The Hangover: Part III

No Hangover Here

Courtesy of Youtube

The Wolfpack gets sucked back into their usual antics in The Hangover: Part III

I firmly believe that slapstick can only take a comedy movie so far, which is partially why I didn't fall head over heels for the first two Hangover movies, to the absolute shock of my peers. Call me crazy, but I don't find naked Chinese men jumping out of trunks or finger amputations that funny. What I do find funny, and worthy of a positive review, is comedy resulting from smart writing, which then leads to comedic situations. The Hangover: Part III is probably the most dialogue-driven of the trilogy, and by my standards, potentially the funniest entry. 

In the (supposedly) final film in the Wolfpack trilogy, Alan's erratic and uncontrollable behavior cause his friends and family to intervene and send him off to a psychological rehab center. En route, the four friends are ambushed by Marshall (John Goodman), who had $21 million in gold stolen from him by Leslie Chow. Marshall and his men kidnap Doug (poor Justin Bartha, he never sees much screen time in these movies) and agree to return him to the Wolfpack in exchange for Chow. Here, we see the first improvement from the first sequel - it doesn't just re-hash the original. There's a completely new plot and objective than waking up hungover and looking for a missing person.

My reason for believing that the first Hangover movie isn't as phenomenal as most make it out to be is one thing - Alan. Remove Alan from the Hangover franchise, and what's left? Nothing very notable. After two movies hinging on the offbeat Indiana Jones fan, The Hangover: Part III finally finds a perfect balance of Alan and the other characters. Sure, he's still the center of the comedy (as he should be, Zach Galifianakis is brilliant), but there's a much more solid balance. Furthermore, Galifianakis gives his best performance to date in this movie.

The script impressively wraps up the story of the Wolfpack, tying in key plot points and characters from the first and second movies. The jokes throughout were among the best of the trilogy, making this the first Hangover movie I'd be excited to watch again in the near future. Keep in mind, this film still is a buddy comedy reliant on screwball antics, and is nowhere near groundbreaking in its genre. It's essentially a compilation of occasionally recycled jokes employed by some of comedy's most iconic characters. Having said that, The Hangover: Part III made me laugh more than any other new film this year. 

There's no intoxication. There's no (non-prescribed) drugs. There's no naked Chinamen. Just smart writing and hilarious performances. In several ways, The Hangover: Part III is the best of the trilogy.

Rating: 4/5

Epic

Calling Epic "epic" doesn't do it justice

http://hdmoviewpp.com/

Mother nature is hiding more than you'd expect

When thinking of what rating I should assign Epic, the answer became obvious in no time. I simply asked myself two questions. The first: "What did I dislike about the movie?" The second: "What would I change in this movie?" The response to both: virtually nothing. Because of that, Epic gets a perfect 5/5 rating. And here's my defense.

But first, some exposition. Imagine in your nearest woods is a Lilliputian society that defends nature as we know it, as well as an opposite force that attempts to destroy it. Slugs and snails can talk, crows and hummingbirds are the animals used when riding into battle, and the miniature humans refer to us full-sized humans as "stompers." In Epic, only one man believes that, and when his estranged daughter comes to visit, she's not exactly content with that, as one can imagine. But as it turns out, he's 100% right. 

The daughter is Mary Katherine (voiced by Amanda Seyfried), or as she calls herself, M.K. When she concludes her attempt to reconnect with her father is futile, she departs, only to be shrunken to the size of the small soldiers of nature during their battle. Eventually, M.K. becomes quintessential in the soldiers' attempt to bring life back to the forrest. Among her allies are a young and restless soldier (Josh Hutcherson), his stern guardian and fellow soldier (Colin Farrell), a good-intentioned but easily frightened snail (Chris O'Dowd, the cop from Bridesmaids), and a hilariously flirtatious slug (Aziz Ansari).

Epic is so much more than a family movie. Yes, the family was the priority demographic, but as a film lover, I saw themes, characters, and imagery that reminded me of such films as A Bug's Life, The Lion King, and even Avatar, The Hunger Games, and The Wizard of Oz. Epic has an impressive balance of comedy and drama, action and story, darkness and light-heartedness. With that much depth, I would in fact place it alongside animated greats like The Lion King, The Incredibles, and Finding Nemo. 

Family films today are becoming increasingly more catered to be "fun for all ages," but it's a rarity when one succeeds as well as Epic does. Well-made and certainly made to appeal to pretty much everyone, Epic succeeds admirably, and well beyond any words I can use to describe it on this blog.

Rating: 5/5

Star Trek Into Darkness

Sheldon Would Approve: Star Trek Into Darkness Review

startrek.com

Spock and Kirk interrogate their prisoner, Khan. 

