Review: The Hangover: Part 3

Year: 2013

Director: Todd Phillips

Screenplay: Todd Phillips, Craig Mazin

Starring: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis, Heather Graham, Justin Bartha, Jeffrey Tambor, Ken Jeong

Synopsis is here

There is one question a writer must ask before he puts pen to paper for his screenplay. It's something that the audience don't even ask themselves before they sit to watch. Never the less; it must be asked. The question is simply: why should I care about these people? Such a query must be asked and it definitely must be answered, even in the most basic of terms. The audience may not think they care, but subconsciously they need to know that if they're going to spend 90+ mins with these people, there must be reasoning to back them.

Hollywood right now is in a franchise fronted, risk free circle, that it may never wish to break, as long as the pay is good. Films are becoming more like soap operas with characters having to trip and stumble over the same hurdles again and again.

The Hangover worked on a guy like me because it was a decent one shot idea; four misfits thrown together into a wild circumstance. It was rude, crude and a little bit dumb, but there was something in there that kept me watching. The second film was more of the same but not in a good way. Fool me once shame on me, fool twice, I'm an idiot. The same goes for these guys as they hit the same beats of the first film but with more spitefulness and diminishing returns.

We are now lumped with a needless third film in which the hangover is no longer a literal one, but a metaphorical one in which the Wolfpack's previous antics have caught up have finally caught with them in the shape of Leslie Chow whose rampant criminal activity has sparked a rival gangster to take action. The Hangover Part 3 forgets about being an actual comedy and in turn becomes a crime film with comedic elements and uninspired reminders of the previous entries. It failed with me on all accounts.

The reason is down to the rambling I was mumbling about at the start of this review. Why should I care about characters who have outstayed their welcome? What were a bunch of amusing guys you could relate to, are now a miserable bunch of irritants. No longer do are the protagonists balanced. Once Alan became the "break out" character of the first film, more focus has been placed on him. He's obnoxious and belligerent but the film does nothing to balance this. Like the Phillips produced Project X (2012) we have a nasty character and his faults are celebrated to the extreme. Add to this that he's also mentally unstable and we have a potent mix. 

Comedy of cruelty is difficult, but brilliant if done correctly. Films such as Martin Scorsese's The King of Comedy (1982) or Jody Hill's Observe and Report (2009) manage to blend the absurdity and pathetic qualities of their characters so well that you don't simply focus on their nastiness. Another example would be Mitchell Hurwitz's brilliant dense sitcom; Arrested Development (2003) which manages to add pathos to a group of characters you would walk across the street to avoid in real life. By the time the boorish creatures in The Hangover Part 3 reach their unearned emotional conclusion, I had my fill. 

For me; the film’s only saving grace was Ken Jeong, the only person who remembered that he was in a comedy. Jeong's nastily stereotypical Chinese character, has some of the best lines and the most energy in a film in which the listless looks on the leads faces are all too obvious. But think about that. The character that most people have a negative issue with is the only thing I found interesting within the film. Colour me backward, but I feel that says everything about The Hangover Part 3. A bloated, lazy comedy in which I had to focus on its most negative aspects in order to find a laugh.  

Review: Fast & Furious 6

Year: 2013

Director: Justin Lin

Screenplay: Chris Morgan

Starring: Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Dwayne Johnson, Jordana Brewster, Tyrese Gibson, Michelle Rodriguez, Sung Kang, Chris Bridges, Luke Evans, Gina Carano, John Ortiz.

Synopsis is here

We are currently in a climate which film critics are being attacked for their taste in comparison to populous opinion(despite it often falling in line); the first defence is how the critic’s opinion means nothing as the films profit margin is way more important. "All these people went to see it; therefore your thoughts are invalid". The second attack is one I call the Kevin Smith offensive. This is where the only people with an opinion are the ones with the ticket stubs.  

You have to laugh at the absurdity. You can only have a say about the film if you pay for it, and by paying for it, your payment is a statement that you enjoyed the movie. It is a warped sensibility, but one that appears more and more. We now have the unsettling occurrence in which keyboard warriors lie in wait for the first negative review of any popular film and unleash at whatever poor sap had a different opinion from their own. 

So when your franchise is six films in and the latest entry is close to making half a billion at the box office, it doesn't really matter what any blogger or critic thinks. Yet here we are writing about these movies, often trying to give cultural context to these episodes of pop culture, while the loyal servants lie in wait to explain how wrong you are by calling you a faggot. 

