Movie #224 The Hangover II *2011*

Over the weekend my girlfriend and I made a trip to the great northern wilderness of Canada.  Technically we were rarely far enough into the country to the point that we couldn't see the USA.  But while we were over there we decided to see a movie.  I had never seen a movie in a foreign country before.  I keep all my ticket stubs and frame them at the end of the year.  I thought it would be cool to have tickets from a far away land.  Looking back, I guess I could have done without.

I should start this review by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed the first Hangover movie.  I laughed very hard at it and I appreciated what it was doing narratively.  It's structure was all about a hard partying night, but we don't see that night.  We start the night then fade to black.  We then open on the aftermath of the wildest party that Las Vegas has ever seen.  Then the movie becomes a mystery of sorts trying to use clues to put back the pieces of what happened the night before and where their lost friend has gone to. That was a very creative way to tell a story like this.  I saw this film with a friend and his special lady and I remember he actually fell out of his seat he was laughing so hard.  That is no exageration.  He fell out of his seat.  His butt hit the floor.

All that having been said I was apprehensive about going into this film.  I had seen a trailer and it looked bad.  It looked like they were simply trying to rely on the popularity of the first film.  I was curious thought and if this film contained 50% of the laughs I would be satisfied.  I was NOT satisfied.  This movie is a disaster.  It was about 20 minutes in when I realized I hadn't laughed once.  I then started thinking about how many time I had laughed by then at Bridesmaids.  But I looked at my girlfriend and we sort of chuckeled at how bad the movie was so far.  I did tell her thought that I had faith that is could still be turned around.  Man was I wrong.  After about an hour (which felt much longer) I still had only mildly laughed a time or two, there was a scene where Zach G. meditates and finds some clues to the missing person.  This scene would have been enough to justify walking out of the movie.  The last time I remember wanting to walk out of a theater was The Happening.  In both cases though I stuck it out for bragging rights.  And it wasn't just me and my special lady.  The theater had maybe 30 people in it.  I heard less than 10 laughs combined from the entire crowd.  Maybe this was not the target demographic, but this movie fell flat at my showing.

For more detail on the film it's self; it is the exact same plot as the first film only set in Thailand.  Not only is it the same plot, they use the same jokes.  To be more specific they comment on the jokes that they made in the first film.  For example: in the first film Zach G. talks about his pager and if the hotel is pager friendly.  He makes mention that he is not getting a "sig on his beep".  In the context of the film it is a pretty funny moment.  In part II Zach G. makes a reference to his pager and we are supposed to remember the pager stuff from part I and piss ourselves laughing.  It didn't work.  Neither did the shock humor stuff.  It was not as raunchy as the first film, it should have come as a surprise to no one what was going on.  I remember a scene where the Chinese guy is locked in a freezer.  As one of the character was opening the cooler I motioned for the Chinese guy to jump out with my hand.  Which he of course did, just like he jumped out of the trunk in part I.  See, ain't that funny?

If you think that a monkey in a vest is funny, maybe the Hangover II is for you.  Really?  A monkey?  I can see this getting pitched in a board room:

"We plan to do The Hangover II exactally like Hangover I except in a different location".
"I like it but it is missing something.  It needs more.....spunk".
"I GOT IT!  A monkey!"
"Ehh.  Don't get me wrong, monkey = funny, but we need to go bigger."
"How about a tap dancing monkey?"
"No it has to be more risque."
"How about a crack smoking monkey?"
"I like it, I like it...but smoking crack sends the wrong message.  Lets make it a cigarette smoking monkey."
"With a tiny denim Rolling Stones jacket on?"
"That's GOLD Jerry!!!"

I guess that is why they make movies and I write crappy reviews.  The Hangover II has the record for opening weekend top grossing comedy of all time.  It blew the competition out of the weater.

