The Hangover Part III

Directed by Todd Phillips.

2013. Rated R, 100 minutes.

Cast:

Bradley Cooper

Zach Galifianakis

Ken Jeong

Ed Helms

Justin Bartha

John Goodman

Melissa McCarthy

Jeffrey Tambor

Heather Graham

Mike Epps

Jamie Chung

There is a scene in The Hangover Part III in which a bunch of characters wake up from a night of debauchery in a strange place, wondering what they did and how they got there. Sadly, this happens at the end. Before this, you may spend a lot of time thinking you’re watching the wrong movie.

Let me explain.

Right away we know things are going to be different this time around. Instead of starting with a scene such as the one described above, the way the first two installments did, we kick things off with a prison break. It’s Mr. Chow (Jeong) escaping from a Bangkok jail. We quickly transition back to the USA where Alan (Galifianakis) is spiraling completely out of control due to the sudden death of his father. After some convincing, he agrees to enter a treatment facility, provided he is driven there by his buddies in the Wolfpack. Together, they hit the road, but they never make it. They get run off the road by Marshall (Goodman) and his goons, including Black Doug (Epps) from the first movie. Marshall informs them of Chow’s escape and that Chow stole $21 million is gold from him. He then kidnaps their Doug (Bartha) and demands the rest of them find and bring Chow to him. The boys trying to do precisely that ensues.

Rather than another joke-a-minute recap of the night before we get a clunky hybrid crime thriller and dark comedy. Our heroes feel like they are way out of their element. In fact, Phil (Cooper) and Stu (Helms) take a back seat most of the time to whatever is going on with Chow and Alan. Almost none of this is funny. The biggest reason is that these two characters are the least able to support a movie. Truthfully, none of them are which is, in part, what makes the first two movies work. They are a true ensemble effort where each contributes equally to the overall cause. Here, two of them are forced into the lead and wind up exposing their own flatness. This is especially problematic with regards to Chow. We have always been told he is an internationally wanted criminal. This is one of those rare cases where showing instead of telling backfires. When we were only told of his nefarious life, it works okay. When we’re shown this, it fails to hold water. Everything about him is simply too ridiculous.

As a whole, The Hangover Part III feels like an overreaction to criticism of Part II. Conventional wisdom says that its predecessor was too similar to the original. Truth told, it is a carbon copy. As blatant duplications go, however, it’s still a winner in my book. I didn’t laugh quite as often as I did the first time around, but I still laughed an awful lot. At the end of the day, that’s all I really want from my comedies. Sitting through the third installment yielded very few chuckles. I fully understand that comedy is highly subjective. What is funny to me might be deplorable to you, and vice-versa. Therefore, had the humor simply been of a different brand I would better understand the effort. It feels like this movie didn’t really try. It’s as if the powers that be thought that these characters were so great that they could effectively carry any story and stepping away from the franchise’s bread and butter wouldn’t be much of an issue. Turns out they can’t carry any old plot, particularly this one. Fish out of water tales can be wonderful. They usually focus on one fish trying to gain his/her footing in a new environment. In this case, all of the fish are out of water and we just watch them flop around for an hour and a half.

MY SCORE: 3/10 

Click on the titles below to see my reviews for...

The Hangover

and

The Hangover Part II

Win Win

Directed by Thomas McCarthy.

2011. Rated R, 106 minutes.

Cast:

Paul Giamatti

Alex Shaffer

Amy Ryan

Jeffrey Tambor

Bobby Cannavale

Burt Young

Melanie Lynskey

Sharon Wilkins

Margo Martindale

David W. Thompson

Nina Arianda

Mike (Giamatti) is a lawyer struggling to keep his practice afloat. One of his clients is Leo (Young), an elderly gentleman whom the state deems incapable of caring for himself. They want to move him into a rest home. His only relative, an estranged daughter is nowhere to be found. Of course, Leo thinks he’s perfectly fine and wants to keep living in his own house. Mike is going along with the state’s program until he learns that Leo’s guardian is paid $1500 per month. He himself assumes guardianship under the pretenses of making sure Leo’s wish will be granted and he will be well taken care of. He then dumps the old man in a home, anyway and begins collecting the monthly checks. Things are going according to plan until Leo’s 16 year old grandson Kyle (Shaffer) shows up out of the blue. No one, including Leo, even knew of the boy’s existence. Since he’s obviously a troubled kid, and to keep his lie going, Mike takes him in.

