The New Yorker, through its writer David Denby wrote a film review about The Hangover 2 and relate it to Freudian allegory. For those who saw it, including me, I have to agree. The writer made a good parallelism there.
“The two movies (1 & 2) offer a comedy of types, a kind of Freudian allegory, with Bradley Cooper enacting the ego, Ed Helms the superego, and Zach Galifianakis the id. Or, to put it more simply, aggression, caution, and stupidity. Part of the fun in “The Hangover” is the men’s amazed discovery of one another’s capabilities. This time, however, there’s little surprise in Cooper’s double takes at Galifianakis’s enraging, naïve-child responses. And, though no one could have predicted the exact nature of Stu’s misadventures in Bangkok’s sex underworld, we already knew from the first movie that he has a thing, when drunk, about whores. Stu, as the man who most completely embodies ordinary male confusion, is the center of the two films, and Helms is at his frenzied best when he tries to exert logic in the most chaotic situations, and then, giving up, stiffens his back, whirls his arms, and shrieks in frustration. Looking at him, you understand Todd Phillips’s idea that every man buries within himself, and wants to liberate, a lord of misrule. In obedience to this alleged need, both movies plunge precipitously through levels of taste, morality, common sense, and caution, finally reaching a subterranean miasma of infantile need, flesh, organs, and drool. When you’ve seen the bottom, in the roll of photographs running next to the credits at the end of each movie, you’ve seen more than you want to see. Though, somehow, I think it unlikely that the spectacle will stop anyone from trying to go even lower.” Full article here.