Plot: Four men go to Las Vegas for a bachelor party. Three of them wake up the next day and can't find the groom. Complicating things is that they are so hung over that they can't remember anything, one is missing a tooth, there is a tiger in the bedroom, a baby in the closet and they have a police car instead of the one they drove in with. They have one day to find the groom and find out what happened before the wedding.The Hangover is an interesting film to review. It is unbalanced and pretty straightforward visually, however there are parts that are pee in your pants funny. Even though there is plenty to fault from a cinematic point of view, it's hard to give a movie that makes you laugh so hard a bad review.
This is a film that I was hoping didn't give away all the funniest moments in the trailer. The Hangover definitely didn't fail me in that aspect. That is why all the points found in the trailer are in my plot summary above. There are plenty more laughs and insane situations that you definitely won't see coming. The interesting thing is that all of this craziness is wrapped up in a pretty straight forward and understandable way, which is kind of refreshing and makes everything that occurred a little more believable.
There is a reason I chose the movie poster above, and that is because Zach Galifianakis absolutely steals the show and is the reason why I would recommend this movie to people outside of the target audience of the studio. His delivery and screen presence is fantastic and I was very happy to see him deliver on the big screen as I've been a fan of his for years. He seems to make even the more immature and vulgar moments more intelligent.
One of the biggest issues I have with The Hangover is it's continued use of offensive words that basically have no point. Those words are the 'F' word for homosexual and the 'R' word for people with a developmental disability. This is one of the problems I had with Todd Phillips' Old School as well, during the opening scene when Luke Wilson enters the taxi. These words are more casually tossed around in The Hangover, but still with no real comedic point. I can imagine the argument from the writers is that the type of people portrayed in the film would use words in real life. The problem with this is that the film isn't a drama or a character study, it's a comedy. Simply using the words without a situational reason, simply isn't funny. There is one instance where the 'R' word is used in a modified way by Zach Galifianakis' character and it's actually funny because its used in context with his character and we're laughing (hopefully) at the character's awkwardness.
Ok, I'll get off my soapbox now. The Hangover would actually be an interesting film to dissect on many politically charged levels, but I simply don't have the time. I'll leave that for more adventurous film classes. The bottom line is that The Hangover is laugh out loud funny on plenty of non offensive levels. I could go on talking about specific moments, but that would ruin all the fun for you. I'm looking forward to the dvd to see all the hilarious out takes there are bound to be. Make sure you stay for the beginning of the credits as well for some more raunchy fun.
Plot: A young woman, driving from Indiana to Alaska looking for work, has a breakdown in Oregon and loses her dog Lucy. We are invited along to experience this life altering moment in Wendy’s life while she tries to put the pieces back together and continue her trek. Wendy and Lucy seemed destined to be one of my favorites. You can ask anyone in my life who knows my film collection and favorite films and they will probably tell you that most have three common elements; they are melancholy, emotionally taxing and contained within a specific moment in time. They will also tell you that I love dogs. Wendy and Lucy has all of these elements, but there was something holding me back from truly liking it.
I have always been a proponent of films that don’t have a beginning or an end, but rather just the middle. I’ve heard that some people hate this. Those people have spent two hours invested in a story and they want to know exactly where these people came from and exactly where they are going end up. Maybe not wrapped up in a nice neat bow, but something close to that. Our lives aren’t that simple. They are made up of thousands of beginnings and endings and tiny stories. Some want an ultimate ending but all we know is what is occurring now. The story isn’t about what happened before but rather what is happening right now. We don’t need to know everything about their lives to gain something from the story and characters. However, Wendy and Lucy failed to convey anything of importance to me. While I understand the choices made, I feel that a little more information may have been helpful in this case. Unfortunately, I left the film with nothing new or gained other than an even greater appreciation for Michelle Williams.
Furthermore, I didn’t feel the connection between Lucy and Wendy, especially in the final scenes. It may seem silly since Lucy is a dog, but she’s one of the main characters and we need to believe the connection just as we would with human actors. Lucy really couldn’t seem to care any less when she was around Wendy. Whenever my family’s dogs see me, or even a dog of my friends, they get really excited. Lucy just seemed lost.
