The Hangover Part 3

When I heard they were making a Third Hangover movie, my first thought was, milk it for all it’s worth guys. I am a firm believer that the first hangover was a flash-in-the-pan-hit. It tapped into some desire in our society to party like you don’t care, get into misadventures, and make mistakes without any real consequences. The first hangover had something to it with the characters, charm. You loved these kooky dumb guys, who got into a crazy situation. Situations that they did to themselves. People can relate to these characters, they might have their own friends that are crazy while partying, and they can laugh at these guys trying to make sense of a crazy night on the town.

The Hangover Part 2 main problem is that it is basically a repeat of the first film. One of the guys is getting married, a night of drinking before the big day, wake up to try and figure out what happened. The big problem with the second hangover film was that it was set in Bangkok, not that it was a repeat. American audiences could not relate to the crazy time in Bangkok, like they could to a crazy night in Vegas. It fit a formula, that fit the Hangover franchise.

The Hangover Part 3 breaks this formula. The Hangover 3 starts out with Allen (Zach Galifianakis) needing to go to rehab, because he’s insane and needs to take his meds. I don’t think that is how it works writers. On their way to the clinic, they get attacked by a gangster and told they need to find Chow (Ken Jeong). The gangster is going to take Doug and kill him if they don’t find Mr. Chow in 3 days. I think this is a miss opportunity. By changing this movie formula they lose the audience again. This is no longer a character film about crazy adventures you get in while drunk, this is now a film about a man hunt. That happens to have crazy people involved in it.

In retrospect I think the film could have gone another way that would have worked better. They get kidnapped by the gangster, they get sent on their mission, but then drugged so they would forget what they had done. Having to retrace their steps again. Waking up in Vegas not knowing how they got there, or what had happened. Same formula, but people can understand it, and it is what people are expecting from a Hangover movie. Bring the story back to something people can relate to. Not this, overreaching-never-going-to-happen-to-them-gangster-kidnapping-movie. The first films are about fun that got out of hand, now we take those characters go do insane stuff, that does not fit their characters at all.

The funniest character in these films is Galifianakis. He is just an idiot that causes a bunch of trouble, and we all sort of wish, he was part of our lives, to add some spice to it. The charm of his character is pretty much lost in this film, with just a few scenes that are the exception. His Character, that was more idiot charming in the first two films, now I just found him brash and annoying. Many of his silly rants falling flat in the theater. The writing in this film is pretty awful, thinking more about shock factor, that actual cleverness.

There are a few gems in this movie, the last scene is pretty good and funny. With a few awkward laughs thrown in the middle. There is very little actual humor in this film, but scenes that make you feel so uncomfortable that you laugh. That seems to be Todd Phillips’ Modus operandi, shock you into submission until you laugh, because it hurts so much. I think this film would have been a better second film, with them coming back to the formula in the third film. Instead they lost the audience. I honestly think the first film was a mistake success. They tapped into some idea about people they were not expecting. The idea that we are all normal, but sometimes we need to party and get crazy, then spend the next day picking up the pieces.

The Rating System

Production (Directing, Editing, Music) 3-5

Story (Plot) 2-5

Characters (Likability, Acting) 3-5

Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness)2-5

Emotions (Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care)3-5

Overall score 13-25

Star Trek Into Darkness Review

J.J. Abrams might be the greatest filmmaker of our generation. He has made four awesome movies so far: Mission Impossible 3, Star Trek, Super 8, and the latest, Star Trek Into Darkness. He has now been given the reins of the new Star wars trilogy. When I first heard about this, I was not like most. I was not excited. I thought J.J. Abrams was a good fit for Star Trek, and I was looking forward to more great Trek films. Will he be able to do both? Do we as fans want that?

The Star Trek and Star Wars camps have been at odds for years. Are you a Trekkie or (for lack of a better Star wars geek moniker) a Jedi? Why can’t we like both? I have simplified Trek and Wars in my head, to try and figure out why some fans prefer one or the other. Trek is about humanity, all that we could be. Peaceful, not full of greed or corruption. Trek is about humans pursuit of science and discovery. Traveling the stars in search of amazing places and new civilizations. The protagonists are humans. Although it is far fetched sometimes, it is still “science.”

Star Wars is about people in a galaxy, far far away. These are not humans. Wars is a fantasy story, same as is Lord of the rings or Willow. They even have magic, The Force, and swords of great power: lightsabers. The heroes are even called Knights. This is not what we will become. It might as well be set in another dimension. Humanity will never have the Force, or see these planets, just the same as we will never go to Middle earth, or use magic. We love Wars because it is a fun adventure, and it is pure escapism. Do we really want one man having power over these two very different worlds? I have no doubt that J.J. Abrams will make a great film, but I am still unsure about if he can make a good Star Wars film.

Star Trek Into Darkness is holy-crap-bad-ass! This movie is a roller coaster start to finish. But what makes this movie great is the plateaus in the middle of the ride that build actual characters. The last hour is pretty much one giant battle. These are not just mindless computer generated, explosions in space, the characters are faced with tough choices and tell you who they are. They all have interesting perspectives and influence each other, almost like they are real people.

