The Hangover Part III

Dustin: 1.5/5 stars Nick: 2.5/5 stars Average: 2 stars (Canary on life support)

Dustin: The Hangover Part III is the third and, hopefully as promised, final film in the “Wolf Pack” trilogy.

Nick: …and we all know people in Hollywood stick to their artistic vision.

Dustin: Do you think they started out to make a trilogy? Or just decided to make two more cynical cash grabs, er, I mean, sequels, after the first one turned out to be so popular?

Nick: I’m sure the idea was singular but when the movie becomes the third top grossing R- rated movie then the director will come out and say that the plan was always to make a trilogy.

Dustin: Given that Part II was the exact same movie as the first one, except not funny, I can’t imagine Part II being part of a story arc beginning with the original movie.

Nick: I think a better idea, if a sequel was inevitable, would be to tell a hangover of another group of friends. But that would have probably have been a lot more work to write and probably wouldn’t have as made as much money.

Dustin: Well, I like the dynamics of the “Wolf Pack.” I think they had the right idea in Part III to go with a different story line and tie together the first two films, but it just failed as both a comedy and a story. So let’s talk about Part III in particular. What did you think?

Nick: I’ll start out with putting it in a spectrum. The Hangover is great, The Hangover Part II is atrocious, and The Hangover Part III falls somewhere between. As you said it tries for a new idea, but the problem for me was that the comedy grew from a dark place, as it did in Part II.  Every joke is one of the characters being horrible to another, which is what I just couldn’t stand about the sequel.

Dustin: Or being horrible to an animal.

Nick: The first one was a comedy that grew from misunderstanding, and that tied into Alan’s obnoxiousness. Now Alan is just a prick and that’s where the comedy comes from. He’s no longer lovable.

Dustin: The last two are definitely more mean-spirited. Which makes me wonder if the filmmakers even knew what made the first film so good. Given that the other films by this these writers and director were steaming turds, I wonder if they didn’t somehow get lucky and accidentally write a good movie with the first part.

Nick: I’m going to disagree that all of Todd Phillips movies are bad, but recently I wouldn’t try to argue about it. Between the Hangovers his only other film is Project X, which takes on the same theme but with teenagers. Which is way more realistic.

Dustin: He did some good movies, like Old School. The other movies written by Jon Lucas and Scott Moore have been terrible too. They were responsible for 21 & Over, which was just depressing with a lot of jokes falling flat, much like The Hangover Part III. I don't think they actually wrote Part III, they were just credited for creating the characters, but their movie 21 & Over was so much like The Hangover Part II and III tonally that I have a hard time separating them from this.

Nick: I thought Part III could be pretty funny at times.

Dustin: I chuckled a few times, but not often enough for a movie sold as a comedy. Most of the laughs were already in the commercial. I’d say 90 percent of the other jokes fell flat. I could tell they were trying to be funny. But did the screenwriters really imagine people laughing when they had roosters getting shot or smothered, or dogs getting poisoned and having their necks broken?

Nick: Eh... I don’t know how to tell you this, but here it goes... I and the rest of the audience laughed pretty hard when the rooster was smothered but beyond that I’d agree. I was actually surprised when, as shown in the trailer, the giraffe was decapitated and the whole audience burst out laughing.

Dustin: Yeah. Did they just wander into this movie without seeing the trailer? How did they even know this movie existed? That was in all the commercials, so I was expecting at least one animal to die. Also, were we supposed to laugh when Alan’s mom is giving his dad CPR, and Alan is just sitting there with his headphones?

Nick: This whole movie stems from a very dark place. I guess we can compare this to Pain & Gain. I now feel that it was OK to laugh at Pain & Gain because the tone sets it up that way, this film is somehow way darker even though it’s not a true story about brutal murders.

Dustin: I think we established with that review that we can laugh at dark comedy. You’re right. This wasn’t set up as a dark comedy. The first scene is Chow breaking out of a Thai prison. The music is dramatic and the tone is dark. We can only assume this is supposed to be a comedy because the first movie was and because it ends with a wedding, which is how all comedies have traditionally ended since Shakespeare.

Nick: Instead of focusing on the “Wolf Pack” the film follows the connection between Alan and Chow, which is the reason why I feel that the darkness in Part III is more justifiable than Part II.  

