If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. That seems to be the philosophy of director Todd Phillips, whose sequel to the box office comedy smash The Hangover doesn’t so much try to replicate the magic of the first film as it does try to replicate everything about the first film. The setting has changed from the neon strip of Las Vegas to the filthy streets of Bangkok, but the premise nonetheless remains ridiculously similar: Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms) and Alan (Zach Galifianakis) wake up in a state of dishevelment with no memory of the night before, and are once again forced to piece together the increasingly crazy pieces of their drunkenness and debauchery in order to find a missing friend. Unfortunately but not unexpectedly, be it the because the characters are less likeable, the jokes not as well written, or simply because the very idea of a The Hangover Part II is just so implausible, this darker, dirtier, nastier follow up, although still generally funny, does not hold a candle to its predecessor.
In this day and age it must come as little surprise that The Hangover, a massive success with audiences, critics and studio accountants alike, has been the recipient of the sequel treatment. Likewise, few will be shocked to hear that the film is in many ways an uncreative retread of the first movie, one that tries to give the audiences the same stuff they enjoyed the last time out. This time it’s the mild mannered Stu who’s tying the knot, a plot necessity that takes the form of a beautiful Asian American woman (Jamie Chung) whose father despises Stu and insists on holding the wedding in his native Thailand. A few drinks on a resort beach later and you know the drill: Phil, Alan and Stu wake up in the middle of Bangkok, with only a flamboyant Chinese gangster, a denim wearing monkey and the severed index finger of Teddy, Stu’s sixteen year old soon-to-be-brother-in-law, as clues to what the hell they got up to the night before. Would you like to know more…?
The writer/director of In Bruges will reteam with Colin Farrell, along with Sam Rockwell, Mickey Rourke and Christopher Walken for his sophomore film effort, entitled “Seven Psychopaths“.
Martin McDonagh (pictured above), the award winning Irish playwright behind The Pillowman and the Oscar winning shot film Six Shooter, made his feature film debut in 2008 with In Bruges, an extraordinarily black dramedy about two hit-men (played by Brendan Gleeson and Colin Farrell, the latter of whom picked up a Golden Globe for his efforts) on vacation in the medieval Belgian town of Bruges.
His follow-up film will, according to Variety, revolve around “a screenwriter (Farrell) struggling for inspiration for his script, “Seven Psychopaths,” who gets drawn into the dog kidnapping schemes of his oddball friends (Rockwell and Walken). Things take a turn for the worse when a gangster’s (Rourke) mutt goes missing.”
No word on what the tone of the film will be as of yet, although from the sound of things it’ll share quite a bit in common with the rest of his work; a combination of morbid and absurdist comedy with the occasional heavy dramatic element…and plenty of foul language. His most recent play, A Behanding in Spokane, was recently performed on Broadway with Rockwell and Walken in the cast, so like Farrell they’ll be no stranger to delivering the playwrights dialogue. I recently saw Behanding performed at the Melbourne Theatre Company (not with the same cast, unfortunately), and while it wasn’t as emotionally resonant as In Bruges, it was certainly just as funny, and makes me all the more interested in McDonagh’s next film.
Thoughts, anyone? What’d you think of In Bruges? Excited to see such McDonagh working with such a talented cast?
So Bad They’re Profound (alternatively titled “When 90s Blockbusters Go Wrong, or: How I Learnt to Stop Worrying and Love Overanalyzing Sh*tty Movies”)
Batman & Robin (Schumacher, 1997) – 8:30pm
Showgirls (Verhoeven, 1995) – 11pm
Two of the biggest critical failures of the nineteen nineties, Joel Schumacher’s Batman & Robin and Paul Verhoeven’s Showgirls have become synonymous with movie making gone wrong, and are frequently listed amongst the worst films of all time. Both scripts contain some of the most superb howlers in cinema history. Visually, one resembles an Ed Wood picture shot in a toy factory for fifty million dollars and the other a soft-core porno crossed with a student film version of All About Eve. As for the performances…well, let’s just say you don’t see Elizabeth Hurley headlining too many movies these days. All in all, there really is very little redeemable about either one of these misguided, mishandled pimples on the otherwise rosy buttocks of cinema.
On the other hand…
It’s difficult to say what it is about some movies that make them so bad they’re good; what combination of elements seperates the awful from the awfully funny, the crap-tastic from the just plain crap. Whatever the formula, Batman & Robin and Showgirls fit squarely into the category of movies far more entertaining that the label “Worst movie of all time” seems to suggest. What’s more, when viewed through the lens of time (and with a fair amount of generosity), both Schumacher’s ode to the art of the toy-line tie in and Verhoeven’s experiment in eroticism gone wrong are revealed to be rather…wait for it…profound. No, you didn’t misread that – I believe that both of these films reflect many of the most interesting parts of nineties social and cinematic culture, and those who dismiss them are not only missing out on two of the most unintentionally funny movies ever made, but also two movies with genuinely interesting things to say (even if they only say them while cart wheeling backwards off the edge of the cliff). So for one night only, leave your American indies and Swedish arthouse DVDs at homes and come join us at the Row Three Rep for a celebration of two of the nineties’ most underappreciated films. Would you like to know more…?