Despite his issues, Kyle is a nice, quiet kid. Eventually we find out his mother Cindy (wonderfully played by Lynskey) is both alive and a drug addict. This has obviously taken its toll on the boy. He wants nothing to do with her and she seemingly wants nothing to do with her father. It’s no wonder Kyle enjoys being part of Mike’s family. Shaffer handles the role well. It is also well-written. Kyle and the other kids actually feel like genuine teenagers as opposed to an adult in an adolescent body as is the case in plenty of movies. Much of his communication to adults is eerily similar to that of many real teenaged boys including my own son, through shrugs and nods. It is a subtle, yet effective performance.

Less subtle is the work of Paul Giamatti. That he turns in an excellent portrayal should go without saying to anyone familiar with him. Admittedly, Mike is a character that’s right up his alley: a guy who is often exasperated, slightly sweaty and prone to loud verbal outbursts. Still, he makes Mike convincingly simple in motive yet complex in action. In another actor’s hands, the character may have come across as too dastardly. Giamatti makes him believable as a guy who, for the most part, is on the straight and narrow, but the desire to feed his family leads him to try slipping something past the world.

The two main characters combine to make Win Win a tricky proposition. Our empathy clearly lies with Kyle. How we feel about Mike is not such a sure thing. We’re not certain we like him but we want him to come out victorious in what becomes a custody battle over both Kyle and Leo. Whether or not he’s a great choice is debatable. What is not debatable is that he’s better than the alternative. Still, the alternative has at least as much right as he does.

Win Win navigates these complex issues without becoming complicated itself. Instead of pouring out every ounce of melodrama it can muster, it does most things in a matter-of-fact manner. Supporting players provide comedy and Mike’s family gives us cuteness while the story holds our interest. The key to it all is something I’ve already said: we feel for Kyle. We really care what happens to the kid.

MY SCORE: 8/10

The Hangover Part II

Directed by Todd Phillips.

2011. Rated R, 102 minutes.
Cast:
Bradley Cooper
Ed Helms
Zach Galifianakis
Ken Jeong
Jeffrey Tambor
Justin Bartha
Paul Giamatti
Jamie Chung
Mason Lee

Mike Tyson

The gang’s all back for another misadventure. It’s Stu (Helms) who is tying the knot. He and his lovely fiancé Lauren (Chung) are having their wedding in her native Thailand. Of course, he invites his buddies Phil (Cooper) and Doug (Bartha) to tag along. Understandably, after the events of the first movie, it takes quite a bit of cajoling before Stu agrees to invite Alan (Galifianakis). Per Stu’s orders, there will be no bachelor party. Begrudgingly, he agrees to have one beer with the fellas on the beach before returning to Lauren’s side. Of course, much more than that happens and the boys don’t remember any of it when they wake up in a rundown Bangkok hotel. This time, the missing party is Lauren’s little brother/child prodigy Teddy played by the Mason Lee, the son of famed director Ang Lee. Teddy is only 16 but is already a Stanford pre-med student. The only sign of him in the room is the finger he seems to have lost at some point during the night. It’s still wearing his Stanford ring. Mysteriously, they have added one: Mr. Chow (Jeong), the villain from part one. Now, he’s on their side. The guys going all over Bangkok looking for Teddy ensues.

If you’ve see the first one, then you’ll notice that this is essentially the same movie. This is both a good and a bad thing. It’s good because I suspect the audience for this is people who love the original and want more of it. Part II is more than happy to oblige. It’s a sequel that doesn’t seem to tell a new part of the story as much as it just gives us an alternate version of its predecessor. The downside to this is that the sameness gets to be overwhelming, at times. The freshness and mystery of the original is gone. We have a fairly good idea how this will turn out and, in a number of cases, it’s kind of hard to laugh at the same jokes twice.

Once that freshness and mystery has dissipated, the only thing we have left are those jokes. Due to many of them being recycled material, they’re much more hit and miss than in the previous film. Luckily, when they hit, they tend to hit big. There is loud, hearty laughter to be had at several points. Other funny moments eminate from Alan through another superb performance by Zach Galifianakis. You may find more with Chow, but that depends on whether or not you find Ken Jeong annoying. The same goes for the monkey the boys have acquired.

One other thing does mark this as a true sequel, though. Things are bigger. Aside from Teddy potentially missing a digit, or worse, Chow is now an international criminal with international heat on him. There’s some shooting and huge car chase. Even Stu’s physical dilemmas are bigger. He wakes up with a tattoo on his face. It is a replica of the one that adorns the grill of Mike Tyson. Instead of being a nod to the first film like it’s obviously intended, it’s a constant reminder of the better movie. Still, later on we’ll learn something about Stu even bigger than that. As for Tyson, he himself eventually turns up again. Sadly, this time he does something far worse to our ears than he ever did to Evander Holyfield’s.

The Hangover Part II isn’t a bad watch, despite all I’ve said. It just pales in comparison with its predecessor. As stated, it’s the same basic formula. Unfortunately, most of the new ingredients dilute the potency of its humor. Mainly to blame is all the action flick stuff thrown in. Whenever those elements pop up, they give the movie a far more serious tone. Instead of action and comedy complementing one another, they take turns. This makes the movie uneven, almost as if we’re switching channels back and forth between a sitcom and a murder mystery. To be honest, this is probably a lot better for people who haven’t seen Part I. With that said, I do like the movie. I laughed a lot which is what comedy is about. I just don’t like it as much as the original.

MY SCORE: 6.5/10

Mr. Popper's Penguins

Directed by Mark Waters.

2011. Rated PG, 94 minutes.
Cast:
Jim Carrey
Carla Gugino
Angela Lansbury
Clark Gregg
Ophelia Lovibond
Madeline Carroll
Maxwell Perry Cotton
Jeffrey Tambor
David Krumholtz
Philip Baker Hall
William Charles Mitchell
Dominic Chianese

Mr. Popper (Carrey) grew up mostly without his father. His dad was a globetrotting scientist who spent far more time abroad than with his little boy. Unsurprisingly, Popper isn’t too broken up when he learns his old man has died while off in Antarctica. However, Poppa Popper did leave his son something: a pack of penguins. There are six of them, to be exact. Junior fitting them into his life is a bit tricky. He has an ex-wife (Gugino) he still has a thing for, and two kids he gets every other weekend. He is also a high-octane, very successful real estate buyer. It’s a job that demands lots of time. So do the penguins. Popper trying to juggle the birds, his job, and his family ensues. Oh, he also tries to win back his ex and buy legendary restaurant Tavern on the Green from Ms. Van Gundy (Lansbury), its very grumpy owner.

If you guessed this is all pretty innocuous stuff, you guessed right. The nearly endless stream of poop jokes is as risqué as it gets. Other than that, we get the normal stuff about a dad not quite understanding his kids and Popper bonding with both, the children and the penguins. Yes, there are lessons to be learned. In addition, Carrey gives us a bit of the physical humor he’s known for. Splice in some cgi of the penguins performing some amazing feats and we get one big ball of cuteness.

Of course, there has to be a villain. In this case, one is manufactured out of the guy who wants to take the penguins to the zoo (Gregg). The three old guys Popper works for aren’t quite evil, but are certainly on the negative side of the ledger. In none of their cases do we really hate them, therefore the movie doesn’t generate sufficient tension. It moseys along sweetly, but doesn’t thrill us no matter what stunts the birds pull off. Cruella De Ville would’ve been a welcome addition to the cast of characters, a marked improvement over the ultra-bland zoo guy.

As family friendly time passers go, you could do worse than Mr. Popper’s Penguins. It gives us enough laughs not to be a drag. It also moves quickly enough, careful not to overstay its welcome. It clocks in a little over 90 minutes. On the other hand, it doesn’t do anything unexpected. MPP is content to fit snugly within the mold of the many kiddie comedies we’ve seen before. It gives us no more or less than we expect.

Paul

Directed by Greg Mottola.

2011. Rated R, 104 minutes.
Cast:
Simon Pegg
Nick Frost
Seth Rogen
Kristen Wiig
Jeffrey Tambor
Jane Lynch
Jason Bateman
Sigourney Weaver
Bill Hader
Blythe Danner
John Carroll Lynch

The writer Graeme Willy (Frost) and his trusty cohort Clive Gollings (Pegg) are a couple of sci-fi geeks from the UK, in the United States to attend Comic-Con, an annual convention for the comic book industry. Afterwards, they tour some of the locations where famous UFO landings have allegedly taken place, like Area 51 and Roswell, New Mexico. Along the way, as luck would have it, they meet Paul (Rogen). Paul is the classic little green man with an enormous head alien. He enlists our less than dynamic duo to help him get home. All the while, the trio is being chased by man in black, Agent Zoil (Bateman). Zoil maintains almost constant contact with “The Big Guy”, whom we find out right away is actually a woman. What she actually looks like isn’t revealed until the end, so I won’t spoil it.

Eventually, the plot becomes reminiscent of E. T. This is fitting given that Pegg and Frost wrote the screenplay. Like their movies Hot Fuzz and Shaun of the Dead before it, we’re treated to a steady stream of references to other movies. They’re done far more skillfully than in any of the “____ movies.” You know the ones: Scary, Date, etc. These references are weaved seamlessly into the tapestry of a story that stands on its own. We can actually enjoy the story we’re watching and enjoy the allusions. By the way, there are enough of them that you’ll probably miss a few, here and there.

References to other movies aren’t the only things that make us laugh. The way relationships are established and carried out are both funny and sweet. Most notably, the contentious nature of things between Graeme and Paul gets the most giggles. As stated by Paul, the two are characters that should be best friends but seem to be missing a connection. Even more of an edge is added when you factor in the lingering question of Graeme’s sexuality. Because of that question, the way he behaves in regards to others give us cause to pause.

In the title role, Seth Rogen acquits himself very well. True, Paul behaves much like most of Rogen’s characters but he’s easier to take when personifying another species. However, there could’ve been more to him. How did he get to be the foul-mouthed, cigarette smoking wise guy we know him to be?

Paul is a fun ride, overall. There are some stretches where it drags a bit. Occasionally, it gets too busy referencing other movies that it doesn’t quite work. Aside from the aforementioned stars, Jason Bateman was also very good as the agent tracking them down. Things are fairly predictable, but we’re not here for mystery. It wants you to laugh and possibly geek out with them on all the allusions you recognize. It does that.

MY SCORE: 7/10

Tangled

Directed by Nathan Greno and Byron Howard.
2010. Rated PG, 100 minutes.
Cast:
Mandy Moore
Zachary Levi
Donna Murphy
Ron Perlman
M. C. Gainey
Jeffrey Tambor
Brad Garrett
Richard Kiel

Once upon a time, there lived a girl at the very top of a very tall tower, controlled by a very evil woman and a very handsome man comes to rescue her. In a post-Shrek world, you’d think Disney wouldn’t be so lazy as to go with that exact setup. Yet, here we have Tangled. It’s the latest version of the classic fairy tale “Rapunzel.” She (Moore), of course, is the girl in the tower. The evil woman is Mother Gothel (Murphy) who kidnapped Rapunzel from her parents, the king and queen, when Rapunzel was just a baby. She does so because the girl’s impossibly long hair has special powers, providing the old lady with everlasting youth among them. Flynn Rider (Levi) is the handsome man. He gets into the tower by accident, but his role is pretty clearly defined. He is to rescue Rapunzel and make sure she lives happily ever after.

There is nothing else here, narratively. Everything simply plays out as it must. What it lacks in creative storytelling, it makes up for in comedy, action and modern sounding dialogue. It mostly works. It’s funny and in some spots, exciting. The style of dialogue and the musical numbers make it easier for its target audience to relate. For them, it’s exactly what they expected and what they wanted. For them, it’s as golden as Rapunzel’s hair. For the rest of us, it’s a fairly enjoyable time-passer. Tangled doesn’t really do anything wrong. It just doesn’t do anything original.

MY SCORE: 6.5/10

The Hangover

Directed by Todd Phillips.
2009. Rated R, 100 minutes.
Cast:
Bradley Cooper
Ed Helms
Zach Galifianakis
Justin Bartha
Ken Jeong
Mike Tyson
Heather Graham
Sasha Barrese
Mike Epps

Plot: Doug's (Bartha) buddies take him to Las Vegas for his proverbial last night of freedom before getting married. AFter a wild night of which no one can remember a thing, Doug has turned up missing and the boys scour the capital of sin trying to find him.

The Good: Yes, our heroes are stupid. However, they're stupid in a way that's not at all unlike many of us when we've over-indulged the night before and try to piece together how shamefully we behaved. Years later, we can laugh at ourselves or if it happened to someone else we can laugh at them, immediately. Well, here its happened to someone else. Two other elements heighten both our amusement and the stakes. First, no one in group remembers anything at all from what was obviously a "good" night (the boys awake to find a live chicken, a baby and a full grown tiger in their hotel suite). Second, the groom-to-be is nowhere to be found. This easily sets up our heroes to go numerous places, trying to retrace their steps. The movie exploits this well and keeps us laughing. On top of that, just when we may be getting a little bored with the boys, we're introduced to a character that gets us cracking up all over again. Heather Graham (playing stripper Jade), Ken Jeong (Mr. Chow) and surprisingly enough, Mike Tyson (himself) all handle their roles perfectly.

The Bad: I was kinda hoping for flashbacks as the boys uncovered each piece of the prior night's mystery. These may have lengthened the movie quite a bit but may have also added to the hijinks and shenanigans, making it even funnier. We get it once in the form of security footage but I'm greedy and wanted more. I'm also on the fence about the ladies left at home. Should they have had some sort of bachelorette bash and gotten into their own bit of trouble? I'm not sure if I think that would've helped or finally pushed it too far over the top.

The Ugly: What happens to Stu's tooth. Ouch!

Recommendation: This is definitely "a guy thing." I found it thoroughly entertaining, and laughed all the way through. My wife, on the other hand, was only mildly amused. More than that I got the feeling most women would react this way. That said, though it is raunchy, its not so raunchy it will totally disgust them, usually. So guys, if you're just going to watch alone or with the fellas, have at it. If its your turn to pick the flick for movie night with your gal, proceed with caution. Think back to how she felt about The 40 Year Old Virgin or maybe Superbad or I Love You, Man and decide accordingly.

MY SCORE: 9/10

The Invention of Lying

Directed by Ricky Gervais and Matthew Robinson.
2009. Rated PG-13, 99 minutes.
Cast:
Ricky Gervais
Jennifer Garner
Jonah Hill
Rob Lowe
Louis C.K.
Jeffrey Tambor
Fionulla Flanagan
Tina Fey
Edward Norton

Plot: In a world where man has never developed the ability to lie, Mark Bellison (Gervais) suddenly does.

The Good: The first two acts of the movie are incredibly original. In addition to being brutally honest, every person is also way too forthcoming with unsolicited information. The result is deliciously over the top dialogue during some hilarious exchanges. It also has fun pointing out the mixed messages of religion. Through this, which is essentially the invention of theism (or atheism?) and the aforementioned exchanges, the writing is top notch. There are also two very strong cameos. Jonah Hill’s turn as Mark’s suicidal neighbor is morbidly funny. As Mark’s secretary, Tina Fey absolutely steals every scene she’s in.

The Bad: The third act is dreadfully predictable. It eschews everything that made the earlier parts of the movie such a joy, in favor of recycling the same crap we’ve seen in countless other romantic comedies. We switch from watching a sharp, innovative comedy to a run-of-the-mill chick-flick. Let me tell you: it’s quite the letdown to go from one to the other.

The Ugly: Moses’ tablets are replaced by pizza boxes.

Recommendation: Again, the first two-thirds of the movie are more than enough to make this worth a look. It’s sort of a flip side to Liar Liar and works terrifically. Who knows? You might even like the last twenty or thirty minutes more than I did.

The Opposite View: Kyle Smith, New York Post

What the Internet Says: 6.5/10 on imdb.com (5/20/10), 57% on rottentomatoes.com, 58/100 on metacritic.com


MY SCORE: 7/10

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

Hellboy II: The Golden Army
2008. Rated PG-13, 110 minutes.
Director: Guillermo Del Toro.
Starring Ron Perlman, Selma Blair, Doug Jones, Luke Goss, Jeffrey Tambor.