Here are a few other of my complaints.  I didn't believe that these guys would be friends at all.  The Bradly Cooper character is just an absolute ass hole.  I don't know what he brings to the table as a friend and why these guys would like to hang out with him.  Zach G. has taken his character into all sorts of strange places in this movie.  In Part I he was a guy that didn't fit in and surely had some issues.  In this film he borders on sociopath with a hint of retardation.  Sort of like Jonna Hill in Cyrus.  I laughed at him at first, then I realized that this is a deeply disturbed and mentally unstable person.  There is an unexplainable car chase in this movie that served no purpose and just looked bad.  I don't normally mind stereotypes being skewered for comedy, but this film borders on racial hatred.  The whole movie carries a duchebag feel with it.  There is supposed to be a big surprise guest near the end of the movie, but it fell with a thud as well and felt a bit defeatist.

Some things I liked about the movie.  It was shot largely on location and it looks nice to beautiful when it is supposed to.  One of my favorite unintentionally funny scenes is when they are calling the wives at the start of the movie to tell them what is going on.  Brady Cooper says something to the effect of "It happened again". I instantly thought of the fake Scorcher trailer at the start of Tropic Thunder.  Where in a world engulfed in flames they called one man...  When it happened 4 more times...  I laughed hard then, but that was at the movie not with it.

I won't make a big deal about this complaint.   I believe an artist should be able to express themselves as they see fit.  I don't believe in any type of censorship.  But this films finds a way to use the same camera roll gimmick that they used during the end credits of the first film.  In this film the pictures have way less impact until I thing the 2nd to last picture.  It only shows it for a second and I had to check to make sure I was seeing it right, but there is a shot that parody's Eddie Addams photo of General Nguyen Ngoc Loan Executing a Viet Cong prisoner .  I found it distasteful and inappropriate.  I am glad to see other critics like Ebert and Roper mentioning it in their reviews as well.

Finally, I wonder how this movie would play for a person that hasn't seen the first film?  Knowing the jokes are coning or that a reference to a joke to be more accurate is coming takes away a lot from the movie.  I wonder if seeing it with fresh untainted eyes would make this as clever and inventive as the Hangover I?  If you haven't seen Hangover I and for some reason you see #2, let me know what you think.

I give The Hangover II ★1/2.

Movie #223 The Big Lebowski *1998*

Wow!  I was just checking my past blogs and I couldn't find my Lebowski review.  Well, I will be attending another Lebowskifest in mid July and I will be writing about the movie again then so for the time being I will give my readers (both of you) a 3 Reasons to watch my 2nd favorite film of all time.

Reason #1 - The Dude.  Jeff Bridges plays the character of a lifetime in Jeffery Lebowski.  He is a burnt out bum that stummbles and falls face first into a mystery movie.

Reason #2 - Walter Sobchak.  If I was making a list of my all time 10 favorite movie characters, John Goodman would make the list.  He plays a overly self confident Vietnam vet with a penchant for getting him self into other peoples business. 

Reason #3 - The plot.  Or lack of a plot.  I tell people that have never seen the movie that it is a story about a rug.  It is that simple.  I was talking with another aficienado of all things Lebowski and we were saying that if you cut everything out of the movie that didn't directly impact the plot, the film would be about 20 minutes long.  However the Coen's managed to fill this story with tons of quirk without making it quirky.

This is a film that pays off with repeat viewings.  I have easily seen it 100 times and I still laugh every time.  And some of the laughs only grow stronger every time I see it.  Lebowski is nearly a perfect movie.  I give it ★★★★★.

Movie #222 Anchorman *2004*

I will admit right off the bat I could review this film in my sleep.  I had just come off of watching Salo and I needed something that I didn't have to think about and something that would lighten the mood.  What better way to lighten the mood than spending 90 minutes with Ron Burgundy and the rest of the crew at Channel 9 News?

