Drunk with Power

Oh, if only I could somehow get those two hours back. The Hangover: Part III was released this Memorial Day weekend, and the final tale from the series that put Todd Phillips on par with Judd Apatow in terms of pure cinema raunchiness finally comes to an end, and it's an ignoble one that should have occurred back in 2009 with the closing credits of the first Hangover. Phillips up to that point had made a B-List career from his crude comedies, especially Road Trip and Old School. He was a director able to tap into that coveted 18-49 male audience with practiced ease. The Hangover proved not only to be an audacious comedy (it was certainly unique, if perhaps a bit overrated), and a star-making one at that. Besides Phillips, the movie proved to be a launching point for then-middling actors Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Ken Jeong and especially Zach Galifianakis. But The Hangover Part II was a mess, missing most of the charm that the first film so enjoyable. Still, it was a big fat success, and so Part III was all but guaranteed, and with a restructured story (no more memory loss) and a promise that it would be the most outrageous finale to date, it should have been at least worth a look.

Nobody needs that many sheets.

In this reunion of sorts, "Wolfpack" members Phil (Cooper), Stu (Helms) and Doug (Justin Bartha) come together to help the disturbed manchild Alan (Galifianakis), who has unraveled even more after stopping his medication and in the aftermath of his father's death. The four men are making their way to a rehabilitation center for him when they are waylaid by ruthless gangster Marshall (John Goodman), from whom Lesley Chow (Jeong) stole $21 million in gold. Kidnapping Doug as collateral, Marshall demands that the remaining Wolfpack members find and apprehend Chow by any means necessary, and recover his gold in the process. If they cannot capture him within three days, Doug is history. But of course, with this group, nothing ever goes as planned. And when it comes to Chow, anything and everything is possible.

Jeffrey Tambor can never, ever smile.

Unfortunately, despite the insanity that is usually associated with this franchise, Part III makes Part II look like vintage Bill Cosby. Never mind the fact that most of the jokes here just aren't funny, but even the situations the trio find themselves in lack oomph. The first two Hangover movies featured Mike Tyson's tiger, a baby with sunglasses, transsexual prostitutes, and Mike Tyson. The most this sequel can muster is a decapitated giraffe, and that's the opening scene. The actors also look bored, sticking to their predetermined roles of straight guy, freaking-out guy and whack-job with minimal effort. Galifianakis' malaise in particular is disappointing, as Alan's zaniness is probably the main reason there are three Hangovers instead of just one. John Goodman is certainly a talented actor, but his character is too bland, and it seems like he was cast just to bring a strong presence to the movie (incidentally, the same role Paul Giamatti had in Part II). Melissa McCarthy is also grossly misused, as her crass, completely unlikeable character tries to undo all the goodwill she's gained from Bridesmaids and Identity Thief. Only the scenes with Ken Jeong's Chow are anything approaching quality, and that's because Jeong is the only cast member who seems to care that people are paying to see him put on a show. His crazy stunts almost manages to make up for the rampant stupidity of the film. Almost.

Oh, why, why are you doing this?

See, while The Hangover: Part III's best scenes are those featuring snippets from the original (best moment: the reunion of Alan and the baby - now toddler - in sunglasses), those are the times when Phillips seems to lose his focus and relapse into the coolness that this whole thing started with. In Part III, the movie takes itself FAR too seriously, committing far too much to the violence and not enough to the insanity that was the director's pedigree. A perfect example of this is the forced evolution of Alan; why do we need to see Alan become a different person? Sure, he's a halfwit moron with little redeeming value, but that's how we like him. The idea that Alan had to change in order to provide some sort of "closure" to the trilogy is the kind of misguided idea directors like to try when they think they're getting your money regardless. There are many other scenes that wouldn't feel out of place in the humorless context of modern action films or even serious dramas, as the writers obviously had a difficult time adjusting to the concept that many people were already tired of The Hangover's act. Still, their comedy is even darker than usual, to the point where it has barely an inkling of commonality with the first two movies.

