The Hangover Part II

The best thing about The Hangover Part II is that it provides us with an appreciation for just how extraordinarily clever and well structured the original was. Think about the premise of the 2009 film (group of guys go to Vegas, drink, wake up the next morning and can't remember anything that happened) and how simple and unimaginative it would sound to you if someone was explaining it without any of the trailers for visual support. Even the title doesn't suggest anything special. Your expectations would have likely landed on the same level of achievement where Part II sits. It is an example of the trap of mediocrity that Part I could have easily fallen into but instead miraculously excelled beyond our wildest imaginations.

The obvious issue is that we're watching the same story unfold with main points of interest running parallel to the first movie. There's the set up where our characters can't remember anything from the night before and they are missing 16-year-old Teddy, who they were suppose to be spending time with simply roasting marshmallows. Immediately they think of the roof, but it doesn't turn out to be that easy (surprise!). They embark on their journey and from there you don't even have to predict what happens because a prediction requires some degree of uncertainty. You can just take the original, which you've watched 10 times already, subtract the tiger, the baby and the cop car, then add a monkey and one interesting car chase sequence and you've got your movie.

I'm not even ashamed to give away certain plot points, like Stu finding himself unwillingly being unfaithful to his fiance with a stripper or Alan revealing that he was the one to accidently drug everyone, because the exact same events already happened the previous time! Speaking of the character Alan, don't expect him to be the comedic hinge this time around. In Part I, his naivety could be relied on for some of the best laughs you can get from a movie because we knew that he didn't know any better (as Stu aptly put: "Don't the beard fool you, he is a child!"), but on this go around he comes off as a jerk most of the time and it taints any of the humor. Chow is another phenomenally entertaining character who is simply stretched thin. Ken Jeong may be brilliant as the character but the script doesn't match up to his delivery.

What's more is the filmmakers even used Bryan Callen, who played Eddie in the first film ("They shot Eddie!"), as an entirely different, and much less memorable, character named Samir. Doesn't that violate some sort of physical law? Just because the setting is in Bangkok doesn't mean it's another universe where people can appear as someone different.

Anything fresh about The Hangover Part II is far and few between. It violates our suspension of disbelief by asking us to believe these characters went through this event twice. It fails to not only do much of anything new, but it fails miserably at the exact same tricks that worked so well before. For instance, in the latter half of the movie, Stu proceeds to serenade us again with a summary of their plight but his lyrics have followed suit with the rest of the writing. The tagline recited by several characters states that "Bangkok has them now..." and for all I'm concerned it can keep them.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

I am willing to put up with this once. If this series is going to continue, the inevitable truth is that Cpt. Jack needs to be phased out. He is a character that will hold a place in cinematic history (thanks to Johnny Depp's brilliant interpretation) not just as the most famous pirate on film, but as one of the best comedic characters of all time. However, there is still a limit to my tolerance of his antics. He can only get away with managing to single-handedly tie up a group of British soldiers so many times. Without a fresher set of characters to carry us through, this series will become exhausting. Some will say that it already has, but I was willing to endure this 4th installment with its enjoyable use of mythology and a few new set pieces.

Rob Marshall takes the reins from Gore Verbinski and brings a slightly fresher take. Had he done "Curse of the Black Pearl" I'm not certain that his style would have made that film as appealing as what it was, but now that the franchise has been firmly established this became more of an exercise in plug-and-play than artistic creation. Marshall's work ranges from the 2002 Best Picture recipient, "Chicago," to the flop that was "Nine" in 2009. Fortunately for Marshall he doesn't have to worry about a flop here, at least financially.

I did miss the usually gorgeous cinematography of Dion Beebe, who has worked with Marshall on his past films. Darius Wolski's work is appreciated as it has been in all the previous 'Pirates'...but I feel that Marshall's potential as a director is restrained a bit without Beebe (who worked on "Green Lantern" last year instead).

