It's A Bad Man's World: A Review of THE HANGOVER PART II

Expected grade: 7/10

Actual grade: 2/10

(For a full explanation of my grading system, check out this post.)

When The Hangover was released, it was a brotastic, trashy-fun, booze-fueled, Vegas-romping breath of fresh air. Was it a cinematic masterpiece? Perhaps not, but it was funny, felt new, and featured characters we all loved. Incidentally, it also became the highest-grossing R-rated movie of all time. Who wouldn't want to revisit that?

No one, as it turns out. The Hangover Part II grossed $105.8 million over its first four days, the single largest opening for a live-action comedy ever, and the fourth-best Memorial Day Weekend opening after only Pirates 3, Indiana Jones 4, and X-Men 3. But I have a sneaking suspicion that a lot, if not most, of the people who flocked to this film walked away feeling cheated. I certainly did.

Based on the trailers, I knew that this film had the same basic concept as the first: three guys get drunk, lose someone, and try desperately to find the missing guy after they wake up having no idea what happened the night before. But I was still expecting the film to find new ground... To take this concept to unexplored places and unexpected situations. Instead, what I got was a shockingly blatant, practically scene-for-scene reshoot of the first Hangover.

Not only does it share the same concept as the first film, it also steals the entire formula. The structure is the same -- film starts with a phone call, the line "We f****d up," then flashes back to a bachelor party. There's a black-out, then Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and Zach Galifianakis wake up in a trashed hotel room. There's bodily disfigurement, a random animal in the room, and a friend missing. Throughout the film there are over-the-top criminals, trade-offs that yield undesirable results, gratuitous male nudity, and Stu even has another escapade with strippers. The film reaches the phone call scene again just before the climax. In the end they find the missing person, race to make the wedding on time, and after the ceremony, finally find photographic evidence of the night before. The pictures then roll over the closing credits.

Sound familiar? It should. This film felt less like a sequel and more like a remake. A remake made only a few years after the original, starring all the same people, and relocated to a different city, but nevertheless exactly the same. The film even references this fact, with Bradley Cooper saying early on "It's happening again..." But a character pointing out a plot device doesn't make it any less of a plot device.

While all of this blatant copying is a crime, perhaps this film's biggest crime is that it just isn't funny. I laughed out loud maybe three times through the course of the hour and a half, and spent the remainder of the time wondering how I had been coerced into spending money to see a movie I'd already seen before. The one thing this movie tries to do differently is go even darker in its humor. The first one was rollicking in its absurdity, full of wedding chapels, gambling scenes, and little kids tasering grown men. Instead of trying to top that, this film attempts to find the humor in more dangerous, violent situations. There are severed fingers, death by drug overdose, disposing of bodies, police riots complete with tear gas and molotov cocktails, and main characters getting shot. It's remarkable how easily this film could have been a tragedy -- the only thing that made the dangerous situations funny were the characters' reactions. Put different characters in the same film, and you would have had a gritty Bangkok action flick.

But even the characters we loved so much the first time around couldn't save this film. Bradley Cooper is still charmingly relaxed, Ed Helms is still freaking out, and Zach Galifianakis is still the weird manchild. There is so little character development it's astonishing. Ed Helms, as the everyman, has the biggest character arc and at the end he finally works up the courage to verbally chew out his overbearing father-in-law...which is 100% the EXACT same place he reached at the end of the first film, when he finally works up the courage to verbally chew out his overbearing girlfriend. Released merely two weeks after the superb Bridesmaids, this lack of any depth is especially remarkable. Whereas Bridesmaids managed to find humor in a potentially depressing situation and at the same time show true character growth, this film is just about a bunch of boys behaving badly and coming out the other side with absolutely no consequences or change to speak of.

The Hangover Part II merely recycles a formula that worked the first time around, hoping for the same result again, and ends up falling sensationally short. It is offensive as a movie-goer to think that the producers and writers didn't think we'd notice that they simply made the same movie twice. But judging by how spectacularly they're being rewarded for their lack of effort, there's no reason we won't be treated to a Hangover Part III in a couple of years. I can only hope that we have learned our lesson and won't waste our money. Otherwise, studios will continue to churn out mindless dreck like The Hangover Part II -- and we'll deserve it.

On The High Seas Once More: A Review of PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN - ON STRANGER TIDES

Expected grade: 5/10

Actual grade: 7/10

(For a full explanation of my grading system, check out this post.)

