The one thing that offends me most about The Hangover: Part 2 is the title. Not the whole thing (I am partial to a hangover myself occasionally), just the Part 2 aspect. Almost as if Todd Phillips really believes that this is something more than it is, a larger, epic story arc that this movie is just a fraction of. The Godfather this ain't.
Before wading in here, I've got to say that I enjoyed the first film. It was funny, with funny characters, particularly Stu and Alan (Ed Helm and Zach Galifianakis), and as a massive fan of Las Vegas, I've got a bit of a soft spot for it. Admitedly, further viewings of the film have seen my enthusiasm and patience start to wane but all in all, it was a good comedy. I felt the need to qualify that because I wouldn't want my hatred of the second instalment to be misconstrued as a sense of humour failure.
The real problem with Part 2 is that it just isn't funny. I did not laugh once. Not even smiled. Fundamentally this is a problem for what is billed as a comedy. The same formula of the first film is applied to a different location, Bangkok. Phillips clearly thought that losing the same character, but somewhere else would be a stretch too far so instead we lose Stu's soon to be brother in law a couple of days before the wedding. The same three chaps wake up, Stu, Alan and Bradley Cooper's Phil, in a bad hotel room in Bangkok and have to put the pieces together.While the wake up scene in the first film was funny, unexpected and felt a little fresh, on this occasion we know it's coming and it feels immediately tired. We have all seen pictures of the face tattoo, it's on the poster, in fact there was even stuff in the press about Mike Tyson suing because of it (well done publicity department). So a joke that may have caught us off guard, has instead been bled to death before the film has even started.
And that's the problem with the whole film. The same jokes are used again, Todd Phillips and his 'writing' team, believing that the fact that we know what's coming next will be funnier than actual jokes. The baby is replaced by a drug dealing monkey (yes, I know, on paper it sounds funny but I assure you that the reality is not. In fact, the spying monkey in the first Indy film beats him hands down). Mr Chow (Ken Jeong) is back again through arguably the most tenuous plot line ever conceived, Stu's taste for ladies of the night (not vampires) crops up again, as does a Mike Tyson cameo.
The writers then seem to lose even more confidence in their ability to write a good joke and send us on a nonsensical action plot where Paul Giamatti turns up to collect some cash and leave me wondering what on earth he is up to. Car chases, gun fights, double crossing all take place, relentlessly smashing me in the face to the point where I was left feeling completely numb.
I can't even be bothered anymore to continue to tell you how awful The Hangover: Part 2 is. It's not funny, it's not entertaining, it's not a patch on the first film and it stinks of a sequel made solely with cash registers in mind. Having said that, if that was the aim, it's succeeded. And then some. Hollywood is after all a business and this film has taken £34 million (the 5th most this year) at the UK box office alone, despite it suffering awful reviews and being terrible. The truth is that because of the success and widespread enjoyment of the first film, the second film was always going to rake the cash in, it just would have been nice if someone actually paused and considered making something good.
During his recent press appearances for the DVD release of the film, Bradley Cooper has said that a third is on the way, and, hold the front page, it may have a new structure. What that deviation entails has yet to be seen, but it could be a bold move, and if they bother to write some jokes, it could make amends for this monstrosity. It could of course just be shite as well.
About Me
- Ollie Miney
- Lover of all things film, ready to tell you what to avoid, and more importantly, what to seek out.
Showing posts with label Bradley Cooper. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bradley Cooper. Show all posts
Sunday, 4 December 2011
Tuesday, 9 August 2011
THE A-TEAM (2010 - Cert 12A)
Another 80's throwback and another attempt at tapping into the nostalgia that we all feel for something we grew up with. From when I first heard that this was in production I was never for one second confident that it was going to be able to emulate the joy that I felt with Hannibal, Face, Murdoch and BA on Saturday afternoons, just like if they said they were going to make McGuyver or Airwolf into a film, if I want to revisit those days I may as well just buy the box set for next to nothing and chill out on the sofa. Why go to all the trouble of trying to get others to fill those well worn shoes and dart about in that familiar van?
