Comments about this vehicle

Author	Message
dudley ◊ 2009-07-16 18:18	One of only 1,390 made. Five were used/trashed/cut in two for the movie: Link to "boxwish.com" -- Last edit: 2009-07-16 18:34:32
antp ◊ 2009-07-16 18:27	What a shame From Ford_Guy: After it is damaged in the movie: -- Last edit: 2011-12-18 03:26:32 (Ford_Guy)
coati ◊ 2009-07-16 20:07	Destroy such nice cars for such a bad movie..
Matty ◊ 2009-07-24 00:24	It's ironic. I saw a Mercedes-Benz 280 SE Convertible on the road about an hour before seeing this movie. You don't see enough of these classic cars nowadays.
TheBandit77TransAm ◊ 2009-08-26 03:03	coati wrote Destroy such nice cars for such a bad movie.. You mean Destroy such a BEAUTIFUL car for such a GREAT and HILARIOUS movie?? Dude it was hilarious, and people do it all the time THEY GET FIXED, like the Cadillac Deville in Bandslam (reckless driving), or even the classics, the 1977 Pontiac Trans Am in Smokey and the Bandit, or the Bond cars, or The 1969 Dodge General Lee Charger in The Dukes of Hazzard (old series new one sucked balls). seriously dude its a great movie.
movie star ◊ 2009-08-29 20:46	coati wrote Destroy such nice cars for such a bad movie.. the movie was not BAD, it was FUNNY!
Ingo ◊ 2009-10-25 13:52	moviestar, you're wrong. I don't know this movie and I will never watch it, but for 100% sure a movie is pure stupid bullshit, made by asocial shitheads for a not better audience, where willingly a real classic car, resp. more of them were destroyed. The W 111 Coupe and Convertible was the last handmade car by Mercedes Benz except the 600. Maybe my harsh statement will annoy people with an annother opinion, but I don't care about that. It's not neccessary to start arguing against my opinion, because this is fixed and will not be changed. -- Last edit: 2009-10-25 13:53:09
G-MANN ◊ 2009-10-25 18:29	dudley wrote One of only 1,390 made. Five were used/trashed/cut in two for the movie While I don't quite share Ingo's level of rage, this is pretty shameful considering how few of these were built in the first place and it's a Mercedes not some crappy British Leyland car. Trashing some Rolls-Royce Silver Shadows would have been less of a crime.
movie star ◊ 2009-12-21 23:07	ingo wrote moviestar, you're wrong. I don't know this movie and I will never watch it, but for 100% sure a movie is pure stupid bullshit, made by asocial shitheads for a not better audience, where willingly a real classic car, resp. more of them were destroyed. The W 111 Coupe and Convertible was the last handmade car by Mercedes Benz except the 600. Maybe my harsh statement will annoy people with an annother opinion, but I don't care about that. It's not neccessary to start arguing against my opinion, because this is fixed and will not be changed. well. I am right in the sense of that some people may find it funny. I did find it funny. I did not say that it was a good idea to trash this car though.
trilex ◊ 2010-01-05 16:54	It was written here: Not one, but FIVE such car was broken, for shit movie. http://www.evangelikus.hu/media/filmajanlo/masnaposok/view
mercurygrandmarquis1 ◊ 2010-01-06 13:59	ingo wrote moviestar, you're wrong. I don't know this movie and I will never watch it, but for 100% sure a movie is pure stupid bullshit, made by asocial shitheads for a not better audience, where willingly a real classic car, resp. more of them were destroyed. The W 111 Coupe and Convertible was the last handmade car by Mercedes Benz except the 600. Maybe my harsh statement will annoy people with an annother opinion, but I don't care about that. It's not neccessary to start arguing against my opinion, because this is fixed and will not be changed. i have to agree with ingo because most movies that were made from 2000-2010 that are aimed at teens are the worst movies ever made and its really not worth destroying a rare classic car for such a crappy movie
boogieman ◊ 2010-01-06 15:05	In my opinion, this was THE best movie of 2009. I saw it in theaters, and now own the dvd. i've watched it 3 times in total, and I never ceases to make me laugh. And this is coming from someone who finds most "teen movies" lame(i really don't consider this a teen movie though. Just a good comedy).
