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

Holy Motors


Roses are red...and delicious!

Roses are red…and delicious!

(2012) Art House (Indomina) Denis Lavant, Edith Scob, Eva Mendes, Kylie Minogue, Geoffrey Carey, Elise Lhommeau, Jeanne Disson, Michel Piccoli,  Leos Carax, Nastya Golubeva Carax, Reda Oumouzoune, Zlata, Annabelle Dexter-Jones, Elise Caron. Directed by Leos Carax

Making sense can be overrated. Our world is a series of contradictions made by hypocrites and swallowed whole by most of us who merely want to live our lives without too much interference. Sometimes it feels like an eccentric French movie that we’re all taking part in.

Leos Carax can feel your pain, ladies and gentlemen. He knows exactly how you feel. Fortunately, as a director of eccentric French movies, he can do something about it.

We meet Monsieur Oscar (Lavant) on a movie screen (don’t ignore the preamble in which a sleeping man finds himself hearing sounds of a harbor while planes land at the airport outside his window, then proceeds to use a key growing out of his finger to open a door which leads into a movie theater – that’s director Carax himself, setting you up for the rest of the film) in which he appears to be

Monsieur Oscar climbs into the back of a limousine, driven by the taciturn Celine (Scob) into Paris to drive him from place to place for a series of appointments. He is given a file as he approaches each one. When he arrives at each destination and exits the limousine, he is not the same as he entered the limousine.

In one location he’s an old crone begging for change, mumbling about how sad her lot in life is. The next he’s a virtual reality ninja warrior whose shortcomings lead him into a reptilian sex session with…well, a kind of snake-like alien dragon thingy. Then he’s a nearly-mute chain-smoking sewer-dwelling troglodyte who kidnaps a supermodel (Mendes) from a famous Paris cemetery (where the headstones read “see my website”) and takes her to his subterranean lair where he changes her dress into a Muslim outfit after which he strips naked and lays with his head in her lap (and with a raging erection) while she sings him to sleep with a lullaby.

He’s a disapproving father with an unpopular teenage daughter who lies about her misery. Which gives him a full opportunity to show what assholes fathers can be. Then he meets an old lover (Minogue) for possibly the last time, in a bittersweet melancholy musical number – you read that right, a musical number. Not so much with dancing and production effects but more a solo act with a certain wistfulness. It’s actually quite moving.

He’s an assassin killing someone who looks suspiciously like himself. He’s an old man on his deathbed consoling his beloved niece and saying goodbye. And finally, he’s a family man with a highly unusual family.

We get the sense that he’s being filmed in all of these appointments – for whom? What for? The inside of his limousine is much bigger than the outside, a kind of low-tech TARDIS with a make-up table and costumes – tall enough to stand up in, although from the outside it wouldn’t appear so.

There are connections to other films here. Scob, who once starred in a horror film called Eyes Without a Face dons the mask she wore in that film near the end of this one. Lavant’s troglodyte character has also made a previous appearance – in the Carax-directed segment of the anthology film Tokyo! complete with the same Godzilla-like musical accompaniment. His appearance is far more brief here (and thankfully, no courtroom scene afterwards) but like all of the scenes is oddly touching in one way or another.

Da Queen had a hard time with this movie. She’s not really into movies that don’t have some kind of sense. To her and to others who find this a hard movie to get behind, the thing to remember here is that this is a film meant to be experienced rather than watched passively. You are meant to let the images and dialogue wash over you and let it take you wherever your mind wanders to.

I admit that I have to be in the right frame of mind for a film like this and I wasn’t completely there when I saw it at the Enzian. Not all the segments connected with me (the crone sequence for example was too brief and nothing really happened; the father/daughter sequence just rang false to me) but those that did connected deeply, either through the fascinating images or the places they took my mind/heart/both to.

Lavant gives a magnificent performance, his pliable face changing with each segment. Each mood that is engineered here is different from the one that preceded it, sometimes subtly. Overall there’s a kind of bittersweet vibe that is like a moment of nostalgia for a moment that has been lived once and will never be lived in again. There is enough whimsy to bring a smile to the face but not enough to get us to French surreality – this is no Cirque du Soleil.

This isn’t a movie that spoonfeeds things to its audience; you have to work for it and use your noggin and your heart. That might not be why you go to the movies – you might be looking to turn your mind and heart off for an hour or two and that’s okay. Holy Motors is a movie for people who like puzzles, who like a good challenge. It’s abstract art and what you bring into the theater is largely going to determine how you view Holy Motors. It’s not for everybody – but it might be for you.

REASONS TO GO: Sometimes funny, sometimes touching, always intriguing. Lavant gives a performance that is multi-faceted.

REASONS TO STAY: Can be disjointed and jarring. Doesn’t always make sense.

FAMILY VALUES:  There are some disturbing images, sexuality and brief graphic nudity, some violence and bad language.

TRIVIAL PURSUIT: The supermodel part was written with Kate Moss in mind and offered to her; she seriously considered it but her impending wedding was more of a priority (imagine that) so she passed. The part went to Eva Mendes instead but the character is still called Kay M in honor of who it was written for.

CRITICAL MASS: As of 1/29/13: Rotten Tomatoes: 90% positive reviews. Metacritic: 84/100. No doubt about it, the critics love it.