If you have been living under a rock or if you don't like to laugh and haven't seen Anchorman let me break it down for you.  Set in the 70's in San Diego (which of course is Spanish for a whale's vagina) Anchorman is the story of an egotistical, charmingly mysogynistic, playboy wanna-be named Ron Burgundy.  Burgundy is portrayed brilliantly by Will Ferrell.  This is far and away his greatest role and I am a big fan of his in Stranger Than Fiction.  He is the anchor at the top rated local news channel.  His associates are made up of a loverboy, sleezebag who does on the spot reporting, a wild card maniac who does sports and a mild mannered although totally moronic (to the point of retardation) weather man.  These roles are played to a tee by Paul Rudd, David Koechner and a still green Steve Carell.  There reign as alpha dogs is about to change as Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) is introduced and given a shot as a co-anchor.  It is a "The Times they are a Changin" story.

This film is endless quotable.  That doesn't necessarily make it a good movie, but it doesn't hurt.  My friends and I can speak to each other for HOURS with only using lines from Anchorman.  What does make this a good movie is its approach to the comedy.  It is silly and it knows it, but it never winks at the camera.  There is a news anchor street fight between all the local new teams in the middle of the movie.  This scene is loaded with cameos.  In a straight comedic story there is no way that it would break for something so ludicrous, but in Anchorman it works.

The real secret to the movies success I think comes from its heart.  Ron is forced to act like "a man" around his buddies, but deep down inside that extremely hairy chest of his is a big ole lonely heart.  The relationship between Burgundy and Corningstone is really the crux that the movie hinges on.  Without that it is nothing more than a bunch of skits strung together.

Directed by long time friend and writing partner of Ferrell, Adam McKay has several other projects with Ferrell, but they have never managed to load down a film with so much honest and well delivered humor.  Everything else that I have seen them work on seems at least a little forced.  Anchorman has the feel of an improvised comedy based on a great script.  Watching it you get the feeling that the crew had a great time making the film.

Cinematicly it is not very ambitious.  A common theme with broad comedy's like this.  But that is not to say that it is poorly shot in any way.  The costumes are great but definitely have the scene that they are trying to get a laugh out of 70's fashion, the sets look like mock 70's sets, the hairstyles and makeup are exaggerated to provide laughs.  But you are not laughing at all of these things, you laugh that someone in that suit, with that hair just said that line.  It is perfectly self aware and playing on its audiences expectations.

I love this movie.  "I love movie".  "I love lamp".  I give Anchorman ★★★★.

Movie #221 Salo or The 120 Days of Sodom *1975*

***WARNING***

This film contains extremely graphic content.  It is unavoidable that this review will as well. 

There are few films that have a more notorious mythos than Salo.  Made in 1975 by Peir Paolo Passolini, Salo is a film designed to shock, disgust, horrify and repulse its audience.  It seems that at sometime in the past 36 years this film has been banned in nearly every country.  Still to this day it can not be purchased in many locations.  Criterion first released this DVD and Laserdisk and then had to stop printing them.  Making these first runs collector items.

So what is so vile about Salo?  Set in Northern Italy in the Autumn of the fascists control of that region the film is about a group of libertines that kidnap 18 teenagers and force them to do revolting and degrading sexual acts.  Both to the libertines and to one another.  Interested yet?  This premise doesn't sound like anything that I would normally want to see but it also doesn't sound very different than several other movies in the genre.

What makes Salo infamous is that it pushed the limit of what was shown on screen to nearly its furthest conclusion.  It is nearly a no-holds-barred, show it all film.  These are some of the perversions that can be seen in Salo:

• Watching a man shit, then forcing a teen aged girl to eat it
• Forcing a teenage girl to pee on a man face
• Forced sodomy (both man on woman and man on man)
• Non consensual groping and penetration
• Forcing the teens not to relieve their bowls until it can all be collected at once.  The excrement is collected into a large wooden tub.  Then the teens are forced to sit naked in the waste.
• Forced oral sex
• Burning of the genital with candles
• Branding
• Physical and emotional abuse including being stripped naked and kept that way, being treated like a dog and forced to eat off the floor and being kept on a leash

The list could go on and on.  So what is the point of all this depravity?  That is a good question and one that sparks a debate among film scholars.  There are those who say that the movie is supposed to reflect the attitudes of the Fascists that ruled the area.  Apparently Passolini was raised near the area during the time of the Fascists regime and he reportedly saw what these men and their politics were like.  There are others that say that the movie is simply a provocative and antagonistic, button pushing film.  Grotesqueness for the sake of grotesqueness. And there are those that say the the film is simply pornography without any artistic merit.