Leoz ◊ 2010-01-06 16:45	ingo wrote moviestar, you're wrong. I don't know this movie and I will never watch it, but for 100% sure a movie is pure stupid bullshit, made by asocial shitheads for a not better audience You don't make any sense dude. 1: How can you express a negative opinion on a movie you've never even seen? 2: The director of this series of films has made some critically acclaimed, feel-good, funny movies. 3: I think the films you're reffering to are the usual disney-like teen films. Made primarily for profit, not the audience. Although I agree they shouldn't have wrecked the car, I suggest you should see things in an optimistic perspective surrounding this issue, for instance I always say that the cars are usually repaired and restored, as they were with the Dodge Chargers in The Dukes of Hazzard. A classic, especially if it's used in a movie (whatever movie or show it is) is always worth a lot and that's one of the reasons why people continue to maintain and collect them. But seriously dude, saying that something sucks before even watching it is childish and no-one will take you seriously.
antp ◊ 2010-01-18 22:05	On Link to "blogs.insideline.com" they say that the cars used in the movie were made by Cinema Vehicles from coupés. I guess that the coupés are less rare than the convertibles? And less valuable. It is normal they would not pay for a real convertible if they can make one for much cheaper.
movie star ◊ 2010-02-05 18:18	This film was not a stupid teen comedy just that all haters know and who knows in which condition the car(s) were anyway? maybe they were already totally rusted underneath so that it would not have made any sense to restore them any more. So do please not judge the movie because of just one car which got destroyed.....
Ingo ◊ 2010-02-05 22:53	leoz wrote 1: How can you express a negative opinion on a movie you've never even seen? 2: The director of this series of films has made some critically acclaimed, feel-good, funny movies. But seriously dude, saying that something sucks before even watching it is childish and no-one will take you seriously. 1: this single pic is enough for my opinion. 2: this is no reason for anything It's not childish, it's just judgemental. And I will definetly not watch the movie. Why? I know, that I will be annoyed just because of the damaged Mercedes. The rest is not essential. So for me it's a movie made by cultureless idiotic spastics, made for an identical audience. I have no reason to change my mind. I'm not wasserspeier. He is always angry about movies in which classic cars are destroyed. I have no idea, why he continues to watch movies, which are annoying him. I've asked him, but didn't got an answer. To avoid being angry about movies, I've stopped to watch TV, except old stuff, which I've seen many times before. Or I'm watching reportages about travelling, history or politics. I recommend to the same. You really will feel better.
Ingo ◊ 2010-02-05 23:04	movie star wrote So do please not judge the movie because of just one car which got destroyed..... Why not? It's enough for pegging it.
movie star ◊ 2010-02-06 18:53	ingo wrote 1: this single pic is enough for my opinion. ??? First you judge the movie because of one destroyed car, now you think this picture shows that the movie is a bad one? Sorry, but leoz is right on this. You seem to dislike the movie without actually knowing it. Movies are about the story and how the actors perform, not about cars (or still pictures).
Ingo ◊ 2010-02-06 20:25	movie star wrote First you judge the movie because of one destroyed car, now you think this picture shows that the movie is a bad one? yes
movie star ◊ 2010-02-06 21:56	Sorry, but leoz is right on this. You seem to dislike the movie without actually knowing it. Movies are about the story and how the actors perform, not about cars (or still pictures).
movie star ◊ 2010-02-06 21:59	You are really an important and qualified member here, but you are just judgemental this time
Ingo ◊ 2010-02-06 22:01	I'm judgemental not only this time.
movie star ◊ 2010-02-06 22:45	ingo wrote I'm judgemental not only this time. haha I like the sarcasm
antp ◊ 2010-02-07 12:49	In this case the fact that it was a valuable collector car is linked to the story.
movie star ◊ 2010-02-07 13:03	wasserspeier wrote So if movies are not about cars why do directors piss off other people in using such cars? Hello? Hollywood? Use a soapbox next time. Damnit! Forgott to take my pills. You are right well if they can afford them then they use them. Here they felt they had to take a very worthy car in order to get the main characters troubled when it gets damaged.
CougarTim ◊ 2010-02-10 21:07	White car in left background of main picture appears to be a 1964 Pontiac Catalina
caioficetech ◊ 2010-04-29 23:05	Very Cool movie The car is for the american market...
boogieman ◊ 2010-05-14 22:04	This car is up for auction soon: Link to "jalopnik.com"
Skid ◊ 2010-06-01 02:31	Five of these should not have been destroyed for any movie, I don't care how good it is. BTW, I saw the film just the other night...it wasn't very funny at all.