Policeman of the year.

I have to give Phillips and his crew a little credit: with an almost guaranteed blockbuster on their hands, they refused to go the safe route and make an identical, certainly tiresome finale for their Hangover franchise. It's just too bad they don't know how to make anything else. The Hangover: Part III is arguably the worst movie this year. It's not funny, it's not exciting, and it completely disregards everything that made the original Hangover a treat for the senses. The good news is that we won't be seeing any more of this trash, at least not for the foreseeable future. The bad news is that it exists at all, and puts the final nail in the coffin of a once-robust film legacy. Apparently, it needed more Mike Tyson. Or at least his tiger.

Left Hanging with Chad

We're past the halfway point for 2012, and approaching he zenith of an exceedingly divisive election season that has called out practically every hot-button topic that exists in its progression. Whether you identify as a Republican, Democrat, or "Other", you have to wonder whether this is the absolute best or absolute worst time for the west coast to send us an R-rated election-themed comedy, and one headlined by two of the more frenetic comedians in movies today to boot.

To be blunt, I'm not that big a fan of the leads in The Campaign. While I did like Zach Galifianakis in the Hangover series, I haven't seen much else, and I'm still not sure the actor can do much more than be an amusing co-star. And while Will Ferrell has had his moments, I cannot say that I find him funny more often than not. A GOOD film with these two would perfectly satirize the electoral process while giving us great laughs in the meantime. A BAD film would be full of scatological "humor", nonsensical leaps of logic and be a complete mockery of the US political system. Hmm, one of the screenwriters co-wrote The Other Guys, but he also wrote Land of the Lost. And the director is Jay Roach, of Austin Powers and Meet the Fockers fame. Things aren't looking good...

It's like I'm watching a John Edwards documentary...

That The Campaign does manage to eek out its fair share of laughs is probably the biggest surprise in this whole show. When Democratic North Carolina Congressman Cam Brady's (Ferrell) campaign for his unopposed fifth term in office is derailed by a scandal, he opens the field to Republican candidate Marty Huggins (Galifianakis). Huggins, an everyman small-town tour guide, has been approached and supported by corporate honchos intent on removing the "embarrassing" Brady from office. What follows is a massive battle, as Brady is as determined to retain the perks that come with his appointment as Huggins is to help the people of his district.

Not quite sure which one could eat the other...

The film is at least partially a commentary on the dirty side of politics, covering everything from smear campaigns, super PACs, negative advertising, and kicking the other guy whenever the opportunity arises. As the battle goes back and forth between Brady and Huggins, it's easy to re-imagine the situation featuring your local leaders. The film even does a fine job of satire in showing the seeming willingness of the loyal voters who more often than not seek inspiring quotes and buzz words over actual job performance. The candidates are shown to be fully aware of this, never promising anything beyond vague positives while pretending they're everybody's best friend. In truth, neither candidate is portrayed as either good or bad; Brady is a jaded career politician who early in his career had actually hoped to help change things, while Huggins wants to fix things now, but is in the pocket of big business.

And this is why you never see candidates near one another besides debates.

Of course, the filmmakers' efforts at satire cross the line a BIT too much, and while there are a few times when it creates the perfectly hilarious moment (as when Brady famously punches that baby in slo-mo), most of the time the result is more uncomfortable than actually being funny. Many of the actions characters take (and the public's response to them) are so flagrantly bizarre that it practically declares the election process a farce. That said, I wonder if there is anyone out there who thinks that the Brady/Huggins campaign looks like business as usual in their district. Suffice it to say, Roach seems to plaster the idea that every politician, no matter their intent, will eventually forget all about the people they're supposed to be representing. It might have seemed like a more humorous idea when written down on paper, but considering how seriously people take politics these days, it might have come off as darker than originally intended.

Don't let this man ever run your political career.