For someone who claims to not take much stock in reviews, I must admit I was concerned going into this film. Based on the reviews I'd read, I was prepared to be disappointed. I expected to see a tired but beloved franchise try desperately to churn out more story lines. I also expected to still have a good time, because Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush are amazing in their roles, but I didn't expect it to be anything above average. I was therefore pleasantly surprised by this fourth Pirates movie. I had a blast. While of course not matching the genius of the first film, it easily surpassed either of the underwhelming sequels.

For the fourth entry in the franchise, this film wisely scaled back. Both of the sequels attempted to top the previous entry, and both fell short. Aiming for smaller was a risk, but one that, in my opinion, paid off. Only three characters return from the previous films: Jack, Barbossa, and Gibbs. Literally every other old character is not only unseen, but completely unmentioned. Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley, in particular, are not missed. Also, the plot itself has been streamlined. This film abandons complicated, intertwining motives, subplots, and twists in favor of a straight-forward quest for one object and the two (occasionally three) parties competing for it. Gone are the tedious scenes of pirate politics that bogged the previous two sequels down. This film, with its tighter plot, fewer characters, and shorter running time, breezes by.

This film also has a more serious tone than Dead Man's Chest or At World's End. Whereas those two films were campy and over-the-top, this film does not have villains with tentacles for beards or bumbling one-eyed sidekicks or sword fights on wheels rolling down a hill. The action is still exciting and well-choreographed, but the sword fights have a decidedly different feel to them -- they have morphed from showy and demonstrative to fast and precise, lending a more urgent and realistic feel to the action. The definite stand-out effects and action sequence takes place about halfway through the film -- I won't say anything else except that it involves mermaids. Ian McShane and Penelope Cruz are both good additions to the cast as Blackbeard and his daughter(?). McShane is definitely given the meatier role of the two and makes a great villain, but Cruz is sufficiently puzzling to keep us questioning her motives. My biggest gripe with this film was that it put Jack and Barbossa in opposing camps competing for the Fountain of Youth -- Depp and Rush play off each other so well, I wanted them to share more screen time.

At times I did miss the ridiculous fun of haunted ships, skeleton crew members and large-scale sea battles (an unprecedented amount of this film takes place on land). But overall, the tightening of the film and the shedding of everything that was holding it down pays off well. I would love to see more series' take this approach to sequels. The biggest problem series' have these days is continually trying to top themselves and getting mired in the continuity of endless plot threads requiring endless exposition. This film has more in common with a James Bond film -- a few familiar characters in a new, self-contained adventure -- and the series will therefore will be able to sustain itself longer and remain fresher. For a time, trilogies were all the rage (Spider-Man, X-Men, Bourne, Matrix, etc), but now studios are wanting to make more and more movies as long as they bring in money. I hope they will begin to follow the Bond and Pirates formula if they wish to achieve longevity while maintaining quality.

On Stranger Tides is an ironic title, given that this is decidedly the least strange of the Pirates films. But it did exceed my expectations, and if you enjoyed the rest of the films in this series, there's no reason you wouldn't enjoy this one. It's fast, light-hearted fun, and doesn't try to be any more than that.

Women On The Verge Of A Nervous Breakdown: A Review of BRIDESMAIDS

I will tell you quite simply: If you enjoy laughing, GO SEE THIS MOVIE.

Expected grade: 7/10

Actual grade: 9/10

(For a full explanation of my grading system, check out this post.)

In anticipation of this movie, various people have been bandying about the phrase "The Hangover with women." I myself said those words in my summer preview post. I apologize for that now. It is not like The Hangover. It is so. Much. Better.

Whereas The Hangover was an over-the-top, hilarious film about three guys and their hijinks in Vegas (and not much more than that), Bridesmaids is an over-the-top, hilarious, heart-felt, at-times-depressing but still hysterically side-splitting film about real relationships between real women with characters who evolve and change and actually have important things to say about growing up and growing apart from your friends.

Coming from the brilliant mind of Kristen Wiig, this movie often feels like a bunch of short films (or long sketches) in one large package. There's the engagement party sequence, the gown shopping sequence, the plane trip sequence, etc. (The engagement party sequence, in particular, is unbelievably funny -- it goes on for so long and every time you think it's ending...it's not. I don't remember the last time I've laughed so hard.) This sequencing plays to Wiig's strengths (her SNL background) and allows each actress to showcase her comedic chops. Wiig and Maya Rudolph obviously have wonderful chemistry together, and the always-beautiful Rose Byrne is delightful as the icy cold rich girl stealing away Wiig's best friend. You may have heard that Melissa McCarthy, as the overweight sister of the groom, steals the show. It's almost true. She brings depth and unexpected levity to a role that could have been an easy caricature. But no one steals this show from Ms Wiig. She is consistently strong, both in the comedic moments (unsurprising) and the sadder ones (more surprising). She carries this entire film on her shoulders and never slows down for a second.