Marshall did, however, bring along Penelope Cruz, one of his actresses from "Nine" (and one of that film's Oscar nominations), who really adds some energy to the show (and Jack's libido) as Angelica. Much like her Oscar-winning role in "Vicky Christina Barcelona," she is a very intimidating figure but yet manages to swing it in a humorous manner. Needless to say, I'd put my money on Angelica to take out Elizabeth Swann in a brawl.

I appreciated the use of mermaids as very deadly creatures, for it aligns more accurately with myth, whereas most film portrayals go down a docile path. Instead of collecting human gadgets as Ariel did (I secretly wish there had been some sort of partial reference to Ariel in the course of the movie), these creatures collect the humans themselves by shooting seaweed reminiscent of Spider-Man's web and then dragging their victims underwater.  One of our side stories features a bond between a mermaid captured by Blackbeard's crew and Philip, a missionary also being held captive by Blackbeard. Philip brings with him lots of talk about Christianity, which is something interestingly new in the previously religious-free 'Pirates' universe, but on the whole his character serves the story well.

At times, "On Stranger Tides" seems to be lackluster, as if it exists just because it can (and to make insane profits). Even Geoffrey Rush's Barbosa has far less presence as a character, whereas previously he was a highlight. There's a good amount of work to be done if Disney is going to manage to create a new trilogy here. 'Pearl' gave us a lot to build from for future films, but 'Tides' doesn't exactly provide a foundation for the future nor does it leave us thirsty for much more. Expect a 5th movie, but unless major restructuring begins to occur, pray to avoid a 6th.

Never Let Me Go

Never Let Me Go is a very thoughtful piece of work that makes you acutely aware of your existence. It's very easy, especially in youth, to forget that existence on this planet is terminable. It's the only way to truly live for we would drive ourselves crazy if we constantly concerned ourselves with death. It therefore creates a great deal of friction to be thinking about the impending doom of these characters, who are cloned only to have their organs harvested in early adulthood.

The whole time, I couldn't help but wonder why on earth the characters would not just run away? Once they knew their allotted purpose in life and once they left the preparatory school they grew up in, what kept them from running off into the world and establishing an alternate identification? It's rather clear that they, as clones, have the same feelings that "originals" have and the same need to find a place in the world so why would they conform to a system that suppresses everything.

They take pride in successfully donating, often measuring how well they have done after their first or second or even third donation (one thing that confused me is that it was never addressed which organs were being donated because in reality that would determine how many donations you survived). They worry about "completing," or dying, but don't seem to fight for living. It's not until the end when Kathy (Carey Mulligan) expresses that "we all complete" that I finally connected with the mentality that allowed these characters to accept their fate so willingly. It's true that we must all accept our inevitable death but personally I couldn't do that unless I knew I gave every shot I had at life.

A key objective for the characters becomes the desire to attain a deferral. The very goal of obtaining a "deferral," which would allow them to put off their organ donations until later in life, proves their want for more than what has been allotted to them. It's frustrating how there seems to be no hint of resistance.While this story probably comes off beautifully on the pages of a book, when you see the characters on screen it's more difficult to not scream for them to do something to fight back! It pains me to say that even Michael Bay's The Island took a similar premise and had its characters fight for survival (no, that doesn't make it a better film).

Never Let Me Go will have you contemplating your mortality in a very thoughtful manner. It's a very interesting coming of age story that for me is simply restrained by an inability to fully buy into the lack of a natural drive for survival. Then again, I suppose one can argue that the characters are clones and therefore don't behave entirely natural, but that's just making up explanations.

Black Swan

"Black Swan" is to Swan Lake what "Shakespeare in Love" is to Romeo and Juliet. In both, we have a character striving to succeed at their art and in the process lives a life that parallels their work. Shakespeare's work became a result of his life (according to the film) but Nina's life results from her work. We are essentially watching an adaptation of Swan Lake with characters that happen to be performing Swan Lake. The story is taken to more depth and explores the idea of obsession, not simply career obsession but an obsession of breaking free from confinement. That is the journey that our heroine embarks on.

