Home > Blogs > Sir Critic on Cinema > Archives > 2009 > June > 08 > Entry
‘The Hangover,’ ‘Night at the Museum’ sequel and more
Betcha won’t find anyone else who groups those two movies together, will you?
No, this isn’t one of those nutty double features I blogged about a while back, but I did see those movies, and two others this weekend, so here are my short-ish takes on all of them.
The Hangover
When I first heard about this movie, I wasn’t that excited. I’m so far removed from the frat boy type it’s not funny, so “let’s get drunk and have a wild time” movies usually bore me to death.
As Roger Ebert wisely says, though, it’s not what a movie is about, it’s how it’s about it. The Hangover really isn’t about a drunken binge - it’s about the aftermath of said drunken binge when some best buds go for a bachelor party in Vegas, only to wake up the next morning to find their hotel room is trashed, a tiger is lurking in their bathroom, and worst of all, the groom-to-be is nowhere to be found.
That’s a great setup - and the payoffs are even better. One of the best things about The Hangover is I could never tell where it was going. I’m usually pretty good at predicting gags (it’s not all that hard) but this movie consistently surprised me and kept me laughing. Director Todd Phillips cleverly constructs the movie so that it’s not just a series of jokes. Instead, the momentum builds as one gag points the way to another gag. The movie has a freewheeling sense of intensifying doom that reminded me of Martin Scorsese’s After Hours.
The cast is also first-rate. Everyone is solid, but my favorites were Ed Helms as the nervous, relatively straight-arrow member of the pack, who has a great moment improvising a song about their predicament, and Zach Galifianakis as the weirdest, most endearing outcast you’re ever likely to meet. Believe the hype on this one - this is the kind of buzz I thoroughly enjoy.
GRADE: A-
Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian
I know what some of you regular readers are thinking: “Oh, he only saw this because Amy Adams is in it.” Not quite true, actually. I saw it because it was the second feature at the drive-in after Up, which I watched for the third time. (Still a masterpiece, by the way, even amid the cacophony of a drive-in).
But yes, just as I predicted, the esteemed Ms. Adams is pretty much the only worthwhile part of this noisy, predictable sequel. She’s a joy to watch as she ebulliently plays Amelia Earhart; her scenes have a sprightly energy the movie is otherwise sorely lacking.
I never understood why the original Night at the Museum was such a big hit. To me it was one obvious joke and special effects scene after another, with a tired old plot about a guy who’s too busy to notice how cute his kid is. Zzzz.
The sequel is more of the same. Save for Adams and a clever scene in which she and Ben Stiller interact with famous paintings and photographs, the movie displays not one shred of the kind of invention it wants to promote. When a movie can’t even wring laughs from Star Wars and Sesame Street characters, what we have here is a failure of imagination. My advice: Take the kids to Up instead, or save some money and visit a real museum.
GRADE: C
I also saw two films playing at the Neon this week. More about those after the the jump.
12: My favorite court drama of all time is 12 Angry Men, so I was curious to see how this Russian version, an Oscar nominee for Best Foreign Language Film, would compare. The answer is, very well. This film follows the outline of the original pretty closely (12 jurors debate the fate of a young man accused of killing his father), but makes the dynamics between the 12 a bit different and takes some detours into the life of the defendant. Those detours distract from the jurors and make the film run a bit longer than it should, but it’s fascinating to see the story play out in a Russian milieu. GRADE: B+
Paris 36: What seemed at first to be a French version of Moulin Rouge! never delivers on its promise. At first, it looks to be a high-energy musical inspired by the Busby Berekley extravaganzas of the 1930s. Then, unfortunately, a dull and convoluted plot about romantic and business entanglements drains the life from the film. The players are lively and some of the musical numbers are fun to watch, but there is not enough of either to make the movie worthwhile. GRADE: C
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Reviews
Comments