'The Hangover: Part II' review.

OK look, I’ve been sitting here for about 3 days amid all my other work, trying to find time to write a nice, balanced review of The Hangover: Part II. The kind of review I try to write: Opinionated, but with a caring touch of unbiased reporting. But in the interest of getting this review out while people will still read it, I’m just going to free write.

Bottom line: The Hangover: Part II is not as good as the first one. That statement doesn’t carry much weight. There are plenty of good sequels that aren’t as good as the originals. Harold and Kumar Escape From Guantanamo Bay (which I liked better than the first one), Iron Man 2, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest, etc. But those sequels are all still good movies. They had a high bar set for them. In the realm of worthy sequels, this movie does not belong.

The movie revolves around the wedding of Stu (Ed Helms), who is getting married in Thailand to Lauren (Jamie Chung). Along for the wedding are of course Phil (Bradley Cooper, still delightfully snarky) and Alan (Zach Galifianakis). Because of the events of the last movie, Stu doesn’t want a bachelor party. Instead, he finally agrees to have one beer on a beach by firelight with his friends and his fiance’s 16-year-old brother Teddy (newcomer Mason Lee). Of course, it turns out not to be just one drink and the gang wakes up the next morning in a shady hotel room in Bangkok, and Teddy is missing. Hilarity ensues, a couple of times.

Before you dismiss my opinion, let me first say that it pains me to review this movie as negatively as I do. It does. I loved the first movie. I own the first movie. I’ve watched it repeatedly. The characters carried with them a sense of brotherhood and camaraderie. That camaraderie is completely absent in this movie. This is especially true of Alan, who in the first movie was kind of an affable idiot. But here, he’s not so much stupid as he is just mean and despicable. I actually didn’t have any problems with Phil. He is the same as he was in the first movie, but then again, we don’t learn anything new about him in this movie. In the first movie, he plays it off like he hates his life, but at the end, we see that he actually loves his family. We see Alan find friends. We see Stu develop the self-confidence to break it off with his abusive cheating girlfriend. In this movie, it’s like Stu has re-developed his insecurity in relation to Lauren’s father, who does not like him and openly insults him. This feels crowbarred in just so that Stu can have an arc. Stu is very much the main character in this film, and it feels weird because the movie should be about the three of them, just like the last movie was. And it wants to be about them all, but there just isn’t enough story there for the three of them.

It’s tough not to compare this film to the first one, but it compares itself to the first one. All the time. They probably figured that people would react negatively if they did not reference the first film, since the premise is so similar. That’s the biggest problem. This film is almost an EXACT COPY of the first film, which would have been fine if it was FUNNY, but it isn’t that funny. What they should have done was try for something different, and find the humor in that. At least then even if it wasn’t funny, they would have done something different. Fail on one level instead of two. They failed on both levels here. It’s like they didn’t even try. Every big laugh in the movie is there just for laughs. It doesn’t feel real. I know that all the circumstances of these movies can’t be taken completely seriously, it’s a comedy. That’s not what I mean. Even in the first movie, everyone reacted realistically to their extraordinary circumstances. In this one, that doesn’t happen and at least for me, it takes me out of the movie.

******SPOILERS*******

Okay, I have to reveal plot details to further explain my point. If you’ve already seen the movie, or don’t care, keep reading this section.

Let me point out the major problems (that I haven’t stated) with this movie in detail. In no particular order.

