Category Archives: Sequels

2014: The Possible Year In Movies

Leave a reply

 

Image via Collider

2013 was an excellent year for movies. 2014 seems like a mixed bag so far. There are a lot of solid releases coming out down the road.

For now, I feel pessimistic. Then again, it is easy to feel that way in January and February when studios focus on the Oscars and release all of the movies they have no faith in. 
 
I think the dry spell will not last too long though, as there are already some promising releases in February and March. Here now are the list of films I want to see, the films I want to ignore, and the films I hope live up to their possible potential in 2014:

Movie Review: The Hangover Part II

Leave a reply

If not for the presence of Zach Galifianakis, a monkey might have been the best part of “The Hangover Part II.” That tends to happen when good comedies are given sequels: monkeys tend to take over.

“The Hangover Part II” is exactly what I expected. Even though that means a lot of funny moments, it is also a big disappointment. Having a film meet meager expectations is a decent thing, yet having a film exceed them is really something special. What “The Hangover Part II” unfortunately assumes is that if a formula worked once, it will work again and again.
As with before, a bachelor party goes terribly wrong, and someone important goes missing. This time though, replace Las Vegas with Bangkok, and fill in Stu’s (Ed Helms) wedding. Then replace missing Doug (Justin Bartha) with Teddy (Mason Lee), the son of Stu’s father-in law, who already hates Stu to begin with. Also replace a missing tooth, baby, and tiger with an accidental face tattoo, a shaved head, and a monkey with shady moral standing. The stakes are bigger, and the city is more dangerous.
A common rule I’ve learned about writing is that what we don’t see is always more powerful than what we see. For some reason, “The Hangover” saga can’t seem to pick up on this important lesson. In comedies, what we don’t see is funnier than what we do see. “The Hangover Part II” never bothers to leave anything up to the audience’s interpretation. Gross out comedy is coming to a point where the only way to gross out the audience is to show them everything. “Animal House” didn’t have to actually show Flounder throwing up on Dean Wormer’s desk, and yet its hard not to laugh every time.
I believe this over emphasis on gross out humor results from both an over reliance on shock value and excuses to not write a stronger screenplay. The original “Hangover” doesn’t have the best writing for a comedy, and it certainly doesn’t have the best developed characters, but it worked. The story fits together, the mystery makes sense, and the laughs are earned. The sequel puts more emphasis on shocking the audience rather than making them laugh.
One over-the-top element of the film that works best is Galifianakis’s performance. He is given more screen time than in the original and is therefore given more time to make the character even more bizarre than he was before. All of the characters from the first film are used well here, yet many new side characters are eventually forgotten. They are treated as plot devices rather than as actual characters.
I cannot tell whether “The Hangover 2″ fails as a comedy or whether it just somehow succeeds at self-awareness. The beginning of the movie is similar enough to the original that it almost seems like parody; director Todd Phillips seems smart enough to understand how unoriginal the whole film is. However, at some point it leaves self-awareness behind and becomes a very unaware Hollywood sequel.
This review cannot end without acknowledging the scenes of hilarity that do exist. Besides most of the lines that come out of Galifianikis’s mouth, the monkey makes for a surprisingly great addition to the crew. And to Ken Jeong, your willingness to bare everything qualifies as some form of bravery. I will not even bother to analyze the funniest scenes further, as the best comedy can never be analyzed.
Another redeeming feature is the film’s decision to locate the story in Bangkok. The seedy, rapidly expanding city is the perfect place to set a sprawling mystery involving a missing person.
With all of the quibbles to be had about “The Hangover Part II,” what can’t be forgotten is that the homegrown feel from the first film is now gone. “The Hangover Part II” is a pop comedy. The series is a blockbuster with blockbuster expectations now. If you are looking for a great summer comedy that won’t be forgotten soon after leaving the theater, see “Bridesmaids.” If you just want something mindless and entertaining to escape reality for a short period, go to “The Hangover Part II.” Just don’t expect the repeat viewings that made the original such a sensation.