Gay. Gay, gay, gay, gay, gay. That’s how Jim Carrey’s character Steven Russell describes himself in I Love You Phillip Morris, the long delayed romantic dramedy from Bad Santa writers Glenn Ficarra and John Requa. Based on the real life story of Steven Russell, a Georgia born conman and multiple prison escapee, the film tracks the unlikely romance between Russell and his cellmate Phillip Morris (Ewan McGregor), the man who Russell would eventually break out of prison no less than four times in attempts to be reunited with. A rare American film not afraid to offer a frank depiction of a homosexual relationship, the movie had a difficult post production that included significant re-editing and trouble finding wide distribution. The belief that the film, featuring two big Hollywood stars, might be “too gay” for mainstream audiences kept it from reaching Australian cinemas for almost two years, but now that the movie has finally arrived it proves itself well worth the wait. Both a sensational comedy and a surprisingly affecting love story, I Love You Phillip Morris is an unmissable film that will entertain and move viewers gay and straight alike.
With plenty of great laughs for those with dark or dirty senses of humour, the first act of the film whisks breezily over Stevens’ childhood, marriage, self-outing and early days as a conman and then a prison inmate. A devout Christian until a near fatal car accident causes him to re-assess his life, the film uses Steven to make fun of both middle-American conservatism and liberal gay culture, without ever being mean or judgmental towards either side. Most of the films more explicit gay content is played for comedy, but never in a way that is homophobic (a la the more successful I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry, amongst many others). I Love You Phillip Morris also reminds us of the natural comedic talents of the much maligned Jim Carrey. His performance is by no means a revelation – people who hate his normal goofy-faced shtick won’t be won over by this film – but this is some of the best material Carrey has worked with in over a decade, and his work in the film reflects it. Lesley Mann is also hilarious in her small role as Russell’s ex-wife, supportive of her former husband’s new lifestyle in spite of her Christian beliefs. Would you like to know more…?
Over the past six months, Row Three has been home to one of the webs most extensive and quite frankly astounding discussions about the authenticity of the film Catfish. Since Mike Rot posted his article in October entitled “Catfish: Why the Hoax is Probably Fake”, the debate has gone back and forth between Row Three writers and a group of dedicated readers, racking up nearly seventy thousand words worth of research and discussion in the comments section (the equivalent, according to one reader, of about four to five hours worth of reading material). With that in mind, I thought the following piece of news would be of particular interest.
“MTV and RelativityReal are developing a reality show based on the docu “Catfish”…[the] pilot is still in its early stages, but would likely focus on social network users who purposely misidentify themselves and the repercussions that occur. The creative team from “Catfish” would be involved in the project.”
For those of you who don’t know, Catfish follows a New York photographer named Nev Schulman who enters into an online relationship with a girl from Michigan, only to find out that the girl has been less than truthful about certain elements of her life. The film was sold as a documentary, but since its release has faced consistent questions as to its authenticity (despite the fact the filmmakers have maintained that the events the film depicts are all true). In addition to provoking one of Row Three’s longest ongoing comment threads, the movie appeared on several of our end of year top ten lists (it would have made mine too, had I seen it before those lists were published).
As for this reality show; I’m not a fan of reality TV at the best of times, so I was never going to look on this news in a particularly positive light. Given how much I liked the film, and considering that the above quote makes it seem like the similarities between the two projects are tangential at best, I sort of wish they weren’t associating Catfish with the program at all. With that said, I’ll throw any further commentary over to the real expects.
Well Aquaman? Ms Curious? How do you feel about this latest development? Are you looking forward to the opportunity for additional debate, or do you find yourself wishing this news was just a hoax?
I won’t even bother going over the premise or back story of Todd Phillips’ 2009 smash hit comedy The Hangover, because:
a) you’ve almost certainly already familiar with it, and
b) because the trailer for the upcoming sequel, from the bachelor party spun out of control, the search for a missing friend, all the way down to the exotic animal that Alan (Zach Galifianakis), Stu (Ed Helms) and Phil (Bradley Cooper) gets stuck with makes it look as though the follow up will follow the exact same path as the original film.
Not that that is necessarily a bad thing – I’m sure they’ll milk the “oh no not again!” angle for all the comedy they can. Still, it’s rather astounding just how similar this sequel looks.
Despite (or perhaps because) of the remarkable similarity to the first film, I do think the trailer does a good job of selling the sequel, with plenty of the wild situations and Zach Galifianakis/Ken Jeong shtick that made the original so entertaining. I also have a slightly more personal interest in the film, having spent a year of my childhood living in Bangkok. So at the very least I’ll be interested in seeing how Phillips utilizes Thailand as a setting for the wolf-packs’ debauched antics. My guess: not particularly realistically.
