The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014) – Review

Review: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 accomplishes essentially what it sets out to do (be entertaining and move the story forward), but it lacks any real meaningful punch (even though it does try quite hard). The film follows the events of The Amazing Spider-Man. Peter Parker (Spider-Man) still struggles with why his father and mother left him as a young boy. This loss is only compounded by his Uncle Ben dying, which leads Peter to break-up with Gwen, believing that she will be safer if she is away from him (he both cannot lose her like he feels he has lost everything else in his life and he made a promise to her dying father to leave her alone). Meanwhile, Harry Osborn has returned to New York to take over Oscorp in the wake of his father’s death, reconnecting with Peter and renewing their friendship. Also meanwhile, Oscorp employee and electrical engineer Max Dillon leads a life of solitude, feeling invisible to the world. During one of Peter’s many patrols as Spider-Man, he rescues Max (and Max becomes obsessed with Spider-Man). Things start to get complicated and fall apart when Max has a devastating accident turning him into Electro. His mind is warped and he believes Spider-Man has betrayed him in some way and he seeks vengeance, as well as power over all those who ignored him his whole life. Peter’s relationship with Harry too becomes frayed when Harry believes that Spider-Man’s blood is the key to helping him ward off the same genetic disease that killed his father, now present in him; yet, Peter is reluctant to help, thinking it will cause more bad than good. And finally, Peter’s relationship with Gwen continues to be complicated. He wants to keep her safe, but their connection is so strong that he cannot seem to stay away.

This review will contain spoilers so see the film first if you do not want to be spoiled. The concern, initially, with The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was that there were too many characters and thus the narrative would be too complicated and muddled – characters not being given time to develop. Director Marc Webb does do a decent job, overall, managing his many characters and the narrative (considering that the script is pretty terrible). He keeps the narrative moving forward more or less with only a few moments that feel slow. The main issues with this film, really, end up being the same issues that the first had, only compounded. The motivations of the characters all feel very forced and contrived as if they are merely plot devices instead of natural and organic. Things seem to happen for no good reason. Character emotions explode without necessary development. The audience is only ever told that the characters feel or are a certain way, but it never takes its time to show the audience why, as thus the audience is never really emotionally invested in the characters or the story.

The biggest offender of this is again the main villain. Max Dillon/Electro is very poorly developed. Basically, he is just a crazy person who suddenly has access to great power. This is all fine and well, except he takes up a big chunk of the film; and, Webb tries to imply that there is some emotional connection between Spider-Man and Dillon and that Dillon does have a redeeming humanity to him, yet none of it works. He is just incredibly boring, nothing he does means anything to the audience, and his whole narrative just wastes everyone’s time. I think he was only included to allow for more cool action sequences involving a flying blue man.

All that said, Electro’s narrative could be forgiven if only Peter and Harry’s relationship worked. Electro is more or less just a henchman by the end anyway, easily dispatched without anyone caring. One of the key elements to this whole film, and maybe the whole series depending on what happens next, is Peter’s relationship with Harry. Webb forgets that cinema is chiefly a visual medium and that viewers need to be emotionally engaged to really care about what is going on. He only ever tells us in regards to Peter’s relationship with Harry. There is no time to develop Harry as a character, so things just escalate because the need for more action sequences demands it and no one is all that interested. The audience needs to feel and see that Peter and Harry are good friends, that they really do mean something to each other. That way, when Peter decides not to help Harry, his heartbreak and the weight of Peter’s decision is palpable and resonates with the audience. As it is now, these decisions exist merely to push the plot forward and really have no actually emotional fortitude (when they really should). Peter having to fight his “best friend” should mean something to the audience and not just exist as mindless spectacle. Harry is also criminally underdeveloped (because so much time needed to be spent on Max Dillon for some reason).

