2011: The Year in Film: "The Hangover: Part II"

What is this? A PF Changs?
The first "Hangover" in 2009 was a revelation. It brought the raunchy bromance R-Rated comedy to a new level and made the chubby bearded guy from the Kanye West youtube video a bona-fide star. In addition, it made boatloads of cash and spawned the inevitable franchise. The "party flick" has been a standard sub-genre of the comedy for years.. fueling the young nationwide. From Animal House to Porkys to PCU to Van Wilder, Old School and Wedding Crashers, these flicks become part of the greater cultural milieu and sort of define partying for a couple of years. If you're my age.. your partying years were probably spent emulating "Frank the Tank". If you were in college when the Hangover came out, I'd imagine every group of guys referred to themselves as some sort of "wolfpack" or another. The Hangover even rose to a higher level than earlier contenders for the title, becoming a legitimate cultural phenomenon... a profane, offensive masterwork that rose beyond the usual confines of the genre to be commented on and critiqued (and largely loved) by pretty much everyone.

2 years later, here we are, with part deux. Pretty much everyone knows the story by now.. a group of longtime friends, Doug, Phil and Stu (Justin Bartha, Bradley Cooper and Ed Helms) head to Vegas for a bachelor party before Doug's wedding. Doug's future brother in law, the childish and socially retarded Alan (Zach Galifinakis) tags along... and outrageous hilarity ensues from a night that none of them can remotely remember. This time around, the gang heads to Thailand, where Stu is going to be married to Lauren (Jamie from the single best season of the Real World to date) in her ancestral home. After some peer pressure and bribing, Stu is convinced to invite Alan despite everything that went down in Vegas. After a disastrous rehearsal dinner, the guys decide to have one beer on the beach with Lauren's brother Teddy and wake up amidst all sorts of mayhem in Bangkok.. without Teddy, with Chow (Ken Jeoung), with a monkey, and with varying degrees of ailments from the night before, a night none of them can remember in the slightest. Our heroes spend the next day plus retracing their steps from the night before via various clues in an effort to locate Teddy and save the wedding.



First thing first, this is the exact same movie as the first go-round.. just stepped up a level or two, largely due to taking place in Bangkok (a global den of sin) as opposed to "just" Vegas. Literally, if plotted out, the flick follows the entirely same pattern. So if what you're looking for in the sequel is something new and groundbreaking... I'm sorry, but you're going to be sorely disappointed. When they say "Part II", they truly mean Part II.. this is just the same guys doing the same shit.. and then some. If you laughed at the first one, you're going to laugh at this one. It's Thailand.. there are going to be monks, there are going to be outrageous gangsters, and you'd better believe there are going to be ping-pong balls and lady men. So the question is whether you consider more of the same to be a bad thing or not. This is our intrepid wolfpack acting outrageously and being hilarious. Galifinakis is completely outrageous, dropping one-liners left and right while acting like a potty-mouthed 4th grader, Phil is a giant foul mouthed dick and Stu is the boring guy pissed and incredulous that he's in this situation. Say what you will.. these guys know how to have a good time.

As far as I go.. I laughed at this one, a lot. If you like the first one, you're going to like this one. If you like Galifinakis.. you're going to laugh a lot. The cast has a ton of charisma and great rapport.. you can tell these guys really get along and feed off of each other. Director Todd Phillips clearly knows how to ratchet up the raunch... and just "goes for it" with abandon. This is a fun, raunchy time at the movies.. but seriously, the theater I saw it in was filled with way too many kids. That is just ridiculous. There are at least 2 scenes of full on male nudity I can recall and between 1000-1200 f-bombs (rough estimate). Someone under the age of 14 or so has no business seeing this movie. But that aside, I had a good time. It doesn't have the same pull as the first (which I loved), simply because, like I said, it's the exact same movie. So I liked it, but wasn't blown away.

7/10. But certainly well worth seeing if you're a fan.

2011: The Year in Film: "Thor" review.

