Tuesday 31 May 2011

The Hangover Part II


***COMING SOON*** 
A NEW WEBSITE CALLED 'THE EXPOSITIONIST'
BROUGHT TO YOU BY MYSELF AND THE FORMER OPTIMIST
***COMING SOON***


***WARNING***
THE FOLLOWING POST MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS AND CONTRADICTIONS THEREFORE IT MAYBE UNSUITABLE FOR SOME FUCKS.NOT THAT IT MATTERS, THIS IS A DUMP OF A MOVIE
***YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***


OXFORD, ENGLAND. JUNE 2009.

I went into The Hangover with a fantastic sense of dread. It looked and read like a typical, rushed American summer comedy with very little substance and absolutely no imagination. The trailers were terrible, the actors weren't exactly appealing and the reviews were way too good to be true. What happened during the movies 100 minutes has perplexed me no end to this day.

The story itself is far from original and in actuality, rather dull. Four guys go on a bender in Las Vegas, three wake up with massive hangovers and can't remember what happened. Hilarity ensues. Its been done before, its been done well and it hardly needed doing again. Yet for some reason I enjoyed myself. The characters were stupid enough for me not to feel sympathetic, the situations that unfolded were slightly twisted and at times surprising and the movie made me laugh, multiple times. I knew it wasn't going to change my life perspective or even leave too much of a lasting impression on my cinematic exploration, yet it went by quickly and I had more fun watching it than I had watching pretty much any other film previously that year.

OXFORD, ENGLAND. MAY 2011

I went into The Hangover Part II with a sense that something fantastic may happen. The early reports seemed good. The same cast were returning, the trailer was darker and edgier than the first film and it seemed that the writers had taken the first film and simply improved on its less imaginative factors. What happened during the movies 100 minutes made me want to melt my hand in a vat of boiling hot acidic puss and beat my own skull in with the melted down, blistery stub.

The story is a carbon copy of the first one down to every single detail. The jokes are the same, the situations are the same, the shots are the same, every fucking thing about this fucking movie is the fucking same, no fucking exaggeration. Here is a list to compare the films:







THE HANGOVER
THE HANGOVER PART II
Three guys wake up after a night of drinking. They have lost a friend and gained a baby.
Three guys wake up after a night of drinking. They have lost a friend and gained a monkey.
There is a lion in the room.
There is a coke addict in room.
Stu has lost a tooth.
Stu has a tattoo.
There is a wedding in two days, they are fucked.
There is a wedding in two days, they are fucked.
Alan likes and wants to keep the baby.
Alan likes and wants to keep the monkey.
Stu hooked up with a stripper.
Stu hooked up with a stripper.
 Alan is forced to give up the baby.
Alan is forced to give up the monkey.
The friends go to the police station.
The friends go to the police station.
Alan slipped the group drugs last night.
Alan slipped the group drugs last night.
Mike Tyson is a surprise guest and he wants the lion.
Paul Giamatti is a surprise guest and he wants the addict.
Stu sings a comedy song to sum up the plot so far.
Stu sings a comedy song to sum up the plot so far.
The car gets wrecked transporting the lion.
The car gets wrecked transporting the addict.
The guys give up, and call wedding off.
The guys give up, and call the wedding off.
The guys finally remember where the lost friend is.
The guys finally remember where the lost friend is.
He’s back at the hotel where they woke up.
He’s back at the hotel where they woke up.
They rush to the wedding and just make it in time.
They rush to the wedding and just make it in time.
There is a celebrity guest wedding band.
There is a celebrity guest wedding singer.
The guys sit and talk, someone has a camera revealing the entire night.
The guys sit and talk, someone has a camera revealing the entire night.
Credits.
Credits.
Seriously, that is exactly how the two films play out.

I understand that a sequel needs to feature some of the same elements that the first one had, but that's not an excuse for simply remaking the same movie in a different setting. This is lazy film making to the likes of which I have never before seen.

Joke wise everything falls completely flat. If you have seen the first one then you will see every single joke coming, and if your about as intelligent a puke stain on timothy spalls dinner jacket then you may well find them funny. Personally, this film failed on every level, something that is made worse by the fact that I know Todd Phillips is better and smarter than this. I can usually find something to enjoy in every film he puts out, if nothing else then usually the soundtrack is a saving grace. The Hangover Part II's soundtrack was like being ear raped by a pod of hungry hungry hippo's, tripping on speed while listening to all of Cliff Richard's greatest hits.  

What else can I say really? Everything is the same, its like a really shit twilight episode that I had to pay £10 to see. In my opinion The Hangover Part II has absolutely no redeeming qualities what so ever. Its such a bad sequel that it has put me off the original, which I liked.