Farrell and Galifianakis are at their best pretty funny, but neither stretches from their standard creative zones here. Farrell is doing his George W. Bush SNL impression throughout the entire film, even using the exact same accent (as though all southerners sound exactly the same). And Galifianakis' relative lack of facial hair doesn't cover up the fact that his sub-intelligent character demeanor is in full effect. Fortunately, the leads have a good enough support cast to keep things interesting, from Jason Sudeikis as Brady's straight-arrow campaign manager to Dylan McDermott as a psycho hired to make Huggins "not suck so much." Dan Ackroyd and John Lithgow are decent as the big business Motch Brothers (a play on the real life Koch Brothers), but don't really get enough to do. And while I wish the film had found a bigger role for Jack McBrayer, they perfectly cast veteran scene-chewer Brian Cox as Huggins' disapproving father.

He looks like something on To Catch a Predator.

I was never all that high on the idea of The Campaign, and the final product pretty much proved my initial beliefs. There are some laughs, and the film as a whole will be more fondly remembered than such fare as The Dictator, or the absolute crap-fest that was last year's Bad Teacher. But while you might get some laughs out of The Campaign's script, this is a title that cannot find that perfect satirical balance. Different leads, or perhaps even better writing, could have made this more than just another mediocre comedic outing, but there's really no reason that justifies seeing this film in the theater. It'll be on DVD before this fall's elections, most likely, and if you're that hard up for a Will Ferrell comedy, there are a few excellent options available (like Stranger Than Fiction or The Other Guys) for rental instead. This won't be one of them.

Foot Fetish

For 2011, I set out a few goals for myself with the intention being to expand my overall film knowledge and prowess. The first was to of course continue writing these posts three times a week, forcing me to see new things as often as possible. The second was to see every single Academy-Award nominated feature film for 2011, whether it be on the big screen or DVD. Finally, I had to stop ignoring major genres, especially animated films. I've missed a lot in the theater in recent years, most notably the second and third entries in the Toy Story series (which I still haven't seen) and Wall-E and Up (which I eventually did see on DVD). It's actually pretty funny how I often resign this genre to being "just for kids" when the best animated films have something for people of all ages, and even Up and Toy Story 3 were arguably geared more for adults than they were for kids. I DO like animated films in general (Beauty and the Beast is in my top 5 all time), but I often don't show it enough love. And so even though this year I've already missed a lawn ornament take on a Shakespeare classic (Gnomeo and Juliet) and one of the biggest box office bombs EVER (Mars Needs Moms), I've also made an effort to see a wild west/animal hybrid (Rango) and a sequel to a Best Animated Film nominee (Kung Fu Panda 2). This doesn't mean I'll go out of my way to see Cars 2 (I'm not COMPLETELY crazy), but I admit that I was at least interested in seeing Puss in Boots when I learned the Shrek character was getting his own westernized spin-off. I've never seen any of the Shrek films, but combining one part Antonio Banderas, one part Zorro, and one part cute fluffy cat was enough to keep up my interest, even without an extensive knowledge of the universe that spawned this sword-wielding pussy cat.

He's a bad kitty

In a story from before the days in which he traveled with a certain green ogre, Puss in Boots (Banderas) is an outlaw of the sandy deserts. Known for his flamboyant charm, rapier wit and sharp... rapier... Puss is an outlaw trying to clear his name of the wrongful accusations of which he has been charged. When he hears about a legend he had searched for much of his life, the Magic Beans, he cannot help but be intrigued, as he has been searching for most of his life for them. These beans are supposed to help lead to a magical castle and a goose that lays golden eggs. Knowing that just a few of those eggs will pay his debts and set him up for life, Puss teams up with old friend Humpty Alexander Dumpty (Zach Galifianakis) and clever cat burgler Kitty Softpaws (Salma Hayek) to find the treasure before psychotic husband and wife Jack and Jill (Billy Bob Thornton and Amy Sedaris) get there first.

Never send an Egg to do a cat's job...