In the first film, Gwen and Peter’s relationship was not particularly managed all that well, succeeding mostly on the chemistry and strength of the actors. This is again mostly true, except this film goes for a very big emotional moment between them and it sadly falls a bit flat. Their relationship is all over the place. Peter is torn between what he believes is his responsibility and his feelings for Gwen. It is clear from their chemistry (despite how hard the script tries to make the audience not like them) that they cannot really bare to be apart; although, Gwen seems to be trying to move on, but Peter cannot let her go (even though he tries). Peter also seems to treat the relationship very one-sided. Everything is about him and not Gwen. Fans of the comics know that Gwen is a doomed character and I applaud Webb for actually going through with her full narrative arc (as most Hollywood films would have side stepped it in some way – for example, in the MCU a character has died in each of the last four films, a character whose death emotionally affects the main characters of the film, only to be brought back and revealed as not actually being dead). This is a transformative moment for the series and for Peter as a character, and yet for the audience it is sad because a character and actress they like is gone but the full devastation that Peter feels is never fully transferred, and thus the moment is wasted. Stemming all the way back to the first film, their relationship is just never really developed in a manner that creates a strong emotional connection with the audience; and so, this film is hollow and nothing more than spectacle. This is something that Webb must get right with Peter and Mary-Jane Watson in The Amazing Spider-Man 3.

Setting the narrative flaws aside for a moment, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 does feature a few very good action scenes. I particularly enjoyed the prologue scene, detailing what happened to Peter’s parents. It is probably the most engaging scene in the film. Although, it too is problematic, as it further disconnects the audience from Peter. Because Peter’s search for the truth is one of the central elements to the series, the audience should discover things as Peter discovers them. Telling the audience information before Peter knows just deflates his discovers dramatically and emotionally.

The best aspect of the film is its tone. Webb really does a good job getting the tone and visual style right, carrying over from the first film. It feels like a Spider-Man film, which is probably the most important aspect for creating an enjoyable experience (I just wish that more care was also taken with all the characters).

The film sets up the future of the series well too. In many ways, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is more of an origin story than the first (but, this also lessens its ability to function as a standalone film – something all the best super hero films do well, including Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2). It sets up Sony’s Spider-Man universe, laying the groundwork for The Sinister Six. Plus, the events of the film really propel Peter Parker into the hero becomes in the end. Before this, Spider-Man was sort of just for fun (in a sense, it is all just a game) without real dire consequences, and thus not as heroic. Now, Peter must move forward having experienced loss directly because of his actions as Spider-Man and with greater villains who know how to hurt him in a more personal way. And thus, there is promise that despite the first two entries being letdowns (in comparison to the original Spider-Man Trilogy and the high standards that those films, or two of them at least, and The Dark Knight Trilogy set for superhero films) the future of the franchise is ripe with potential and may yet produce a good to great film.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Marc Webb was a gamble when he was hired to direct The Amazing Spider-Man, having only previously helmed (500) Days of Summer and a few music videos. It seemed like a savvy choice at the time; and while Webb has done okay with the franchise two films in (somewhat tripped up by awful scripts and character development, but as the director that is still mostly on him), I would not be opposed to Sony changing things up for part three (even though that seems very unlikely, as both films have succeeded at the box office). It also seems that Sony and the Spider-Man producers have still not learned the lesson that if the film is going to have many characters it needs to have a very strong narrative structure balancing each character appropriately. This is was the flaw of Spider-Man 3 (among many others, including Sony and company thinking they knew better than Sam Raimi) and it has continued to carry over to each film since. The writing is just substandard and that desperately needs to change going forward (but will it? Probably not considering these films are all very successful monetarily).

The Amazing Spider-Man 2, however, is visually magnificent. Cinematographer Daniel Mindel and production designer Mark Friedberg have created a world that is vibrant with color and yet still grounded. It is playful yet rooted in a world that the audience can relate to, very much capturing the spirit of Spider-Man the character. Composer Hans Zimmer created a super group to score the film, primarily featuring Johnny Marr and Pharrell Williams. I cannot decide if I liked the score or not, though. On one hand, it is bombastic and exciting in all the right ways, accentuating the action and drama of the film. But on the other hand, some of the choices feel odd and there seems to be a lack of an iconic theme for any of the characters (something superhero films should have). There is really almost nothing to like about Electro in the film, and the score connected to his character may bare part of the responsibility (though a very small part) as it just does not seem to fit at all (both in terms of fitting the character and the tone of the rest of the film and its music).

