The Hangover Part II same' has rarely been more accurately applied to a sequel than to "The Hangover Part II", which ranks as little more than a faded copy of its predecessor superimposed on a more brightly colored background". Christy Lemire of the Associated Press said, "Giving the people what they want is one thing. Making nearly the exact same movie a second time, but shifting the setting to Thailand, is just … what, lazy? Arrogant? Maybe a combination of the two". Roger Ebert of the "Chicago Sun-Times" also gave the film an average review stating, ""The Hangover Part II" plays like a challenge
The Hangover Part II financial costs and argued that there was no legal precedent for the case, saying that the use of a permanent tattoo on a human's face could not be controlled. The judge allowed the case to go forward, stating that Mr. Whitmill had a "strong likelihood of prevailing on the merits for copyright infringement" and that most of the arguments put forward by Warner Bros. were "just silly," but rejected Whitmill's request for a preliminary injunction to stop the release of the film, because, on balance, that rejection was "in the public interest". In the event that Warner Bros. and Whitmill