Fast & Furious 6 sole aim to fascinate and frustrate those who believe that their palette is too sophisticated for such "lower" nonsense. Many complain about the lack of original movies and while we may be standing at the films sixth entry to the franchise, Fast 6 not based on any previous material. True the franchise is completely derivative but, hey, at least it's doing it on its own account. The film still indulges in displaying gratuitous female flesh, and yet still utilises more female characters than both Iron Man 3 and Star Trek. Women in Fast 6 have more to do, say and truly feel part of the films terrible plot and storyline. Fast 6, much like 5 is also vastly multi-racial and uses it to its benefit. Aside from one or two poorly placed moments of dialogue, race is not a major issue in Fast 6, with its main theme of family extending across racial lines. 

Justin Lin (the veteran director of the franchise) doesn't lose stride with hi direction of the action. The late night London locale is effective and while Western editing has effectively maimed the beautiful art of choreography, Lin still manages to deliver simple, easy and enjoyable action to follow. I found it incredibly easy to find myself caught in the twisting of metal and cracking of bones, simply because Lin holds a shot for half a second longer than most. 

The film is still nonsense, keep up with the loop jumping plot and we're still watching a film in which the good criminals are planning to steal from bad thrives because screenplay. The film is incredibly happy with its strange discourse of bloodlessly murdering innocents without a care in the world. A nitpick but still bizarre when watching. The script is happily fuelled with dim witted dialogue, graceless wit and dubious platitudes and even at its worst the validity of the characters is flimsy. 

Yet, the sheer unpretentious of what's at play, drives Fast 6 through most of its obstacles. Unburdened with the geek weight of comic book adaptations, Fast 6 can happily laugh of any YouTube "everything that's wrong with" videos because it has nothing to live up to and yet succeeds somewhat with what it delivers. It's hard to call out a film which has its main catchphrase "ride or die" at its heart. 

Fast and Furious 6 isn't doing too bad critically. It is currently fresh on Rotten Tomatoes and riding high on the IMDB. It will not stop a small army of fans deride anyone who doesn't hold it with high praise. Despite this; what makes Fast and Furious 6 interesting, is not that it has a force big enough to provide ammunition if it were under attack. It's that the film and franchise is big and ugly enough not to give a fudge if anyone likes it or not. 

Podcast: Cinematic Dramatic 5x01 - Pubcast Melee

The Dramatics begin life after Episode 100 in a pub talking Iron Man, The Place Beyond The Pines, Evil Dead and Star Trek Into Darkness. Here goes...



via GeekPlanetOnline: Cinematic Dramatic http://www.geekplanetonline.com/hosting/originals/dramatic/?p=episode&name=2013-05-24_cinematic_dramatic_5x01__pubcast_melee.mp3 Unfortunately, you will have to copy and paste the link to listen or use the handy links on the side!

Review: The Great Gatsby

Year: 2013
Director: Baz Luhrmann
Screenplay: Baz Luhrmann, Craig Pearce
Starring: Leonardo Di Caprio, Carey Mulligan, Tobey Maguire, Joel Edgerton

Synopsis is here

The Great Gatsby gracelessly bounds into screens hoping to bowl you over with its brash, over egged delivery. It's loud, proud and happily declares itself in every scene. Much like the other works of director Baz Luhrmann, Gatsby takes a headstrong, music video approach to its material. Lavish long curtains bellow in the air, cameras swoop and swoon as mass parties Charleston away to modern hip hop and RnB. 

Despite its jazz age setting, The Great Gatsby reminds me more of a 90's hip hop video more than anything. To situate F Scott Fitzgerald's classic take of the deterioration of the American dream with more modern sensibilities is understandable and considering Luhrmann's previous works, near justified. Unfortunately 2013 Gatsby; despite the modern parallels it could lean on, is less about the damnation of decadence and all about the melodrama. Much of Luhrmann's techniques do much to heighten the romantic triangle that lies within the film. However the metaphor that lies within Fitzgerald's work is quickly lost in favour of the director's own excess.

Instead of a slow intoxication of the era, we are slapped across the face with hectic hip hop editing, over arching performances and mishandled music choices. I would be the first to defend the likes of Jay-Z in a modernisation of the material. The rappers lyrics and lifestyle do a certain amount of overlapping with the jazz age wildness. However the choices placed, often jar with the party scenes we witness. Unlike previous jukebox collages put together by Luhrmann, the mixture does little to gel. 