I fall somewhere between the first and second camp.  I could see there there were some attempts at drawing parallels between the actions of the libertines and the Fascists ethos.  But for me those attempts fell flat.  I did find it intentionally shocking, but it is far from being without artistic ambitions.  The craft and skill of those involved is very high.  The movie looks great.  I feel like this film could have had an impact on Stanley Kubrick.  I thought often of The Shining while watching it.  Also, for the actors to put themselves in the place of these teens and the men and women torturing these teens must have been emotionally exhausting.  Considering that, the acting was superb.

I read several reviews of this film from many different people.  They all seemed totally shocked at the film and its antics.  I began wondering how jaded, numb and desensitized I am because while I was appalled at the acts taken place on the screen, I never even came close to throwing up or turning it off.  I was all set to watch this film in 2-4 attempts based on its reputation.  It is not unheard of for me to stop watching a film when I get too disgusted.  Ichi the Killer is a movie I had to shut off.  Other Takahashi Miike films have had the same impact on me too.  I remember watching Oldboy in 2 sittings.  I found that movie deeply disturbing, but also brilliant.  So I got to thinking, "How groundbreaking is this movie?" and "How shocking are the horrors in this film for its time period?". So I went on IMDB and started looking up other movies with scenes similar to those in Salo to see which came first.  Here are my findings:

1971 A Clockwork Orange - Scenes of rape and emotional punishment
1971 Straw Dogs - Brutal rape scene
1972 Pink Flamingos - Transvestite eats actual dog feces
1974 Texas Chainsaw Massacre - Dismemberment and torture
1970 El Topo - Nearly every act in Salo

All these films were made 1-5 years prior to Salo and none of them have anywhere near the contempt that Salo does.  Is it that Salo put all these terrible acts into one film?  Is it the glee that the fascists seem to be taking in physically and emotional raping these teens?  Is it that the brutal acts are being heaved onto children?  I don't understand it.  If you have any opinions please, I would love to hear them.

So this is one of those films that every cinephile needs to see.  I admit that I have a hole in my viewing history for gross out stories like this.  I am trying to fill that hole.  I have watched Teeth as a primer.  Now I have Salo out of the way.  Next up is Human Centipede.  All of these are being laced with the classic horror films that I never watched as a youth when all my friends were.  Friday the 13th, Halloween, ect.  I am also picking up some of the films from the horror masters.  People like Bava and Argento.

Overall I appreciate what Salo was shooting for, I just think it fell a little short.  I thought it was well acted, and the camera was used well to create a static atmosphere.  I give Salo ★★.

Movie #220 Wages of Fear *1953*

This is a slow burn.  Apparently when this movie was released in the USA the first 30 minutes of the film was cut out.  The reason given at the time was that the run time was 2.5 hours and that American audiences would not sit though a movie that long.  It was later discovered that the real reason that the footage was cut out was that it was deemed to be un-American.  This would have been have been during the Koren War and sensor claimed that Americans didn't want to hear about foreigners that didn't like us.  I would say that for the most part, we still don't.

The version I saw was the original French cut with the first 30 minutes in tact.  Not to sound like a patriot, but I could have lived without that 30 minutes.  Not do to my American alliances but more to the fact that this is a gut wrenching thriller and the 30 minutes of set up could have been skillfully whittled down to about 10 minutes. 

Once this film gets going though, LOOK OUT! It is a take no prisoner, balls to the wall thriller.   It is a film about some dirt poor villagers in a mud hole of a town in Latin America.  They are of all different nationalities.  The film focuses mainly on 4 of these characters.  These four men are contracted by a oil company to haul 2 trucks of nitroglycerin 300 miles through terrible terrain.  It is basically a suicide mission.  But if these men ever want to get out of that crappy little town they will need this money.

