The Hangover Part II (2011) – Review

Review: The Hangover Part II is funny enough, and maybe would be a better film if The Hangover did not already exist, but it does – so this is not. Director Todd Phillips and Warner Bros. seem to be more interested in making money than a compelling narrative (when with a compelling narrative this still would have made the same money, if not more). The story and narrative structure are almost exactly the same as the first film, but Phillips has little regard for the characters and their growth – rather he is mostly concerned with exaggerated jokes that go over-the-top to make this seem even crazier than the first (and I guess we all saw this coming, but forgave it for the potential of another very funny and well done comedy). Sure there are moments of hilarity, but without the character work and strong narrative those moments do not really mean anything and exist on a plane outside narrative filmmaking, falling more under pure spectacle (and this film plays that way, which hurts it gravely). The first was so successful because it was innovative and had relatable and memorable characters. In part II the characters are mere caricatures of themselves (something that sadly seems to be common in sequels) driven by the expectations of fans of the first (with the “dance for me monkey” mentality, and there a monkey in the film!). They no longer feel like real people and thus the audience does not relate to them, and almost regardless of how funny the comedy is and how crazy the misadventures are the film will not be good without the connection with the audience. Phillip’s narrative is also sloppy and built around gags rather than character arcs. It is wholly unsatisfying and even mildly insulting to its audience, especially the third act. Phillips had the opportunity to make another great comedy, working with very funny people, which makes it all the more disappointing that the goal seemingly was to throw something together as close to the first as possible with the aim for dollars and not quality (and the average moviegoer would lap it up anyway, which they have). It almost plays a bit like a parody of itself, which could work given the right tone and crafting, but here it is more the result of shoddy filmmaking than seemingly a conscious effort. In a vacuum (the first film not existing), this would be a mediocre comedy with some really funny parts. As is, The Hangover Part II is just really disappointing and not very good.

Technical and acting achievements: Director Todd Phillips has an up and down track record. He has done some very funny stuff like Old School and The Hangover, but often he gets carried away with gags and jokes and forgets that the most important ingredient to any film is the characters (and secondly the narrative, both of which are weak here, but somewhat saved from sheer terribleness due to some funny stuff and performances).  Christopher Beck’s score is good and fits the tone of the film. Though, his work is somewhat overshadowed by the found-music pieces that fit very well. The cinematography by Lawrence Sher and the production design by Bill Brzeski are probably the best part of the whole film. Both do very good work (especially for a Hollywood comedy). The cast is a little iffier, in terms of good work. The main three actors (Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis) are good and all are funny (if only their characters where actually given better material and growth), but due to the tired narrative they seemed to be going through the motions a bit (both in performance and their characters confronting the situations). Justin Baratha is not really given anything to do. The same goes for Jeffrey Tambor and Jamie Chung. Ken Jeong plays Mr. Chow as a cartoon version of himself (which you would think would be hard given how crazy he is in the first) and Paul Giamatti is completely uninterested in his performance (probably due to it being poorly written) and it shows as he just phones it in.

Summary & score: All in all The Hangover Part II is a failure (unless you are Warner Bros. and have a big hit on your hands without much effort). Hopefully the third will be better (but I am not holding my breath). 5/10

Paul (2011) – Review

Paul is a funny and sci-fi nostalgia filled comedy. Structured as a road-comedy/buddy-comedy, the film works as a tale of friendship and growth along the journey. The nostalgic aspect is focused on popular science fiction (mostly from film and TV) – things like Star Wars, Star Trek (I love the reenactment of the worst fight in TV history), Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T., and many others (especially Steve Spielberg films, and his voice makes a cameo). These references work to be both funny and enjoyable for those that know them. However, this may also be an issue for viewers without a strong knowledge of popular sci-fi, as a ton of jokes will not work for them (or not even play as jokes or references). But, this is a film not made for those viewers – this is clearly made for sci-fi fans who will get all the references and jokes. Thus, the film does have a somewhat limited appeal, though there are also lots of jokes and comedy that do not require a strong knowledge of sci-fi films and TV as well, but some of the full enjoyment will be lost. There is also another pitfall that arises from the film being heavily geared towards referential jokes, (much like with the film Fanboys) its narrative seems to be structured more around these jokes than telling a good story. Director Greg Mottola is very good at telling nostalgic comedy stories that are very funny, while maintaining a strong dramatic narrative. Here, Mottola is able to bring the drama out of the story amidst the comedy, helping the audience feel more connected to the characters, which benefits the film. The issue is that the narrative is not quite tight enough, as it feels a tad slow in parts and most of the comedy is generated from outside factors and not so much from the main characters (played by Simon Pegg and Nick Frost). The supporting cast is funny, especially Ruth Bugs and Paul, but for the film to be really good, the comedy should generate from the main characters. The road trip aspect of the narrative delivers most of the comedy and excitement, while the buddy aspect, which should really generate both the crux of the drama and comedy, only delivers drama and character to the film. This would be fine if at its heart it were a coming of age or growth drama, but it is a comedy, so having most of the laughs come from references, locations and supporting characters and not the main characters (though they do have their moments) hurts the film in terms of its overall success as a comedy and cinematic experience (i.e. its ability to entertain). Paul is quite funny, with great and well integrated nostalgic references, but despite its nagging issues is still good, but not great.

