"THE HANGOVER, PART III" (2013) Review

"THE HANGOVER, PART III" (2013) Review

I must admit that I was surprised to learn that Todd Phillips had a second sequel to his 2009 hit comedy, "THE HANGOVER" in the works. I felt surprised, considering the critical reaction to his first sequel, 2011's "THE HANGOVER, PART II". 

Many moviegoers and critics not only complained that the plot for "THE HANGOVER, PART II" bore a strong resemblance to "THE HANGOVER", but it was also inferior to the latter. As much as I liked "THE HANGOVER, PART II", I must admit that I agreed with these complaints. The critics were equally unkind to"THE HANGOVER, PART III". And it is here where I and a good number of moviegoers parted company. Mind you, I do not believe that this third film is as good as the 2009 movie or even better. But I do consider it better than the 2011 movie.

Set two years after "THE HANGOVER, PART II", this third film begins with "international criminal" Leslie Chow's escape from a maximum security prison in Thailand. Back in the United States, Alan Garner causes a major freeway pile up after he purchases a giraffe and accidentally decapitates it , while driving under a low bridge. Alan's father dies of a heart attack, while giving him a furious lecture for never owning up to his mistakes. Following the funeral, Alan's brother-in-law Doug Billings informs friends Phil Wenneck and Stu Price that Alan has been off his ADHD medication and is out of control. They attend an intervention, in which Alan agrees to visit a rehab facility in Arizona, so long as "the Wolfpack" takes him there. During the drive to Arizona, "the Wolfpack" is driven off the road by a vengeful drug lord named Marshall and "Black Doug", the drug dealer who had sold Alan some drugs in the first film. Marshall tells them that Chow had hijacked half of a gold heist. And since Alan had been the only one to communicate with Chow during his imprisonment, Marshall decided that "the Wolfpack" could locate him and retrieve the gold. Marshall holds Doug as hostage and gives the others three days to find Chow. Along the way, the three friends travel to Mexico and Las Vegas, break into a Mexican manor with Chow, get arrested and attempt to kidnap Chow. 

The humor featured in "THE HANGOVER, PART III" did not strike me as sharp as the humor in the first two movies. One might find this a surprising remark for me, considering my earlier statement about this movie being better than the second one. I stand by my words. The humor featured in "THE HANGOVER, PART III" did not strike me as memorable as that found in the first two movies. On the other hand, a part of me strongly feels that this third movie is somewhat better than the second one. First of all, Todd Phillips and his co-writer, Craig Mazin, decided not to make the same mistake they made in "THE HANGOVER, PART II" - namely follow a similar plot line from "THE HANGOVER". Instead, they created an entirely different situation in which "the Wolfpack" find themselves in serious danger, thanks to Alan's correspondence with the slippery Leslie Chow, a vengeful drug dealer and Chow himself. And for the first time, the Alan Garner character is forced to grow up . . . somewhat, after he falls in love with a Vegas pawnshop owner named Cassie. I found the latter especially gratifying, because Alan's man-child demeanor was beginning to wear a bit thin after the second film. More importantly, "THE HANGOVER, PART III" was not as tainted by the gross humor that nearly overwhelmed "THE HANGOVER, PART II". Unfortunately, the movie was not completely free of any gross humor. Phillips and Mazin decided they could not completely let go of the franchise's old premise and gross humor in a tacked on ending that DID NOT left me rolling in the aisles.

The performances in "THE HANGOVER, PART III" did not disappoint, despite the more subdued humor. Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis continued to maintain their strong chemistry from the two previous films. I had hoped that Justin Bartha, who portrayed the fourth and least seen member of "the Wolfpack", would for once have a larger role in the film. Unfortunately, Bartha continued to be wasted in this franchise. The man must have the patience of a saint. Ken Jeong was as funny as ever as self-indulgent, yet slippery Leslie Chow. I was also impressed at how he skillfully portrayed the darker side of Chow. John Goodman gave a scary and intimidating performance as Marshall, the drug lord who forced the four friends to search for Chow. Mike Epps returned for another funny portrayal as "Black Doug", the inept drug dealer, who now serves as Marshall's chief of security. Heather Graham also returned from the first film in a sweet performance as Stu's first wife, the Vegas stripper Jade. To be honest, I am not that familiar with Melissa McCarthy. I have never seen "BRIDESMAIDS","IDENTITY THIEF" or "MIKE & MOLLY". But I must admit that I was impressed by her portrayal of the feisty pawnshop Cassie and the chemistry she generated with Galifianakis' Alan Garner.