The men consist of:

• Mario - A French transplant that has been sulking around the village for months with no way out and the admiration of a waitress at the local watering hole.
• Jo - A new comer from France.  He is throwing money around like he has any.  He is a bully with the towns folk, but when he is really called to be a man he shows his true colors.
• Bimba - A German man that was put to work in the salt mines under Nazi orders.  He escaped to this town and now he can't escape anymore.
• Luigi - A local man that is the comedic relief.  He is portly and funny.  He has a health condition that will no longer allow him to work his job in the cement area.

These four men take the assignment to transport the explosives.  The film does an excellent job of setting up the personalities of these men.  Then breaking them down and subverting things under the highest of pressure situations.

The first obstacle they run into is a washboard dirt road.  The question is how to drive over.  Should you attempt to drive very slowly, trying to control each bump or should you drive quickly along the tops of each bump.  The two trucks decide on different plans without conferring with the other truck.  This leads to a near head on collision that would have ended the mission quick.

The next challenge is a winding road up a steep mountain.  The trucks are too long and wide to make a turn all at once so they have to back down on to a wooden structure.  Of course this structure is made of rotten wood and will barely hold the weight of the truck.  It is about this time that the true characters start to shine through the tough outer shells of these men.  The second truck runs into some even more life threatening situations that I have no idea how they filmed this.  It was breath taking.

Then we find a bolder in the road.  The men decided to blow the rock up and we almost cause both trucks to explode because the rock are raining down on the plastic tanks of TNT.  The final hurdle is a broken oil line has caused a major oil slick that is over 3 feet deep and the truck have to pass through without stopping or they will never make their destination. 

I won't spoil anything for you.  I will say that not all 4 men make it to the final destination.  The ending of this movie totally blew me away (no pun intended).  This is an ending that you would never see in a modern movie.  The studios wouldn't allow it.  I loved it and I loved the cross cutting editing work that went on during this scene.  This is a true masterpiece and every thriller after owes this movie some credit. 

This film was made by Henri-Georges Clouzot.  I already watched his film Diabolique and loved it.  This film made me interested in checking out more films from his cannon.  I give Wages of Fear ★★★★.

Movie #219 Gentlemen Prefer Blondes *1953*

Marilyn Monroe - Lorelei Lee
Jane Russell - Dorothy Shaw
Elliott Reed - Malone
Howard Hawks (Director)

I might be the first person to ever make this claim, but Marilyn Monroe is sexy as all get out.  That's a bold statement I know, but I feel like her breakout performance was in this raunchy musical.  The film is about two women that set sail to France.  One (Marilyn) is a gold digger and the other (Russell) is a tramp to be blunt.  The two of them sail to France, along with the men's Olympic team [what a coincidence].  The bill for this trip is picked up by Monroe's lover.  He is supposed to marry her in Paris but his father won't let him marry her due to her money hungry ways.

The father hires a private dick to follow the girls on the trip to see if Monroe will behave herself or fall for the first guy that flashes a $100 bill in front of her eyes.  She does of course.  She flirts heavily with a married diamond tycoon and gets him to give her a tiara that belongs to his wife.  Russell is there to watch her friend and make sure that she doesn't get into any trouble.  But then she falls for Malone before finding out what he does for a living.  Of course all sort of antics happen and hilarity ensues.

I was amazed at how filthy this script was.  I know this film was made during the Hayes code and they had to insinuate the sex and imply and use suggestive language.  But man, this film was near perverted both in script and in costumes.  Example: During one of the musical number Russell was singing while the Olympic athletes worked out in flesh colored short shorts.  Both Monroe and Russell spent the majority in outfits that made their waists thinner than their wrists and made their boobs stick out like torpedoes.  I'm not complaining, but I have seen more subtly in soft core porn.  There is another musical number in a Parisian cafe where Monroe dances around.  This may have been the beginning of modern stripping.  The only thing missing from a dance like that is a pole.  I swear I have been to a gentleman's club or two where there girls dance mimicked Monroe's all the way down to the hair tease.

