On the invitation of a friend, I went to see The Hangover Part II this week.
Up until I received his invitation, I was content to let the second installment in this forgotten weekend franchise slip blissfully below my radar. The trailers and advertisements for the film looked painfully reminiscent of the original film and reviews since then have all but confirmed it. The film has only been in theaters for two weeks, but it’s staleness is already legendary.
But, hey. When a buddy calls to see a movie, you put aside your reservations and go. It’s the Bro Code.
I suppose the same could be said about The Hangover Part II. Good will among those who saw the original movie was so strong, a sequel was all but demanded by the powers-that-be. When it was first announced, people were pretty excited. But as footage started coming out, that enthusiasm waned – and rightfully so.
It’s unfortunate that director and co-writer Todd Phillips couldn’t come up with something more than copying and pasting the original Hangover script into a new document, performing a Find and Replace on “Vegas” for “Bangkok” and sprinkling in a few “I can’t believe this is happening again!” exclamations from his characters.
Is it wrong to admit that I kind of hate these characters now? In the original Hangover, The Wolf Pack was an oddball assembly of guys who you at once celebrated and sympathized with. For all intents and purposes, they were regular guys caught in extraordinary circumstances who managed to emerge unscathed with a hell of a story to tell.
I think that was part of the appeal behind the original Hangover. Most people wouldn’t want to be caught up in the whirlwind those three guys found themselves in. But everyone kind of wishes they had a story like that. It would fuel late-night B.S. sessions for the rest of your life.
But in the sequel, you kind of sit back and think to yourself “How could these morons get wrapped up in this again? Haven’t they learned anything?”
To their credit, Ed Helms sheepish dentist Stu seems to have learned something from the original outing. He puts a napkin over his orange juice to keep people from giving him roofies. He barely invited Bradley Cooper’s Phil or Justin Bartha’s Doug to his wedding. The mentally deranged Alan played by Zach Galifanakis was deliberately kept at arms length.
But there wouldn’t be much of a movie if the lead characters exhibited any common sense. So, before you know it, the gang is flying off to Thailand where Stu’s fiancee’s family (conveniently) calls home. Wackiness ensues.
It’s not worth going into the plot because it’s a deliberate facsimile of the original. After having ONE (!) beer on the beach together, Phil, Stu and Alan wake up in a dingy hotel in Bangkok. What follows is supposed to be a fun mystery as the guys untangle where they’ve been so they can find Stu’s soon-to-be brother-in-law – lost during the previous night’s revelry.
Yes, there are a few laughs in the movie – due largely to Galifanakis, who can extract laughs out of the most droll situation with a simple, doe-eyed thousand yard stare. His potent combination of inadvertent malevolence and wonder are the only things that keeps the movie on two feet.
Recognition should be afforded to Ken Jeong as Mr. Chow. He shows up early in the film and I felt immediately agitated by his presence. But he is dispatched of fairly quickly. The laughs he earns when he re-materializes in the third act all but negate the nattering annoyance I felt in the first act.
Overall, however, I found myself feeling exceedingly impatient with the proceedings. I wanted the guys to get their next clue and move things along so we could get to the inevitable slideshow of photos capturing their raucous night. And after the photos materialized – like clockwork – I felt insulted by the whole affair. Ashamed that I had put down good money to see a movie I pretty much already owned on DVD back home.
Much like visiting Bangkok itself, I felt very unclean after spending time watching The Hangover Part II.
Related Posts ¬
Mar 1, 2004 | ONE FROM THE VAULT |
Jul 25, 2003 | CUP OF SUGAR FROM HELL |
May 5, 2003 | X GONNA GIVE IT TO YA |
As you probably know, Cars 2 came out this weekend. And, as you probably know, most critics didn’t like it. Cars 2 has the dubious distinction of being the first “rotten” movie in Pixar’s 15-year production history.
Unfortunately, this is probably what Cars 2 will be most readily identified with – a punctuation mark on unsurpassed era of critical praise. This is unfair for a number of reasons.
The peripherals of Pixar’s films include a legacy of quality, critical response to that standard, box office success and merchandising ubiquity. In many ways, this is a Jenga stack that was destined to tumble. As each new film is released, any small imperfection will be magnified and exploited before the tower falls.
In this case, Cars 2 has the unfortunate distinction of being released behind Toy Story 3 which was Pixar’s most profitable, best reviewed film to date. Next to that, nearly anything would have looked like a pale imitator.
But does that mean that Cars 2 is a bad movie? No, it’s not. Is it a great movie? Well, no. Not exactly. Then what is it? Cars 2 is a perfectly serviceable piece of family entertainment that moves briskly, entertains thoroughly and doesn’t insult the audience’s intelligence. That sounds like faint praise. But neither is it condemning damnation.
I guess walking out of the theater, the question that I tried to answer was “Is Cars 2 worse than the original Cars?” My conclusion was, “It isn’t!” So, by that logic, how can it be the worst Pixar movie of all time. Or, at the very least “rotten?”
Well, I would say that there we some opportunities missed. Unlike the original Cars, whose theme was basically “Slow down and enjoy life,” Cars 2 serves up a tepid lesson about letting your friends be who they are. It doesn’t exactly resonate.