Having now seen it (on TV as I was never excited enough to watch it at the Flicks) I was right in my assumption, it just didn't live up to or recreate that excitement I felt when I was younger. Whether that was due to my headstrong nostalgia or my unrealistic expectations doesn't really matter, it just didn't do the job.
That isn't to say that it isn't without any merit whatsoever though.
Rather than assume we all know what they are, the film is an origins story, telling us how The A-Team became soldiers of fortune, heroes in Iraq in covert operations, double-crossed and turned into fugitives fighting to clear their name. Hannibal (Liam Neeson), BA (Rampage Jackson), Face (Bradley Cooper) and Murdoch (Sharlto Copley) are introduced, no, thrown at us in an action sequence that transported me straight back in time, not to Saturday tea time, but to the 80's when action entertained, when it surprised and when it exhilarated. Nowadays we've seen everything, dinosaurs once impossible are now on BBC and ITV primetime, aliens destroying cities used to be made from tiny models, after Independence Day it can be done with a couple of clicks of a mouse (over-exageration I know, I'm not belittling the talent in CGI). It's hard to do something that we haven't seen before, but Joe Carnahan (Narc and Smokin' Aces), combines over the top action (helicopter looping the loop), humour (Bradley Cooper rolling down a hill entombed in a roll of tyres) and a touch of the familiar (the black van and 'I pity the fool' references) to get us on the edge of our seat. As an opening to the film, it really does work. It thrilled and amused in equal measure, and there is a definite joy in seeing Hannibal chomp down on a cigar and Face flash a smile at a woman. However, much in the same way that there is pleasure in eating Arctic Roll, it's short lived as you realise that taste is just a flash of the familiar and that you'd much rather be tucking into a Magnum double caramel or a cornetto enigma.
As the film progresses it all wears thin rather quickly. The nods to the TV series fade into inconsequence, the amusing quips from Murdoch become less frequent (and less funny), the humour and charm fade and all you are left with is action sequences (outrageously blasé action sequences) that are hurled at you by Carnahan. They are still enjoyable scenes but by the time we've seen a tank falling out of the sky on a parachute firing at fighter drones (halfway through the film) there is a feeling that we've peaked and it's gradually downhill from here.
There is a plot that thinks it's akin to the double crossing and second guessing of Bourne or the Craig-era Bond, but doesn't really make sense and lacks any real depth which means that not understanding doesn't really matter and you don't really give a hoot as to who the bad guy is. A love-story strand is introduced as well as a strange and worrying thread where BA finds peace with himself only to discover by the end that violence does indeed solve problems that feels sinister and off-tone with the rest of the film.
Essentially when the film reaches the second half, the action dries up and plot takes over (ineffectually) with (failed) attempts at characterisation, all coming together for a totally outrageous and overly unrealistic (yes, even compared to the tank bit) finale that tries to be a lot cleverer than it actually is. Despite 50% of the film falling away there are times when it does work. The main cast are all decent and entertaining enough, particularly Copley, and the first two or three set pieces make this the film that The Expendables desperately wanted, and ultimately failed, to be.
Just about worth a watch but you'd be better off watch any of the Die Hard films or any early Arnie to Sly films.
Having now seen it (on TV as I was never excited enough to watch it at the Flicks) I was right in my assumption, it just didn't live up to or recreate that excitement I felt when I was younger. Whether that was due to my headstrong nostalgia or my unrealistic expectations doesn't really matter, it just didn't do the job.
That isn't to say that it isn't without any merit whatsoever though.