1. Alan: Alan is not lovable in this movie. He does not like Teddy and is threatened by him to the point that he tries to drug Teddy so that he can’t have fun with the guys. Yes, once again, Alan is responsible for the wild night. Even though he denies it early in the film, it was him once again, and it is not surprising at all. Again, there’s a lack of originality here. Why couldn’t they find another reason for the wild night, other than Alan supposedly meaning well? At least in the last film, he meant to slip ecstacy in everyone’s drinks so that they’d have fun. It turned out to be roofies, thus explaining why no one could remember anything. In this one, it was ADD medicine and cough syrup, I believe. ADD medicine is a cardiac stimulant. Neither it nor cough syrup would make someone completely forget their night. And this time around, he didn’t do it to help his buddies have a good time. He attempted to incapacitate Teddy, messed up, and ended up drugging them all. Thankfully there’s a moment in the film after he admits this where both Phil and Stu get angry with Alan for this and threaten to not be friends with him anymore, but it’s not treated with much weight. I’d never speak to this guy again if it were me.
2. Mr. Chow: I loved Mr Chow in the first movie because Ken Jeong was a great side-gag character. But that’s what he should have stayed: A side-gag character. In this film, he’s much more important to the “plot” in this movie. They seem to have taken his best jokes or Chow-isms from the first movie and blended them together to spit them back out incessantly in this movie. It’s funny until you realize that you want it to stop trying so hard.
3. Stu: Here is one example of a moment where they sacrifice character for laughs. One of the things that happens in the movie is that apparently Stu played the catcher in male gay sex with a pre-op She-male. Funny right? No. Just uncomfortable. What’s worse is that it doesn’t make sense that Stu would do that. In the first movie, Stu marries Heather Graham, a stripper. He does this because it reflects his desire to break free from his abusive girlfriend. Here, it makes ZERO sense and I couldn’t really laugh at it because it just seemed like a shameless grab for a gross-out laugh. Stu isn’t gay. Even really drugged up, it doesn’t make sense that he would consent to have sex with a man.
4. Teddy: I’m sorry, but this kid was not funny. Then again, he’s barely in the movie. He loses a finger in the course of the night’s happenings. When they finally find him and take him back to his father’s house for the wedding, his father is furious. It’s understandable. This kid is sixteen years old, he’s his father’s most prized possession, and his finger is gone forever. That’s right. They didn’t keep the finger and then re-attach it. This kid, who plays the cello, has permanently lost his finger. Yet, he is not at all concerned about it. I’d be really pissed and I’d never hang out with these people again. I wouldn’t tell Stu that “even though I don’t remember anything from last night, I was happy.” NO. That’s stupid. And that doesn’t even make sense.
5. The photos at the end.: At the end of the first movie, Alan comes up to the guys, announcing that he looked at his camera and it was full of telling photos from the night. This made for a very funny montage during the end credits that both explained what happened and was funny. Obviously, since they felt every need to copy the first film, they do this again in this movie, but it feels SO FORCED. Teddy walks up to them and says that he charged his phone and it is full of pictures from the night. Ugh.

******NO MORE SPOILERS*****

I wouldn’t go see this movie in theaters. There’s no need. I’m having a hard time deciding whether or not to recommend it at all, even for rental. Look, you’re probably going to see it anyway, and this movie has already made a crapload of money. But I really don’t recommend it at all. As hard as it is to believe, I really don’t think it is worth seeing. I’ve even heard some critics say that it ruined the first film for them because it made them question the creative choices of Todd Phillips.

Do what you want. But I didn’t like this movie. I agree with those who would say that if you liked the first movie, don't see this one.

The Hangover Part II is playing in theaters everywhere. Mobile residents can still see it at the Carmike or Hollywood theaters.

'Bridesmaids' was a long ceremony with good food.

It’s difficult to describe my overall impression of Bridesmaids. I wouldn’t say it is a great movie. I wouldn’t say it is a bad movie. It’s simply…..meh.

The movie is directed by Paul Feig (Feeeg), the creator of Freaks and Geeks, a highly overlooked show, and co-written by Kristen Wiig of Saturday Night Live fame, who also stars in the film. The people involved in this project had me sold when I first heard about it. Not to mention the other players involved, including Maya Rudolph (SNL), Wendi McLendon-Covey (Reno 911), and Ellie Kemper (The Office).