I should mention that I thought Monroe was a far better actor in this film than Russell, who was considered more of a serious actor.  The man who played Malone did a good job too.  He reminded me a lot of a young Jimmy Stewart.  Both in personality and in his voice and tone.  I would rank this as one of Hawks minor films, but it is a solid movie and worth the time.  There is a great line in the movie: "I want you to find happiness and stop having fun".  This is a fun movie.  I give Gentlemen Prefer Blonde's ★★★.

Movie #218 Somewhere *2010*

Stephen Dorff  - Johnny Marco
Elle Fanning - Cleo
Sophia Coppola (Director)

This should be my shortest review ever.  My reviews are filled with descriptions of what the films are about, the performances, the films place in history, the technical aspects of the movie making, ect.  Somewhere has almost none of these characteristics. 

The movie opens with Dorff driving his car around in circles.  A metaphor for his life and for this film.  This scene is all one shot.  If when watching this shot you find it intriguing or stimulating then I would say you are going to love this movie.  If you find it pointless and boring then you are going to side with me.

While watching this movie I thought of a concept for a game show.  Celebrity Cabin Fever.  The first third (I won't say first act because that would infer that this film had some type of structure or narrative) is simply about Dorff as a upper B list actor passing the time.  He doesn't really "do" anything.  He watches strippers, he opens the mail, he mingles at a party.  You know the expression "I'd listen to him read the phone book"? That scene could have been in this film.  After that we are introduced to his estranged daughter, Cleo.

He isn't necessarily a bad father, he is just self absorbed.  When they are together they hang out, spend time together, chill.  Again, nothing really "happens".  I kept wondering if I was supposed to be feeling something.  That is a bad sign for a movie.  Ambiguity is nice, but isolation and distance is not.  The nice thing about this movie is that you can put it in the DVD player, go take a shower and brush your teeth and rejoin it in progress and not have missed anything.

I should mention that this is a very well shot film and it looks lush and vibrant.  I do like the way Coppola sets up her camera.  I just wish she did more with what is is filming.  While watching the movie I had plenty of time to let my mind wonder.  While my brain was on vacation it was asking "if this movie wasn't made by Hollywood royalty, would anybody give a shit about this movie"?

There is an element of a common theme in Coppola's films.  That is the "Stranger in a strange land" aspect.  She has done it so much better in all her other films.  I love her first film Virgin Suicides.  And Lost in Translation and Marie Antoinette both tread the same water with lesser success.  But here all her destruction of plot has proven to be dismissive and exclusive.  If she continues down this path, she will not be far from avant garde film making.  One could make an argument that Somewhere is a very polished avant garde film.

Only once is any element of conflict introduced.  The mother calls and needs to get away for a while.  Dorff is forced to watch Cleo longer than he planned.  On a car drive Cleo begin to cry because she feels abandon by here mother.  Dorff says "Don't cry" and that is the end of the scene!  I was pissed!  There is the only moment in the entire film where any emotion other than tedium was shown and it was wasted.  Not only that, I was a bit insulted as a father by the implication that an answer like "Don't cry" can resolve a problem as deep as abandonment. 

This movie is just as shallow and empty as it's main character.  I wanted to scream during the movie "DO SOMETHING!!!"  I was speaking to both the people on screen and those behind the camera.  Then the movie has the gull to try to get me to sympathize with Dorff.  I think that was what it was doing.  Why would I care at all about a person that has no motivation or ambitions.  If he wants to better his life and make it more fulfilling he has the ability.  He is choosing not to.  Therefor I could care less about him or this movie.

I will end of a few positive notes.  The soundtrack would  be great, but I can't find it anywhere online. (maybe that isn't that positive not that I think about it).  Also, Chris Pontius of Jackass fame has a small role as a friend of Dorff.  He is really natural and he adds a little life to an other wise dud of a film.  I give Somewhere ★★.