Despite the tacky misstep that ended "THE HANGOVER, PART III" and its not-so-sharp humor, I must admit that I liked it very much. I certainly found it more bearable to watch than the problematic 2011 movie. More importantly, "THE HANGOVER, PART III" proved to have a more original story, thanks to Todd Phillips and Craig Mazin's screenplay. And thanks to Phillips' direction and a first-rate cast, "THE HANGOVER, PART III"proved to be more entertaining than I had assumed it would be.

"THE HANGOVER PART III" (2013) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "THE HANGOVER PART III", the third movie in THE HANGOVER movie franchise. Directed by Todd Phillips, the movie stars Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and Zach Galifianakis: 


"THE HANGOVER PART III" (2013) Photo Gallery

"THE HANGOVER, PART II" (2011) Review

"THE HANGOVER, PART II" (2011) Review

Two years after the success of the blockbuster comedy, "THE HANGOVER", director Todd Phillips followed up with a sequel about the lead characters' adventures in Bangkok, Thailand, following another disastrous bachelor's party. Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis returned to star in this sequel.

In this sequel, Phil Wenneck, Doug Billings, and Alan Garner accompany Stuart "Stu" Price to Thailand to celebrate his upcoming wedding a woman of Thai descent named Lauren at a beach resort outside of Bangkok. Much to Alan's dismay, Lauren's younger brother, a medical student named Teddy, joins them. Despite disapproval from Lauren's father, who compares Stu to rice porridge, the wedding party goes according to plan. Unfortunately, the four friends and Teddy take part in a mini bachelor's party on the beach. Although Phil insures that the beer they are drinking had not been tampered by the infantile Alan; he, Stu and Alan awaken the following morning at a dirty Bangkok hotel. Apparently, Doug had left the party a little earlier to join his wife at their hotel room. They also discover gangster Leslie Chow (whom they first met in Las Vegas) and a chain-smoking capuchin monkey. Stu has a face tattoo and Alan's head is completely shaven. However, the three friends cannot find Teddy. They only find his severed finger. And as Chow begins recalling the events of the previous night, his heart stops after snorting a line of cocaine. Panicked, the trio dispose of Chow's body in an ice machine and begin their search for the missing Teddy.

In conclusion, I must admit that I found "THE HANGOVER, PART II" very entertaining. One, I loved the Thailand setting and cinematographer Lawrence Sher's photography of the locations. Two, director Todd Phillips did a great job in maintaining the movie's pacing, ensuring that I would never fall asleep. Three, the chemistry between the main cast seemed as potent as ever. I noticed that Phillips continued the chemistry between Cooper, Helms and Galifianakis from the first movie. However, I was a little disappointed that Justin Bartha did not take part in the trio's adventures in this movie. Instead of being the missing person (as he was in the first film), his character left the bachelor party before it all went to hell.

However, Phillips did find a way to bring back Ken Jeong as gangster Leslie Chow. And he was as funny as ever. In fact, one of Jeong's funniest scenes featured the trio and Chow's arrival at a high-class hotel restaurant to meet an American gangster (and undercover Interpol agent) named Kingsley. Other funny scenes include Stu's discovery that he had drug-induced sex with a Kathoey prostitute, Phil's reaction to getting shot by a Russian gangster, Mike Tyson's surprise appearance and performance at Stu and Lauren's wedding, and a crazy car chase through the streets of nighttime Bangkok.