Although I’m only giving the film two and a half stars, that doesn’t mean I’m not recommending it. You could perhaps connect with it in a way that I wasn’t able. Michelle Williams is great (and becoming one of my favorite actors), I loved the stripped back soundtrack that contained only Wendy’s humming, and the overall filmmaking is excellent. It is beautifully photographed and I am looking forward to Kelly Reichardt’s next effort. So I guess what I am saying is that I think this is a well-made film, I appreciated the film, but it is one that I just didn’t connect with which left me wanting more.
Plot: The wife and child of detective Max Payne are murdered. Payne kills two of the intruders and spends the next three years trying to the find the third. Drugs and his past are involved. Sometimes there are films that everyone around you, professional critics and friends alike, just plain hates. For some reason, however, the film connects with you and no matter how many flaws you end up really enjoying it. In your eyes everyone is wrong. Some examples of that in my history are Powder and Constantine. That is why I decided to still give this film a chance. I was hoping that Max Payne would be another Constantine, but it turns that everyone else was right. Max Payne is bad, and not in a cool eighties way.
What can I say? I have a weak spot for dark movies that have a hint of any of the following: the dark side of religion, angels or demons or both, revenge, vampires and bad ass characters. Max Payne looked to have at least a few of those checkpoints. So I thought that while others found the movie horrible, I might be able to come out with something positive about it. That task turned out a lot more difficult than I thought. There is a basic recipe to film. It consists of one part directing, one part writing, one part acting, one part editing, and in these modern days we have to add special effects as well. I know that there more elements and hands in the pot than that, but if everyone contributing gets these basic parts of the recipe right, and follows the directions correctly, you'll come out with something at least enjoyable if not great. Hell, even if you get just two parts of the recipe right you still might get a film that I love. Max Payne gets none of these things right. If you decide to still check this one out, writing in vague detail won't ruin anything. If you've seen a few movies in your life you'll know exactly what is going to happen within fifteen minutes, so please indulge me while I convey a few frustrating facts about Max Payne:
1. The villain, in an excruciating fashion, spells out everything he has done before actually killing Max Payne. I know this is a usual super hero film device, but this isn't one of those films (no matter how much the filmmakers wanted it to be). Two things make this even more painful. First is that the viewer has already figured out everything he's saying in the evil monologue, so we just want him to shut up. Then, after Max escapes his clutches and returns in the end to finish everything off, the villain actually says (and the writers actually wrote), "Do you want my confession first?" Really? Did you forget what you wrote two scenes prior? He already confessed. Maybe the writer meant a legal confession that Max could use to clear his name, but that would nullify all of the effort painting him as a man who simply doesn't care, and the villain knows he doesn't care.
2. Mila Kunis' character, Mona Sax, is introduced with no explanation as to why she is there and what she does other than protecting her sister Natasha who somehow has a connection to the death of Payne's family. When Mona's sister dies after a run in with Payne, Sax and Payne realize they're after the same man. Teaming up for the first time and hot on his trail, Sax says, "You know what I do Max. Try anything and I'll kill you." No, we don't know what you do. As far as we can tell you have a machine gun, you're russian, and you have three intimidating guys with you. IMDB informs me she is an assassin. I seriously had no idea. Hopefully I missed something.
3. The "mysterious" story surrounding the death of Payne's family is based around the pharmaceutical company his wife worked for. They manufactured a drug to make soldiers more aggressive, but it went bad, and they had to cover it up. That in itself is infuriating. I think i've heard that plot line on about four different occasions. It's simple, it's boring, and people need to stop using it. Unless, of course, you can think of a more clever way to incorporate it in your film.
