Three buddies wake up from a bachelor party in Las Vegas, with no memory of the previous night and the bachelor missing. They make their way around the city in order to find their friend before his wedding.
When their new next-door neighbors turn out to be a sorority even more debaucherous than the fraternity previously living there, Mac and Kelly team with their former enemy, Teddy, to bring the girls down.
Months after John's divorce, Ted and Tami-Lynn's marriage seems to be on the same road. To patch things up, Ted and Tami-Lynn plan to have a child with John's help, but their failed efforts backfire disastrously. Namely, Ted is declared property by the government, and he loses all of his civil rights. Now, Ted must fight a seemingly hopeless legal battle with an inexperienced young lawyer to regain his rightful legal status. Unfortunately, between Ted's drunken idiocies and sinister forces interested in this situation to exploit him, Ted's quest has all the odds against him.Written by
Kenneth Chisholm (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Ted being carried into the air by a goose is similar to the scene in The Wizard of Oz (1939) where Dorothy gets lifted by the flying monkeys. Plus, Ted going to New York City to see Partick Meighan to win his case, only to be originally turned away, similarly happens in The Wizard of Oz (1939), where Dorothy and her friends go to the Emerald City to get Oz to grant their wishes, only to be originally rejected. See more »
The errors in legal procedure as portrayed in the courtroom scenes are too numerous to mention, but a few stand out. In a civil trial, the plaintiff gives the first opening statement, followed by the defense; in the film the defense goes first. Both opening statements shown in the film were argumentative, and in a jury trial would have been properly objected to and stricken. The appeal would not have been in front of a jury; they are decided by judges only. See more »
[At a "Knight Rider" Q&A panel, unrated version]
I have a question. Exactly how many beers did you have before you got naked with that hamburger?
You know, buddy, we all make mistakes. That was a long time ago and I'm a different guy now.
You know what, can I just jump in here for a second? You're a real scumbag for asking that question.
What? It's a fair question.
No, you know what? You know what? Let me tell you something about this man...
KITT, it's all right, just let it go.
No, no! I want ...
[...] See more »
Liam Neeson returns to the grocery store battered and bruised and returns his ruined box of Trix. See more »
For some North America TV airings, the f words are either dubbed over or silenced and Amanda's penis bong is censored with pixelization. See more »
Not bad per se, but lacks the novelty, likability of characters, storyline, and strong female role of the original.
I'm not the biggest fan of Mila Kunis, nor am I a huge fan of Seth MacFarlane. But despite my hesitations, I liked the original Ted quite a bit, for a variety of reasons; despite its obvious crudeness, it had some character development and poignancy that the film medium was able to afford MacFarlane that a TV cartoon wasn't able to. As much of an ostensibly "bro" movie as it was, it had some subversive commentary on the male id, and Mila Kunis' character was written quite well; she didn't come across as the harping, shrill female stereotype so often seen in movies about male arrested development (see: "Saving Silverman"). For every time Wahlberg and his teddy bear seemed to have a valid reason to continue their destructive friendship, she had an equally valid reason that they shouldn't.
How disappointing, then, that Ted 2 opens with Kunis' character lazily written off, discarded by Wahlberg's character as "the wrong woman" (or something to such an effect) so that MacFarlane can introduce a new love interest in the form of Amanda Seyfried, who is a fine actress in better written roles but simply isn't given the same level of material to work with here.
The other memorable aspect of Ted was simply the novelty factor: "potty-mouthed teddy bear." This was a simple premise that appealed to everyone everywhere, which is why it was one of the rare blockbuster comedies to make a lot of money overseas.
But now we have Ted 2, and the novelty is worn off. The balance of the first film is gone, too; the crudeness there was offset with surprisingly sweet, character-driven moments; here, because we don't really believe the characters from the onset (see: Kunis' character being shrugged off), there really aren't as many tender moments. None of it really rings true, it just seems like a typical sequel going through the motions trying to replicate the original but inevitably failing to do so simply because the appeal is a one-off (it kind of reminds me of the Hangover sequels).
Like the Hangover sequels, this isn't as bad as the critics might lead you to believe. It's not a terrible film. It's safe to say that, if you liked the original Ted, you'll at least find this an entertaining enough diversion for a one-time viewing. I also dug that they brought back Giovanni Ribisi, the best part of the first film, despite the fact that his inclusion made no sense whatsoever.
But this simply isn't as clever, funny, well-written or - frankly - surprisingly tender and sweet as the first movie. It's a decent rental but I hope there's no Ted 3.
7 of 11 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this