Thor Marvel movie studios are embarking on perhaps the most unique and ambitious undertaking in the history of film. Without their three most high-profile properties (Spider Man, the X-Men and the Fantastic Four - owned by Sony and Fox), they are in the midst of creating a comprehensive universe where each movie builds on the one before it and events and characters reverberate throughout the films to create a larger narrative the likes of which are common in the world of comic books but as to yet unheard of in film. This is all building towards 2012's "The Avengers", currently filming, in which the stars of Iron Man, Thor and Captain America join with the Hulk and other various SHIELD characters to form Marvel's A-list team. As a true blue Marvel comics nerd growing up, I, for one, am pumped to see how it turns out. Captain America comes out later this summer, and there's the last piece of the Avengers puzzle. Now, onto Thor itself. The powers that be over at Marvel basically have the origin tale down to a science at this point.. and Thor is no exception.

I'm going to admit, I didn't have high hopes for this one. Thor's mythology is pretty damn nonsensical, even for comics. To make a long story short, he's the actual Norse god of thunder of myth, who wields a mythical hammer, Mjolnir, which he's able to throw and use to summon thunder and windstorms and the like. He and the other figures of Norse myth, primarily his father, Odin, and brother, Loki, reside in Asgard, a transdimensional plane. Thor, a great, but proud and vain warrior is banished to earth by his father for inciting an ancient foe to war. Thor, powerless, is trapped on earth until he can learn humility and become a worthy heir to his father's throne. On earth, he is happened upon by a group of scientists investigating the astronomical phenomena resulting from these trans-dimensional trips. On earth, SHIELD has found his hammer, and is trying to decipher what it and the phenomena are exactly. See what I mean? Completely nonsensical, and if the film took itself too seriously, you'd be completely crushed beneath the preposterous weight of this pretentious nonsense. Luckily, the flick does it all with a wink and a grin, recognizing that this is about a comic book character and should be fun.

Chris Hemsworth, in the title role, takes the part with aplomb. He brings a swagger and a joy to the role that permeates the entire film. Just as Downey is perfect in Iron Man, Hemsworth, heretofore most recognizable for playing George Kirk in the first 5 minutes of 2009's "Star Trek" reboot, makes the role his and manages to be charming and convincing all while bringing the requisite physicality to a role that requires a physically imposing presence. The film jumps back and forth from Asgard to Earth seamlessly and effectively, and despite the possibly confusing forces at work, the film remains surprisingly easy to follow. Personally, I enjoyed the scenes with the Asgardians more.. as they featured stronger characterization from Anthony Hopkins, a surprisingly nuanced villain in Thor's brother Loki, and Mr. Stringer Bell himself, Idris Elba as Asgard's gatekeeper. Thor's battle-hardened comrades in arms are good for a laugh or 3 as well. On earth, the typically strong Stellan Skarsgard plays a mentor scientist and is very strong in his role. Kat Dennings is comic relief and Natalie Portman is the love interest, a scientist named Jane Foster, whose experiments happen across the gateway to Asgard. If there's a weak spot in the cast, it's a lack of characterization for Portman's character. Actually, not even a lack of characterization... a lack of explanation for why she and Thor fall for each other other than they are both sexy people. But considering the deep cast, rather complex plot and relatively short running time (under 2 hours), that's not a huge surprise.

Shakespearean actor and director Kenneth Branagh directs, and despite the seeming discord between director and material, he proves to be more than up to the task. The film remains light and fun, while appropriately tense in parts, and looks amazing. While creating other dimensions and worlds, if that's not done properly it can come off all wrong, but Asgard looks incredible.. so kudos to the effects team.




In all, this is a fun time at the movies, and well worth the price of admission. Marvel is now 4 for 4 in independently produced flicks (the Ed Norton Hulk, Iron Man, and Iron Man 2 being the others), and I would say that after Iron Man, this is their strongest effort to date. Consider me 100% pumped for "Captain America" and next year's "Avengers".. oh, and there's a post-credits Easter egg as w/ all Marvel Movies.

8/10.

The Most Annoying People on Facebook.