The films plot is pretty straightforward with some twists and turns that I will not ruin. John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) attacks the Federation, and Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), and the Enterprise’s crew are charged with bringing him to justice. There are some very serious moral choices to make about apprehending him dead or alive. It’s a simple setup, but Into Darkness does not feel simple. The complexity grows with the characters. The plot does very much thicken. Cumberbatch steals the show; you both love him and hate him. He is so intense and frightening. You can’t stop watching him for fear that he could turn and murder you at any moment. The tension is fantastic. There is a scene that really makes you feel like Cumberbatch could do anything, and you would believe him. I really hope to see him in more films.

Very mild spoilers to follow. My only real problem with this movie is that they pull from previous Trek content. The first film, besides the main characters, had pretty much a fresh plot and villain. The story in the first Star Trek was about shaking things up. Into Darkness seemed to me more about paying homage to past films. For that, you as Trek fans will get some repeat content. It is good and bad, playing up on your nostalgia, but also not fresh or new. I am torn about how I feel about his. I think it hurts the film more than helps it. End Spoilers  

I noticed far less “lens flares” than Star Trek had. I was never really bothered by it, but I think the fans ripping on getting blinded every few seconds. They were kind of silly. What I found interesting in the style of the film was the close up intensity of shots. These were then contrasted with distant shots, to make you really feel the weight of objects in space. Especially certain shots at the end of the film, which make you feel like you could be a distant observer. You are then flown right back into the thick of the action, showing all of the elements of the events that are transpiring. I stay obscure about this, to stay spoiler free.

It is a very interesting thing having a Star Trek movie without a show. With the past Trek films, you knew the crew, you had been with them through the galaxy, getting to know them as the show unfolded. We know the crew from the original series, but these are new actors, with their own take on their characters. Chris Pine as Kirk is not trying to be William Shatner Kirk. No one has delivery like Shatner. So we have a very short time to get to know these sort-of-new- characters, and I feel like they do a great job, without boring you with filler. The story and the character arcs are intertwined like many movies seem to forget these days. Not sacrificing one or for the other. I really thought this movie was great and I will be looking forward to more Trek films, but now I do not know what the future holds for the franchise. Thank you, JJ Abrams, you have entertained me.

The Rating System:

Production (Directing, Editing, Music) 4-5

Story (Plot) 4-5

Characters (Likability, Acting) 5-5

Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness) 5-5

Emotions (Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I Care) 5-5

Overall Score 23/25

Iron Man 3 review

Whenever you hear that there’s a new director on a series of films, it can’t be good. I think that the first two Iron man movies were good, and the second one was more “meh”, but still good. Jon Favreau directed the first two, and I was sad to see him go. I had actually heard of the new director, Shane Black, from a film he did a few years ago, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. This film, also starring Robert downey Jr, was a very funny film-noir type murder/mystery. It’s a favorite of mine, so I was looking forward to seeing Iron Man 3, although I was still skeptical. After all, I am not sure what kind of tone Shane Black would set for the Iron Man series.

The film takes place after the events of The Avengers; Iron man seems to be struggling with how these events affected him. He is doing what he does best: building Iron Man suits. The new villain, The Mandarin, (Ben Kingsley) is doing bad stuff. In the comic, The Mandarin has ten rings which he got from a crashed alien spaceship. Each have “magic abilities,” they are advanced alien science that would appear as magic to the common observer. I was kind of wary of this choice of a villain. The Iron Man series, up until this point, had some plausibility to it. Yeah, its a guy wearing a metal suit, flying around, but it still just advanced science, not magic alien rings.

I am talking like a purist; someone who has read the comics, and has some idea about how things should be in the film. So my opinion is screwed. I have some expectations before entering the movie theater. One of the story lines in the film also revolves around Extremis, one of the best modern Iron Man stories. It changed the character of Iron Man very much. It had this hard edge element to it. I am sorry, maybe my expectations for this story have made me disappointed with this film. They do not hold true to many aspects of this great superhero story, and are instead just cherry picking some ideas, forgetting KEY elements that made it great.

All in all, the tone of the film is just silly. Gone is the character that has some edge to him. He is just a funny jokester that has too many Iron Man suits. Even something dark about the plot is ruined with the use of some silliness to lighten things up. All I am going to say, is shadows on the wall. Look for it. The idea that Iron Man is a man struggling to handle all this craziness that he has now experienced is a subtle part of the character development. It just seems kind of secondary, and later in the film is just forgotten. I guess he just gets over it. It feels like lazy storytelling. The “character development” felt like something that was tacked on so that they had something emotional to talk about in between the action. I have to say, the action felt weak. Remember that moment in the first Iron Man, when he shoots the tank and walks away as it blows up? You felt like Iron Man was a badass. It might have been over the top, but it was fun. I felt none of that in this movie; never once did I feel like Iron Man was awesome. That is disappointing, because the character is nothing but.  

The story seemed weak and puerile, and in some parts completely pointless or unnecessary. I could think of many directions the plot could have gone but didn’t, and the result is bland. I feel like Shane Black is someone that knows how to make movies, but is not a comic book fan. He missed the key elements of the characters and the universe he inherited. I am probably making this film sound worse than it is. It has some fun parts, and I laughed at Robert Downey Jr. He is still great to watch, but sometimes he just doesn’t have the presence  he had in the other films. If you are going into this film with no comic book knowledge, or don’t care, you might enjoy this film. I, unfortunately, did not.

The Rating System

Production (Directing, Editing, Music)4-5

Story (Plot)2-5

Characters (Likability, Acting)4-5

Writing (Dialogue, Cleverness)4-5

Emotions (Was it; Fun, Scary, Sad, Do I care)3-5

Over all score 17-25