Its looks shit, it sounds shit, it is shit.
The Hangover Part II gets...  
the golden turd award reserved for films that truly are a massive pile of shit.

Thats two films in two months I've hated this much. I'm starting to hate my job!

Tuesday 24 May 2011

Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2D)

***COMING SOON*** 
A NEW WEBSITE CALLED 'THE EXPOSITIONIST'
BROUGHT TO YOU BY MYSELF AND THE FORMER OPTIMIST
***COMING SOON***

***WARNING***
THE FOLLOWING POST MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS AND CONTRADICTIONS THEREFORE IT MAYBE UNSUITABLE FOR SOME FUCKS. AND NO I HAVEN'T ABANDONED MY TV POSTS, THIS IS A MOVIE REVIEW BLOG YOU KNOW, THE TITLE MAKES THAT PRETTY FUCKING CLEAR.
 ***YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***

'The Pirates Of The Carribean' movie franchise is somewhat of a grey area for me. I avoided seeing the first one for about two years on the basis that there hadn't been a decent pirate movie for years and the trailers made it look like typical live action Disney fodder much like 'The Four Musketeers' or 'Herbie: Fully Loaded'. I was however dating someone who loved Johnny Depp and inevitably got forced into watching it in exchange of more pleasurable activities. What happened was strange, I tried really hard not to like it, pointing out errors, plot holes and bad acting, but by the end of the first act I found myself having fun and loosing myself the world of pirates, cursed ships and buried treasure. To this day the first 'Pirates' movie is amongst my favorite guilty pleasure flicks and deserving so. The two sequels were not so impressive. The second one was a messy affair, too many big action beats separated by endless scenes setting up the third part which was near enough unwatchable. 'Pirates 3' was slow, not funny and about as entertaining at an appendectomy while dead. It was, by a long shot, my least favourite film of 2007.

So as I took my seat at my local Odeon regime, I was fearing the worst. 'Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides' is the prime example of a film that does not need to happen. It only exists because Disney want to make more money and know that the sheep like world population will flood to see the film in their droves, thus making lots of money for people who already have way too much. And in my opinion, this is reflected in the film itself.

'Pirates 4' has almost no significance to its three predecessors and rightly so. This is a spin off, and has near enough nothing to do with the trilogy that made it famous. The basic story is that everyone is trying to find the fountain of youth, Jack Sparrow knows where it is and so has to lead his enemies straight to it. There you go, plot done.

The trouble I have with this plot is that it somehow doesn't feel like it fits into the 'Pirates' universe. To me, it felt like an 'Indianna Jones' rejection script, retooled to feature Johnny Depp and his band of merry rapists. Its not overly engaging or exciting, its spread to thin over the films lengthy running time and doesn't amount to anything when all is said and done.

Cast wise is were you will find 'Pirates 4's most likable aspects. Depp does his usual thing as cpt. Jack, something we all know too well by now. Geoffrey Rush earns massive praise and for my money puts out the best performance of the film, at times he steals the show away from Depp while solidifying that should there be more of these films, then he needs to be a part of it. Penelope Cruz does a bang up job as Jack's love interest/rival, the two spark off rather enjoyable sexual chemistry and the scenes featuring the two of them are amongst the films best. Ian McShane does a decent enough job as Blackbeard, though I would like to have seen a bigger performance in order to compete with Depp and Rush. And by far the biggest bonus is the complete lack of those emotionless, dead wooden blocks found in the first three films. We all know who I am referring to.

On the character down side there is a priest in the film who did nothing but get on my tits the entire time. Why is it that these films always have to have one guy who everyone wants to shoot but never actually does. This time around it was a 'man of the cloth', a representation I feel these films doesn't really need. He has a fit body to please the ladies which I guess is the only reason they threw him into the mix but you have Johnny Depp already sexing up the proceedings enough to please the young ladies of the audience. Its a sure fire way to ensure the character gets forgotten, or at least he would be if he wasn't blatantly set up for a bigger role in the sequel which will undoubtedly follow in a couple more years. 

The direction of the film by Rob Marshall is standard at best, but to be fair to him this is really a film driven by its actors and not the direction. The film is pacey enough and keeps within its intended feel which is about all I expected from him.

The script is terrible and almost devoid of fun. The action beats in the film are almost copy and pasted from the previous installments and the dialogue leaves a lot to be desired. It wasn't even as funny as it could have been, relying too heavily on Depp to do his funny walk and act the fool, a routine that frankly is getting about as stale as Steve Erwins corpse.

I guess at the end of the day it doesn't matter what I say about 'Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides' because everyone will see it and it will make more money than God. To that end it will be a success. 'Pirates 4' is a product of greed and has no interest in pleasing its fans. Its about stealing money from the masses from beginning to end, proving that the only true pirates in 'Pirates 4' are the Disney executives that put it into production.

'Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides gets...
1.5 out of 5

Almost Missed Movie: Thor (2D)

***COMING SOON*** 
A NEW WEBSITE CALLED 'THE EXPOSITIONIST'
BROUGHT TO YOU BY MYSELF AND THE FORMER OPTIMIST
***COMING SOON***

***WARNING***
THE FOLLOWING POST MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS AND CONTRADICTIONS THEREFORE IT MAYBE UNSUITABLE FOR SOME FUCKS. PLEASE DO NOT TAKE THIS STATEMENT AS A SIGN THAT I CARE.
 ***YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***

Wait, whats this? Could it be true? Has the worlds most dashing and wonderful film critic returned to grace your presence once again with the first of two posts that will endeavor to bring sexy back more than Justin Timberlake could ever wet dream about? Your damn right he has and before you start hurling your roses, french knickers and topless mammaries at the monitor I feel I should point out that I did not do this out of love for you, my ungrateful hordes of degenerate puss globules. No, no. I did this because I know that without my opinion then the movie world would simply shrink itself down into a state of non existence, thus leaving me with nothing to critique and thus bringing an end to all things as we know it. I dread to think what that kind of destruction would do to my impressively sized manhood, which is something that the women of this world need seeing as without it they serve no purpose. Anyway enough about the important things in life, lets get down to a subject nobody cared about a month ago. Thor.

Going into 'Thor' I expected the worst. The world is a little too mystical for my tastes and the trailers left me wanting to get Michael McIntyre to hurl a stillborn emu at my own face while he ran through his dastardly overrated stand up routine. What i found however was a lot to enjoy with only a dash of content that didn't quite work. A complete turn around and something with I rarely see in modern, blockbuster cinema.
 
'Thor' is about a god named Thor, shocking I know but do try to keep up. Thor gets banished by Anthony Hopkins and is sent to flash his washboard abs and precarious biceps down on Earth until he learns not to wave his dick at the evil Ice Giants with whom his race has been waring. He is also emasculated to a certain extent when Hopkins locks his magical hammer up in the grown up cupboard allong with the medication, the buscuite tin and a collection of playboys. I may have fudged some of these details but you get the picture, its a redemption story with gods.

The reason 'Thor' works as a film is down to how it doesn't take itself seriously at all. It seems that even Marvel know how stupid this franchize is and understand that the only way to handle it in a theatrical sense is to simply try and make the film enjoyable at any cost. The script is simple but littered with genuinly funny one liners and a few big action setpieces that work really well simply because their not trying to outdo anything that came before them. The film has been kept short and sweet, allowing the story to move quickly without ever getting bogged down with needless exposition or plot complications. Kenneth Branagh helms a solid film from begining to end, displaying that he clearly was the right man of the job in this instance.

The cast are also pretty solid and work well together. Chris Hemsworth appears to be having fun portraying Thor, playing him big and loud and slightly over the top in a manor perfectly pitched for the movie's tone. Natalie Portman is very likable and pretty as usual, Tom Hiddleston portrays the films villain with enough power and menace to make him a believeable and worthy antagonist, while Anthony Hopkins simply does what Anthony Hopkins does and turns out a masterclass performance in a very short time span.

Another note worthy aspect to the film is its set design, most noticably when it comes to Asgard, Thors home world. The sets are lovingly brought to reality and retain their look from the comic book, giving them a mystical yet fun feel akin to the sets found in 'Flash Gordon'.

On the down side Natalie Portmans character appears to fall in love with Thor way too quickly in order for it to be beleivable, a shame considdering that had this been done correctly then it would strengthen the films somewhat anti climatic ending. 'Thor' is clearly the begining of a longer story and as a result it shoots for a dramatic ending, what happens instead though is that it falls slightly flat as a result of the films underdeveloped love story. 

Another disapointment lies within the films 'bonus scene'. This may seem a little picky, but one of the greatest draws to the new breed of Marvel made comic book movies has been the twist contained within their bonus scenes, usually hidden away within or after the feature credits. 'Thors' scene however serves almost no purpose to the universe as a whole simply exists in order to wrap up a plot hole left in 'Thors' closing scenes.

To sum up, 'Thor' is not amazing. Nor is it going to go down in cinema history as one of the better Comic book adaptations. It stands above both 'Hulk' films, 'Green Hornet' and 'Superman Returns' but its quite a way behind 'Spiderman 2' or 'The Dark Knight'. It is still an enjoyable film to watch though and if your the kind of cinema goer that never misses a comic book movie then this is going to be something worth seeing.

'Thor' gets...