So a lot has happened since last we spoke. "Game of Thrones" premiered and was awesome, Donald Trump sold his soul for even more money as if he didn't have enough, an earthquake/tsunami combo decided it wasn't necessary for Japan to be a place where people felt comfortable anymore, Bin Laden got capped in a badass real-life version of Call of Duty: Black Ops, it apparently became the rainy version of the apocalypse where all it does is fucking rain until everyone kills each other and then themselves, etc. Another thing that happened (well, this has been happening, but I notice it more and more every day) is every single person on earth joined facebook. I can seriously think of like 5 people under 60 and over 10 who don't have it. Now with this many people wandering around the cybersphere.. where there is even less social convention than there is in real life (and that's saying something in a world where pajama pants are approved public garb), there's bound to be some obnoxious shit going on... considering I'd say roughly 60% of humanity give or take is generally obnoxious. I'm going to walk you through the worst of the worst. If Zuckerberg wasn't such a goddamn greedy dweeb he'd do well to ban these folks from ruining the fun for everyone else. Feel free to disagree.. but deep down, you know I'm probably right. So without further ado and in no particular order, here we go with the most annoying people on the most annoying thing on the planet:

1.) "The Hunny Bunny": to this noxious denizen of the interwebs it's not enough that they actually tricked someone into getting into a relationship with them, they have to overcompensate for whatever happiness may or may not actually exist by ensuring that everyone knows that they are 1/2 of the greatest fucking romantic coupling that ever came to be. You know how it goes.. cutesy exchanges back and forth on the comment section of wall posts and statuses, excessive wall posts exclaiming "love" and protestations of absence, obnoxious pictures where the comment section is a blithe back and forth. Bleh. The worst. If you've ever captioned a picture "Me and my baby!" or put up a status about how "lucky" you are (or, even worse, put up one of those emoticon <3s)... then yeah, you're on my facebook shit list. If you're in a long-distance relationship.. please recognize that facebook is not real life. A text is infinitely more personal than a facebook post.. and significantly less vain as well. If you have to post how "happy" you are on effing facebook, you aren't that happy. (Note: Wedding and/or other countdowns are the worst of the worst. Why are you posting how long until ________? Isn't that something that should be shared between you and your significant other? Are we just going to be doing everything in public view of each other in 5 years like dogs?)


2.) "The itinerary": this individual thinks an appropriate contribution to the world is just listing everything they are doing in an effort to elicit god knows what from people who care what you're eating or how work is going or that you have to drive 45 minutes to somewhere or whatever else boring nonsense you think is appropriate to share with the entire world. How needy and vain are you that you think your daily calendar is worthy of sharing with the public at large? Anyone who actually cared what you were up to would probably ask you.. otherwise, your life is just as boring as everyone else's.. deal with it. I can definitively say that I have never once cared about someone's test or lunch or appointment or any other such mundane shit. If you have ever posted: "Bed then work, ugh". Think about what you're doing.. and stop. If your day is boring to you, how do you think it is to everyone else? I'll give you a hint... extra boring. This is a trend that needs to be snuffed out RIGHT NOW. If you don't have anything worthwhile or at least moderately interesting to say... don't say it.

• 2a.) 2a is an especially annoying subspecies of "the itinerary".. and this is "the sympathy bug". This person complains about their itinerary in an effort to elicit sympathetic comments from their "friends" who for some reason don't recognize blatant desperate attention-seeking nonsense. If you are posting it on facebook.. something that was invented to waste time.. you aren't that busy. If you have more than 20 or so friends, you probably shouldn't be posting things like "3 papers and an exam to go"... because the guy who you randomly friended because you kind of met him once doesn't give two shits. No one held a gun to your head and told you to schedule paper classes, go to law school, etc. Don't complain about shit that was entirely voluntary at your part... unless you're going to at least ATTEMPT to be funny about it.


3.) "The Spelling champ". This person entirely ignores the fact that pretty much every phone and web browser automatically includes spell checking and it's usually auto-correct now and just types basically illegible nonsense in an effort to make sure the world knows how utterly ignorant they are. Is typing "see" instead of "c" really that difficult? Look at your keyboard and notice how close together "s" and "e" are.. it takes literally no effort. How lazy are you? If you've ever typed "wut" instead of "what" you should seriously ponder what in the hell went wrong in your life. Facebook is a text-based medium. Spell-check is a pretty basic computer function. If you honestly can't spell.. I question why you're using a service that requires an inordinate amount of typing to use, but it's a pretty simple computer function to address the issue. Otherwise you're just lazy.. and lazy + dumb is an awful, awful combination. I understand that broadcasting ignorance is par for the course among a decent-sized chunk of the population, but seriously... such pisspoor spelling just makes you look like a dolt. If you've ever typed something about how people are "dumb" and then gone on to mix up "there" and "their" or "your" and "you're"... I suggest you consider ending it, because I fail to see your worth to anyone. At least look into castration to spare future generations of dealing with the results of what you're up to.