But was "THE HANGOVER, PART II" funnier or just as funny as the 2009 movie? I can honestly say . . . no. The first twenty minutes of the film did not strike me as particularly funny, no matter how much humor Scot Armstrong, Craig Mazin and Todd Phillips tried to wring from the script. The ending seemed a bit too cheesy and sentimental at times. And why on earth did they include a scene in which the trio and Chow dropped off the badly wounded monkey (who had been shot in the stomach) at a veterinary clinic. The movie also featured an appearance from Paul Giamatti, who was from funny in his role as fake gangster/undercover Interpol agent Kingsley. And this was a major disappointment, considering Giamatti's talent for humor. And I wish that Nick Cassavetes' cameo as a Bangkok tattoo artist could have been a bit funny. I suspect that if Mel Gibson had been in the role, he would have garnered a lot more laughs. I could say the same for Mason Lee (Ang Lee's son), who made a less funnier missing person than Bartha. As for Nirut Sirijanya, he seemed downright humorless as Stu's disapproving father-in-law-to-be. I realize that his character was humorless, but so was Melissa, Stu's former girlfriend. But actress Rachael Harris portrayed the humorless Melissa with a great deal of comedic skill. I cannot say the same for Sirijanya.

Many people had complained that "THE HANGOVER, PART II" more or less followed the same plot formula as "THE HANGOVER". And they would be right. Like in the first film, the characters experienced the following:

*a hangover from drugs fed to them by the socially challenged Alan
*a missing person who is locked in some space at the hotel they had awaken
*Stu experiences a physical impairment (a tattoo in this film, a missing tooth in the last)
*Stu becomes involved with a prostitute
*theft of someone's pet animal (in this case, a monkey)
*Phil is hospitalized
*a red herring situation regarding the missing person
*Stu sings
*Phil is forced to admit not knowing the location of missing person
*Stu figures out the location of the missing person

Well, you get the drift. The only reason I am willing to tolerate this lack of originality on the screenwriters' parts is due to the fact that I still managed to enjoy the movie. Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zach Galifianakis not only proved that they were still funny, but could also be an effective comedy team. Thanks to the movie's humorous story and performances, and the exotic Thai locations, I am certainly looking forward to the DVD release of "THE HANGOVER, PART II".

"THE HANGOVER, PART II" (2011) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "THE HANGOVER, PART II", the sequel to the 2009 comedy hit. Directed by Todd Phillips, the movie stars Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis and Ed Helms:


"THE HANGOVER, PART II" (2011) Photo Gallery

"DUE DATE" (2010) Review

”DUE DATE” (2010) Review

I have always been a fan of road trip movies. This come from a love of long-distance traveling that I managed to acquire over the years. Some of my favorite movies have featured road trips - ”IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT”, ”SMOKEY AND THE BANDIT”, ”MIDNIGHT RUN” and even ”PLANES, TRAINS, AND AUTOMOBILES”. Because of this, I looked forward to seeing ”DUE DATE”, Todd Phillips’ new movie that starred Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis.

Also written by Phillips, along with Alan R. Cohen, Alan Freedland, and Adam Sztykiel; ”DUE DATE” told the story of an architect named Peter Highman trying to get home from Atlanta to Los Angeles to be present at the birth of his first child, a scheduled C-section, with his wife, Sarah. At the Atlanta airport, Peter has an encounter with an aspiring actor named Ethan Tremblay. After inadvertently using the words terrorist and bomb during a quarrel with Ethan, Peter is shot by an air marshal with a rubber bullet. Both are forced off the plane before take-off. And after being questioned by airport security, Peter discovers that he has been placed on the No Fly List and will have to find another way to get to California. After realizing that he had left his wallet on the plane, Peter reluctantly agrees to travel with Ethan all the way to Los Angeles.

