I thought way too hard about "The Hangover Part II" trailer

So they're making a sequel to "The Hangover" movie, aptly titled "The Hangover Part II," and a FULL-LENGTH TRAILER came out yesterday. If you weren't aware of the Memorial Day release date or that the trailer was making the Internet rounds, you may have been confused when you logged onto Facebook and saw a bunch of statuses mentioning a holiday that is still two months away. You may have thought Thomas Jefferson and John Philip Sousa had hacked your friends' profiles.

I'll definitely go and see it soon after it comes out -- though not on opening day, because I'll be outside drinking Pabst Blue Ribbon and exuding so much Patriotic energy it'll knock Muammar Gadafi's stupid hat off of his head. This is because I like Zach Galifianakis and Ed Helms, and want to laugh at them before everyone else discovers one of the catchy lines, starts repeating it constantly and ruins the whole movie (think "Napoleon Dynamite" and, well, "The Hangover"). I reached a point last year where I wore brass knuckles everywhere I went just in case one more person walked through the door of a party and asked if everyone was "ready to let the dogs out."

Also, Bradley Cooper's body.

Just because I'm going to see it, however, doesn't mean I think it's going to be awesome. One summer, I saw "You Don't Mess with the Zohan" and "Love Guru" in theaters.

I'm kind of skeptical about it, because it follows a sometimes-used sequel mold that kind of bothers me now that I'm old enough to understand it. Basically, the premise for all of the antics in the first film is something so absurd it can only conceivably happen to a person or group of people once. I mean, getting roofied to the point where you wake up the next day with literally no recollection of anything that happened even though you squeezed a lifetime's worth of illicit activity into like an eight hour span should only happen to you once. After that, you don't let Alan (Galifianakis) slip you anything or supply the Jagermeister, or you keep your drink in your hand at the frat party.

The only reason you make a sequel like that is for a cash grab; you know people are going to see it, so you cop out and essentially make the same movie twice. Sometimes that's the only way to do a sequel, really, because let's be honest: Nobody would've really wanted to see a "Home Alone" sequel where Macaulay Culkin actually went on vacation with his family. (Okay, that's not entirely true. I absolutely would've seen that, because I can't see myself not adoring a movie that had more Uncle Frank and Buzz in it.) So instead they had some petty thieves somehow break out of prison and meet up with him serendipitously in Manhattan.

When I was younger, though, these things didn't occur to me. I looked at things a different way. I didn't have the sense to think about the near-impossibility of Kevin McCallister becoming lost in transit on the way to a vacation. I didn't think about how this happening twice would probably have caused child services to conduct an investigation into whether or not his parents were fit to raise a child. I didn't even think twice about how wild it was that an NYPD police officer just happened to randomly be in two places where terroristic plots were unfolding, exactly one year apart. I was just happy to see him shoot bad guys while wearing a wife beater and yelling "Yippee Cayyy Yayyyy" and then something about Moms. (Sidenote: The Carl Winslow cameo in "Die Hard" beats out the Mike Tyson cameo in "The Hangover." Always.)

Back then, I just flat out enjoyed the movies. I didn't think too much about them. I know people will say things like, "Dude, just enjoy the movie," but I can't. I can't just shut off the part of my brain that has those thoughts (unless I'm actually roofied, maybe), and it kind of sucks.

This is a sign that I might be growing up, and I don't like it.

(That was probably the most existential moment ever written about in affiliation with "The Hangover" franchise.)