The film is so busy submerging us with information overload (remixed modern music, crowded visuals, over exposition at every turn) that we often lose track of the characters of the piece. From Gatsby to Carraway every character is painted in broad gloss, when it's clear the more could and should be brought from them. Such motives were fine when we were given the star crossed ciphers that occupied Moulin Rouge and Romeo and Juliet, as the sources were suited. Gatsby keeps hinting that more could be done, yet Luhrmann seems more attracted to the richness of riches than anything else. 

We gain little from wide eyed straight man Tobey Magurie who delivers everything with little nuance. Mulligan fairs better, bringing a deceptive sweetness to Daisy while DiCaprio and Edgerton wrestle well with Luhrmann's outrageousness and attack it with gumption. Yet despite all its fancy posing and posturing, there's little satirical eye to the events. The film quickly descends to a simple romance that was explored stronger within Luhrmann's earlier works. The film is so busy visually that it gleefully slaps the words of the novel on the screen for no other reason than constant re-alliteration (and perhaps because it looks fancy in 3D). 

One has to look hard for moments of wry sharpness through all its grand gesturing. But witness a party scene in which Nick Carraway is introduced to the infamous Gatsby and gazes admirably at him while everyone is too busy glaring up at the fireworks. Gershwin plays in the background in what almost appears as a keen reference to Woody Allen's Manhattan (1979), a film with its own bittersweet (yet not as tragic) love triangle. It's a brief moment of intoxication. One that Gatsby could do a lot more with. 

Review: Star Trek into Darkness

Year: 2013
Director: JJ Abrams
Screenplay: Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman.
Starring: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Benedict Cumberbatch, Zoe Saldana, Karl Urban, John Cho, Anton Yelchin, Simon Pegg, Bruce Greenwood, Paul Weller, Alice Eve

Synopsis is here

At least one film academic or critic is bound to be a little perturbed by the opening of JJ Abrams’ space rock opera in which an action sequence involving a tribe of "native" aliens begin to hail praise and worship on the enterprise with its corn fed, all American boy captain. Things only become odder when we delve deeper into this second summer package of the revamped star fleet. Particularly as much of the film relies on concepts of this group of explorers becoming more heavily armed to combat what looks for be an impending war. It's obvious that the filmmakers are not making any profound commentary such moments. Thinking about the 2009 entry, I'm reminded at how well race was displayed. But believe me when I say this, someone will say something.

That aside, I was far too happy to see what would happen to these next to care too much about such moments. Star Trek displayed enough love for the original series that it did not feel like a smash and grab number. It did so with a jazzed up, youthful but well picked cast that really held everything in place. The banter put in place along with the timing of the cast were of course half the fun of such a film. This new Star Trek was less about diplomacy as it was for trying to put a zing in mainstream summer blockbuster viewing. So here comes the difficult second album. Star Trek set the bar quite high as a piece of fluffy fun and now, its sequel "into Darkness" now has the job of either levelling for exceeding expectations.

For me, I found there to be something underwhelming about this recent venture. Something not sitting right as   I sat stuffing popcorn into my face (could be the reason). Four years ago, Star Trek was a shiny and glossy thrill ride. However; while Abrams hasn't changed too much to the proceedings, he doesn't make the evolutionary jump I had expected. The small lull I felt in the first film has expanded here. After a beguiling start which looks set to match the leap into chaos we found with The Dark Knight, I found myself more than a little distracted with the films second act. If it wasn't bogging you down with plot (not all of it feels needed) then it's slapping you around the face with another frustrating to follow action sequence.

Much of the film feels more about its loud bangs than its large characters. If not for the forcefulness of the films villain,  the film could have really lost its way. It's hard not to enjoy Benedict Cumberbatch as he expertly demoralises his foes with the utterance of one word. However, he is nearly lost amidst all the pulling of the strings the script and Abrams must do. An example is Alice Eve, who seems to be rivalling Rebecca Hall as most unfortunate bright young actress in a big blockbuster with little to do. When the film resets its focus upon the couples and groupings which made the 2009 entry what it was, the sparkle comes back.

As I've said before, I'm no TV Star Trek fan so this no fanboy rant or retort. However, it does feel that Abrams has missed a trick slightly, giving us a villain that really ups the stakes but nearly forgetting some of the essence that makes John Harrison such an interesting prospect. There's still some fun stuff here, with Abrams and Co still having fun poking in and around Star Trek lore and the final act having a decent emotional payoff. But all in all, the film feels more than a little overblown. Here's hoping that Abrams regains a bit of composure for the third entry.