3 out of 5

Sunday 1 May 2011

Fast and Furious Five (Fast Five)

***WARNING***
THE FOLLOWING POST MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS AND CONTRADICTIONS THEREFORE IT MAYBE UNSUITABLE FOR SOME FUCKS. IT ALSO DOESN’T CONSIDER A SPEECH IMPEDIMENT AS QUALIFICATION FOR A PERSON TO BE REGISTERED ‘DISABLED’. REASON BEING THAT A SPEECH IMPEDIMENT IS NOTHING MORE THAN AN ANNOYING CHARACTER TRAIT THAT COULD BE FIXED BY SHUTTING THE FUCK UP.  
 ***YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED***


The 'Fast and Furious' franchise is a grim insight into the sate of our cinema going culture. From the very start of this depressing, abortion needing film series the scrips have been terrible, the acting quality near non-existent and the intelligence level of any given second of screen would warrant an IQ level insulting to that of a puddle. Yet despite the many, many flaws of the franchise, the films continue to take in money and have developed a strong following. The original 'Fast and Furious' was an original if over the top insight into illegal car street racing culture. It's protagonist was a cocky young cop played by Paul Walker and the antagonist was a hard nosed, violent street racer played by the worlds most over compensating gay man Vin Diesel. However once the film got released, the youths akin to that kid in The Offsprings 'Pretty Fly For A White Guy' music video saw Diesels, Toretto character as the perfect personification of the king of the street cars, something which they themselves with their souped up Fait Pandas dreamed of becoming. From that point on the 'Fast and the Furious' franchise took off like a Nos propelled lawn dart, glamorizing and encouraging our societies lowest forms of secondary school dropouts to get out there and break the law because thats whats cool.

The saddest aspect to this story is that while I hold the franchise in almost complete contempt, I secretly lock myself away from time to time and enjoy taking it in, salivating at the pretty cars and completely brain dead action that puts Michael Bays films in a positively golden, glowing light. So, you could say I'm a fan. I've seen each film in order as they came out, I enjoyed all of them bar one up to this point and when the time came for me to go and see 'Fast Five' in my local Vue, I was actually quite excited to be doing so. What I didn't bank on however was 'Fast Five' actually being quite good, no, seriously!

'Fast Five' opens with two back to back action sequences that are both tense and exciting. Their fast paced, well shot, crystal clear and really set you up for exactly what this franchise is all about. Fast cars, big explosions and lack of physics. The story then flips its tone slightly and before you know it your watching a heist movie very reminiscent of 'Oceans Eleven'. There is a large team of specialists, each with their roles to play in order to rob a safe, filled with enough money to please Charlie Sheen for a week. Surprisingly, there is very little street racing this time around, in fact there is only one very brief scene in the middle of the film which could quite easily have been left out. 'Fast Five' doesn't suffer for this though,  actually I believe it improves the film in the long run.

As before the script and acting leave a lot to be desired. Its the same actors as featured in the series' pervious installments with the addition of Dwayne Johnson who now sports a mighty beard in order to distinguish him from Vin Diesel. Despite the lack of true talent going on contextually, 'Fast Five' has been rather well shot and well directed. This is Justin Lin's third 'Fast and Furious' film and his style and exuberance as a director really drives the story well, especially in the films extraordinary action sequences. 'Fast Five' is a master class in dumb action, there are real stunts, spectacular set pieces and a final car chase that rivals many of recent memories climatic action climaxes.

On the serious down side 'Fast Five' has a few flaws, the most major being its run time. BIg summer action movies like this should be capped just under the two hour mark because an audience can't focus on a film of this kind for much longer than that without losing interest. 'Fast Five' is 130 minutes long, and it could have easily dropped thirty minutes from the middle section. It gets a little bogged down in family politics at one point and because the writing and acting aren't up to snuff, I couldn't have cared less. The films lesser negative points include a couple of characters who appear to be completely pointless, simply talking in foreign tongues and generally being quite annoying. There is also one fault with the film that seems so petty to complain about that I almost don't want to mention it, but does that big Jesus "its this big" statue have to be shown every few minutes in order for me to be reminded that 'Fast Five' is set in Rio? No it doesn't, just the one shot of it would do, instead of the six or seven I believe the film included. Finally there is product placement absolutely everywhere, the cars obviously come with their trademark components all very impressive I'm sure to any car enthusiast, but on top of that is the cop team that appear to have been sponsored by Under Armor. Its ignorable to a point, but 'Fast Five' will thrust its product placement cock in your face constantly and await for you to start sucking. Its got annoying is all I'm saying.   

These points aside however I really enjoyed 'Fast Five'. It delivered what I have come to expect from the franchise and added some genuine quality to the proceedings. Its not going to please everyone, but if your a fan of big budget action films and occasionally like to leave your brains at the door then I think 'Fast Five' will go down pretty well. Its by far the best film in the series thus far and its well worth a look in.

Fast Five gets...
3.5 out of 5