4. Payne has been searching for the third killer for three years. Not one month, or one year, but three whole years. Somehow in those three years (he's a detective remember) he missed the fact that a band of druggies were roaming the streets all with the same tattoo, that one of the killers had this tattoo on his arm, and that all of that is connected when he first meets Natasha and she has the same tattoo. All he can muster up is, "That tattoo is interesting." Oooooooooo foreshadowing. I guess the writer wanted some really awesome foreshadowing rather than logic in his script. Oh yeah, that tattoo is also eerily similar to the logo of the pharmaceutical company his wife worked for. Payne must have been a horrible detective, or he literally has gone blind with rage.
5. So, this drug that everyone is taking, we find out later that it has two possible effects. Apparently 1% of the test subjects experienced the wanted effect, however the effect was so extreme it made them mad with power. The other 99% experience extreme addiction, hallucinations containing valkyries from Norse mythology (the name of the drug is also Valkyr) and then eventually die mysteriously from these hallucinations. At one point near the climax Payne is forced to take two hits of the drug to survive. After only two doses, he somehow experiences both of these effects. Not only does he become unstoppable, he has some of the most grandiose hallucinations of all. Keep in mind there are people walking all around taking these drugs on a consistent basis. They were all somewhat functional. I had the impression you had to be a junky to experience these hallucinations. I guess he's special because his family died.
Frustrated yet? I was enough to write this much. I could have kept going, but I don't have the time. The most disappointing thing of all is that the story of Max Payne the man, the Norse mythology, and even Mona Sax could all be parts of a really great and entertaining film. The recipe was just way off in this case. Mark Wahlberg was phoning it in, the special effects were weak, as noted above the script was horrible, and the directing and editing were no fun either. There were a few scenes with some great visuals, and that is why I gave the film half of a star. I honestly wouldn't be all that disappointed if someone tried again in the future minus the pharmaceutical company hogwash because, like I said, I have a sweet spot for this kind of stuff.
Plot: Christine Brown is a loan officer at a bank trying to get promoted to the open assistant manager position. She tries to impress her boss by denying a third mortgage extension to Mrs. Ganush. That was the wrong move. Mrs. Ganush unleashes an ancient curse on Christine. The curse takes three days to manifest, tormenting you for the first two and dragging you to hell by the end of the third. So Christine has some things to figure out. Thank you, thank you, thank you Sam Raimi. Thank you for being as fed up with all of the torture porn being released upon us. Thank you for bringing horror back. Drag Me To Hell is perfect material for film classes as a prime and modern example of how horror should be executed. It pretty much does everything right. Oh, and guess what? It's PG13 and scary as hell. People are scared by the unseen, the shadows, and the unknown. We're scared by what's around the corner, by mysterious noises and by things we don't understand. Drag Me to Hell has all of these and plenty more. That's not to say that this film isn't gory. It is plenty gory, but striking a balance is what Raimi does so well. The gore is over the top, funny and oozy and makes you cringe in your seat with laughter. The gore in Drag Me to Hell is what cuts the tension and brings us back down from very well executed scares.
Everything is vintage Raimi. From the score, to the fonts, the quick zooms, booming soundtrack, jump out at you scares and classic story; these are all aspects of film that have become subject to the term cliche, but when re-applied by a master become refreshing and welcome. The soundtrack is phenomenal and if the Academy knows anything this will be nominated for best sound editing come award time. The opening scene is also one I will remember for quite some time. It acts a great device to get you gasping for air immediately. It is two minutes of pure adrenaline and horror followed by the title screen and the welcoming soundtrack. He had me hooked from the start.
In fact, the closing scenes are ones I will remember for some time as well. Just when you think it's about to wrap up, Sam Raimi unleashes another classic and beautifully shot horror scene upon us. Alison Lohman as Christine is perfect. She transforms from a sweet girl next door, to a bad-ass woman trying everything to fight off a curse. She's believable at every turn. Justin Long as her boyfriend, and the straight man in the film is just right as well. Lorna Raver as the terrifying Mrs. Ganush is, well, pretty scary. You know you've executed a successful horror flick when you've scared your audience and they still leave the theater grinning from ear to ear. Also, you've hit the mark when the viewer is alone in the facilities afterwards constantly looking over both shoulders. Do yourself a favor and go get scared by Drag Me To Hell.
