Movie Review: American Hustle

Here Comes the Sun(glasses). Image via TotalFilm

From the very beginning, "American Hustle" announces that it is only sort of based on true events.

Fitting, as this is an historical event so complex and bizarre that the whole truth simply could not do it justice. This is where movie truth steps in and offers a helping hand.

"American Hustle" constantly blurs the line between real and fake. In fact, the film opens with Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) giving himself the most passionate combover you'll ever see. Irv's life philosophy is to fake it until you make it. He kind of has to, as this is part of his job: Irv is a con man, and a very good one at that.

Eight Nights of Hanukkah, Eight Nights of Movies: Night #5

Wet Hot American Summer


Every summer, hundreds of thousands of Jewish children from the Northeast (mainly Long Island, Westchester County, New Jersey, and Southwestern Connecticut) are taken from their homes. The food is poor, and the conditions are less than sanitary. They are isolated far away from society, with barely a cell tower in sight. They are forced to leave their friends, families, and even their iPhones behind. God forbid they must go without Words with Friends for eight weeks.

I am talking about summer camp, of course.

I can say this is all true firsthand as I am a Jewish summer camp survivor. I am a veteran of five summers at Camp Island Lake. I can't quite pinpoint what draws Jews in particular to summer camps. Perhaps it is the need to be around Jews, congregate with them, breed with them, and eventually create future generations of nice Jewish doctors and lawyers who will marry your daughter.

But I digress. "Wet Hot American Summer" best captures the summer camp experience. Usually, a movie that I believe perfectly captures something I have experienced in my life does so because it is totally realistic. In this case, "Wet Hot" brings back this previous part of my life because it is utterly ridiculous. It takes place at the fictional Camp Firewood in the 80s, but it was filmed at Camp Towanda, which is basically down the road from my old summertime stomping grounds.

"Wet Hot American Summer" came from the comedy group behind MTV's "The State," who would also later go on to make Comedy Central's eccentrically brilliant "Stella." "Wet Hot" was largely panned and ignored at the time of its release. Ten years later, it has become an unlikely cult classic. The humor of "Wet Hot" is as bizarre as anything you'd expect from the minds of Michael Ian Black, Michael Showalter, and David Wain. Some of the major comedy set pieces include a raft that doesn't move down raging rapids, a falling satellite, and a talking can of vegetables. All of these scenes made me feel nostalgic for a decade I didn't even grow up in.

The ensemble is just as funny as the absurdist situations, and many actors in this movie went on to become superstars (a young Bradley Cooper makes one of the boldest moves of his career here). There is also a scene where a few of the characters go into town for the day, become drug addicts, and then return back to campus totally fine. This is funny not just because the transformation occurs over such a short period of time, but these seem like the kind of people that this would happen to. I also always wondered what my counselors would do when they went into town for the day. They might as well have been doing this every single day.

"Wet Hot" might not go over too well with your older relatives (they will probably use words like "stupid" and whatever the opposite of "clever" is), but it is close to the modern day equivalent of the Marx Brothers, the other Jewish absurdist comedians. More on them tomorrow night.

Movie Review: The Hangover Part II

If not for the presence of Zach Galifianakis, a monkey might have been the best part of "The Hangover Part II." That tends to happen when good comedies are given sequels: monkeys tend to take over.

"The Hangover Part II" is exactly what I expected. Even though that means a lot of funny moments, it is also a big disappointment. Having a film meet meager expectations is a decent thing, yet having a film exceed them is really something special. What "The Hangover Part II" unfortunately assumes is that if a formula worked once, it will work again and again.

As with before, a bachelor party goes terribly wrong, and someone important goes missing. This time though, replace Las Vegas with Bangkok, and fill in Stu's (Ed Helms) wedding. Then replace missing Doug (Justin Bartha) with Teddy (Mason Lee), the son of Stu's father-in law, who already hates Stu to begin with. Also replace a missing tooth, baby, and tiger with an accidental face tattoo, a shaved head, and a monkey with shady moral standing. The stakes are bigger, and the city is more dangerous.

A common rule I've learned about writing is that what we don't see is always more powerful than what we see. For some reason, "The Hangover" saga can't seem to pick up on this important lesson. In comedies, what we don't see is funnier than what we do see. "The Hangover Part II" never bothers to leave anything up to the audience's interpretation. Gross out comedy is coming to a point where the only way to gross out the audience is to show them everything. "Animal House" didn't have to actually show Flounder throwing up on Dean Wormer's desk, and yet its hard not to laugh every time.