4.) "The Soapbox". This person thinks that having a facebook account and access to an rss feed and the copy/paste function makes them an authority of all things under the sun. They might be the very cream of the obnoxious facebook crop. There's a reason politics was a forbidden topic in the French salons... you aren't going to convert anyone, ever. No one has ever read a Huffington Post article and said "wow, you're right" and then switched who they're voting for. If you're using the 'book for politicking purposes, take a look back through your feed. Is everything you post from either HuffPo or Fox News/Wall St Journal? If so, you're completely one-sided and everyone has tuned you out months ago. You have no credibility as a source if you're just regurgitating what's being force-fed you by people with an agenda. Politics doesn't have a "right answer", if it did, any one of the thousands of brilliant people who've attempted over the last few hundred years would have figured them out by now. We're talking about governing large groups of infinitely complex individuals. It's not like there's an equation that can optimize life for every single one of them through a democratically elected system. Both sides are extremely stupid about certain things but also have valid points.. that's why they are followed by roughly 50% of the population. Well, that and people being too afraid to think critically. Having a computer and a keyboard isn't license to pontificate on whatever hot-button issue you see fit. Think about what you're posting before you do so. If you're going to be commenting on things other people are up to, think before you jump in being obnoxious. You wouldn't run up to some dude you overheard on the street and get in their face because they said something you didn't agree with (unless you're a psycho..), so why would you act any differently just because you're on the computer? I mean, if you want to talk like you're an adult and have a productive conversation that's one thing.. but if you're just going to regurgitate talking points and generally be a pawn... seriously, kill yourself.


5.) "The App" - These people are constantly blowing up everything with this or that app they are playing and as a result are probably blocked by 85% of the people they are "friends" with. You do realize that when you click "publish" on your farm or some bullshit "quiz" or whatever, it publishes to every single person you're friends with, right? Congratulations, you're the digital equivalent of the scientologists handing out pamphlets outside of Reds games. I mean, how obnoxious are you? Participating is one thing.. but broadcasting it to every single person? And if you're dumb enough to click on one of those "Miley Cyrus nude video" or "Bin Laden death video" which then gives your computer/facebook a virus that results in you obnoxiously posting on everyone's wall with that same post.. look into taking a warm bath and opening a vein or three. Did you just learn about the internet and the various scams that are abounding on there? Do you often take "Nigerian princes" up on their offers of vast wealth? If so, just stay clear of a computer... you clearly can't handle the responsibility.


6.) "The Creep" - this dude makes me squeamish. He's up to stuff like "liking" pictures of girls in bikinis or (even worse) "commenting" things like "damn girl". Maybe the worst move of all is "liking" when someone is single. Yikes. Way to ruin it for everyone else that just enjoys being creepy in silence, dude. Facebook is a creepy thing, inherently, but when you're just up in everyone's face about the aggressiveness of your particular brand of creep you're doing nothing but branding yourself as a possible date-rape suspect and making everyone uncomfortable. This particular individual completely ignores the fact that online interactions are in fact interactions with living, breathing humans. Treating actual girls like you're at a strip club? Um, yeah. I wish Ed Hardy and "affliction" tshirts secretly contained sarin gas that would be simultaneously released at a UFC fight or swim up bar party or something similar and do some serious and much needed cleansing of our gene pool.


So seriously, Zuckerberg, I know your invention was pretty cool and all and you got a cool movie made about it that made you look like kind of a twitchy spastic badass, but can we get some basic social restrictions in place? Folks are out of control and what not. I don't think that's too much to ask. And if you, loyal reader, find yourself posting questionable shit on the 'book.. just follow these simple instructions... think before you post.