In the film, Annie’s (Wiig’s) life kind of sucks. Since her baking business failed, she works in a jewelry store and is a poor saleswoman. Poor in both senses of the word: She makes a horrible salary and anytime she might make a sale, she informs the customers of how worthless an engagement ring is because your lover will just cheat on you or break your heart. Meanwhile, she can’t make the rent for her apartment and is on the verge of being kicked out by her roommate and his freeloading sister. Her love life is nonexistent, and she gets by with frequent sexual romps with Ted (Jon Hamm) who doesn’t actually like her, but uses her for sex and then kicks her out. When Annie’s best friend Lillian (Rudolph) gets engaged, she asks Annie to be her maid of honor. From here, we’re introduced to Helen Harris (Rose Byrne), the “other best friend.” You know, the friend your best friend met recently whom she is very close to and since you two don’t hang out as much, she considers this friend to be special and it’ll be awkward when you two meet? That friend. What do you think happens when the best friend and the other best friend meet, especially when they’re both insecure about how important they are to the bride? They compete for her affection. 

In the midst of this tension, we’re introduced to the other bridesmaids. There’s Becca (Kemper), who is a newlywed and unintentionally makes Annie feel worse about her own crappy love life. There’s Megan (Melissa McCarthy) the groom’s blunt, tomboyish sister. And there’s Rita (McClendon-Covey), who is married with three sons and hates it. We’re also introduced to Nathan Rhodes (Chris O’Dowd), a cop who takes a liking to Annie, and maybe she likes him too because he’s actually a nice person who treats her well.  All along the way, numerous things happen in the course of planning the wedding, the dresses, the bachelorette party, and the bridal shower, all while Annie tries to keep her life together in the midst of Helen trying to one-up her as “best friend.”

There aren’t really many distinct positives or negatives about this movie. It really depends on your taste. It’s subjective, like all comedies. I’ve heard critics who praised the movie because it was funny. I’ve also heard critics who saw Wiig’s character as a completely despicable bitch and resented the fact that the movie wanted us to like her. I’m more on the side of praise. My problems with the movie have nothing to do with Wiig’s character. I see her as a tremendously flawed woman who has a lot of issues that she selfishly projects onto those around her. She is not, however, unlikable, and certainly not despicable. She is flawed. Whether you agree with me or not, it doesn’t matter. I have no stake in the success of this movie. No one has a gun to my head telling me to make excuses for this character and her horribleness. It’s my opinion. She is flawed, but I still like her. Most of the “bitchy” things she does in the movie are indeed bitchy, but they’re performed in a comedic context. For those who would retort, “but this needs to take place in the real world, no matter what the genre is”, well, it does, and she gets her real-world comeuppance. So don’t stress about that.

My issue with the movie is its comedy. This film was sold to me on the condition that it was not a chick flick (it wasn’t), it was raunchy enough for a male audience (it was) and that it was funny (it was). It was just kind of long in some parts. For anyone who watches Saturday Night Live, they know the sketches of Kristen Wiig. They’ve seen her quirky characters and her talent for uncomfortable humor. They also see how the sketches carry on FOREVER. I’m not a naysayer. I love Kristen Wiig. She is a talented and funny woman. But I also think sometimes her sketches lose steam because they just keep going with the joke. This happens a number of times in the movie and the audience got bored and sort of got sick of laughing at the same thing over and over again for 5 minutes. I’m not exaggerating. 5 minutes of the same joke. It really messed with the pacing of the film and pace is an important thing for a comedy. It can’t be boring at any point, and God bless it, but this film was boring in several points.

But it has its merits. The cast is funny and I must give the film credit for bringing together these talented women. Even though some of the bridesmaids are underused, they are funny. But the trailer gave me the impression that they would be more present in the movie. Among them is the great Melissa McCarthy, who shines in this movie. When I saw her in the trailer, I kind of cringed. She seemed like she was cast to be the goofy fat friend to cut to for a quick joke, the female Chris Farley. Now, she was that, but she was so much more in this movie. She actually had a character with some depth, and the funniest scenes involved her. Keep an eye on her. She was probably my favorite character.