The Hangover Part II will be in theatres worldwide from May 26th.
What say you? Can lightning strike twice, or would you have prefered not to see these characters returning to the big screen?
Although the bad guys are from the far reaches of space, Jonathan Liebesman’s Battle: Los Angeles, is, in essence, a war film. More accurately, it is a not particularly good war film. Following a group of US marines in Los Angeles on the morning of an extraterrestrial assault, the film takes the plot of a million alien invasion movies and attempts to combine it with the gritty, on-the-ground aesthetic of films like The Hurt Locker and Black Hawk Down. The intensity of the filmmaking from Oscar winning directors Kathryn Bigelow and Ridley Scott, respectively, ensures that the sometimes weak characterizations in those films never seriously detract from the visceral experience of war they create. Sadly, Liebesman has nowhere near the same levels of directorial expertise, and the competently directed action sequences in his film have no chance of masking the atrocious dialogue, paper thin characters and confused political ideology that make Battle: Los Angeles impossible to recommend.
The movie begins by throwing us into the middle of a firefight, not unlike Gareth Edwards’ low budget alien allegory Monsters from earlier in the year. With a night vision lens and wild, frenetic camera movement, Liebesman’s handling of scenes like this – and there are several – is far and away the best part of the film, as he skillfully depicts the chaos of urban warfare. Unfortunately the film then flashes back to before the invasion, in what can only be described as one of the most half-arsed, disingenuous attempts to establish characters that I have ever witnessed. Although on screen text lets us know each of their name, the soldiers can more readily be identified by the single tired war movie stereotype that they embody; the rookie, the veteran, the incompetent officer, the token African America, etc, etc. The acting is not necessarily bad, but even the normally excellent Aaron Eckhart fails to bring an ounce of originality to his performance, sometimes I blame more on Liebesman’s direction than on any of the no-name cast. Would you like to know more…?
Made in 1984 during the closing years of the Cold War, John Milius Red Dawn tells the story of a group of American high-school students engaged in geurilla warfare against an invading Soviet army. Two and a half decades later, Hollywood decided it was time for a remake, only this time with contemporary Chinese forces as the outside aggressor. Filmed in 2009, the completed movie has been in limbo for some time due to MGMs financial difficulties, with a release date tentatively scheduled for some point in late 2011. However, before any of us get to see the film, it seems like there’s a little bit more tweaking to be done. Specifically, after concerns arose that depicting a hostile China would damage the movies box office take in that highly profitable market, MGM have decided to digitally alter the film in order to change the invading forces from Chinese to North Korean.
Financially and politically, this does seem like quite a smart move. In the time since the Red Dawn remake was conceived, China has become an increasingly important market for American films – in 2010 China was Hollywood’s fifth biggest non-domestic market, earning over $1.5 billion in revenue despite government restrictions that limit the number of non-Chinese releases to a mere twenty films. The Red Dawn remake has already received negative attention in China following script leaks, which lead the Chinese press to accuse the film of “demonizing” China. By comparison, North Korea is a closed economy that already has a radically anti-Western stance, and as such MGM has much less to lose by depicting them as an enemy.
According to the Los Angeles Times, changes to the film will mostly include digitally altering Chinese flags and insignias to those of the North Korean military, as well as alterations to some dialogue and reshooting the opening scene.
I’ve got to say, this doesn’t strike me as a particularly good indicator of the quality of the film. If the villains are so interchangeable, one can hardly imagine that the movie has any kind of political insight or serious depth. Not that we should have been expecting that anyway; let’s not forget that at the time of the originals release, the Guinness Book of World Records called it the most violent film ever made.
The remake stars Chris Hemsworth, Josh Peck, Isabel Lucas and Jeffrey Dean Morgan, and was directed by Dan Bradley (who previously worked as a stunt coordinator on the Spider-Man and Bourne films).
While speaking to Empire Magazine, Michael Bay said the following of his film Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen:
“We made some mistakes. The real fault with [Transformers 2] is that it ran into a mystical world. When I look back at it, that was crap. The writers’ strike was coming hard and fast. It was just terrible to do a movie where you’ve got to have a story in three weeks. I was prepping a movie for months where I only had 14 pages of some idea of what the movie was. It’s a BS way to make a movie, do you know what I’m saying?”
When he says “the real fault” in that second sentence, I can only assume he meant “one of the many, many, MANY real faults”. Transformers 2 might honestly be one of the most god awful steaming piles ever made. I look back on my excitement for the movie – based on the admittedly excellent trailer – will shame and a tinge of self loathing.
Speaking of excellent trailers, did you see the Superbowl spots for Transformers 3? That thing looks awesome! I guess Bay’s learnt his lesson, right guys?