Dustin: I’m not sure Part II even needed to exist. Chow is likeable in small amounts. I like that Ken Jeong plays against type and turns “positive” Asian stereotypes on their head. But way too much Chow in this movie. And it was a mistake making Alan less likable. The series falls apart as soon as we start disliking him.

It had a handful of laughs, and some of the action scenes were done well, like when they’re dangling from the roof of Caesar’s Palace. But it wasn’t a good movie. Would you recommend it?

Nick: In a comedy, every scene is supposed to set up a smile or laugh, whether light or dark, this film really does fail in this regard. I’m going to not recommend Part III unless you're seriously altered.

Star Trek Into Darkness

Dustin: 4/5 stars Nick: 3/5 stars Average: 3.5 stars (Live canary)

Dustin: Lens flares!

Nick: J.J. Abrams loves ‘em.

Dustin: Once you notice them, it’s hard to unnotice them. I compare it to the shaky cam. A lot of competent filmmakers are using these kinds of techniques that would have gotten you kicked out of film school to make their movies appear more amateurish and documentarian.

Nick: The lens flares didn’t bother me. I thought they worked well within the context of the film.

Dustin: I didn’t really mind them either. They gave the impression of everything being new and shiny. Sometimes I thought it was too much when you couldn’t make out what was happening. But I understand Abrams’s artistic decision for them. Do you think the lens flares were computer generated?

Nick: Yes.

Dustin: Still, the film was very well made. The CGI looked great, and I never felt like I was watching a cartoon. What did you think of the movie?

Nick: I enjoyed it for the most part. Like its predecessor it had many false endings, each film-worthy, where you think the film is going to wrap up but there is always another sequence.

Dustin: I agree. There were several moments in the last 30 minutes or so where I felt like the movie was coming to its natural conclusion, but then a new sequence began. But in the end, I was glad the movie kept going and didn’t stop at any of those places.

THE FOLLOWING SECTION CONTAINS SPOILERS

Nick: I won’t say what happens as to remain spoiler-free. But one of those false endings had a huge moment that really tried to give the outcome some emotional depth. Then you recall earlier in the film they set up how to correct this and they do just that and it plays as if that moment never happened. The whole scene now becomes meaningless. So on a second viewing that 10 minutes will mean a whole lot less.

Dustin: Which scene are you talking about? I can edit out the spoiler.

Nick: The death of Captain Kirk. You recall earlier when Bones extracts some of Khan’s blood and mentions how quickly he is able to heal.

Dustin: Yeah. I figured that would be how they resolved that problem. That’s why I felt bored in that scene. All the excitement was taken out of it because I knew Kirk wouldn’t really die.

Nick: I hoped they would do something daring and actually kill him off. They almost had me believing they would, which kind of makes me angry they didn’t.

Dustin: Or they could have had a different scene that conveyed emotion for Spock that didn’t involve Kirk’s potential death. I think making a character die is one of the laziest ways to evoke sympathy from the audience.

Nick: But without Kirk the writers would have to write from a whole different perspective for the next film and not have a plucky hot shot who gets lucky every time while leading the crew.

END OF SPOILERS

Dustin: Did you like the dynamic between Kirk and Spock?

Nick: My three favorite things about this movie are the CGI, Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance as Khan and Zachary Quinto as Spock.  My three least favorite things are the script, character consistency and Chris Pine as Kirk.

Dustin: I actually like Chris Pine as Kirk better than Zachary Quinto as Spock. Quinto doesn’t have Leonard Nimoy’s voice, which I think is a bit of a drawback.

Nick: I didn’t mind either of them as either of their characters, but I didn’t like the screenwriters’ ideas involving both of the characters. All of the characters act within the universal idea of what their characters represent. Like Scotty will at one point say, “Can’t do it, Captain,” in a thick Scottish brogue, or at one point Spock will say, “It’s not logical.” Actually, more like 70 points for the latter. This ruins the evolution of the new Star Trek films.  If you strip away the cartoonish fighting and hire great actors, why can’t you also change the dialogue to be more organic and realistic?

Dustin: The characters did come off as caricatures of their 1960s versions, and not as evolving personalities growing from the 2009 Star Trek. I thought the character arc from the first film was undone at the outset of this one in order for them to have similar character developments.

Nick: Couldn’t agree more! Spock and Kirk seemed to understand each other at the end of Star Trek and now at the beginning of Into Darkness they are up to their old shenanigans of Kirk putting his friends’ lives in danger and Spock saying its illogical to save them! Hysterical!