These days, most people can't think of Star Trek without making an association to Sheldon Cooper on "The Big Bang Theory," who not only bears a remarkable similarity to the character of Mr. Spock, but idolizes the entire Trekkie fandom. Star Trek Into Darkness manages to convey a magnificent blend of action and exposition, leading me to believe that Sheldon would definitely approve of the new addition to this timeless franchise. And it gets my approval as well. 

A follow up to the 2009 hit, Star Trek Into Darkness takes place one year after the first film's events. Kirk still captains the U.S.S. Enterprise with a seemingly careless and reckless attitude, while the half-human, half-emotionless Vulcan Spock continues to balance logical reasoning with his emotions and feelings, much to the frustration of his girlfriend, Uhura (Zoë Saldana). 

After a member of their Enterprise committee is murdered, Kirk, Spock, and the entire Enterprise crew go on a manhunt for the man who did it, a superhuman fresh out of cryogenic sleep - Khan. Khan's motives and ultimate goals become apparent, leading to secrets that corrupt the integrity of The Federation being exposed. Khan is both a villain and a victim, but by the end of the movie, we really only care about him being one of those two. 

I'm not a Trekkie, and so the only other Star Trek movie I had seen prior to this was the 2009 reboot. However, I was familiar enough with the storyline to understand the massive undertaking that the creation of 2009's Star Trek was. This sequel lacks the marvelously ingenious ideas present in the first movie, but still succeeds nonetheless. The performances are among the best I've seen in a sci-fi movie, particularly those of Zachary Quinto and Benedict Cumberbatch. 

Aside from a latter half that didn't quite meet the standards set by the first half, and occasionally unsatisfactory character development, Star Trek Into Darkness is a welcomed addition to the Star Trek universe, the recent list of high-quality sci-fi movies, and J.J. Abrams' filmography. Hopefully all summer blockbusters follow the example of quality filmmaking set by this film.

Rating: 4.5/5

Oscar chances: Nominations for Makeup, Visual Effects, Sound Editing and Sound Mixing are all likely, with possible shots at Film Editing, Production Design, and Supporting Actor (for Quinto or Cumberbatch).

The Great Gatsby

Quality ≠ Quantity 

dcmetrotheaterarts.com

Carey Mulligan and Leonardo DiCaprio give their usual high-calliber performances in The Great Gatsby.

Unlike many of you reading this review, I never had F. Scott Fitzgerald's classic novel assigned in my 5th grade English class, and so prior to my viewing, I had no idea what to expect going into this film. All I knew was that it took place in the 20s, and that the cast was pretty star-studded. What I witnessed both dazzled me and kept me asking how soon the film would be ending. 

In the off chance there are any readers who aren't familiar with the story, Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) moves to Long Island after his graduation from Yale lands him a job on Wall Street. His mysterious neighbor, Jay Gatsby (the always impressive Leonardo DiCaprio), throws constant parties in his elaborately extravagant mansion. Across the bay from where Gatsby and Nick are is Nick's cousin, Daisy, and her husband, Tom. The four spend the next 143 minutes entangled in a tragic tale of facades, love, commitment, and secrets (sounds like the perfect formula for a 5th grade novel, huh?).

There are things in this movie I both admire and resent. Visually speaking, the film is among one of the best I've seen. The one to thank for this is Production Designer Catherine Martin, who previously won an Oscar for her work on Moulin Rouge! Carey Mulligan and Joel Edgerton, who play Daisy and Tom, as well as Leonardo DiCaprio, fail to disappoint. It might not be too early to predict Oscar nominations for the portrayers of Gatsby and Daisy. 

Artistically speaking, I frown upon the film's music choice. The music playing during Gatsby's house parties was some sort of cross between techno and hip hop. As far as I know, the music from the 1920s wasn't enhanced by the technology of today. While I see that this was an attempt to modernize the story, I don't see that it as successful, as Gatsby partially was robbed of its historical integrity. On the topic of the screenplay, there was a lot to get through in order to get to the worthwhile parts of the movie. I was intrigued at first, and then it lost me. A cycle of interest and boredom was constant, making Gatsby frustrating to sit through. Nick Carraway narrated the entire movie, and so my question is, why didn't they just have him narrate the parts that the audience didn't have to waste their time with?  

I'm torn. I want so badly to give this film an excellent rating, because when The Great Gatsby is good, it's great. But there are times throughout the entire film that clearly serve as a vehicle to get to those great parts. The visuals and performances all left me impressed, and the scenes that focused on Gatsby's and Daisy's love were superbly constructed. Having said that, Gatsby was certainly overlong, and had too much time preceding and following its best moments. The Great Gatsby is fantastic, but could have been so much more than that if the filmmakers didn't equate quality to quantity. 

Rating: 3.5/5