Rather than assume we all know what they are, the film is an origins story, telling us how The A-Team became soldiers of fortune, heroes in Iraq in covert operations, double-crossed and turned into fugitives fighting to clear their name. Hannibal (Liam Neeson), BA (Rampage Jackson), Face (Bradley Cooper) and Murdoch (Sharlto Copley) are introduced, no, thrown at us in an action sequence that transported me straight back in time, not to Saturday tea time, but to the 80's when action entertained, when it surprised and when it exhilarated. Nowadays we've seen everything, dinosaurs once impossible are now on BBC and ITV primetime, aliens destroying cities used to be made from tiny models, after Independence Day it can be done with a couple of clicks of a mouse (over-exageration I know, I'm not belittling the talent in CGI). It's hard to do something that we haven't seen before, but Joe Carnahan (Narc and Smokin' Aces), combines over the top action (helicopter looping the loop), humour (Bradley Cooper rolling down a hill entombed in a roll of tyres) and a touch of the familiar (the black van and 'I pity the fool' references) to get us on the edge of our seat. As an opening to the film, it really does work. It thrilled and amused in equal measure, and there is a definite joy in seeing Hannibal chomp down on a cigar and Face flash a smile at a woman. However, much in the same way that there is pleasure in eating Arctic Roll, it's short lived as you realise that taste is just a flash of the familiar and that you'd much rather be tucking into a Magnum double caramel or a cornetto enigma.
As the film progresses it all wears thin rather quickly. The nods to the TV series fade into inconsequence, the amusing quips from Murdoch become less frequent (and less funny), the humour and charm fade and all you are left with is action sequences (outrageously blasé action sequences) that are hurled at you by Carnahan. They are still enjoyable scenes but by the time we've seen a tank falling out of the sky on a parachute firing at fighter drones (halfway through the film) there is a feeling that we've peaked and it's gradually downhill from here.
There is a plot that thinks it's akin to the double crossing and second guessing of Bourne or the Craig-era Bond, but doesn't really make sense and lacks any real depth which means that not understanding doesn't really matter and you don't really give a hoot as to who the bad guy is. A love-story strand is introduced as well as a strange and worrying thread where BA finds peace with himself only to discover by the end that violence does indeed solve problems that feels sinister and off-tone with the rest of the film.
Essentially when the film reaches the second half, the action dries up and plot takes over (ineffectually) with (failed) attempts at characterisation, all coming together for a totally outrageous and overly unrealistic (yes, even compared to the tank bit) finale that tries to be a lot cleverer than it actually is. Despite 50% of the film falling away there are times when it does work. The main cast are all decent and entertaining enough, particularly Copley, and the first two or three set pieces make this the film that The Expendables desperately wanted, and ultimately failed, to be.
Just about worth a watch but you'd be better off watch any of the Die Hard films or any early Arnie to Sly films.
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
VALENTINE'S DAY (2010)
2010 saw men's action movie fantasies realised with the the ensemble cast put together for The Expendables. Sly Stallone managed to bring together old school names Dolph Lundgren, Mickey Rourke, Eric Roberts and Jet Li, chuck in Steve Austin, the current hero Jason Statham and then sprinkle in cameos from Arnie and Bruce Willis. Sounded great, and on paper it looked like it would be an action packed, guilty pleasure treat. The problem was that it wasn't. It was all a bit of a mess and not nearly as much fun as it should have been.
I watched Valentine's Day last night (on Valentine's Day of course - I felt guilty for having scared my girlfriend witless with District 9) and realised that 2010 also saw an ensemble cast gathered for the ultimate rom-com. Julia Roberts, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Biel, Jessica Alba and Jennifer Garner are all there. The male quota is filled by Ashton Kutcher, Jamie Foxx, Patrick Dempsey, Bradley Cooper and Topher Grace who I'm sure they all have their tops off at some point. Oh and Kathy Bates for some reason, looking as though she's walked in off the street lost and not believing she's ended up in this film. All of this directed by Garry Marshall. Who else could be entrusted, other than the man responsible for Pretty Woman, The Princess Diaries and The Runaway Bride.
That is quite a cast list, not just in terms of bankability but also in terms of numbers. And there's more than that. This film has as incredible number of characters. So much so that a coherent narrative can't possibly be shoehorned into only 2 hours of film. The action jumps between different strands of the story as we meet all the characters, then revisit them in random order as it all plays out. There's a florist, a doctor, a sports journalist, a woman who does phone sex for a living. I lost track of it all to be honest and it doesn't really matter. None of it's complicated - you can dip in at anytime and know exactly whats happening, all because of the sheer cliche of it all. The other problem is that because of the huge number of people and amount of story lines involved, each tale is only really comprised of 4 or 5 scenes. It's hard enough to say anything meaningful and develop characters in this number of scenes at the best of times, but when the writing is this unimaginative and the acting this wooden, you really don't have a chance. Perhaps if Marshall decided to focus on one, or two at most, of the stories, he might have made a rom-com that didn't lack both romance and comedy.