At first, it occurred to me that ”DUE DATE” was not as . . . hilarious as two of his other well-known films, 2003’s ”STARSKY AND HUTCH” and last year’s ”THE HANGOVER”. By the time the movie ended, I realized why. ”DUE DATE” strongly reminded me of the 1987 comedy, ”PLANES, TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES”. In fact, it could easily be considered a remake of the John Hughes film. Both movies are basically comedic road trips about two different men – an uptight professional desperately trying to get home for a certain reason who is forced to travel with a flaky and accident-prone, yet desperately lonely man for financial reasons. There were differences. In the 1987 film, Steve Martin and John Candy traveled from New York to Chicago, spending most of their journey throughout the Midwest. In this film, Downey Jr. and Galifianakis traveled through the Deep South, from Atlanta to Los Angeles. This movie focused a lot of their journey in Texas – especially in the second half. But if I must be honest, the differences are minor in compare to the similarities. Let us just say that ”DUE DATE” is definitely a remake of Hughes’ film.

Todd Phillips did an excellent job with his cast. The supporting characters turned out to be interesting. Juliette Lewis, who had worked with Phillips in ”STARSKY AND HUTCH”, portrayed a flaky marijuana dealer in Birmingham, Alabama, from whom Ethan (Galifianakis) wanted to purchase some weed. This sequence provided the funniest moment in the movie – an encounter between a very annoyed Peter (Downey Jr.) and the dealer’s bratty kids, which ended up with a surprising punch to the gut. Another interesting supporting performance came from Danny McBride (who worked with Downey Jr. in ”TROPIC THUNDER”), who portrayed an intimidating and physically disabled Western Union employee they had encountered. The movie also featured a wild and funny encounter with two Mexican border patrol cops who arrest Peter for possession of marijuana (thanks to a fleeing Ethan). But the funniest supporting performance came from Jamie Foxx (Downey Jr.’s co-star from 2009’s ”THE SOLOIST”), who rediscovered his comic roots by portraying Peter’s oldest friend from college, now living in Dallas. What made Foxx’s performance rather funny was that his character seemed like a very together man . . . who harbored a slight obsession toward Peter’s wife (Michelle Monaghan), whom he had dated in college. But the real stars of the movie were Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis. Phillips was very lucky that the pair managed to generate such a strong screen chemistry. They did an awesome job in portraying two rather emotionally disturbed, yet different men who found themselves forming a strong bond during the 2,200 miles journey. Downey Jr.’s sharp-tongue, yet uptight character balanced very well with Galifianakis’ emotionally immature dweeb.

Did I have any problems with ”DUE DATE”? Well . . . yes. Like ”PLANES, TRAINS AND AUTO”, it was a strong comedy with some equally strong angst moments. And like the 1987 movie, those angst moments felt very forced. I believe that was due to Galifianakis’ performance. Mind you, there was nothing wrong with his acting, but it felt rather forced. And another scene I had trouble with was the encounter between the two travelers and the Western Union employee. That particular scene started out funny. But when McBride revealed his character to be a disabled Iraqi War veteran, the laughs dried up. The situation grew worse when McBride’s character began beating upon Downey Jr.’s sarcastic character. I did not know whether or not to take this scene seriously. Instead, I winced through it all.

It is possible that many moviegoers might not take this movie seriously, due to its strong resemblance to ”PLANES, TRAINS AND AUTOMOBILES”. Roger Ebert went as far as to compare it unfavorably to the 1987 film. Personally, I have decided to regard ”DUE DATE” as a remake. Is it a good remake? Yes. In fact, not only does the 2010 film not only share similar strengths with Hughes’ film, but also similar flaws. But it is still a first-rate movie, even if I would never regard it as a personal favorite of mine.

"DUE DATE" (2010) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the new comedy called "DUE DATE". Directed by Todd Phillips, the movie stars Robert Downey Jr. and Zach Galifianakis:


"DUE DATE" Photo Gallery

"HEARTBREAKERS" (2001) Review

Here is my review of the 2001 comedy, "HEARTBREAKERS", about a mother-daughter pair who happened to be grifters:


”HEARTBREAKERS” (2001) Review

Directed by David Mirkin, ”HEARTBREAKERS” is a romantic comedy caper about an elaborate con set up by a mother-daughter team to swindle wealthy men out of their money, and what happens during their "last" con together. This 2001 comedy starred Sigourney Weaver and Jennifer Love-Hewitt as the mother-daughter pair, along with Gene Hackman and Ray Liotta as their wealthy marks.

