The Hangover Part III

Posted on May 23, 2013 at 11:02 am

hangover-IIILet’s hope that this movie is the much-needed stake in the heart to the triligization of popular movies (okay, with an exception for Richard Linklater’s “Before” series and “Toy Story”).  I began to think of the three films as a shell game, with the pea of novelty and humor under just one shell, and shrinking retrospectively as I was dragged through this far distant last in the series, so entirely disappointing that it diminishes any fond memories of the original.

And that is the key word.  The first chapter was original.  We got to enjoy the speculation and schadenfreude as we lived a night of mostly unintentional debauchery and mayhem backwards.  Feral man-child Alan (Zach Galifianakis), cynical Phil (Bradley Cooper), and mild-mannered Stu (Ed Helms), a hapless trio, in Las Vegas for a bachelor party, wake up in the mother of all mornings after and spend most of the movie piecing together the events of the evening before.  They have to discover how they ended up with a tiger, a baby, a missing tooth, and a hospital bracelet.  And the prospective groom is missing.

In #2, there’s another wedding to make in time, and another morning after.  Some people found the second one a garish and cynical retread.  I thought it was pretty funny and even managed to find some meta-commentary in the way it rang changes on the first one.  And I liked Paul Giamatti.

In #3, director Todd Phillips and Craig Mazin (the execrable “Identity Thief”) take over script duties from the original’s writers, who were off plagiarizing themselves with a college-age version of the very same movie.  This one jettisons the backwards-style structure, which is fine, but it plays as though they pulled it out of a slush pile and did a global search and replace to insert the first movie’s characters, who, in one of many increasingly less funny repetitions of almost-jokes we’ve increasingly tired of, are referred to by one character as The Wolf Pack.

Once again, they are separated from Doug (Justin Bartha), who is held hostage by a thug (John Goodman) while they are sent to track down their old frenemy, Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong).  We also meet up with the first episode’s characters drug dealer Black Doug and former stripper Jade (the criminally misused Mike Epps and Heather Graham).  And here is what we learn:

1. These are really unpleasant people.  They are selfish, childish, and uninteresting.

2. A little of Leslie Chow is better than a lot.

3. It is impossible to make the same joke funny three times in a row.  The second time may provide a pleasant sensation of remembered humor.  The third time is just irritating.

4. It is possible to criminally underuse even John Goodman, completely wasted here.

5. Melissa McCarthy, on the other hand, while also underused, manages to make her five minutes the highlight of the film.

6.  It is possible to miss Mike Tyson.

This movie is the bad hangover from the now-tarnished original.

Parents should know that this film includes comic and more serious violence including murder, guns, chases, characters and animals in peril, injured, and killed, extensive drug content, constant very strong language, sexual references (some crude) and situations (male and female nudity), pervasive very bad behavior

Family discussion: Which of the friends makes the best choices?  Do you think that the different structure of the story-telling works as well as the original?

If you like this, try: the first “Hangover” movie and “Cedar Rapids”

Related Tags:

 

Comedy Series/Sequel

The Campaign

Posted on August 9, 2012 at 6:05 pm

“Freedom.” “Jesus.” “America.”  And whoever you are, you are “the backbone of this country.”  This attempted political satire feels as empty as the platitudes spouted by the candidates in this R-rated comedy that, like the political system it portrays, goes for the easy and expedient and the trashy instead of the substantive or constructive.  Bill Maher, “The Daily Show,” and “The Colbert Report” have raised the bar on political comedy, so we expect more bite than this lackluster film, as generic as its title.

Will Ferrell plays four-term Congressman Cam Brady, a Democrat from North Carolina, expecting to run unopposed in the upcoming election.  But he all of a sudden becomes vulnerable when leaves a raunchy voicemail for his mistress on the wrong answering machine.  The mega-wealthy Motch brothers (played by John Lithgow and Dan Aykroyd and inspired by the real-life Koch brothers, who fund many right-wing causes and politicians) decide they would be better off with another candidate.  So, even though he is “weird” and has no experience in politics, they pick Marty Huggins (co-producer Zach Galifianakis).  He is the son of a wealthy man (Brian Cox) who has strong connections to business and government.  The Motches send in Tim Wattley (Dylan McDermott), their best political operative to run the campaign, and he crisply cuts right to the point: “I’m here to make you suck less.”

