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.