Even though The Amazing Spider-Man 2 seems to treat its characters as secondary elements of the film, the actors who play them are all mostly good (in the face of having to work with clunky dialog and little to no character development). That said, many good actors are wasted (maybe none more so than Felicity Jones, who basically just shows up as a bookmark, so that everyone can come back to her in a future film in the series). Paul Giamatti and especially Chris Cooper are very good with limited screen time. Dane DeHaan is also very good as Harry Osborn. His character is paper thin (despite being a crucial element to the film universe) and yet DeHaan brings so much to him. Harry is privileged and entitled, but with major abandonment issues. In some ways, he is a cracked mirror reflection of Peter Parker. Jamie Foxx does his best with Max Dillon, creating a very nerdy crazy person. But he, like the script and director, never really invites the audience to care about Max in any way, shape, or form. Foxx is a good actor, but there is nothing to like about Electro. Emma Stone is good again as Gwen Stacy. She is very charismatic and that translates very well for the audience, doing a lot of the narrative’s work for it. Regardless of her character’s development, Stone’s charm is enough to make her likable and engage the audience (at least superficially). Andrew Garfield is also again good as Peter Parker. His version of Peter Parker has a lot of fun as Spider-Man and seems to have a strong moral grounding, but the complications of his personal life as Peter wear him down. He does not seem to know what he wants exactly (but who does). His chemistry with Stone is the best aspect of the series so far. It is sad that there will not be more from these characters together as their story never really got going in any real meaningful way (despite what the films might have you believe); but at the same time, I am interested to see how Peter grows as a character in the wake of the tragic events and how his relationship develops with MJ. Emd of spoilers.

Summary & score: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is all flash and no bang – that is to say, it looks wonderful, has some good action, but again seems to miss the mark when it comes to creating characters that the audience can care about in any real way. 5/10

12 Years a Slave (2013) – Review

Review: 12 Years a Slave is harrowing and powerful character drama. The film is about Solomon Northup, a free black man living in 1841 Saratoga, NY, who is tricked into traveling south to Washington D.C. where he is drugged, kidnapped, and sold into slavery. This is a true story.

There first thing that stands out about director Steve McQueen’s film is that it is unflinching in its portrayal of the conditions these unfortunate souls faced. McQueen does not exaggerate the violence or the evil for dramatic effect, rather the film is very much grounded in reality, which is probably what makes it all the more affecting.

Structurally, 12 Years a Slave feels like a grand story (similar to films such as Lawrence of Arabia or The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), as it is sweeping narrative following Northup over the course of many years, in multiple locations, and engaging with a myriad of characters. And like many grand stories, this is a film about the perseverance of human spirit in the face of the shameful, vile abomination of man’s capacity to commit evil against his fellow man.

Northup has two primary owners. The first is seemingly a good man (Ford), while the second is filled with malice intent (Epps). However, what is striking about McQueen’s look at slavery is that Ford might just be the bigger villain. Epps is a crazed maniac whose own shortcomings bleed out in the form of violence towards his slaves. Ford on the other hand genuinely seems to know that slavery is wrong (on some level), and yet is complicit in it as a tool to forward his own business interests and livelihood. Epps is merely just a bad, troubled man, but Ford knows better. This is the terrifying truth that McQueen gets at: yes, there were/are evil men in this world but it is the indifference of the good that truly allows atrocity to occur.

Northup meets many characters – some good, some bad, each with a different view of life. And yet, all are to some extent apathetic towards what holding humans in bondage really means. The white slave owners to varying degrees buy into the idea that these men are of a lessor human value and thus viewing them as property is not such a reach, and the slaves themselves are for the most part subservient to their unfortunate plight. What happened to moral good, above all of man’s laws? Northup is constantly out of step, as he will just not accept his fate. Through Northup, McQueen showcases reprehensible brutality as nothing more than a social and economic system in play – each party merely enacting their part. This is what is frightening. Northup is disgusted by the abhorrence of his situation, and that perspective is translated to the audience who is completely invested in him (due to very strong character work), but to those more familiar with the situation (i.e. whites and blacks that have grown up in the system) it is just normal daily life. The whites stand supreme over their plantations, inflated by their social, political, and economic status while their slaves cower, their will long broken.