Overall, I’d go see Bridesmaids, but if you’re going to see it, do what I did. Go to a theater that sells matinee tickets for $3. Since a lot of you won’t get to do that, rent it. It's tough for me to say that, because I want films like this to succeed, and it has, but this is not one of those films that you need to see in theaters. If you still want to, by all means, do it. Bring your friends. You’ll probably laugh. It’s not a bad film. For the record, I admire it for bringing the male and female audiences together. It succeeds on that level. It just forgot to be funny enough for both audiences. 

Bridesmaids is now playing in theaters everywhere. Mobile residents can still see the film at the Hollywood and Carmike cinemas. 

Movies to see this summer: 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part II'

What it’s about:
Harry, Ron and Hermoine (Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson) continue their final push to locate the Horcruxes and destroy Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes).

Why you might not excited about it:  

There aren’t really many complaints about the Harry Potter film franchise except for discrepancies between the books and the movies. That’s inherent in any book adaptation. 

However, some people did not like that Part I was “too slow and boring.” I don't think it was, but I can see why some people feel that way. There was a heck of a lot of sitting in the woods and debating the next move. But that’s what happens in the story, and it’s character building. There’s a lot of conflict in those scenes and a lot is going on between the characters. Sorry there wasn’t a battle in the middle of all that, but that would have pissed off a lot of people.

And to the people who complain that Part I just felt like a big set-up for Part II, well, it kind of is. That’s why they’re called Part I and Part II. I understand that films should be judged on their own and not based on what comes before or after it, but this is a series. One book/film affects each book after it. That’s the sheer beauty of the stories. Trust me, everything in Part I is just as important as its payoff in Part II.

Why you should be excited for it: 

Listen, if you’ve stuck with the franchise this far, you obviously don’t need me to tell you why this movie will be awesome. This will be the final film of the series and we finally get to see the climactic Battle of Hogwarts. Like I said, there’s not much I can say that you’re not already aware of.

For those who have issues with the pace of Part I, fear not. Part II is going to be much more action-oriented. Plus, everything(not only from Part I but the series as a whole) gets a payoff. I don’t want to talk about too much, having read the books myself, but I will say that this movie should be a satisfying conclusion to this incredible series.

Check out the trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mObK5XD8udk

The film opens everywhere on July 15^th. Mobile residents can see the film in 2D and 3D in the Hollywood and Carmike cinemas.

'Thor' is a thunderous hit

It’s ironic, the path this film has traveled. From Norse myth came Thor, the god of thunder and comic book character for Marvel Comics. A larger-than-life figure, Thor works well in a comic book, with other fantasy characters. When this film was announced, many people (including myself) were extremely skeptical of the idea. How could someone present Thor as a character in the real world and to be taken seriously, while still keeping the fantasy that makes him who he is? Furthermore, director Jon Favreau (Iron Man), when asked why he wasn’t directing The Avengers, said that one reason was because Iron Man is a very tech-based character and that’s how he chose to approach the films. This approach made Iron Man a serious character, not something tongue-and-cheek. Favreau did not believe he was the man for The Avengers because this tech-based approach worked for Iron Man, but he wasn’t sure if it would apply when a super-soldier came into the picture, or a god, for that matter. Tony Stark is a gifted inventor. Thor is a god endowed with supernatural powers.

That’s the major conflict in bringing Thor to the screen: Getting your audience to take him seriously.

And this film delivers. Chris Hemsworth is perfectly cast as Thor, son of Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and heir to the throne of Asgard. The Asgardians have recently waged war with the Frost Giants of Jotunheim in order to stop the FGs' conquest to control the Nine Realms. In present day, when Thor is about to be made king, the Frost Giants break into Asgard, violating their treaty with the Asgardians. Against Odin’s command, Thor travels to Jotunheim with his companions and his brother Loki (Tom Hiddleson). As a battle ensues, Odin shows up in time to save the group and to hear that the Frost Giants are pissed and that a war is coming. Upon returning to Asgard, Odin strips Thor of his powers and his hammer, putting an enchantment on it that only he who is worthy enough to lift the hammer will possess the power of Thor, and banishes Thor to Earth for disobeying him and endangering Asgard. Once on Earth, in New Mexico, Thor meets Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), a scientist, Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgard), her mentor, and Darcy (Kat Dennings), her assistant. Somewhere in there, without revealing plot details, Loki reveals himself to be the villain. I don’t want to give you too much.

