s hangover . its not a bad movie its just sosimilar to the first but fans of the first will enjoy this run of themill sequel. The characters do the same phil acts like a jackass stu isa wimp with a wild side and alan is his crazy self. the cast has goodchemistry and with more of a role for mr chow makes for some laughs. uwill enjoy this movie if u are a fan of the first but if your not uwill think its stupid hopefully they can inprove with hangover 3 but wewill wait and see wanted to give this movie a higher rating than a 6but couldn't because of its similarities to the first but u shouldstill see this as its better than most comedies out there.
Yumpin Yimany
14 May 2012
Feels like a missed opportunity, kinda blah...
This is not a bad film or experience but simply a watered down versionof the first effort. I guess there really was no other option for theproducers. They figured if it's not broke, don't fix it. Too bad theydidn't even tinker with it just a bit. This sequel is exactly like apale karaoke version of the original. I found nothing to betremendously funny but a few scenes were amusing. Like the first, maybethe best laughs are to be had during the closing credits and photos ofthe missing day.Sequels to a movie most enjoy more often than not, feel like missedopportunities. This effort is no exception. The tone, pace, and balancewere off, unlike in the first film. The result is far less fun than itshould be given we already know and like the characters. Among guycomedy flicks, this one ranks very average, not unmentionably terriblebut not particularly memorable either. Kind of disappointing to say theleast.
furkan kahya
14 May 2012
Hangover Part 2
Well I love the part one.I remember part 1, it's more beautiful. ,Istarted watching it last week again.I really this to an excellentfilm.The first of The Hangover promised to be bigger, better andfunnier than before and was highly anticipated. I think Hangover parttwo isn't good. But hangover part two is funny and interesting.And Iremember, part one excellent and excellent. Bradley Cooper was good.And Zach Galifianakis was good. Ed Helms was good. And Ed Helms wasfunny.If you like comedy movie you are watching this movie.By Furkan Kahya
sad-eyed-angel
14 May 2012
Not bad, just.... nothing new
When a movie is as much of a mega smash hit as The Hangover was in2009, you can pretty much tell as soon as the credits start rollingthat the movie will have a sequel. And that can be a good or bad thing;a sequel can further develop the characters you loved from the firstand tell a whole new story, or it can regurgitate whatever made thefirst so great and just add new words. The Hangover, Part II is thelatter.In part II, the boys are going to Thailand for Stu's wedding and wakeup realizing they lost his bride's little brother. Sound familiar? TheHangover part II is very similar to the first one, right down to itstarts out almost the exact same way with everyone wondering where theyare and Phil calling Doug's wife Tracy. The main difference betweenthis one and the first one (other than it takes place in Thailand) isthat the jokes go from funny to uncomfortable to watch. Instead ofwaking up and discovering one of them lost a tooth, they wake up tofind the severed finger of the guy who is missing. Instead of gettingtasered in the nuts, Phil gets shot in the arm. Instead of stealing apolice car, they've kidnapped a monk. The jokes that made you laugh inthe first one makes you feel sorry for them in this one. I'm not sayingthis movie was entirely bad, Bradley Cooper is still gorgeous (sue me,I'm a girl and that's my main draw for seeing these movies) and thereare still some jokes that you can laugh at. I'm saying that they feltthe need to rehash or bring in as much from the first one as theycould, like Mike Tyson is randomly on the stage rapping at the end, andthe movie ends with them looking at pictures from the night before. Itmakes me hope there is no Hangover III, but I think that would beimpossible as the only one left to get hitched is Alan and who seesthat happening?