Dustin: I liked their good cop, bad cop dynamic. Kirk is the one who doesn’t do things by the book, but by God, he gets the job done. Spock is the straight-arrow who can’t reconcile breaking the rules with positive outcomes. I think Kirk is a very American character in that sense, which is why I relate to him so well.

Nick: Would you please tell me what makes you like James T. Kirk in that American way?

Dustin: He is decisive. He is willing to break the rules in order to maintain the spirit of the rules. His actions are distinctly Western. In fact, I think he is more logical than Spock. Spock’s strict adherence to the rules puts lives in danger for no good reason.

Nick: Spock only says it’s illogical to save someone after Kirk puts someone’s life in danger “for no good reason.” But I agree that Kirk is more logical because, like you say, he is able to understand more nuanced meanings when it comes to the rules.

I really like the casting in this series. They did a smart thing by hiring actors who know how to give a comedic performance, which I appreciate since the comedy is the strongest quality of Abrams’s Star Trek films.

Dustin: I hear he’s involved in Star Wars: Episode VII.

Nick: He’s directing.

Dustin: I have high hopes. It can’t be worse than the prequels.

I thought Star Trek Into Darkness was a solid continuation of the rebooted series, but it wasn’t as refreshing as the last film. I just really enjoyed the last one. Even with the plot hole where the two Spocks somehow randomly run into each other in a cave on a barren ice planet, it was still a quality film. Would you recommend Into Darkness?

Nick: Yes, although I believe they are basically the exact same film. The only difference being that I loved the main bad guy in this film whereas Eric Bana was truly forgettable in the last one. Therefore I liked this film more than its predecessor.

I think they both suffer from the same faults and succeed in the same areas. They are both filled with multiple false ending and no rising action. The witty banter and the constant climaxes are entertaining just for the sake of entertaining.

The Great Gatsby

Dustin: 3.5/5 stars Nick: 2.5/5 stars Average: 3/5 stars (Woozy canary)

Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire and Carey Mulligan, is the latest screen adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s beloved novel.

Dustin: First off, I’ll just say that I’ve never really been in love with The Great Gatsby. I thought it was a good book, but the story never resonated with me, and I remember the style more than the substance.

Nick: I recall feeling emotionally attached to Nick Carraway as we are very similar, but the book’s style is what stuck with me as well.

Dustin: So would you say it was appropriate to go with a totally stylistic approach for this film?

Nick: It works in the sense that Gatsby is a total facade and all the parties and craziness that are going on are shown in a visual manner.

Dustin: I had mixed feelings about the visual style. I liked that the shots were very vivid and exciting, but Luhrmann relied too heavily on CGI, which made some shots look too cartoonish.

Nick: Example?

Dustin: There were a lot of shots moving over New York that were clearly CGI and looked fake. So I had some trouble suspending disbelief. There was another shot showing a car full of flappers riding to Gatsby’s party. The car was full to overflowing and several women are almost thrown out. It looked like something out of The Hobbit.

Nick: Gatsby’s parties were all so mechanical in the way they were staged. They came off as choreographed rather than real affairs.

Dustin: They kind of looked like a rap video. And that brings me to the movie’s soundtrack, which was intentionally anachronistic. What did you think?

Nick: I feel that Luhrmann has a great appreciation for old culture and new culture and likes to blend them together. While interesting, it took me out of the film. Too much Jay Z!

Dustin: Yeah, Jay Z had no business being in The Great Gatsby. I had mixed feelings on the soundtrack too. I mostly felt it was too modern and hip. From an artistic point of view it helped a modern audience get a sense of the decadence and superficiality of the 1920s, something that would be hard to evoke with a period soundtrack. But like you the soundtrack took me out of the film. Still, it wasn’t as offensive as the rap song in the animated Titanic, which no one should ever fucking watch.

Nick: Do you remember the scene in Spider-Man 2 where Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) is asked to take pictures at the gala for J. Jonah Jameson’s son and in the scene he tries to get a drink from a passing server’s tray but someone grabs it before he does? No? Well, the exact shot is in this film.

Dustin: Do you appreciate Easter eggs like that?

Nick: Well,  I’m probably the only one who noticed that Tobey Maguire can’t get a fucking drink, yes.

So back to the movie. I feel a strong emotional attachment to the character of Nick Carraway (not just because his name is Nick) and his idolization of Gatsby but it wasn't able to capture Carraway's bewilderment at the way people treat each other.