Technical and acting achievements: Paul is Greg Mottola’s third feature film. He yet again shows his knack for addressing his material in such a way that resonates with the audience, both through his use of character connection to the audience and nostalgia. However, this is his weakest film to date. It is not funny enough to be a great comedy and not dramatic, moving or interesting enough to be a great dramady, so we are left with a good comedy (but really only if you like popular sci-fi and get the references). The script by Pegg and Frost is a good road trip and shows their love of science fiction, but it seems as though there is more interested in the references than the story, which does hurt the narrative. David Arnold’s score is good, playing off the nostalgia and genre the characters love. The cinematography by Lawrence Sher is mostly straight-forward, but in certain scenes is better than what comedies typically get. Production designer Jefferson Sage must have had a fun time with the sets and locations in the film (I particularly liked the choice and look of Tara Walton’s house and grounds – it reminds me of Superman coming to Earth, and maybe it is supposed to). The cast is funny overall. Joe Lo Truglio is the standout among the bit players in the film; he is really silly, in a good way. Simon Pegg and Nick Frost have tons of chemistry and go together well, but they did not generate much of the best stuff in the film. Principal supporting characters Kristen Wiig and Seth Rogen (who voices Paul) steal the show. Wiig is hilarious, while Rogen’s Paul has the charisma that focuses the audience’s attention.

Films centered around nostalgia often endear themselves to their intended audience, and Paul does that. It is funny and entertaining, but not everyone will like or get it. 7/10 

Due Date (2010) – Review

Due Date is at times quite funny, if not hysterical, but plays more like an every escalating series of comedy bits, many of which do not work well enough. The film also overly relies on its leads to sell the comedy, but both play their roles more as caricatures than real people, thus there is an emotional disconnect between the audience and the characters. But, given that the purpose of the film is really to just be funny and entertaining with seemingly no real attempt to engage on any higher level, the film does accomplish its goal – it is funny and entertaining, just not as gratifying a film as other comedies that do have characters that the audience can connect with. Another issue (and this probably just because I have seen too many movies) is that the film is a bit tired – how many other films are just the same as this (not to mention that it is practically a remake of John Hughes’s classic Planes, Trains and Automobiles with Robert Downey Jr. playing Steve Martin’s character and Zack Galifianakis playing John Candy’s). Director Todd Phillips consistently makes these types of films, pushing the limit of crazy stuff that can happen to people, but with each new film it seems to get more and more unrealistic. And maybe that is the problem. With The Hangover, Phillips had insane things happening, but it worked due to the myth of Vegas. Here, the extreme happenings just seem crazy for the sake of being crazy, taking some of the humor out of the piece. The jokes that work the best are the more human, character driven elements. Many of the ancillary characters also serve no real purpose other than to set up a joke (Jamie Foxx’s character is who I am mostly thinking of). Thus, the character who is presented to be an important part of the story and meaningful to another character is really just an insert for a payoff later, again leading to the film being discounted in terms of true emotional connection. The film is joke driven almost completely, with limited character depth and growth. The film working for many ends up solely being predicated on each audience member’s ability to find Galifianakis and Downey Jr. funny, since there is not much else there. Though, while Due Date has a lot of narrative issues, it is still an amusing and entertaining film.

Technical achievements: Phillips does not do a good enough job as a director in making the characters real and dynamic, which is the primary reason for the film not working as well. Galifianakis and Downey Jr. are both very good actors, but pushing for both performances to be exaggerated for comedic effect does not work when they are the main characters and all the audience has to connect to. Like The Hangover, Phillips hopes that the craziness and jokes will carry the audience through the story without characters to connect with (which can work in certain films), but there is too much character drama with underdeveloped characters and plot and situations that seems crazy just to be crazy and not organic. Cinematographer Lawrence Sher does good work on the film; his photography is aesthetically the best part of the film. Composer Christophe Beck has lots of experience scoring comedies. His music here matches the tone, but does not stand out. Bill Brzeski’s production design is fairly sparse, but he did not have much to work with either. The supporting cast is ok – Foxx’s character is underused and ends up being reduced to skin color, Juliette Lewis is fine (I think she was in this because of her connection to director Phillips more than because of the role), Danny McBride is funny (when is he not) but like Foxx reduced to a physical attribute to joke about, RZA is maybe the standout bit player and is pretty funny, and Michelle Monaghan (who is awesome and underrated) is completely underused for her talent. Galifiankis is a good actor and really funny in a lot of stuff, but here he is just too much. Downey Jr. is fairly one note the whole film (aggravated).

Due Date is what it is supposed to be, funny, entertaining and crazy, but just not a good film. 6/10