Immediately, Marty’s life is turned upside down as his beloved pug dogs are replaced with a golden retriever and a black lab — both in bandanas — because those breeds have the highest approval ratings.  He and his wife and their home get extreme makeovers and Tim keeps Marty on talking points.  Meanwhile, Cam’s overconfidence and poor judgment help Marty rise in the polls.  The Motches have been using a loophole to sell goods produced in China labeled as “made in America” (based on convicted felon Jack Abramoff’s deal in the Mariana Islands).   They plot to create an enterprise zone in the district, waiving environmental, safety, and wage regulations so they can create American sweatshops with imported Chinese workers (“insourcing”).  They just need a Congressman who will do what they tell him. And their control goes even deeper than money.

It is briefly intriguing to see Dan Aykroyd taking over the kind of “Trading Places” rich bad guy brother role Don Ameche and Ralph Bellamy played when he and Eddie Murphy were the leads, but the contrast just shows how little energy and bite this film in comparison.  McDermott picks things up with some dark wit and Katherine LaNasa is a highlight as Cam’s steel magnolia of a wife.  But Ferrell is deprived of his greatest asset as a performer.  He is at his best when he plays flawed men who are immature and self-centered but still likable because they really want to be liked and struggle to do the right thing.  Cam just does not care.  And Galifiniakis’ mincing affect and Southern drawl are not as witty as he intends them to be.  This is one of those campaigns when you wish the ballot had an option for “none of the above.”

Parents should know that this movie includes extremely crude humor with very explicit sexual references and situations and very strong and vulgar language, brief female nudity, drinking, drunkenness and drunk driving, smoking, comic peril and violence including snake bite and shooting injury, a lot of corruption and overall bad behavior played for comedy.

Family discussion:  What elements of the story seemed most true about our current political system?  What is the impact of “Citizens United” on elections?

If you like this, try: “In the Loop” and documentaries like “The War Room” and “Unprecedented”

Related Tags:

 

Comedy Politics Satire

The Hangover, Part II

Posted on May 25, 2011 at 11:15 am

What’s it called again when you suffer the morning-after consequences of a wild night of extravagent, if debauched, fun?  Oh yes, a hangover.

This second night out with the wolf pack of Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms), and Alan (Zach Galifianakis), suffers from sequelitis, that headache-y uncertainty about exactly what it was that worked the last time and inability to make its premise seem fresh.  It feels as stale as the air in the squalid hotel room our heroes find themselves in with no idea of how they got there.  But it will still do as a taste of the hair of the dog.  The laughs may be fewer and  the gasps more “ewww” than “wow,” but there is still some pleasure in seeing those guys suffer.

A couple of years have passed and Stu is about to get married, not to the stripper he wed in Las Vegas in the first movie but to a lovely girl named Lauren (Jamie Chung).  As a tribute to her heritage, the wedding is going to take place in  Thailand.  Stu insists that brunch at IHOP with Phil and Doug (Justin Bartha) is all the bachelor party he wants (and he puts a napkin over his orange juice glass just to make sure no  one is slipping him a roofy this time).  But Doug persuades Stu to invite his brother-in-law Alan, and they are joined by Lauren’s 16-year-old brother, Teddy (Mason Lee), a prodigy who plays cello and is pre-med at Stanford.

Two nights before the wedding, after Lauren’s father insults Stu in a toast, the guys agree to have one drink on the beach before bed.  And Stu, Phil, and Alan wake up the next morning, as they did in the first one, with no memory of what happened the night before and a lot of incontrovertible evidence that what did happen was dangerous, probably criminal, and certainly disgusting.  Stu’s face bears the Maori tattoo they saw in the last movie on Mike Tyson.  There is a severed finger that appears to belong to Teddy, who is missing.  In his place is their old nemsis, Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong).  And instead of the last film’s tiger, there is a monkey wearing a Rolling Stones jean jacket.

They have somehow found themselves in Bangkok, and their search for Teddy involves an aged mute monk in a wheelchair, an American tattoo artist, a strip club, Russian drug dealers, some panicked phone calls, a Molotov cocktail, and both human and animal gun shot wounds.

The trick in comedies like this one is to find the sweet spot between the familiar and the surprising and between the shocking and the disturbing.  It misses.  Some in the audience will be happy to see the structure of the original repeated but most will wish for something new.  And the key to comedy is the “almost,” the ability to have it both ways by making sure the chaos is disruptive but not conclusively so.  Trashy is good.  Tawdry, not so much.  And aren’t we a couple of decades past finding humor in homosexual panic?

There are some very funny moments, with a hilarious password joke, Stu’s version of “Alan-town,”  and some deliciously weird comments from Galifianakis and Jeong.  But it misses the sense of genuine connection between the characters we just saw in “Bridesmaids.”  The first one ended with a satisfying sense of lessons learned.  This one should end with an intervention.

 

(more…)

Related Tags:

 

Comedy Series/Sequel
THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2024, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik