The Hangover Part III


The Fab Four consciously (perhaps not) try to ape another Fab Four.

The Fab Four consciously (perhaps not) try to ape another Fab Four.

(2013) Comedy (Warner Brothers) Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms, Ken Jeong, Justin Bartha, Heather Graham, John Goodman, Jeffrey Tambor, Melissa McCarthy, Mike Epps, Sasha Barrese, Jamie Chung, Sondra Currie, Gillian Vigman, Oliver Cooper, Mike Vallely, Grant Holmquist, Oscar Torre, Jonny Coyne, Silvia Curiel, Lela Loren, Jenny Ladner. Directed by Todd Phillips   

In the movie business, sometimes the third time is the charm. Very often in film trilogies, the first one is great, the second one is not quite as good and the third is better, sometimes even than the first film. Did that hold true with this trilogy?

The Wolfpack is in crisis. Alan (Galifianakis) is acting out something horrible; his beloved daddy (Tambor) has passed away suddenly and his behavior is becoming more and more bizarre since he stopped taking his medication (don’t ask what happens with the giraffe). Now it’s evident that the only people he’ll listen to are Phil (Cooper), Stu (Helms) and his brother-in-law Doug (Bartha). An intervention is in order and the idea is to get Alan to agree to go to a clinic where he can get the help he needs. Once Alan realizes that his Wolfpack are all in, he relents and allows them to drive him to Arizona.

Unfortunately, they are waylaid on the way there by a bunch of pig mask-wearing thugs led by Black Doug (Epps) and his boss, Marshall (Goodman) and yes you can bet it involves Chow (Jeong). It seems that Chow stole some $21M in gold bullion that Marshall had himself stolen and now he wants it back. Chow had just broken out of prison in Bangkok and Marshall believed that the Wolfpack were the way to find him. To ensure their cooperation, he’s holding on to Doug and if they don’t find him, the Wolfpack are going to be short a member.

Of course, they think they don’t have any idea where Chow could be until Alan figures out that the e-mail he has been receiving from “Chow” are from him. Oops. Now they must head back to the place where it all started – Las Vegas – for a final showdown to get back Doug which Chow may not necessarily survive. There will indeed be bloodshed.

My criticism of The Hangover Part II was that the plot was too much like the first film, only set in Bangkok. The plot deviates here somewhat – there are no blackouts, no alcohol and no partying except in a single scene and that party doesn’t involve the Wolfpack (at least as participants). In a sense the title is a bit of a misnomer; it’s more of a treasure hunt than a puzzle. The charm of the first movie which makes it the best of the bunch is that the group’s friendship is what keeps them looking for Doug. Here you don’t get a sense of that bonding; it’s more like guys going through the motions.

There are some good laughs here, like the whole giraffe sequence which you can pretty much figure out from the trailer but true to the franchise’s tradition is shown in fairly graphic detail. Galifianakis has been kind of the comedic center of the first two movies but Jeong is more of a presence here. However, some of the best scenes in the movie are between Alan and Cassie (McCarthy), a tattooed pawn shop owner that Alan takes a shine to. Their relationship takes the series full sequel, although it must be warned that it also leads to a final cut scene in mid-closing credits that you will NOT be able to un-see once you’ve seen it. If you intend to watch it, bring plenty of brain bleach.

Cooper has become the big star that he has shown that he could be since the first film debuted in 2009 and has said this will be his last time playing the maturity-challenged Phil. There’s little of the edge that marked him in the first two films which does detract some from the overall feeling of the film. Helms, whose hysterics were some of the funniest moments of the first movie is strangely calmer here; I don’t know if that’s because those scenes weren’t written or if Helms decided that Stu needed to be more centered. Regardless, the movie could have used a few more freak-outs on the part of Stu.

Graham’s winning smile and good looks are a welcome return to the third movie but you never get a sense of Jade’s character. She’s remarried to a surgeon so that sense of unattainable hopes and dreams that made her character so appealing in the first film is gone. Still, it’s kind of nice to know that she made it okay. Goodman as Marshall is all bluster and occasionally he shoots people but he’s not nearly as menacing as Paul Giamatti’s character was in the second film. Personally I think Goodman is more suited to nice guy characters not unlike his role in Roseanne and as Sully in Monsters, Inc. and it’s upcoming sequel.

All in all, this isn’t the roadkill that critics are painting this to be, but by the same token it isn’t a home run either. There is certainly room for improvement. The opening weekend box office numbers have been disappointing (although the competition has been stiffer than the first two films had to face) and I can’t help but think that the series should really be put to rest after this one, although who knows what the studio will do if the numbers warrant it (and thus far they don’t). I think that fans of the first movie will want to see this regardless and by all means do. However, I don’t think you’ll want to see it more than once.

REASONS TO GO: Varies the formula from the first two movies nicely while sticking to the things that made the first movie great. More Jeong is never a bad thing.

REASONS TO STAY: Scattershot much more than the first two films.

FAMILY VALUES:  What family values? There’s a good deal of foul language, some violence, a bit of drug use, plenty of sexual references and some graphic nudity.

TRIVIAL PURSUIT: Near the end of the movie as the Wolfpack returns to the minivan a billboard featuring Eddie, the man who ran the wedding chapel from the first movie, can be seen.

CRITICAL MASS: As of 5/20/13: Rotten Tomatoes: 20% positive reviews. Metacritic: 31/100; critics pretty much universally hated this one.

COMPARISON SHOPPING: Superbad

FINAL RATING: 6/10

NEXT: Limelight

Advertisements

Things We Lost in the Fire


Halle Berry sleeps one off.

Halle Berry sleeps one off.

(2007) Drama (DreamWorks) Halle Berry, Benicio del Toro, David Duchovny, Alexis Llewellyn, Micah Berry, John Carroll Lynch, Alison Lohman, Robin Weigert, Omar Benson Miller, Paula Newsome, Sarah Dubrovsky, Maureen Thomas, VJ Foster, Patricia Harras. Directed by Susanne Bier

Loss is something we all deal with in our own way. Some of us turn inward and shut the world out. Some of us throw ourselves into work or family. Still others lash out in anger, frustration and/or grief. It’s a powerful emotion that all of us must face in one form or another sooner or later.

For Audrey Burke (Berry) that time is now. Her husband Brian (Duchovny) is dead, killed trying to get an abused woman from being beaten up. The day of the funeral she sends for Jerry Sunborne (del Toro), one of Brian’s closest friends. He had gone from being a promising lawyer to a junkie and the source of much contention between Audrey and Brian. Brian had continued to visit Jerry and support him – in many ways he was Jerry’s sole connection to the world. Audrey thought he was a hopeless cause who she wanted as far away from her family as possible.

Getting Jerry to the funeral proves to take some doing. He is homeless now, having lost everything to his addiction. However, once Jerry gets there Audrey impulsively and not without some reservations invites Jerry to stay in the family home. She realizes that Brian would have wanted that and convinces herself that’s why she’s doing it but truth be told she wants someone around the house; their son Dory (Berry) needs a strong father figure around the house, their daughter Harper (Llewellyn) needs some guidance and to be honest she herself needs someone to lean on.

Audrey isn’t an easy person to be around. Her grief makes her touchy and sometimes she lashes out for no real good reason. In the meantime, Jerry is flowering in this environment. He is finding a new sense of purpose and the drugs are, for the moment, receding. A family friend (Lynch) is even helping Jerry get a real estate license and back to being a productive member of society. However both grief and drugs can be mercurial and unpredictable and both Jerry and Audrey have yet to face a very dark night indeed in both of their souls.

This started life as a screenplay by Allan Loeb, appearing on the inaugural “Black List” of unproduced screenplays (the Black List is a survey of 250 producers of the best screenplays they’d seen that year that were as yet unproduced). It was picked up by DreamWorks and acclaimed Danish director Bier (who had directed the acclaimed Open Hearts up to that point and later won an Oscar for In a Better World since) was attached to it.

They also put together a pretty powerful cast in Oscar winner Berry who once again gives a powerful performance as a woman who is lost and hurting. Audrey isn’t always likable and she doesn’t always act the way we’d like her to act. That’s a credit to Loeb who creates a character who is flesh and blood rather than an ideal. She has good days but she also has some bad ones. Berry fleshes Audrey out, turns her into a person you’d find walking around the mall or sitting in the movie theater next to you. Of course, if someone who looked as good as Halle Berry were sitting in the theater next to me I’d notice it pretty quickly.

Del Toro is no less impressive. Jerry is as wounded in his own way as Audrey is and like Audrey, Jerry doesn’t always act the way we’d like him to. He is trying, however and is basically a good man deep down – he’s just also a weak man when it comes to narcotics. These two performances drive the movie and are the main reason to see it.

Bier has a thing about eyes and there are a lot of close-ups of the eyes throughout the movie which can be disconcerting. While I agree that the eyes are the window to the soul, they are also kind of boring when you keep seeing them over and over again. As an old-time Hollywood producer might have put it, Susanne baby, lose the eyes.

The movie has a European sensibility to it so the pacing might not be to the liking of an American audience; that is to say, it takes it’s time and gets to where it’s going at its own pace. There are some moments when the movie veers into soap opera territory but thankfully those moments are few and far between.

This is a movie that didn’t get a whole lot of fanfare when it was released and the general attitude of critics and moviegoers alike was a resounding “who cares” but the truth is that you should. This is a very strong and powerful film on taking control of your own life and learning to deal with pain. The performances of Berry and del Toro are worthy of your time alone, but for my money this is one of those gems that didn’t get the love it should have.

WHY RENT THIS: Marvelous performances from del Toro and Berry; Duchovny, Lynch and Lohman excellent in supporting roles.

WHY RENT SOMETHING ELSE: Too many extreme close-ups. Maudlin in places.

FAMILY VALUES:  There’s a good deal of drug use and a fair amount of bad language.

TRIVIAL PURSUIT: This is Bier’s sole English-language film to date.

NOTABLE HOME VIDEO EXTRAS: None listed.

BOX OFFICE PERFORMANCE: $8.6M on a $16M production budget; the movie is considered a financial failure.

COMPARISON SHOPPING: Monster’s Ball

FINAL RATING: 8/10

NEXT: Chasing Ice