The movie begins with Max and Page Connors (Weaver and Love-Hewitt) conning an auto-body shop owner and small time crook named Dean Cumanno (Liotta). The con, which is implied has been done a number of times before on other men, involves Max marrying Dean, passing out on their wedding night to avoid consummating the marriage, and then Page (posing as Dean's secretary) luring Dean into a compromising position to justify Max's immediate divorce and hefty settlement. Following the success of this con, Page decides that she wants her half of their money before going solo. Max relents, but the two learn from an I.R.S. agent (Anne Bancroft) that that they owe the government a considerable sum on top of the rest of their savings, which have already been seized. Page reluctantly agrees to work together with Max on one last con in Palm Beach (which would result in enough money to pay off the I.R.S. and set Page up to work on her own). For their target, they choose widower William B. Tensy (Gene Hackman), a tobacco millionaire and chain smoker who is addicted to his own product. Complicating matters is beachfront bartender named Jack Withrowe (Jason Lee), whom Page meets without her mother's knowledge, while attempting to go after another target on her own.

Robert Dunn, Paul Guay and Stephen Mazur; who wrote the screenplay for ”HEARTBREAKERS”, were also responsible for movies like ”THE LITTLE RASCALS” and ”LIAR, LIAR”. But quite frankly, those two movies were chopped liver as far as I am concerned in compare to ”HEARTBREAKERS”. The movie’s story struck me as sly, witty and absolutely hilarious. Page’s romance with Jack; along with Max and Dean’s love stories were romantic and at the same time, sharp and unsentimental. Max’s attempts to seduce William Tensy, while impersonating a Russian expatriate featured some of the most hilarious moments in the movie – especially a particularly biting sequence that featured the Connors’ dealings with Tensy’s hard-nosed and grasping maid, portrayed by Nora Dunn. Between Tensy’s smoking and pallor and Max’s ordeal in being forced to consume steak tartare, this movie has put me off smoking and raw beef for all eternity. And if the Connors’ misadventures with Tensy were not bad enough, emotions jump a few notches when Dean arrives in Palm Beach in search of Max. It seems that he was really in love with her . . . and she has admitted to having feelings for him. Much to Page’s disgust.

It is not simply the script for ”HEARTBREAKERS” that had me in stitches. Weaver and Love Hewitt lead a first-rate cast that was just as funny as the script. Weaver (deservedly) earned a Golden Satellite Awards nomination as the elegant and quick-thinking Max. However, Love Hewitt matched her in screen presence and comedic skills as the equally intelligent, yet brusque Page. For once Ray Liotta’s intensity came into comedic use as Max’s faux husband, auto shop owner Dean Cummano whose love for the grafter/mother refuses to die, despite his discovery that Max and Page had conned him. Anne Bancroft gave a sly performance as Barbara aka Gloria Vogel, the I.R.S. agent who turned out to be Max’s mentor . . . and the woman who had stolen Max and Page’s bank funds. And of course, there was Gene Hackman, who played the chain smoking William Tensy. I loved his portrayal of the self-absorbed and caustic tobacco magnate. I could tell that he was truly enjoying himself. The only hiccup in this first-rate cast turned out to be Jason Lee. He played Jack Withrowe, the bartender who turned out to be owner of a beachfront bar and minor millionaire. Actually, the problem was not Lee’s performance. It was the writers’ portrayal of him. Quite frankly, Jack was a rather dull boy – a character unworthy of the talented and usually funny Lee. Not even the so-called one-liners they fed the character could not overcome his dullness.

”HEARTBREAKERS” turned out to be another example of a caper film featuring grifters that I find enjoyable. It had a first-rate plot, hilarious and complex characters (with the exception of Lee’s character), delicious scenery featuring Palm Beach and Southern California (standing in as Palm Beach) and a catchy score written by John Debney and Emmanuel Kiriakou. Director David Mirkin was given all of this – some at the last moment – and created comedy magic with it.