All the film seems to be is a 2 hour advert for Clinton Cards and high street florists. The trouble is that a 2 hour advert has already been made by the British, only for Christmas instead. You may remember it - it was called Love Actually. It's impossible not to think of Richard Curtis' soppy ode to Christmas in London while watching Valentine's Day. LA is not as iconic and romantic as our capital in the snow and the characters supposedly 'portrayed' by Julia Roberts and co aren't nearly as amusing to watch than Bill Nighy for example.
It didn't offend me as much as Couple's Retreat did though. That film really insulted the intelligence of the viewer by thinking it was funny when it quite clearly wasn't. It had a smugness about it, something that only Vince Vaughn can exude. This film doesn't try to be particularly laugh out loud (when it does, it fails), it's just so schmaltzy....sometimes cringefully so.
I know that all of the above is particularly negative, but the main feeling I had afterwards was complete and utter indifference. During the film I knew that it was completely rubbish and made me want to vomit, but now I've completely forgotten about it all, just 24 hours after the credits finally rolled.
I watched Valentine's Day last night (on Valentine's Day of course - I felt guilty for having scared my girlfriend witless with District 9) and realised that 2010 also saw an ensemble cast gathered for the ultimate rom-com. Julia Roberts, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Biel, Jessica Alba and Jennifer Garner are all there. The male quota is filled by Ashton Kutcher, Jamie Foxx, Patrick Dempsey, Bradley Cooper and Topher Grace who I'm sure they all have their tops off at some point. Oh and Kathy Bates for some reason, looking as though she's walked in off the street lost and not believing she's ended up in this film. All of this directed by Garry Marshall. Who else could be entrusted, other than the man responsible for Pretty Woman, The Princess Diaries and The Runaway Bride.
That is quite a cast list, not just in terms of bankability but also in terms of numbers. And there's more than that. This film has as incredible number of characters. So much so that a coherent narrative can't possibly be shoehorned into only 2 hours of film. The action jumps between different strands of the story as we meet all the characters, then revisit them in random order as it all plays out. There's a florist, a doctor, a sports journalist, a woman who does phone sex for a living. I lost track of it all to be honest and it doesn't really matter. None of it's complicated - you can dip in at anytime and know exactly whats happening, all because of the sheer cliche of it all. The other problem is that because of the huge number of people and amount of story lines involved, each tale is only really comprised of 4 or 5 scenes. It's hard enough to say anything meaningful and develop characters in this number of scenes at the best of times, but when the writing is this unimaginative and the acting this wooden, you really don't have a chance. Perhaps if Marshall decided to focus on one, or two at most, of the stories, he might have made a rom-com that didn't lack both romance and comedy.
All the film seems to be is a 2 hour advert for Clinton Cards and high street florists. The trouble is that a 2 hour advert has already been made by the British, only for Christmas instead. You may remember it - it was called Love Actually. It's impossible not to think of Richard Curtis' soppy ode to Christmas in London while watching Valentine's Day. LA is not as iconic and romantic as our capital in the snow and the characters supposedly 'portrayed' by Julia Roberts and co aren't nearly as amusing to watch than Bill Nighy for example.
It didn't offend me as much as Couple's Retreat did though. That film really insulted the intelligence of the viewer by thinking it was funny when it quite clearly wasn't. It had a smugness about it, something that only Vince Vaughn can exude. This film doesn't try to be particularly laugh out loud (when it does, it fails), it's just so schmaltzy....sometimes cringefully so.
I know that all of the above is particularly negative, but the main feeling I had afterwards was complete and utter indifference. During the film I knew that it was completely rubbish and made me want to vomit, but now I've completely forgotten about it all, just 24 hours after the credits finally rolled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)