Northup is the guiding light through the fog of forgotten morals. McQueen’s film feels so realistic that the audience too seems to lose hope and simply comply with the order of this awful world, too exhausted and beaten down to fight. Only Northup stands tall. He is different. He just will not fully summit. There are a number of moments in which his situation seems lost, as he comes to fully understand just what humanity is capable of in this warped society. But, he never does give up. The film, as bleak as it may feel, is ultimately uplifting. He survives, one of the few.

Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained, while a revenge fantasy, does go out of its way to explicitly detail the horrors of slavery – the cruelty, the abject character, and plain hateful nature of slave owners. It is effective in its intended conveyance. With 12 Years a Slave, McQueen is to some extent making the same film as Tarantino. He wants to comment on the capability of man to commit evil using slavery as his foil. However, as good as Django Unchained is, 12 Years a Slave is much more successful at engaging the audience on an emotional level. The film does not go for guilt (that is unreasonable at this point). It does not go for sympathy, at least from a perspective of a third party commenting on how awful it must have been. No, McQueen wants his audience to viscerally feel the anguish, the humiliation. What it is to be meaningless and truly without hope. His film is unflinching because he wants his film to not just tell a story but to be an experience (maybe to shake humanity out of its apathy). McQueen has made a film that regardless of the viewer’s background makes them feel like they are the ones in bondage (if only for a moment). It is deeply disturbing and utterly sad, but in the end hopeful that humanity can find a way back.

12 Years a Slave excels aesthetically and in all aspects of its filmmaking and performances. It is a character drama that fully pulls the audience in, infests their souls, and opens them up to the heartbreaking reality that so many faced (and continue to face in some parts of the world). Solomon Northup was amazingly lucky and also devastatingly unlucky.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Auteur Steve McQueen is among today’s most brilliant filmmakers. His films just seem to have an innate power to them, a volatile emotional connection that grabs their viewers bringing them to an impassioned climax (be it sadness, joy, anger). Hunger and Shame are fantastic works, but both exist more in the fringe of independent film (mostly unseen by average moviegoers). 12 Years a Slave is his most accessible work (in some ways it is a Hollywood prestige film), and yet it does not feel diminished in any way dramatically. McQueen keeps his edge, which is wonderfully refreshing.

Hans Zimmer’s score for the film is fully immersive. More than any other piece of film-music this year, his score interacts with the viewer on a deeply affecting emotional level. It incites a fevered erupting of emotion. While 12 Years a Slave is impressive in all aspects, Zimmer’s score seems to aspire to something more. Even without its accompanying images, it is a powerfully dynamic composition.  Sean Bobbitt’s cinematography is excellent. The film is lit mostly with natural light, Bobbitt employing candlelight in many scenes to great effect (giving the film a similar look, though darker tonally, to Stanley Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon). McQueen and Bobbitt (in their third collaboration) also use some very aggressively combative images (like the trashing wheel of the riverboat) to actively agitate the viewer in the early scenes, but later in the film they use much more peaceful transition shots (mostly of a blazing sky over the Louisiana swamp). Even in the film’s transitions and place-markers, McQueen is engaged in an emotional dialog with the audience. Adam Stockhausen’s production design is wonderful as well. The look of the film creates an overall feeling or realism, paramount to the success of the narrative. An interesting thing I noticed is that, the viewer never leaves Northup, and thus the design is focused to the areas that he inhabits. The audience almost never sees the inside of any of the great mansions that overlook the plantations (aside from a couple dance scenes, featuring cramped conditions). Northup’s world as a slave is dark, damp, and seemingly void of hope juxtaposed to the more flamboyant colors that free men often favor. Zimmer, Bobbitt, and Stockhausen each produce work that is among the year’s best in their disciplines.