As with the Shrek franchise, Puss in Boots borrows liberally from children's folklore in manufacturing this story. It borrows mostly from nursery rhymes like Humpty Dumpty and Jack and Jill, and of course the magic beans and the golden goose come straight out of Jack and the Beanstalk. With the possible exception of Salma Hayek's character, there is very little in the way of original material; what IS original is the method in which it is used, borrowing from Shrek's parody universe but incorporating the Mariachi Western theme that makes it feel wholly unique. The animation is nearly top class, looking perhaps not as perfectly as Wall-E or even this year's Rango, but standing out in more than a few places. Music is where the film shines brightest however; between the score of Henry Pryce Jackman and two songs by acoustic guitar duo Rodrigo Y Gabriela, the music manages to perfectly capture the magical and mysterious essences the film provides.

He hates to drink and run, but he will anyway

It's a shame the character design can't live up to the promise present in the film's lead. In Puss, Antonio Banderas has arguably his most well-known character, and a comeback of sorts after a steadily-decreasing level of importance in the Hollywood eye over the past decade. While it's ironic that a man so renowned for his sex appeal around the globe might be best recognized in this day and age as an orange tabby cat with an epee, to be recognized in this manner is no small feat, as it is Banderas' attitude and swagger that makes Puss so heroic and admirable. And Hayek comfortably slips between moods as Puss's equivalent Kitty Softpaws. If only Hayek (or the vocal director) could have actually made a decision as to whether or not Kitty actually has an accent. While most of her English is spotless, there is enough Mexicana poking through that one wonders whether she meant to do so or the people recording her voice just didn't care. Amy Sedaris and Billy Bob Thornton are good if underused as the villainous Jack and Jill, though they're no stretch from any similar characters in film. The only real disappointment is Zach Galifianakis, and that might not be entirely his fault. Every moment with Humpty Dumpty is relatively mediocre, and considering that we're not MEANT to like him, that's hardly a real surprise. However, Galifianakis was just not right for this role, as he doesn't have a compelling enough voice to go the animation career route. As proven in The Hangover and its sequel, he is a very physical actor, with his mannerisms complimenting his relatively deadpan voice to create perfect hilarity. Without actually being able to see the actor (and the character model is a poor replacement), there's no reason to really care about him.

Some cats just stand taller

And that matters, since we have to actually care about for the last act to carry any impact. Unfortunately, that is scarcely the case, as Puss in Boots fares well early on but limps sadly into the sunset. Remember how I said early on that the best animated films could be fun for adults too? Puss in Boots didn't get that memo, as what I saw was certainly entertaining for kids and failing miserably in its attempt to rope grown-ups into the mix. Certainly charming in its own right, Puss tries its hardest to become more than just a Shrek knockoff, but doesn't seem to know where to start. Still, with a true lack of big-name animated franchises these days (not to mention a record-breaking October debut), you can be sure that these filmmakers will be more than willing to try again in a few years.

Hair of the Dog

When The Hangover was released in theaters two years ago, it was an unprecedented hit. Opening on June 5, 2009, the film went on to make nearly $470 million worldwide, a reign of success for an R-rated comedy not seen since the days of Beverly Hills Cop and other eighties classics. Simply put, The Hangover's success shouldn't have happened, what with the rare diamonds to be found in the comedy business. The film, telling the tale of three emotionally-adolescent men who manage to lose the groom after a particularly raucous Las Vegas bachelor party and wake with no memory of the night before, was so successful that a sequel was not only pondered but practically inevitable. Only two years later we have that product, one of 2011's most awaited summer releases. Reuniting the "Wolfpack" of The Office's Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis (for whom these films have imparted his lifetime role) and Bradley Cooper, The Hangover Part II was made to capitalize on all the good will its predecessor had sown. Of course, I thought the original was an overrated farce with few actual laughs, so would I be impressed by a revamped (and relocated) remake?