Additionally, I find that one’s enjoyment of Cars 2 weighs heavily on their ability to tollerare comedian Larry the Cable Guy as the faithful tow truck, Mater. Make no mistake about it – Cars 2 is his movie. Either you’re okay with that or you’re not.
In the negative reviews I’ve read, most critics aren’t okay with that. It’s understandable why. As a character, Mater is well-meaning, but best in small doses. Regrettably, what Cars 2 does is makes him slightly more insufferable and ignorant so Owen Wilson (as racing superstar Lightning McQueen) has a reason to push him away in the film’s first act.
This feels a little disingenuous to the character. Despite Mater’s country-bumpkin exterior, in the original Cars, he at least seemed to have some awareness of how others perceived him. I’m thinking specifically when Lightning McQueen is brought in front of a Paul Newman’s Doc Hudson to answer for tearing up the main drag in Radiator Springs. When Bonnie Hunt as Sally shows up, Lightning McQueen is awestruck. Even moreso when Mater says Sally is his financée. “What?!” Lighning says, incredulously. “I’m just kiddin’,” Mater responds. “She jus’ likes me for my body.”
None of that self-awareness is on display in Cars 2 and Mater feels like he’s taken a step backwards as a result.
The resulting lack of message or character progression can make Cars 2 feel somewhat shallow if you listen to your inner cynic. “This is just a money grab!” “They want to sell more toys!” You’re inner cynic is right, by the way. I’m just saying that doesn’t mean Cars 2 is a bad film.
In terms of scope, creativity, design and attention to detail, Cars 2 delivers exactly the way you expect a Pixar movie to. In fact, once the dust settles and people seriously sit down and consider Cars and Cars 2 side-by-side, I think they will agree with that assessment. From a technical perspective, Cars 2 is every way superior to its predecessor. Animation buffs will be dissecting it for years.
Considering that Pixar has always been a studio that trumpted the value of “Story First,” Cars 2 failings in this area makes the rest of the film seem like a sell-out. I don’t feel that way because I never felt like the film was wasting my time.
The more I think about it, the more I acknowledge that maybe I have my “fanboy blinders” on. But I guess I feel like I see both sides of the equation. I know where Cars 2 doesn’t work but I don’t feel like that diminishes the accomplishments of what DOES work about the film. Therefore, I don’t feel like critics are necessarily justified in punishing the movie with abysmal reviews for an otherwise inoffensive and acceptable film.
If it was a Dreamworks movie on the other hand, maybe we could talk. 😉
Related Posts ¬
Mar 26, 2007 | CAN SOMEONE PLEASE TELL ME WHY I READ EW? |
Fans of MTV’s seminal sketch comedy series The State might remember the name David Wain. He was one of the cast’s 11 members who has since gone on to write and produce films like Wet, Hot American Summer, Role Models and the forthcoming Wanderlust.
What you might not know about Wain is that he’s been producing a series of short films for My Damn Channel since 2007 called Wainy Days. The series chronicles a highly fictionalized version of Wain and his romantic pursuits. Seasons 1 – 4 have recently been collected and released as a DVD.
Its hard to rationalize the appeal of Wainy Days. If you’re a fan of offbeat humor, you’ll find a lot to enjoy here. Quite often, things happen for no rhyme or reason. For example, David has an odd habit of pushing people down in the street at random. No reason is given and no repercussions are ever felt but the assaults are frequent (I assume) because it’s funny to watch people fall down.
David also discusses his relationship problems with his friends at the sweatshop where he works. Why does David work at a sweatshop? Again, no reason is given except perhaps to play on the juxtaposition of having a bunch of educated white people working in a sweatshop.
Probably the better reason to watch Wainy Days is because it’s practically an alt-comedy smorgasbord that is sure to delight the most entrenched comedy nerd.
Guest stars of the series include Elizabeth Banks, Lake Bell, Julie Bowen, Saffron Burrows, Rob Corddry, Rashida Jones, Megan Mullally, Nick Offerman, Amanda Peet, Elizabeth Reaser, Paul Rudd and Jason Sudeikis. You’d be hard pressed not to find at least ONE episode featuring a comedy star acting beyond ridiculous just for the hell of it.
The early episodes are a little rough. The transfer looks somewhat pixelated, kind of like the uploaded it the DVD straight from 2007. Also, there’s a good chance that the xylophone-infused theme song for the series will drive you insane before you make it though the second season. So a marathon session is not advised.
However, the films are short – about five minutes a piece – easily digestible and very enjoyable. You don’t really have to keep track of what happens from a narrative stand point between episodes. It’s pretty much small, concentrated doses of silliness. A welcome reprieve from an otherwise hectic life. Watching the different episodes, you begin to understand very quickly why the series did so well online.
Smartly, Wain interrupts episodes with snippets from a Hefner-esque “Pajama Party” that features several of the guest stars featured in the series. Extras include outtakes from each episode, a live script reading, never-before-scene shorts and audio commentaries.
Wainy Days might be niche entertainment, but it’s light and easily accessible. If you’re looking for in-roads to the “comedy nerd” scene, Wainy Days is a good place to start.
Wainy Days is available now and can be purchased through Amazon.
Related Posts ¬
May 5, 2003 | X GONNA GIVE IT TO YA |