As exceptional as the directing, writing, music, design, photography, and overall aesthetic composition of the film is, 12 Years a Slave is still a film built on its performances. However, it mostly features small bit parts (many great actors having only but a moment of screen time). While all the performances in the film are strong, a few of these small performances stand out. Scoot McNairy and Taran Killam play Brown and Hamilton, Northup’s initial kidnappers. They have such a joyful exuberance that it is shocking when they turn out to be bad men. They do a wonderful job of ripping the audience out of their comfort zone (which the subsequent scenes only build on). Chris Chalk and Michael K. Williams are the next to serve the role of introducing the audience and Northup to the sheer reality of his situation from very different perspectives. Adepero Oduye plays her character’s sadness with such a heartbreaking hopelessness, weighing on Northup. Paul Giamatti plays a slave salesman. His frank delivery is unnerving as he sells humans as if they were beasts. Benedict Cumberbatch plays Ford, a man who appears noble and good, but is really just a coward. Paul Dano (seemingly recapturing a little of his There Will Be Blood character’s uneasy energy) becomes Northup’s first obstacle, as he plays a man of deficiency who cannot bear to be upstaged by a slave. Sarah Paulson plays Epps’s wife. She is just as awful and hateful (again conveying the total disregard that slave owners had for their slaves). And finally, Brad Pitt plays a white man in the South unafraid to speak out against the inhumanity and moral wrongs of slavery. Lupita Nyong’o and Michael Fassbender feature in true supporting roles. Nyong’o plays Patsey, a slave who has the unwanted affection of Epps and the scorn of his wife. She is brilliant in the role. She suffers to such an extent that she only wishes for death. Fassbender plays Epps. He has such an intense energy that his mere presence is intimidating. He inflicts mental and physical fury as to keep his slaves in a constant state of dread. They wilt before him (all but Northup). He is malevolent bitterness personified, but what is great about Fassbender’s performance is that just calling him evil is too easy. There is something much deeper corrupting his soul. Chiwetel Ejiofor is a beacon of strength as Solomon Northup. To some extent, he cannot get out of his own way. He just cannot keep his head down and conform to the shadows. While the film tries its very best to emotionally break each viewer, Northup seems as though he can bear any load. He will persevere and by doing so the audience is able to emerge from the film hopeful. Ejiofor has so many wow moments in the film (form a performance standpoint), but the one that stands out for me is his finally engaging in song at the burial of a slave who collapsed while picking cotton. Everything just seems hopeless. Watching this man die from exhaustion to the complete disregard of everyone else seems like it might finally be the final straw for Northup. He looks defeated, but during the song he again finds his will, his strength.

Summary & score: 12 Years a Slave is a profound cinematic experience, piercing into the viewer’s soul. 9/10

The Ides of March (2011) – Review

Review: The Ides of March is a good and very well-made political drama, performance and aesthetically speaking, but it lacks any real sense of emotional connect to the audience. It plays more as a drama, in terms of the audience watching it to find out what happens, than a thriller. Even though all the performances are very good, the audience does not care about the characters, and this is due to director (and co-writer) George Clooney’s inability to create characters that are relatable to the audience, or at least present them as such. As is, the film is presented much more as a tale to be followed, completely plot driven. While there are emotional scenes for the main character Stephen and great moments between characters, they all serve the plot and not the character(s). The viewer never feels invested in Stephen, and thus the drama and mild thriller aspects of the narrative do not engage the audience on a higher emotional level. However despite this shortcoming, Clooney (et al.) still makes a very good film (that could have been great). This is due to fantastic aesthetics, wonderfully written scenes and great performances. It sounds odd that a film can have great performances but not connect with the audience, but it is a matter of how the characters are presented to the audience – whether the viewer is merely supposed to follow them on their journey or actively participate (plot driven versus character driven). However, there are very good plot driven films that still have character moments that allow for a meaningful connection with the audience, so they can be invested, and this is simply lacking in The Ides of March (which I think would otherwise be a great film instead of just a good one). The film’s aesthetics are however quite brilliant and many of the scenes are among my favorites of the year (specifically one between Stephen and Tom Duffy near the end of the second act), elevating the film considerably. An aspect of the film that is also interesting is the portray of American politics as a soul-crushing profession that eats up virtue and spits out emptiness. The characters have goals of making the country better and on the outside seem to be honest, but once the film digs into the backchannels and behind the scenes of their campaigns there is something rotten at the center (and it sure seems like this is probably the case in real life as well). If there is any character drama in the film at all, it is the transition in Stephen’s expression and overall body language from the beginning to the end. All in all, The Ides of March has a lot to like about it (on one viewing, though I question how much it holds up on multiple viewings), but Clooney seems more interested in the style, performances and look of the film than its emotional core.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: George Clooney has directed four features now, and The Ides of March is probably his best (though, many would argue Good Night, and Good Luck. is a better film – but I think it is vastly overrated). Each of his films show off his love for style and the aesthetics of filmmaking, and this is no different. The film is beautifully shot. Cinematographer Phedon Papamichael’s lighting is brilliant and among the best of the year, while Sharon Seymour’s production design and sets fit the tone and style of the film perfectly. As much as I liked Papmichael’s work, Alexandre Desplat’s score is maybe even more marvelous. The Ides of March also features really good acting throughout. Jeffrey Wright seems to be having some fun with his character, and it works well. Evan Rachel Wood, Paul Giamatti and Philip Seymour Hoffman are fantastic in their supporting roles, stealing most of the scenes they are in. Clooney is his typical stoic self, but with hints of cracks (but really this is the same type of performance he always gives). The lead Ryan Gosling is very good as well (with Crazy, Stupid, Love. and Drive, he might be having the best year of any actor), but his performance is slightly overshadowed by the lack of any connection with the audience – and thus we do not care about his character aside from wanting to see how things play out.