Somehow this year's fashion shows amounted to more of the same

This time, the Wolfpack of Stu (Helms), Alan (Galifianakis), Phil (Cooper) and Doug (Justin Bartha) are on their way to Thailand, where Stu plans to be married to his new fiance Lauren (Jamie Chung) in her family's homeland. After what was supposed to be just a friendly drink between the four and Lauren's younger brother Teddy (Mason Lee), Stu, Alan and Phil wake up in Bangkok with no memory of how they arrived there. Worse, they've somehow lost Teddy in the streets of that legendary city, and with only a little time left before Stu must be back to say his "I do". It's business as usual, as the three sort-of-friends unite once more to locate their missing comrade.

Of all the films to make in Bangkok, why this one?

To be honest, if you've seen The Hangover, you pretty much know what is going to happen here as well. The characters are even in on the joke, frantically shouting that it's all happening once more. After the setup that establishes everything you NEED to know, one of the cast disappears. Later, he is found. In between, a LOT of crazy shit goes down. This IS Bangkok after all, and there's a reason the city has the reputation it has gained from popular culture, such as John Burdett's series of novels centered in Bangkok's seedy underbelly. That this only serves to rehash the same schlock over again in a new setting is disappointing, even if some of the scenes are even more outrageous than in the first film. Director Todd Phillips obviously didn't want to mess with a winning formula, but that doesn't excuse the film's lack of courage, as the film only pushes the envelope slightly beyond the same specific boundaries of of the 2009 original.

A monkey replaces the sunglasses-wearing baby, because... you know... you can't shoot babies.

The Hangover Part II also features the return of most of The Hangover's original cast, and that doesn't just mean the heroic trio. Helms, Galifianakis and Cooper all practically live these characters during the film's shooting. Helms plays the perpetually nervous Stu as second nature by now, and of course Cooper is completely at home as rugged ladies man Phil, but neither is very far from their happy medium. The characters are easy for them to portray, so it's not like they had to put a ton of effort into Stu and Phil's personalities. Galifianakis suffers from the same problem, but balances that out by being a million times more entertaining than any of his co-stars. Even if he plays a man who you would never be friends with in a million years were he to exist in real life, you can forgive Alan's silliness when he regularly smacks your funny bone into submission. Possibly the most irreverent film character of the past decade, Alan MAKES The Hangover, and there wouldn't be a sequel without him. Though the women are all but ignored, it's nice to see Jamie Chung in a 2011 film that doesn't COMPLETELY suck (I'm looking at you, Zack Snyder), and she makes a better leading female than Heather Graham ever did. Acclaimed director Ang Lee's son Mason manages his first major role well, though the role of an over-parented wiz-kid son is hardly anything but a cliched role for an Asian teen. Justin Bartha has a slightly larger role in this sequel but doesn't really get to be a part of the main story, and with his mainly uninteresting character that's okay. Finally, villain Ken Jeong returns as an ally to the Wolfpack in Bangkok. Though most find his broken-English speaking criminal offensive, I thought he was the second-funniest part of the entire film. Throw in award-winning performer Paul Giamatti as a an American "business man" and the cast is talented enough to avoid completely embarrassing themselves with the juvenile dialogue and cliched scenarios.

"Oh, WHAT will I do until Due Date 2 comes out??"

One of the worst things I can say about The Hangover Part II is... it's not particularly funny. For the amount of hype and attention the film got, you would expect wall-to-wall laughs, especially considering the material used. Despite the filmmakers' efforts to make everything so much crazier and zanier, the humor largely falls flat, and some sequences are more awkward than anything else. Sure, I got some fun out of watching part deux, but as I was at a midnight release event, I can probably attribute some of that brief gaiety to dehydration (the air conditioners in the theater were offline), exhaustion and sleep deprivation as much as anything on the screen. Sure, the first Hangover struck both box office and critical gold, but if more of the same is all we can look forward to in its sequels, then we should all hope this latest night out is the finale.