Nina is restrained professionally, emotionally, sexually and even physically in many ways. She lives with her mother and sleeps in a room saturated in pink and suffocated by stuffed animals. Her mother (an excellent Barbara Hershey) cares for her as if she is still a teenager. Nina seems to exemplify innocence in every aspect. She is soft spoken and often submissive. Although she says that she is not a virgin, it's reasonable to believe that perhaps she is not entirely truthful on the subject.

Natalie Portman is ideal for this sort of over-the-top performance. Nina is a well of emotions ready to erupt and Portman manages to come off as dramatic but yet subdued. However, Aronofsky is the true star here. His visual style utilizes tight camera work on Portman, disabling our ability to know what's going on around her. It's often dizzying and claustrophobic. We feel lost and absorbed into this world much like our main character. She is career-driven, gradually getting lost in her ambitions, and we are engulfed in that obsession with her.

Additionally, we get a fascinating glance at the world of ballet and the daily grind that the performers must endure. It's not made out to be something beautiful for Aronofsky doesn't allow us that luxury. It's more of a grueling career and a way to make a living. Any young girls hoping to become ballerinas will likely reconsider if shown "Black Swan."

This is a remarkably intelligent film. Some might be distracted by the elements of horror and sensuality, writing them off as cheap instruments, but they are merely the surface of a film that provides ample beauty in the form of a dark and uncertain world. Like a good ballet, "Black Swan" will leave you replaying the scenes over and over again. Everything builds at an accelerating rate to a finale that will have you on the edge of your seat. The film's final line can be used to describe itself as well: perfection.

TRON: Legacy

The first TRON, while severely dated as it shows a world of a command-line interface system, manages to remain timeless for its portrayal of how that world would operate. I can watch it now and still find myself dazzled at the workings of the system and the thought put into the physics of it all. Legacy will not live up to its name and provide the same snapshot of its time that its predecessor did. Instead it aims towards loftier themes and the affection of a father-son dynamic.

There is a lot of fun to be had here. That clean, sleek-looking digital environment is thrilling to look at and Daft Punk's score brilliantly provides ample energy and emotion. The light cycles get an appropriate upgrade but overall this universe seems to be more of a throw back to the 1982 TRON world than it is a re-visioning of our current digitally saturated world. Pieces of the universe that were previously assigned a purpose seem to exist now only because we are already familiar with them.

The commentary on technology has been replaced with that of the human existence and finding perfection in the imperfect. In TRON we were given a specific and exhilarating objective for the protagonists to achieve and we watched as they fought for it. But here the ultimate goal is more cloudy and much less grandiose. Too many uncertainties arise in regards to the details of this revamped universe, but as always life is simpler if we just remain ignorant. Though the script doesn't necessarily work, the filmmaking is fairly superb and the final scene offers a nice moment and more literary conclusion than the first film.

The Oscar for Visual Effects has, to me, has always been the most fun and fascinating category as it correlates directly with technological advancements in the industry, but 2009 is a difficult year to top after the game-changer that was "Avatar." TRON: Legacy though seems to be the best contender for the award this year (an achievement the original failed to make) with "Alice in Wonderland" perhaps being the main competition. Beyond this deserved recognition and some likely nods for the sound department (and maybe the score if their lucky?) this movie will not make its mark in history like TRON did.

If there is to be a sequel, as there are plans for one, it needs to be much sooner than 28 years from now or else the superficial thrill will wear off. I'm thinking it already has.

The Fighter

David O. Russell pulls off many great achievements with this new flick portraying a dysfunctional urban family. The pacing is inspired, the shots and edits done with intent and the moments of emotional interest deliver quite potently.

Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) is a "fighter" not just in the ring, but within his own family. He has to look out for his own interests and, at times, must resist aide from those that he loves. Unfortunately, his character seems to be doing much less fighting than the females around him (who end up in a full-fledged brawl on the front porch). Ward's ascent to the title has been described as "Rocky-like" but Rocky went through personal anguish to achieve his objectives whereas Ward seems to arrive at the title somehow via a much more passive rout. He faces many troubles from outside forces, but very few internal ones.

The cast are the real heavyweights here. I'm tempted to claim that they deserve to take home the SAG award for ensemble cast. Amy Adams and Melissa Leo deliver earnest portrayals of two women fighting for presence in one man's life (one as a girlfriend and the other as a mother) and Christian Bale will win this year's supporting actor Oscar for embodying the persona of not just the crack addicted man he is directly portraying, but the manner in which a person who has been consumed by something self-destructive responds to the world around him.

While I tremendously enjoyed myself nearly the entire duration of the film, the most substantial flaw came with the flat finale. Much of the conflict was less focused on Ward's boxing matches and more on his family. Indeed, I'm willing to go as far as saying that I really did not care nearly as much about the results of Ward's fights as much as I did about the outcome of his family's altercations.

However, our story wraps up with its focus on the boxing without even hinting at how the conflicts between the featured individuals will play out. This is a family whose personalities will lend to ongoing, cyclical turmoil (whether their real lives played out in that manner, I'm not sure, but that's the impression here). The suggested assumption by the end seems to be that everything is fine and dandy, but a discerning viewer knows better yet isn't given anything to chew on. The movie has much to say, but it doesn't all seem to come out.

The Social Network

You may very well enjoy this film immensely when you see it but you're likely to question its rave reviews for it does not launch an emotional catalyst one normally expects from something claiming to be the best of the year. To those who don't understand the praise bestowed upon this film, I say see it again. And again. And perhaps again. Like any art that is truly treasured it presents itself with time.

Comparisons have been made to "Citizen Kane" as both portray a driven and brilliant individual living out the American Dream but yet coming to a point where the things that once meant a great deal to them (in the case of Zuckerberg, his friends) get lost in the process. A character named Erica Albright (supposedly based off a real life person) is given significant emotional weight with the character of Zuckerberg (a liberty taken by the filmmakers) and eventually becomes his "rosebud".

This is a movie that will go down in American cinema history more for its enthralling content matter but yet the filmmaking is the best of the year. Like "Kane," it's not visually flashy. It's relatively simple in its approach but very creative and extremely meticulous. Like most great films of this time period, it's much more of an exercise in editing than photography. Could any other director besides Fincher have handled this material more perfectly? He has been described as a multitasking filmmaker with an extremely acute attention given to every aspect of this art form. What better director to tackle a guy like Mark Zuckerberg?

Aaron Sorkin is an immensely skilled writer that has been overdue for an recognition from the Academy for quite some time. He describes himself as a writer who enjoys dialogue. He mentions seeing the play "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" at a young age and not knowing really what's going on but just simply enjoying the rhythm of the dialogue. This movie proves his ability to match anyone when it comes to dialogue. His structure is impeccable as it creates parallel sets of events focusing on the same plot. Many people will be turned off by the non-linear approach as it avoids the usual climax but it couldn't have been made in any other way and have been so smooth.

I'm reminded of a quote from the film "Easy A" earlier this year referencing facebook with the question: "I don't know what it is with your generation's need to document everything?"... but yet we do. "The Social Network" is a movie that defines where we are in our culture and where we are heading. Countless analysis will be written in coming years of the multitude of dynamics at play here: the rise of the underdog, the nerd vs. the jocks, the portrayal of the traditional academic world of the east coast vs. the hip and modern west coast, the countless ethical views, etc.

Perhaps the material is too new and current to really be appreciated right now. People expect great films to be of far off places during times long ago but what they don't realize is that all of this going on right underneath our noses and Fincher has captured it on film for future generations to appreciate. Like "Citizen Kane," time will place it amongst the greatest American films.