The only qualms I had were minor. Wiig, Rudolph, Byrne and McCarthy are utilized to their utmost -- however, the other two bridesmaids are apparently forgotten about two-thirds of the way into the film and their subplots almost entirely dropped. And then there's the ending. I thought the movie was ending about three minutes before it actually did. I'm 98% positive that's when Wiig wanted the movie to end, but the studio told her "No! You need to wrap things up neatly and please the masses!" The actual ending subsequently felt so abrupt and tacked on, it was almost from a different movie. But everything else about this movie is so great, it's easy to look past that.

There's something in this film for everyone. It is a breath of fresh air in a world where movies starring women and about weddings are expected to be abhorrently bad (see: Bride Wars). But Kristen Wiig gives it her all and comes out on top. I can't wait to see what she comes up with next.

Starting The Summer With A Thunderous Thud: A Review of THOR

Expected grade: 7/10

Actual grade: 4/10

(For a full explanation of my grading system, check out this post.)

We are fortunate enough to have been witness to a rise in quality in superhero blockbuster movies over the past decade. Starting with the Spiderman and X-Men franchises and culminating in the zeitgeist-defining Dark Knight, various characters have made the leap from comic book to big screen to both commercial and critical success. It is subsequently even more disappointing when a superhero movie fails to live up to this admittedly very high bar. I must confess that I went into this movie with fairly high expectations, knowing it was from the Marvel universe (that also spawned the terrific Iron Man) and that Thor would be joining said superhero and many others next summer in the highly anticipated Avengers. But I couldn't help but feel disappointed as the credits started rolling.

First of all, IMDB has no less than eight people credited for writing this film (3 for the comic book, 2 for "story," and 3 for the actual screenplay). It is no wonder that with a such a hodgepodge of ideas, inspiration and talent, that the end product would be at the very least uneven. And it is. Whereas Iron Man (another Marvel franchise) found a sharp, pithy sense of humor in which to set its action, the only humor to be found in this film is the "fish out of water" slapstick of watching the Old Timey-speaking Thor try to adjust to life on Earth. Other than that, the film takes itself very seriously (read: too seriously). Thor's character development is practically non-existent. The main journey is supposed to be him overcoming his arrogance and becoming worthy of the hammer, but this "journey" was so abrupt, underdeveloped, and unbelievable that the whole film eventually lost any thrust or power it did have. And Natalie Portman's character, Jane, is so two-dimensional I couldn't believe she agreed to do it. Granted, I haven't read the comic books, but she and her two even more useless sidekicks (Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Dennings) do hardly anything other than stand and gawk on the sidelines at Thor while he raves about his hammer and finally beats some stuff up at the end. We are supposed to believe that after one glimpse at his admittedly admirable abs, Jane has fallen madly in love with Thor. And then, in the final confrontation, we are supposed to believe that it is difficult for Thor to make a choice between Jane and vanquishing evil after sharing one short kiss with her. There was so little chemistry and so little character development between Thor and Jane that I actually felt insulted by how much I was supposed to be suspending my disbelief.

Secondly, there's the acting. Remember when Iron Man came out? It was such a pleasant surprise, because it was so much better than anyone expected it to be. But what made it so great, at least in my opinion, was the acting. Robert Downey Jr and Gwyneth Paltrow had such a believable, zingy rapport that was truly a delight to watch, and Jeff Bridges was a wonderfully hammy villain. In the hands of less capable actors, the same movie would probably have been much less successful. Chris Hemsworth, the newcomer who plays Thor, is nowhere near the level of Robert Downey Jr in terms of talent, charisma, or anything, really. He certainly looks the part of a Norse god, but looks are not enough to carry a whole film. And Natalie Portman is so wasted in this film, as I said before, that even her now-Oscar-worthy talents can't save it. Anthony Hopkins is a breath of fresh air in his meaty but regrettably brief role of Odin.

Finally, and most importantly, there's the source material itself. As I stated before, I've never read the comics, but my biggest problem was with how un-relatable it was. That, in my opinion, is what has made other superhero movies of late so great. Peter Parker, Tony Stark, Bruce Wayne: these are all men, flesh and blood, mortal, complete with flaws. Thor, by definition, is a God, and as such, it is much harder to identify with his struggle. He's gorgeous, heir to a massive, magical kingdom, stronger than any enemy, wields one of the most powerful weapons in the universe, and his biggest problem is overconfidence? I wish that was my problem. Many people are praising Kenneth Branagh for making a superhero movie so Shakespearean, but in my opinion, he didn't need to make an already epic story more epic. The movie needed a director who would tone it down and humanize the story so we as the audience could relate to the hero. For instance Peter Parker, a teenager who develops powers overnight and takes on the responsibility of the safety of all of New York; or Tony Stark, an alcoholic playboy who, after being kidnapped by terrorists, finds himself dying and his only legacy that of war and weapons; or Bruce Wayne, fighting to protect the city he loves only to have its citizens turn against him. All of these movies have found something deep and true to say about the human condition.