robertmb-49-544689
13 May 2012
Theyre Back
Dear Movie Viewers Happy Memorial Day 2011 The Wolfpack is back butthis time they are in Bankok Thailand or as Alan (ZachGalifianakis)calls it "thighland" for fans of the first Hangover (ME)there are several references made here from the first movie as well asa lot of cast and cameo member "The Wolfpack" Phil (Bradley Cooper)Stu(Ed Helms)who is about to get married to a beautiful Thai girl Lauren(Jamie Chung) Alan (Zach Galifianakis)then we have the always appearingnaked Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) and as himself but not for long (Mike Tyson)The boys take Lauren's 16 yes that's right 16 year old brother Teddy onthe beach to have a celebratory beer 3 minutes later We see our boyswaking up in a hellhole of a motel in Bangkok messed up from whateverthey did the night/week before, they find a finger belonging to Teddy.They search for clues amongst a world full of characters (Monks,Shemales, Mobsters, and Chain-smoking drug dealing monkeys) And PaulGiamatti as a Gangster who finally shaved his beard after (10 years)Not as funny as the first but still worth the time.TV/Movie Fanatic
mydawgz
13 May 2012
Hungover from the Hangover
For part one -We identified with the first Hangover because most of uswho saw it have had one of those crazy hangovers at some point where wewoke up and thought "oh my god, where am I, who is that next to me,what am I wearing, or what did I do last night"!! Also, Vegas is amecca for outrageous behavior so we either identified with the locationor for those who have never been to Vegas, it made people want to goand live it up for a weekend.For part two- I was really hoping that it would be as good as part onebut I don't think I went in with great expectations since the sequelsare never as good. I really didn't care that it mirrored part one asfar as the verbiage and overall context, but I simply did not like thelocation. I just could not get into the dark and dirty foreign countryscenario. If Alan ever gets married, I hope they wake up next toRihanna in a dangerous part of New York or Los Angeles after kidnappingRyan Seacrest.
oaam7
13 May 2012
Hilarious!
The Hangover Part II, is a sequel movie from the Hangover. Two yearshave passed from their escapade in Las Vegas, where the friends aretraveling to Thailand to celebrate Stu'e impending wedding to Lauren.Much to Alan's dismay, they are joined by laurens younger brother ,Teddy. During Laurens fathers toast, the father shows disapproval ofStu, so he joins group who are sitting at a campfire roastingmarshmallows , toasting Stu's and Laurens's Future. The following morning, they wake up along with leslie chow, and a chainsmoking money, in a dirty hotel room in Bangkok. Stu has a face tattoo,Alan's head is completely shaven, and Teddy is missing, or at leastmost of him. They start looking for clues, in find teddy, and try toreturn to where the wedding was occurring. The movie was full of advertource scenes, and the story really comestogether at the end. Despite the first sequel having great success,this movie topped that in my opinion which was not expected. Greatmovie to watch!
krawc69
10 May 2012
Caru Reviews---The Hangover 2
to start off this movie is awesome and funny as the first film.iwatched yesterday with my friends and really had a great time.in thisparticular episode we find the wolf pack in Thailand and as youanticipate they have a nasty hangover again.although it is based on thesame setting as the first one its unbelievably unpredictable and a lotof surprises every scene.we see some characters that were in theprevious film like the Chinese mafia dude and he is hilarious asever.although this is a great comedy, the movie featured a lot of coolaction sequences like gunfights etc.the combination of rapid action andcomedy is excellent in this movie.the acting was also superb andThailand was beautiful as ever with its atmospheric scenes.i highlyrecommend this movie to anyone for great action and have a greatlaugh.don't listen to critics if they gave it a low score,this movie isa must watch.9/10(excellent)
bagsamongothers
09 May 2012
Why Bangkok?
Not as funny as the first Hangover. I guess I was expecting a lot. Idon't understand why sequels have to often change the location, whichusually doesn't work. Take note: Sex and the City 2 (Hello, ABUDHABI?!) It totally lost its point! What happened to the City?! So wellanyway in this case it's Bangkok. The first movie's tag line was "Somemen just can't handle Vegas." So now is it supposed to be "Some menjust can't handle Bangkok?" Ken Jeong was funny as usual. He's the onlyone who kept me entertained the whole time. As well as Bradley Cooper'sgood looks. As for Stu marrying the Chinese girl, I prefer HeatherGraham. I guess they want to cater to their Asian market thus hiringthat Chinese girl and filming in Bangkok.All in all it's NOT BAD. But you've seen it before. The first one isbetter.
Copyright SoulFilms © 2002-2012 All Rights Reserved.
- Support
- | Privacy Policy
- | Terms of Use
- | FAQ
- | Help
- | PDA version