The biggest worry I had about this film was that I wondered how they were going to incorporate ancient Norse language with present-day language and how the two would mesh. I was also afraid that the humans in the film would not react appropriately to Thor. He is, after all, a fish out of water and every time he talks about being from Asgard and being the god of thunder that they’ve all read about in mythology, people should react like he’s crazy. I was not disappointed, because they hired Kenneth Branagh. For those of you who don’t know, Kenneth Branagh played Professor Gilderoy Lockhart in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Much more importantly, he has played numerous characters from Shakespeare on both stage and screen. If anyone was going to be able to make age-old dialogue resonate in present-day America, it was going to be this man. He was the perfect choice to direct this film. He made sure the two things I was most worried about never came to pass. Thor is indeed treated like any normal person would treat him: like a lunatic. And why shouldn’t they? They have no proof that anything he’s saying is true.

The best thing this film has going for it is the relationship between Thor and Loki. First off, both actors are fantastic in their roles. Tom Hiddleson makes Loki amazingly sympathetic. You’d think of him as really just a victim of circumstance and favoritism on the part of his father, who always seemed to pick Thor above him, even for the throne of Asgard. This relationship between them drives the entire plot. Again, I don’t want to give details away. You know Thor is the good guy, you know Loki is the bad guy. I won’t tell you how and why.

I want to also address another issue that a lot of you might be worried about. Iron Man 2 was the first Marvel movie that was made after The Avengers was announced. As such, it was riddled, absolutely BOMBARDED with tidbits relating to the Avengers (specifically Captain America, and Thor after the credits) or S.H.I.E.L.D. (the Strategic Homeland Intervention ahhhhh whatever), who will bring the Avengers together. This would not have been a bad thing, except that each “clue” felt like a wink to the audience, and then an elbow prod, and then a “Eh? EH? See what I did there?” It would not be fair of me to not mention that not everyone feels this way, and I wish I was in that group of people, because then it would not have taken me completely out of the movie. But I’m not, and it did. The beauty of Thor is that SHIELD’s involvment in it does not distract from the story in the least. In fact, I wanted more. That’s exactly how it should feel. SHIELD is integral to the plot here and any mention of the other Avengers is welcome and just makes it all feel like it’s coming together, which is what I think we all hoped for.

I must mention the weak points, but I won’t linger on them. Natalie Portman was just okay for me in this film. But let me say, that’s not really her fault. There wasn’t really much for her character to do besides discover the Bifrost (the wormhole that connects Asgard to Earth) and fawn over Thor. She is not completely devoid of character, though. I guess I just expected more from her performance, but it is not at all bad. Also, those hoping for a huge action climax won’t get their wish. Now wait, I didn’t say nothing happens, just don’t expect Thor to fight a ton of minions or something. What is important is the character climax. Thor sees Loki for what he is and the brothers come to a head. Too often in comic book movies, (except in the Spiderman franchise, which is awesome) the filmmakers try to crowbar a reason for a huge fight into the film, and it can feel inorganic. If that’s your thing, fine. This won’t satisfy that need, but everything that happens in this film happens as it probably would in reality.

Thor is a terrific film and everyone should go see it, especially if you’re as excited for The Avengers as I am. Thor is playing in theaters everywhere in 2D, 3D, and IMAX. Again, Mobile residents can see the film in the Carmike and Hollywood theaters.

Movies to see this summer: July 1st, 'Transformers: Dark of the Moon'

What it's about:
The Autobots and Decepticons search for a Cybertronian spacecraft on the Moon to use against each other in their final battle against each other.