Plot: Prince Nuada (Goss) is upset with the way the world has turned out in his absence. He seeks to unite all the pieces of a magical crown which will spring the dormant, yet "indestructible" Golden Army into action under his control so he can start running things. Hellboy (Perlman) and crew have something to say about this.

The Good: Director Del Toro builds upon his Pan's Labyrinth foundation by giving us more stunning visuals. It's creatures and other special fx are beautifully rendered. The action scenes that show off this aspect of the film are very nicely done. In fact, its a much better looking movie than it's predecessor. The love story between Hellboy and Liz (Blair) goes in an interesting direction. It also leaves the two characters with an obvious starting point for the third movie in the series, should they make one.

The Bad: In only the franchise's second movie, it already suffers from "more is less" syndrome. We get more great characters, both good and evil, better special fx and lots of action. However, its crammed into a package 20 minutes shorter than the original. That means its fun while its on but not nearly as gratifying as the original. It doesn't help that it simply reworks The Lord of the Rings to fit a superhero flick for its main premise and resorts to corny sight gags for the humor. Worse than that, our hero is going through an identity crisis. However, its not in that good, tortured mentality of Batman sort of way. Its in that bad, the writers don't seem like they know what to do with him way. One of my problems with the first movie was how Hellboy seemed so much like Wolverine. I would've preferred that to what he is here, an even more simpleminded goofball. He's also well on his way to becoming an alcoholic. That could be really interesting but they just played it for laugh. Hmmm...anything to get more kids in the theater, right?

The Ugly: The tooth fairies. Yeesh, nasty little critters.

Recommendation: Obviously, fans of the comic and/or the first film should check it out. Most people seem to like this one a bit more. I like it a bit less. No doubt, it is a fun popcorn flick that looks absolutely great. Of the five big superhero flicks of 2008, I'd rank this fourth, far behind The Dark Knight and Iron Man but sandwiched between The Incredible Hulk and Hancock.

The Opposite View: Michael Dance, The Cinema Source

What the Internet Says: 7.4/10 on imdb.com (6/29/09), 88% on rottentomatoes.com, 78/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 6/10

Hellboy

2004. Rated PG-13, 132 minutes.
Director: Guillermo Del Toro.
Starring Ron Perlman, Selma Blair, John Hurt, Doug Jones, Jeffrey Tambor.

Plot: After coming through a portal opened by the bad guys, Hellboy (Perlman) is adopted by the good guys and becomes the main guy on a team of paranormal heroes that fight paranormal villains. Sixty years have past and the original baddies are not only back, they're after Hellboy to help them destroy Earth.

The Good: One drawback to being the first movie in a comic book franchise is you have to back to the source's humble beginnings and provide virgins to the character an origin story. This movie dispenses with that bit of business in a thankfully quick and exciting manner. Once done with that, it spends the majority of it's time on action scenes of some sort. Occasionally, it pauses for "Red," as he's called by his friends, to deal with his love life and the increasingly strenuous relationship with his "father" (Hurt). Luckily, its effective at weaving those things in rather than dawdling on them for the most part.

The Bad: There are a few plotholes, which is to be expected, so they're there but not deal breakers. What nearly is a deal breaker is the idiocy of our main villain's (Rasputin played by Karel Roden) plan. It follows the well-worn and even more stupid movie logic of really bad guy wants to unleash a far more powerful and even worse being upon the world. It stands to reason there's not really anything to do after you destroy the world, now is there? Anyhoo, there is one other aspect that bugged me. It seems as if Wolverine of the X-Men simply had his personality and some other traits transplanted to a red body with a stone hand instead of claws, giving us Hellboy. It got to the point where everytime he spoke I couldn't help but think "that's exactly what Wolverine would say."

The Ugly: The very cool Karl Kroenen (Ladislav Beran) without a mask.

Recommendation: Comic book fans and fans of comic book movies should have at it. Its heavy on the action and has enough light humor to keep it moving at brisk pace. It is certainly not the best the genre has to offer but since its thoroughly "okay," its far from the worse.

The Opposite View: Maitland McDonagh, TV Guide

What the Internet Says: 6.8/10 on imdb.com (6/29/09), 80% on rottentomatoes.com, 72/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 6.5/10