Monday, June 22, 2009

If You Can't Laugh At Yourself...Well, You End Up With a Bad Flick



This article is dedicated to Cody who's been waiting for me to write a bad review of a film. Weirdly enough, it was a film he recommended to me.


I tend to enjoy these types of films. Couple of guys plan an easy going, yet exciting evening, of intoxication and maybe some light-hearted and harmless “boys being boys” chaos like getting kicked out bars and the type. However, what the night turns out to be is a force within itself. The characters get into ridiculous situations, seemingly trying their best to avoid, but cannot because the night has become its own entity. This is why I like these films, it’s a great twist on comedic setting where the night becomes somewhat of a character that has just as much significance in the film as its human counterparts. Films like Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle (2004) and Pineapple Express (2008) come to mind when talking about this young genre. I can still smell the marijuana coming off of almost everyone present at these two films’ screenings. Now comes The Hangover (2009), a film that takes this idea and, instead of focusing on the night of debauchery, skips ahead to the day after. No harm in innovation, except when it’s a bad idea.

To celebrate their friend’s marriage, Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Stu (Ed Helms) arrange a night in Las Vegas. The groom, Doug (Justin Bartha) brings along his soon-to-be brother-in-law Alan (Zach Galifianakis), a grown-man a bit on the mentally handicapped side and is by far the most lovable and funny character in the film, but that’s not saying much. The four guys check into their Caesar’s suite, have some brotherly shots of Jaggermeister on the roof of the Palace and head out for the night. Skipping ahead, the film shows the group waking in their destroyed suite with a tiger in the bathroom, a baby in the closet and their friend Doug missing. The three start retracing their steps when they begin to worry about the groom’s whereabouts which leads to shootings outside of wedding chapels, a naked Asian man jumping out of a car trunk and beating the three to a pulp, Mike Tyson making an appearance and shots to the head with a stun gun, among many other things.

So, what’s the problem? This film is completely uninspired. Cheap slapstick and tiring bathroom humour are abounding in this film. Yes, I’ll admit, bathroom humour is funny, but only for so long. The Hangover’s physical comedy is incredibly tedious, not entirely due to the stunts, but mostly because the characters are so uninteresting that one doesn’t care when something humourous happens to these men. Phil is incredibly annoying, though I believe the film’s intention was to portray him as such (I think of him as a failed version of Vaughn’s “Beanie” from Old School (2003)), Stu is simply boring and offers nothing much to the film and the character’s chemistry, Doug is never really present, and Alan gives a few good laughs by himself, but with the others, is just as dull. Not only can I not imagine these people hanging out with each other, I don’t want to see them hang out with each other.

As can be assumed from its title, The Hangover focuses on the morning after a wild night. Through out the film, we’re given glimpses of this night with photographs, security camera footage, etc. and I can’t help to think that a film about that night would have been much better than a film about the morning after. Having an entire film about retracing steps after a wild night doesn’t sound like a bad plot, but I would honestly rather watch these ridiculous events occur as the characters enjoy a carefree air filled with scenes of absurdity, instead of watching them look back in disgust and shock at what they had done. The characters, much like the film, take themselves to seriously to realize their situation and laugh at themselves. The films previously mentioned in the beginning are films that took their job seriously all while poking fun at themselves, realizing how ridiculous the film’s situations are and making light of them. The Hangover does not do that. It’s a film that is incredibly over the top, but it doesn’t acknowledge it and poke fun at itself. The film feels like a machine, simply pumping out gags that it believes to be statistically funny, but really aren’t. This results in a very cold atmosphere that doesn’t allow the audience to be sunk into the characters’ world, causing us to be completely passive towards them. There’s simply nothing to latch onto so we can comfortably enjoy the ride.

Allow me to make something clear. I do not hate Hollywood productions that are sure-fire hits (you’ll see that in my next review of Raimi’s Drag Me To Hell), I just hate films that feel totally sterilized and cookie-cutter like The Hangover. The film’s plot is very much predictable and when it isn’t, is absolutely ridiculous in a way that feels unnatural. The film is on auto-pilot, to quote a famous Ebert phrase, and we’re stuck with people one really couldn’t give a damn about.

4 comments:

  1. Now I'm not commenting as a Hangover fan (I don't think it was "the hit comedy of 2009"). I'm commenting as a fellow film snob.

    I challenge you to write me reviews of Old School, either Harold & Kumar, most of the Frat Pack canon and have them stand out from what you have said about the Hangover. All of these films fall into all of the same traps as this one. Slapstick. Potty humor. Undynamic characters.

    I think it's subjective, although, I guess that is also the problem with movie reviews in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The thing with Old School is that it had character's that were both interesting and put into situations that flowed, seemingly, organically, unlike The Hangover. This also due to the fact that we're given more time with the character's in Old School, which is isn't the case for The Hangover, who's plot only allows a small bit of character development. In terms of Harold and Kumar, I really enjoyed it for the same reason as Old School, but also more so because the film poked fun at itself. Think of Kumar's laugh when the two are hang gliding over a penis crop circle. Tell me that isn't a jab at the film.
    In response to film reviews being subjective, abso-fucking-lutely. But they're amazing for how they can promote films, share ideas and as conversation pieces.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Subjectivity is not the problem with movie reviews.

    Anyway, I haven't seen this film. Nor do I intend to. But I won't avoid watching it. Here's to someone magically arriving at my door step with this film in hand and a bunch of popcorn.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Write a new review already, loser

    ReplyDelete