jakals ◊ 2010-10-02 15:51	have any of you ever thought about the fact that the cars we see "destroyed" in movies, are mostly not the real thing.I have a friend working in Hollywood studios, who says that they make fibreglass replicas of most of the models, slap on some makeup like hub caps and a grill, and there you have a " rare " Mercedes or what ever the car they want to feature in the movie. He also says one should not believe all the bull s..t you read on internet about how many cars they "destroyed" to make a single movie. Very often these remarks are posted before the movie starts showing, attracting an extra couple of thousand fools to go watch the movie.The less the movie bosses have to spend on props, the more profit they make.Another fact he told me is that big car companies such as chevrolet, ford, etc. sponsor cars for certain movies(new models, not vintage classics)which can be destroyed. These car companies write off the expenditure against tax. So I hope less people will now believe that they actually smashed up 5 Mercedes classics.
Kooshmeister ◊ 2010-10-27 13:59	jakals wrote have any of you ever thought about the fact that the cars we see "destroyed" in movies, are mostly not the real thing. I've tried putting forth this idea but it didn't seem to work. Apparently even destroying a beater stunt car dolled up to replace the main vehicle is an unforgivable sin...
car nerd ◊ 2011-01-09 10:07	Found this on Wikipedia. Not sure of the accuracy of this information. "In The Hangover the personages use a 1969 280SE Convertible to go from Los Angeles to Las Vegas and trash the car. Apparently the convertibles in the movie the Hangover were modified coupes. 16 coupes were used in the movie as they were crashed multiple times." -- Last edit: 2011-01-09 10:08:03
jakals ◊ 2011-01-16 22:12	one should be careful just believing wikipedia.here are a couple of pages you can get more info on about the "hangover" mercedes: forums.motivemag.com/showthread.php?4437336 - Cached wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/.../the-hangover-mercedes-among-61-movie-cars-on-the-auction-block/ - Cached i thus agree that they could have modified some cheap models for the stunt and crash scenes, but the main car used in the beginning where the father tells them to look after it,was the real macoy, and was never damaged in the making of the film.
jakals ◊ 2011-01-16 22:14	yet another page for the merc: www.benzworld.org/...mercedes.../1454882-hangover-1969-280se.html - Cached - Similar
Gomselmash11 ◊ 2011-03-04 15:29	I agree with ingo. Do not look to TV, it's all crap. Nor do I agree with the evils that destroy classic cars, rare and valuable as this beautiful Mercedes-Benz. Obviously, fucking cinema And they are polluting cars, which destroy the environment, there is a very valid justification. Anyway, the only ones who can save these cars, are we, the museums and car clubs.
EvanAzzo ◊ 2012-01-01 20:41	ingo wrote yes Your ignorance and just straight up arrogance made me rage so hard that I created an account strictly to tell you so. Seriously? You tell people not to respond to you because you're right and they're wrong. Let me throw some facts at you champ. IMDB rates this a 7.9/10 and metascore rates it a 73/10. Now that may not be outstanding but it certainly is pretty good. This movie grossed $467,483,912 world wide as of December 2009. This movie, with a budget of 35,000,000 made it back and then some in the first WEEKEND of release in the US alone ($44,979,319). Now how is all this possible if the movie sucks as much as you say it does? It isn't. The movie is a solid flick. This isn't a "teen movie" like you think it is (you would know that if you'd seen it) it's not American Pie or something like that. This is a solid adult comedy that delivers on all fronts. Now if you want to be butthurt about a car being trashed on screen I highly suggest you give up movie watching all together, and thus give up your forum account too.
CougarTim ◊ 2012-01-01 21:08	Around here, most of us are car people more than we're movie people. Ingo is a well-respected member who has contributed greatly to this site. When you can say the same, we might listen to you. I've seen this movie and I didn't think it was anything special. This movie was successful because it appealed to the lowest common denominator. Besides, box office gross is not an accurate measure of movie quality. Transformers 2, for example, was absolute tripe and made $108,000,000 in its first weekend. It did have some nice cars though.
93montero ◊ 2012-01-01 21:22	@EvanAzzo Avatar was terrible and it made a ridiculous amount of money. There are so many road trip movies that this one doesn't really stand out. I don't like the title either because being hungover usually means from drinking too heavily not taking roofies. That's called being drugged. One memorable thing is that they used this Mercedes and not the typical 60 or early 70s American convertible you'd normally see for this role. The damage didn't have to happen but people express more emotion when something beautiful is destroyed. An example: the Empire destroying Alderaan in Star Wars A New Hope. They build it up as such a nice and peaceful planet and the impact of the Empire destroying it means that much more. -- Last edit: 2012-08-27 13:20:20