Dustin: This movie seems to suffer in comparison to the book, which I think would only be natural given how beloved the book was. Do you think it’s even fair to compare the two? Or do you think the movie can be appreciated for its own merits?

Nick: I rarely believe in comparing a movie to the book it was based on.  Two different art forms, two different outcomes. I only think it’s fair to compare if the movie takes the name of the book but has changed so much of the plot that it’s not recognizable ala I Am Legend.

Dustin: So you wouldn’t agree with of the hipsters who say this movie desecrated a monument?

Nick: Never. It had the heart of Gatsby but it was so torn between telling a faithful adaptation and having the entertainment stylings of a big blockbuster that it got lost somewhere.

Dustin: It would be hard to have it both ways. There are already several straight-forward adaptations out there, so I don’t mind if a director wants to go out on a limb with the material this once. Would you recommend it?

Nick: No. It’s over two hours long and becomes pretty exhausting. Leonardo DiCaprio gives a fantastic performance of a character who I never thought could be brought to life and the costuming was superb. Lots of fantastic elements that never become cohesive.

Still, there was a lot to like about this movie.  My favorite scene was Carraway going to the poor part of town for the first time and getting drunk for “his second time.”  I really enjoyed the way it was shot with the adjacent building looking in and the saxophonist playing a tune as if it was meant for them.  It is also where Carraway delivers his line of being “within and without.”

Dustin: I thought it was a fresh take on the novel. I think anyone who compares it harshly to the novel is just trying to sound intelligent by pointing out that they’ve read “literature.” So I would recommend it for that reason.

I guess you could say it’s a Pretty Good Gatsby, but not a Great Gatsby.

(crickets chirping)

Pain & Gain

Dustin: 3.5/5 stars Nick: 2.5/5 stars Average: 3/5 stars (Woozy canary)

Dustin: Pain & Gain is a true crime action/comedy directed by Michael Bay, and starring Marky Mark and the Rock. What did you think of Pain & Gain, Nicky Nick?

Nick: Well, Dusty Dustin, I thought it had a lot of energy with its erratic camerawork, but that and the constant tonal shifts made P&G a hard film to sit through.

Dustin: I didn’t find the tonal shifts too jarring. But I did have a problem with the overall tone. This was a “true” story about a trio of bodybuilders in search of the “American Dream.” They start a scam and end up gruesomely killing their victims when their plans go awry. I wasn’t sure playing it for laughs was entirely appropriate. By the way, I prefer to go by my wrestling name, the Stone. But to be honest, next to the Rock, the Pebble would probably be a more appropriate stage name.

Nick: By tonal shifts, I meant most scenes felt uncomfortable for the actors and myself as none of us knew whether to laugh or cringe.

Dustin: Did you think this was a problem with the dialogue? I thought it was often quite clever. These criminals were borderline brain dead, which is what made me laugh so much. I think it would be hard to write these characters without coming off as comical.

Nick: I loved the dialogue. It made a character quite dumb, but not to the point Rob Downey, Jr., would say “full retard.”

Dustin: When Marky Mark’s character named Michael Corleone and Scarface as American heroes because they came from nothing and achieved the American dream, it wasn’t only funny, but effectively gave relevant insight into the mind of the character.

The movie had some good visual gags too. You see Marky Mark drive up in a nice car, wearing a collared shirt and a tie, then you see him get out of the car and he’s wearing jeans. Then as he walks away from the camera, you see they’re jean shorts, and you remember this was set in the ‘90s. There were many nice moments like that.

Nick: I personally didn’t like those moments because one imagines the writers smirking when writing things like that. To bring up visual gags, like when the text pops up, “This is still a true story... seriously,” that moment was completely inaccurate, and so was a lot of the film as I found out after I had seen it.

Dustin: To think you can’t trust Michael Bay after he brought us Pearl Harbor.

The movie had some subtler visual gags too. Like after Marky Mark and the Rock kidnapped the owner of a Schlotzsky’s Deli, then later let him take a sip from one of their Schlotzsky’s cups. I enjoyed the thought of them going back to the restaurant for lunch even after they kidnapped the owner, which showed how hapless they were as criminals and developed character a little more.

Nick: Or how Lugo (Marky Mark) decides it’s a good idea to then manage the Schlotzsky’s and to then move into the man’s house. Seems like an easy way to get caught if that person was still alive and very, very loud.