Summary & score: Otherwise very well made, The Ides of March is missing its soul, but even so is a good political drama. 8/10

Movie of the Week - Sideways

This week’s movie is Sideways (2004).

The dramedy is about two men, and best friends, reaching middle age without much to show for their lives but disappointment. They drive up to California’s wine country for a week to celebrate before one of them gets married. The film is by writer-director Alexander Payne, who is known for his sharp wit, wonderful dialog and almost sinister ability to critique and almost mock establishments and social structure harshly, but have it still play as comedy. While he has made a number of good films (Citizen Ruth, Election, About Schmidt), this is his best (and a great film) – Payne and co-writer Jim Taylor winning a screenplay Oscar in 2005. It has a very laidback indie aesthetic to it, letting the performances dictate the tone and feel. But, composer Rolfe Kent’s score is quite good and memorable and the visual work of cinematographer Phedon Papamichael and production designer Jane Ann Stewart fits well with Payne’s narrative aesthetic. The performances are brilliant in the film. Sandra Oh is good, but the work of the other two supporting actors, Thomas Haden Church (whose great work and Oscar nod got him hired by Sony on Spider-Man 3) and Virginia Madsen, is phenomenal and would be scene and film stealing if not for Paul Giamatti. He is exceptional, playing such emotional ups and downs. There are jovial moments, but there is always a creeping sense of depression and self-loathing that comes to the surface, but even in the happy moments it is there just below. It is probably one of the twenty five best performances of the decade. Sideways is a must see for fans of excellent writing and aspiring screenwriters, as this is how to write great and deep characters (plus you also need wonderful actors to play them, but it starts with the writing). Check out the trailer.

Available on Blu-ray, DVD and to Rent

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

Movie of the Week - The Illusionist

This week’s movie is The Illusionist (2006).

The film is about a magician who falls in love with a woman above his social standing in turn-of-the-century Vienna. He is also in conflict with the Crown Prince who is both corrupt and committed to forcing the magician’s love to marry him. Thus, the illusionist must use his abilities to not only win his love away but also thwart the evil Crown Prince. The film has a wonderful cast with extraordinary performances from Edward Norton, Paul Giamatti and Rufus Sewell. Jessica Biel and Eddie Marsan co-star and are good too. Along with the great performances the film features fantastic technical work from cinematographer Dick Pope (master work really), another classic score from Philip Glass and visually interesting set design and artistic work from production designer Ondrej Nekvasil. What makes this film great is director Neil Burger. He is able to garner strong performances, utilize his technical assets to their highest output, while creating a stylistically superb film (the narrative is great too). The film harkens back to early cinema in its visual style, which fits the time period of the film well. The film is a must see for cinema fans (it is a bit like that year’s film The Prestige). Check out the trailer.

The Illusionist [Blu-ray/DVD]