Why you might not be excited about it:

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Your interest in this movie probably depends heavily on your impression of the one before it. A lot of people did not approve of the second movie, whether because of the story, the pacing, or a certain pair of characters. Whatever the reason, Revenge of the Fallen was massacred by critics, reportedly becoming director Michael Bay’s worst-reviewed film. People who know this might not be jazzed (see what I did there?) for this film.

Michael Bay. Apart from this franchise, but also because of it, there are people out there who do not like Michael Bay’s films. Michael Bay has a distinct style, and as such, he is often the subject of numerous parodies and caricatures. He is often included in videos such as “What if (insert distinct director) directed this commercial?” wherein the video parodies directors such as M. Night Shyamalan, Quentin Tarantino, Wes Anderson, Tony Scott, and Bay himself. Bay is notorious for being portrayed as a director who needs only copious amounts of hot women and big explosions to satisfy his own creative needs.

Why you should be excited for it:

Michael Bay. First of all, even if you believe that Bay is merely the one-dimensional human being described above, you must admit that no one does it like him. That being said, Bay is more than that. From what I’ve seen, Bay is a perfectionist who works very hard to make his movies entertaining and cohesive. I enjoy Michael Bay’s films for what they are and I am never disappointed. Face it, the reason you’re seeing this movie is to watch giant robots fight each other and blow stuff up. No one could accomplish this better than Michael Bay. He has my full support as a director.

Megan Fox is gone. Personally, I had no problem with Megan Fox, but a lot of people (even those who like the films) did. Following some below-the-belt personal shots at Michael Bay, Fox was fired by Paramount and replaced. Bet she didn’t see that coming. So for all those who did not like her character, her acting, or her character’s lack of relevance or importance to the overall story, fear not. This has changed. Her replacement is an English model and first-time actress named Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, who was picked above all other actresses for a reason. But honestly, is Sam’s love interest really going to affect the story as a whole?

It’s Transformers!!! For the third and final time, we can see the Autobots fight the Decepticons, complete with mid-air transformations and fight sequences. The fights were great in Transformers, and say what you will about Revenge of the Fallen, but the action sequences were amazing in that movie. It’s only logical that Dark of the Moon would go even bigger with the action, and that’s why the movie will receive my full-price admission.

This movie is going to be awesome.

Check out the trailer on Apple.com: download the 720p Quicktime file. It looks amazing.

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/paramount/transformersdarkofthemoon/

Movies to see this summer: June 24th, 'Cars 2'

What it’s about:
Lightning McQueen (Owen Wilson) and Tow-Mater (Larry the Cable Guy) embark on a quest for the World Grand Prix, but Mater gets tangled up in a spy game of his own.

Why you might not be excited about it:

Some people are wary of sequels, especially if they don’t buy the story. The plot of Cars 2 may throw people off simply because it could seem like quite a jump from the first movie. Going from the story of a car learning to be selfless to a car-spy movie may be too jarring.

Larry the Cable Guy. He is probably the largest deciding factor for most people who are considering this movie. If you love Larry the Cable Guy and his redneck schtick, then you’ll probably see this movie. If, however, you cannot stand this man, or his comedy, or the very mention of him in a positive light, then you might not like the fact that this movie focuses much more on his character than the first movie did.

Why you should be excited about it:

Pixar knows what they’re doing. I’ve never known them to put out a movie that I did not at least mildly enjoy. I don’t think they would produce this film if they didn’t feel like there was a good story to be told.

The animation is going to look amazing. You know this.

Michael Caine is in it!!!

Listen, the thing is, even if you're not excited about it, this movie probably is not made for you. If you're reading this blog, you're probably not in the core demographic that this movie is hoping to please. This is not one of Pixar's higher-concept films. This movie is made for kids. Imagine being a kid and seeing these films, where the cars talk and tell jokes and go fast. It's a completely new world. Kids love that, and that's why they'll love this film. If you have kids, this will probably be a winner for you.

Check out the trailer:

http://www.cars2trailer.net/