I believe this over emphasis on gross out humor results from both an over reliance on shock value and excuses to not write a stronger screenplay. The original "Hangover" doesn't have the best writing for a comedy, and it certainly doesn't have the best developed characters, but it worked. The story fits together, the mystery makes sense, and the laughs are earned. The sequel puts more emphasis on shocking the audience rather than making them laugh.

One over-the-top element of the film that works best is Galifianakis's performance. He is given more screen time than in the original and is therefore given more time to make the character even more bizarre than he was before. All of the characters from the first film are used well here, yet many new side characters are eventually forgotten. They are treated as plot devices rather than as actual characters.

I cannot tell whether "The Hangover 2" fails as a comedy or whether it just somehow succeeds at self-awareness. The beginning of the movie is similar enough to the original that it almost seems like parody; director Todd Phillips seems smart enough to understand how unoriginal the whole film is. However, at some point it leaves self-awareness behind and becomes a very unaware Hollywood sequel.

This review cannot end without acknowledging the scenes of hilarity that do exist. Besides most of the lines that come out of Galifianikis's mouth, the monkey makes for a surprisingly great addition to the crew. And to Ken Jeong, your willingness to bare everything qualifies as some form of bravery. I will not even bother to analyze the funniest scenes further, as the best comedy can never be analyzed.

Another redeeming feature is the film's decision to locate the story in Bangkok. The seedy, rapidly expanding city is the perfect place to set a sprawling mystery involving a missing person.

With all of the quibbles to be had about "The Hangover Part II," what can't be forgotten is that the homegrown feel from the first film is now gone. "The Hangover Part II" is a pop comedy. The series is a blockbuster with blockbuster expectations now. If you are looking for a great summer comedy that won't be forgotten soon after leaving the theater, see "Bridesmaids." If you just want something mindless and entertaining to escape reality for a short period, go to "The Hangover Part II." Just don't expect the repeat viewings that made the original such a sensation.

An Open Letter for Everyone Involved in The Hangover Part II (a.k.a. Don't Make this Suck)

Dear Cast and Crew of The Hangover Part II,

As I have stated on this blog before, I am a devoted fan of "The Hangover." I still stuck by it, even when people pointed out the glitches in the plot, and others accused it of not being funny. I stuck by it, and even mentioned it as one of my favorite films of 2009. I was surprised by how well this film did in theaters, and I know you are, too. Because "The Hangover" did so well, Hollywood has decided to do what it does for any movie that does well: give it a sequel. Even though this sequel is very unnecessary, make it count. However, by the looks of the trailer, I am afraid that that just may not be the case.

Yes, I have watched the trailer for "The Hangover Part II." I will say this briefly because so many others have already stated this more eloquently than I have: it is exactly the same as the first film, beat by beat. Changing the location and replacing a baby with a monkey doesn't mean that the plot will be any different. Here is the plot of both films as I see it: Zach Galifianakis does something ridiculous, everyone blacks out, Ed Helms wakes up with something weird on his face, they lose someone important, and then they search for clues. This formula works for both films.

All of this worries me a lot because all of the actors involved, and the director at helm, seem above the typical Hollywood game. That is what the first film showed. It had a unique gross out hilarity, great characters, and a good, unpredictable mystery behind it. That formula worked great once, so why redo it? Whenever a great comedy is given a sequel, it typically is the exact same plot with a few minor tweaks. This ruins the authenticity of the original. Just look at what happened to the "Austin Powers" series. Comedy sequels such as "Wayne's World 2" and "Get Him to the Greek" are re-watchable because they took the characters we already liked and put them into new situations.

One thing I hope the trailer represents, is false advertising. Perhaps the reason you have decided to make your film seem like the original is to get the support of all of the first film's fans so they will come back and see the sequel. Maybe the plot is actually much more different than the trailer leads on. Or perhaps the story is tounge-and-cheek; perhaps you've decided to make fun of how unoriginal and formulaic Hollywood sequels have become. The recent Entertainment Weekly article I read about your film suggests you guys put a lot of effort into it. So unless you are lying (which I highly doubt), then at least I know that "The Hangover Part II" isn't just everyone phoning it in for a paycheck. As Galifianakis said, he already did that for "G-Force."

Even if "The Hangover Part II" proves to be extremely similar to its predecessor, I still feel like it'll be funny. As long as these people are involved, humor should follow. However, there is more humor to be found in a new joke than an old one. The whole wolf pack thing can get old when people tell you it over and over again.

Also, it is interesting that you decided to include the phrase "Part II" in your title rather than just call your movie "The Hangover 2." Believe it or not, the word "Part" and having roman numerals actually mean a lot. You are suggesting that this isn't just some sequel, but rather a second part. Like "The Godfather" and "Star Wars," you suggest with that title that this sequel was made not to make more money, but to further advance a certain story. So, I hope the purpose of this film isn't just to bank off of the success of the first one, but rather to advance further into this gang's maturity and show their friendship develop even deeper.