COMPARISON SHOPPING: Forbidden Zone

FINAL RATING: 6.5/10

NEXT: Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters

Arthur (2011)


Arthur

Russell Brand and Greta Gerwig try to out-cute one another.

(2011) Romantic Comedy (Warner Brothers) Russell Brand, Helen Mirren, Jennifer Garner, Greta Gerwig, Nick Nolte, Geraldine James, Luis Guzman, Christina Calph, Evander Holyfield, Leslie Hendrix, John Hodgman, Richard Bekins, Peter Van Wagner, Charlie Hewson. Directed by Jason Winer

 

The thing about remaking a movie which has become so beloved as 1981’s Arthur is that the new version is inevitably compared to the original and usually found wanting. The thing about films like Arthur (the original) is that they tend to be viewed through the dewy-eyed lenses of nostalgia and their flaws overlooked.

Of course, some movies are just flawed from the get-go. Arthur Bach (Brand) is the son of the CEO of Bach Worldwide, a major investment firm run by his mother Vivienne (James). Arthur is the sort of guy tailor-made for the tabloids, constantly getting involved in one scandal or another, usually having to do with women (he’s single) or alcohol (which he drinks a lot of). He is watched over by Hobson (Mirren), his childhood nanny who drily and somewhat acerbically sees to his needs and fruitlessly tries to protect him from himself.

But there’s one scandal too many and investors are beginning to lose confidence in Bach Worldwide. To stop the bleeding, Vivienne proposes to have Arthur marry Susan Johnson (Garner), her extremely competent right hand and the daughter of wealthy Burt (Nolte) the builder from Pittsburgh. She and Arthur had a previous relationship which ended badly.

Needless to say Arthur is reluctant to agree until Vivienne insists that if he refuses, he’ll be cut off from his inheritance of $950 million  (why couldn’t they just have made it an even billion?) so Arthur, not one to give up his toys easily agrees. Trust me, he’s got a lot of toys from a floating magnetic bed to the Batmobile. Yeah, that one.

So then he meets Naomi (Gerwig), a beautiful and spirited tour guide – well, a non-accredited one but she’s working on it. Arthur gets immediately taken with her and begins to woo her, despite her impending nuptials. He knows he has to go on with his wedding, not just for the money but because Burt the builder is going to use a power saw on him if he doesn’t. So Arthur is left with an age-old dilemma; marry for love, or marry for money.

The new version follows the old very closely, with some minor differences. Linda (the Liza Minnelli character from the original) and Naomi are very different, with Linda being a bit brassier and a bit shall we say less shameless while Naomi is a bit more quirky.

The movie rests on a several factors – the most crucial is the likability of Brand. He’s done this type of role before, the addled rock star Aldous Snow in Get Him to the Greek and Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Brand can be charming and is here for most of the show but to be honest, it’s hard to really be too sympathetic to a spoiled billionaire rich kid with mommy issues. In all truthfulness, Dudley Moore really made the part his and Brand doesn’t quite measure up.

Secondly, the relationship between Arthur and Hobson has to be strong, and it is. Sir John Gielgud won an Oscar for his portrayal of the stiff English butler who has an arch streak in him and a soft spot for his gentleman. Mirren is a distaff version of the part who is almost motherly towards her charge but with a Margaret Thatcher iron spine. She doesn’t get as many bon mots as Gielgud did (“I’ll alert the media” in response to Arthur’s announcement he’s taking a bath, a classic) and she doesn’t have the same chemistry with Brand that Moore and Gielgud had.

There is a good deal of crudeness here; the original was for its day somewhat crude in its depiction of drunkenness but this one exceeds the quotient that way and for no good reason. The overall environment for the movie – the middle of an economic downturn might not be a time where the general moviegoing public might be terribly sympathetic to the super-wealthy – might also have contributed to its lack of connection to the audience when it was released to theaters.

There is some charm and warmth here which does go a long way – Arthur isn’t a bad boy at heart, merely a spoiled one. Garner does some nice work as the cast iron bitch who wants to marry him for his name and no other reason, a role that strangely suits her, possibly because she also does the nice girlfriend so well.

As for snuggling up with your honey on the big romantic movie night, there are probably some better movies to put on the DVD/Blu-Ray/VCR if you’re of such a mind, but if you’re into extravagant romantic ideas, there are some here that might fire up your imagination.

WHY RENT THIS: The source material had a good heart which shows through here.

WHY RENT SOMETHING ELSE: Russell Brand is no Dudley Moore. Crude in places it shouldn’t be.

FAMILY VALUES:  There is quite a bit of alcohol use here (mostly by Arthur), some sexuality, a few naughty words (very few) and a couple of drug references.

TRIVIAL PURSUIT: In the movie Arthur’s father is 44 when he dies, the same age as the original movie’s director Steve Gordon was when he passed away.

NOTABLE DVD EXTRAS: There’s a gag reel and outtakes which give you a further appreciation for Brand’s skills as a comedian but nothing that really sheds any light on the making of the film. 

BOX OFFICE PERFORMANCE: $45.7M on a $40M production budget; the movie was unable to recoup its production budget during its theatrical run.

FINAL RATING: 4/10

TOMORROW: The Princess Bride