Everyone remembers the phrase "With great power comes great responsibility" from Spider-Man or even "You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain" from The Dark Knight. These were the thought-provoking kernels at the heart of those big fancy action movies. Thor contributes very little to this conversation. It is essentially loud, empty action, a feature-length advertisement for The Avengers.

I was hoping for a film on par with Iron Man, and instead got a completely average action flick. If you are a huge comic book/superhero fan, I won't say don't go. But if you were on the fence about seeing this, I would encourage you to save your money. There are plenty more blockbusters coming out in the next few months. If there was one good thing about Thor (besides its art direction, which I must say was beautiful), it was that it set a relatively low bar for the summer -- it can only get better from here, right?

Whatever the f*** it takes: A Review of WIN WIN

So I made a totally unplanned stop at the movie theatre today with some friends to see Win Win. I don't think I'd even seen a trailer for this movie. I knew it was an indie movie starring Paul Giamatti, and that's about it. Therefore I had basically zero expectations, so we'll just give it a basic, middle-of-the-road expected grade.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to explain my grading a little bit. To some, especially those who equate number ratings to grades (ie 9/10 = A, 8/10 = B, etc) a 5/10 may sound like a failing grade. However, I would prefer to consider it perfectly average. Anything above is above average, and anything below is below average (obviously). So a rating of 8/10 is actually very good, and a 5 is not terrible. Anyway, on to Win Win:

Expected grade: 5/10

Actual grade: 6/10

(For a full explanation of my grading system, check out this post.)

This film was a very by-the-numbers indie-style movie. It followed a very typical indie formula pretty much note for note. It was about a middle-aged, shlubby guy (Mike) going through a crisis who commits a morally dubious act. He has a supportive but more morally-centered wife, and a pair of doofy friends who are there to provide perfectly-timed comedic one-liners. Mike is introduced to a young, monosyllabic, slightly awkward but secretly talented teenager with a troubled childhood. He subsequently takes this boy under his wing and they both grow as people through their interactions, although there is temporary angst when the kid discovers Mike's morally dubious act. But by the end of the film, all is forgiven in a resolution that is so quick and tidy it strains credulity -- and everyone is happy.

The one thing that set this movie slightly above every other movie like it was the performances. They were all stellar. Amy Ryan is particularly believable as the morally-centered, exasperated at times, seemingly-tough-but-actually-loving-and-sweet-underneath wife. Bobby Cannavale and George Bluth (sorry, I mean Jeffrey Tambor) are effectively funny as Mike's two friends. Bobby Cannavale is especially hysterical in a role that shows his character reliving his high school days through his job as Mike's overzealous assistant wrestling coach. And Alex Shaffer, who plays young Kyle, manages to bring surprising depth to his role, which could have gone monotone in the hands of a less capable actor. I constantly felt his attempts to connect with the other characters, finding new parents in Mike and Jackie, spending time with a grandfather he never knew, and meeting new friends at school.

Surprisingly, it is actually Paul Giamatti who has the least impressive role in the film, but I believe it's due more to the writing than the actual performance. It is such a typical indie, mid-life crisis role that it honestly could have been portrayed interchangeably by him, Philip Seymour Hoffman or William H Macy with basically equal results. All that is required is a man in his 40s, going to seed, trying to do his best with less-than-ideal circumstances. Being Paul Giamatti, he obviously does a great job with it, but the things his character does are so unsurprising that he wasn't really given an opportunity to shine, which is a shame.

This is all not to say that I didn't enjoy myself -- I did. I thought it was cute, funny and worth two hours in the theatre (but I also got to see it for free). But I also felt like I'd seen most of it before. What saved it was the performances and the occasionally surprising sense of humor. When asked by Mike how he always wins his wrestling matches, Kyle responds that he simply does "whatever the f*** it takes" not to lose. That becomes the mantra of the characters in the film. I just wish it had also been the mantra of the screenwriter. He could have used a little more chutzpah to shake up the formula and give his formidable cast a plot more worthy of their talents.

Has anybody else seen this movie? If you have, am I way off? If so, why? I suspect many people will think I am because I heard it did well at Sundance, so I'd genuinely like to hear someone else's opinion on this film. Let me know in the comments!