Please, everyone involved in "The Hangover Part II," prove my fears (and those of many others) wrong.

Sincerely,

The Reel Deal

P.S. On my Humor Scale: Drug Dealing Monkey > Misplaced Baby. So yes, I do have hope.

Movie Review: The A-Team

I hate the existence question. This is when a critic ponders why the movie being reviewed even exists. Every movie has a purpose, whether it is to entertain, provoke thought, or simply steal your money. However, when it comes to remakes of old TV shows, I feel it is totally appropriate to ask, "why must this exist?"

For proof of this, I turn to "The A-Team." No reason, really. Studio must've needed a script quickly and didn't feel like coming up with a new idea. This movie is a result of Hollywood's continued lack of ingenuity.

"The A-Team" reminded me a lot of those times when you walk up to a group of kids and one of them says some weird word. Once everyone starts laughing you say, "what's so funny?" Then, some kid responds by saying "inside joke." You feel uncomfortable not understanding what is going on and even more annoyed that some joke is so important that it can't be shared with the rest of the world.

This leads us to the film's opening. Even though it introduces every single character, there still seems to be something lacking from the backstory. The only way to truly understand what is going on is to have seen the 80s TV series. But who has time for that?

Anyway, our film begins somewhere around the American-Mexican border. While under some intense kidnapping conditions, we meet the team. There's the cigar smoking Hannibal Smith (Liam Neeson), the wily Lt. Peck (Bradley Cooper), mentally disturbed Murdock (Sharlto Copley), and conflicted killer B.A. Baracus (Quinton 'Rampage' Jackson).

That whole opening scene becomes pretty much pointless, as the film suddenly transitions eight years later from Mexico to Iraq (I guess director Joe Carnahan thought it went better, since both places have sand). Despite so many successful missions, nobody in the military trusts the A-Team because, hey, this is a Hollywood action film. The team is sent on a covert mission to stop some bad business involving counterfeiting Iraqi money. They are setup for murdering a general and wrongfully imprisoned. The rest of the film is them proving their innocence and finding the real bad guys.

What follows is a fairly ridiculous assault on the brain. If the explosions don't get you, then the extremely twisted (and not in a good way) story lines will. "The A-Team" wants to be a film that relies on twists for good storytelling. The only problem is that it relies on many rather than a few. Sometimes, they occur so closely together that they get tangled. Other times, they just seem to have no reason to be there, except to be really annoying.

Not only does it try to handle so many twists, but it also tries to tackle so many stories. It wants to be both a continuation of the show and an origin story. I can't speak for how it made fans feel, but all I can say for people new to this story is that it left us in the dark. Should this film even be taken as a serious drama, or a comedy?

At this point, I shouldn't really expect much story. However, I do expect some production value. While the film certainly looked like it had a budget, it doesn't look like much of it was used wisely. The film opts for the typical, shaky-cam shot action sequences. Why do action directors love shaky-cam? It creates more nausea than thrills. Have we become so A.D.D. that even a shot that lasts more than two seconds feels long?

Most of the action feels like video game violence. Everything else is so poorly edited that it often feels more like an extended trailer than a feature length film. It just puts "A-Team" into part of this horrible trend of mainstream movies that seem to be marketing products and sequels over actual stories.

What continues to annoy me about the film is some of its underlying smugness. That's probably because of Carnahan, who also directed "Smokin' Aces." "Smokin' Aces" did Tarantino much worse than it actually thought. Likewise, "A-Team" does corny 80s action much worse than it thinks.

Despite this litany of problems, the film manages to find a few bright spots in the ensemble. Neeson and Cooper just seem to be playing Neeson and Cooper. While it's hard to ever complain about Neeson's acting, it's time for Cooper to find a new character. But it was the other half of the team that was most engaging. This is only Copley's second performance, but he already knows what kind of an actor he wants to be. He brought to Murdock the same dimwitted charm that made Wikus both so likable and hatable in "District 9." Jackson does a great job playing Mr. T about as well as Mr. T ever could. His character is also the closest the film comes to creating a sort of satire of a certain archetype.

What "The A-Team" ultimately represents is a death of creativity in Hollywood. It also shows that the moviegoing audience has suddenly lost interest in good ideas. Why couldn't the inspired take on 80s action in "MacGruber" take hold but the uninspired mess based on an 80s TV show could? For those looking for just a good throwaway experience, this is your movie. For those wanting action with a little more watchability, "Inception" is just a few weeks away.