Ingo ◊ 2012-01-01 22:19	EvanAzzo wrote I highly suggest you give up movie watching all together Indeed, I do so since a long time. A few exceptions (old stuff, I've seen a dozen times), but otherwise I really do not watch TV or going into the cinema. And I don't buy/rent/download movies either. And please don't forget a very important principle: If hundreds of blowflies are sitting on a piece of shit, it doesn't mean, that shit tastes good.
Gomselmash11 ◊ 2012-01-01 23:11	@EvanAzzo ignorance? maybe youre totally wrong.
dsl ◊ 2012-01-01 23:19	CougarTim wrote Ingo is a well-respected member who has contributed greatly to this site. And a happy new year to everybody.
Ingo ◊ 2012-01-01 23:23	Oh, sure, yes, now everyone around the world has reached 2012 (sorry for the profane beer. No idea, if a champagner-smiley exists, too) -- Last edit: 2012-01-01 23:23:53
rjluna2 ◊ 2012-01-01 23:27	@ingo: (Google Translate:) Glückliches neues Jahr! -- Last edit: 2012-01-01 23:27:27
Ford_Guy ◊ 2012-01-02 00:03	CougarTim wrote This movie was successful because it appealed to the lowest common denominator. So what is this "lowest common denominator?" Because I'm in it. There's no need to argue over this movie because some like it, some don't and that probably won't change here.
Gomselmash11 ◊ 2012-01-02 00:07	@ dsl, ingo, rjluna2: Feliz año nuevo -- Last edit: 2012-01-02 00:07:08
CougarTim ◊ 2012-01-03 00:36	Ford_Guy wrote So what is this "lowest common denominator?" Because I'm in it. There's no need to argue over this movie because some like it, some don't and that probably won't change here. I knew I shouldn't feed the troll and I did it anyway. Anything I say now would only exacerbate the situation. I'm sorry; it was not my intent to offend you.
Ford_Guy ◊ 2012-01-03 04:58	No worries, I wasn't offended. I was mainly pointing out the futility of trying to argue one's point here.
Ingo ◊ 2012-04-01 15:51	It seems, that this evening will include a little dissonance My wife has said "Let's make a cosy evening in the living room, with a fire in the furnace, the cats on the carpet and some good food. There are great movies tonight, for example 'Hangover', which shall be very funny." She reacted more than just slightly pissed, when I replied "Hangover? No way! If you want to watch this, I'll take my food upstairs into my office, will switch on the PC and will write offending comments about the shitheads, who are watching that"
symustafa1996 ◊ 2012-06-12 19:31	Look, some liked this movie, some don't. It's just opinions. No one thing will be liked by everyone. Face it. I liked the movie, and so what if someone else doesn't? It their business. And there's a lot of cars getting destroyed in many movies. The movie makers know this. Why would they use real ones which they know is worth a lot of money and is going to piss of a lot of people?
Classic Enthusiast ◊ 2012-08-07 17:26	No matter how good a film may otherwise be, the destruction of such a rare and beautiful car just automatically confines it to the ever expanding list of stupid, pointless, destructive, puerile films.
tore-40 ◊ 2015-08-19 13:26	-This is rather not a US model (European shine-up number plate light in thumb 2) -Front direction indicators are wrong for a US High-Grille: These head units seem to be mounted in the place of the bullet ones. (Too high, not in line, differently on different cars) For the damaged ones, I'd agree they are converted Coupes (Thumb 6 seems to have a vinyl roof put on top, notice the top of the windshield; thumbs 7 and 8 could show another car as they have similar damages, also they share the shadowed windscreen; thumb 8 shows a windshield top wrong for a convertible) Antenna is bent in thumbs 7 and 8, but seems undamaged in thumb 6. Side markers seem to be placed slightly different on all cars, as are the front indicator units. Main image seems to have the lit (and retroreflective) side indicators while 1968-69 should have the retroreflector type. Again, not a car made for US, but made to look that way. One thing they do have in common, from what's visible they all seem to be 1968-69 280SE (mirror, rims) or older ones made to look that way

Advertising

Last completed movie pages

1969 Mercedes-Benz 280 SE Convertible [W111]

1969 Mercedes-Benz 280 SE Convertible [W111] in The Hangover, Movie, 2009

Comments about this vehicle

Add a comment

Advertising

Watch or buy this title - Powered by JustWatch

Advertising