Dustin: That part probably could have been left on the cutting room floor without taking much from the story. Which leads me to the film’s length. I think we both thought the movie was about 20 minutes too long, even though the movie moved at a fast clip. What could have been cut without detracting from the story?

Nick: I thought that the film was 50 minutes too long in what it chose to show. But then after taking out that 50 minutes, I would then add another 20 minutes of just a little more character development of our main character instead of switching the narrative around between five or six. I certainly didn’t need to know Ed Harris’s inner dialogue.

Dustin: Or the European stripper’s. The movie also waited too long to establish the multi-character point-of-view. It was a bit odd to hear Ed Harris’s inner thoughts for the first time about 90 minutes in. They should have started with the multi-character POV from the start, or, better yet, just stick to Marky Mark.

Nick: I would have liked to just have the viewpoint of the three main characters, mostly focusing on Daniel Lugo, and with him being the only one with an inner dialogue.

Dustin: This movie was like the poor man’s In Cold Blood. Both are based on true stories. Both focused on criminals lacking a number of brain cells who target victims for their money. I realize I might be flagging myself as an idiot to some film lovers, but in some ways, I liked P&G better than In Cold Blood. Respond.

Nick: Well, I feel you’re justified in that you’re comparing the plot lines and how they are both based on true stories. P&G is certainly more entertaining, but in my opinion not as well worked as In Cold Blood. The movies I would compare P&G to from a cinematic standpoint is Run Lola Run and Bay’s The Rock.

Dustin: I agree In Cold Blood is better from a cinematic viewpoint, such as the famous scene where Robert Blake gazes out the window and the shadows from the rain splattering on the window make it look like he’s crying. That was a much subtler and effective visual than a drop of blood dripping in slow motion from a chainsaw, bouncing off a counter top and splattering on a cashier’s Home Depot apron in P&G. But In Cold Blood was also too preachy by asking us to sympathize with the criminals and making them out to be “victims of the death penalty.” I personally think the criminals were born manipulators and Truman Capote played right into their hands. Pain & Gain didn’t have any of that preachiness and was thoroughly entertaining. I don’t always mind “checking my brain at the door.”

Nick: Sorry to slightly disagree with your viewpoint on P&G. I felt some scenes were supposed to make you feel for the criminals. The murders were all depicted purely as accidents, with the exception of the attempted murder of Tony Shalhoub’s character (who was portrayed as an asshole who had it coming). In real life, the killings were not seen that way, but were glorified in the film so as to not make one completely hate the characters.

Dustin: I think that goes back to both of our feeling that playing this true story for laughs wasn’t totally appropriate or respectful to the victims. Maybe they should have changed all the characters’ names and just acted like it was an original story. If anyone pointed out the resemblance to the actual events, the writers could have said they were inspired by some real events.

Nick: Actually, all the names besides Lugo's, Doorbal's and Doyle's were changed, I believe.  

Dustin: I think we both had trouble with the camerawork.

Nick: Bay is just too excited when he has a camera in his hands. It’s always moving! The camera always felt to be moving ever so slightly, whether it was up or left, always, always moving! When that happens in a film I feel it’s as if the director doesn’t trust in the script enough so he makes up for it by doing more things with the “extension of his penis.”

Dustin: You’re right. I’ve never been a fan of the “shaky cam.” There is rarely an artistic reason for the shaky cam. The shots were also very short. Probably two seconds on average. All this movement gave me a mild migraine, which was my main complaint about the film and would prevent me from seeing it a second time. If I had to describe the visual style, I would call it “loud.” Would you recommend this film?

Nick: I’m on the fence. Yes, in terms of how entertaining it can be at moments, but the constant shift of focus, and the text put on screen throughout the movie about how this is still a true story (even though the actual events were very different) make me despise P&G in a way. Though I honestly have told everyone to see it just because I think it’s one of Bay’s best. Dwayne Johnson did a great job with the role and I thought Anthony Mackie’s character should have been more developed because he is a superb actor.

Dustin: I would recommend Pain & Gain solely on its comedic value, even if the tone made me uncomfortable.

Nick: So today we learned to avoid weight lifting as it will ultimately lead to stupidity, hookers, drugs and slaughtering people who don’t support Marky Mark’s “American Dream.”

Dustin: Word to your mother!