An Open Letter for Everyone Involved in The Hangover Part II (a.k.a. Don’t Make this Suck)

Leave a reply

Dear Cast and Crew of The Hangover Part II,

As I have stated on this blog before, I am a devoted fan of “The Hangover.” I still stuck by it, even when people pointed out the glitches in the plot, and others accused it of not being funny. I stuck by it, and even mentioned it as one of my favorite films of 2009. I was surprised by how well this film did in theaters, and I know you are, too. Because “The Hangover” did so well, Hollywood has decided to do what it does for any movie that does well: give it a sequel. Even though this sequel is very unnecessary, make it count. However, by the looks of the trailer, I am afraid that that just may not be the case.
Yes, I have watched the trailer for “The Hangover Part II.” I will say this briefly because so many others have already stated this more eloquently than I have: it is exactly the same as the first film, beat by beat. Changing the location and replacing a baby with a monkey doesn’t mean that the plot will be any different. Here is the plot of both films as I see it: Zach Galifianakis does something ridiculous, everyone blacks out, Ed Helms wakes up with something weird on his face, they lose someone important, and then they search for clues. This formula works for both films.
All of this worries me a lot because all of the actors involved, and the director at helm, seem above the typical Hollywood game. That is what the first film showed. It had a unique gross out hilarity, great characters, and a good, unpredictable mystery behind it. That formula worked great once, so why redo it? Whenever a great comedy is given a sequel, it typically is the exact same plot with a few minor tweaks. This ruins the authenticity of the original. Just look at what happened to the “Austin Powers” series. Comedy sequels such as “Wayne’s World 2″ and “Get Him to the Greek” are re-watchable because they took the characters we already liked and put them into new situations.
One thing I hope the trailer represents, is false advertising. Perhaps the reason you have decided to make your film seem like the original is to get the support of all of the first film’s fans so they will come back and see the sequel. Maybe the plot is actually much more different than the trailer leads on. Or perhaps the story is tounge-and-cheek; perhaps you’ve decided to make fun of how unoriginal and formulaic Hollywood sequels have become. The recent Entertainment Weekly article I read about your film suggests you guys put a lot of effort into it. So unless you are lying (which I highly doubt), then at least I know that “The Hangover Part II” isn’t just everyone phoning it in for a paycheck. As Galifianakis said, he already did that for “G-Force.”
Even if “The Hangover Part II” proves to be extremely similar to its predecessor, I still feel like it’ll be funny. As long as these people are involved, humor should follow. However, there is more humor to be found in a new joke than an old one. The whole wolf pack thing can get old when people tell you it over and over again.
Also, it is interesting that you decided to include the phrase “Part II” in your title rather than just call your movie “The Hangover 2.” Believe it or not, the word “Part” and having roman numerals actually mean a lot. You are suggesting that this isn’t just some sequel, but rather a second part. Like “The Godfather” and “Star Wars,” you suggest with that title that this sequel was made not to make more money, but to further advance a certain story. So, I hope the purpose of this film isn’t just to bank off of the success of the first one, but rather to advance further into this gang’s maturity and show their friendship develop even deeper.
Please, everyone involved in “The Hangover Part II,” prove my fears (and those of many others) wrong.
Sincerely,
The Reel Deal
P.S. On my Humor Scale: Drug Dealing Monkey > Misplaced Baby. So yes, I do have hope.

Movie Review: Aliens

Leave a reply

It’s time to put on your geek hat and forget for a moment the notion that all sequels suck. Just step back in a time machine and relive the days when summer blockbusters used to be really good, and sequels were more about completing stories than making more money. Today’s sampling: “Aliens.”

“Aliens” might’ve come from a time before advanced CGI, but still holds up as well as any older action film could. “Aliens” leaves off 50 years after “Alien” ended. The last surviving member of the Nostromo, Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver), has been asleep and floating through space for the past five decades.
Unfortunately, Ripley is not given a hero’s welcome upon returning to Earth. Rather, no one believes her story and she loses her pilot’s license. To top it all off, she is still haunted from the horrible events that happened on that ship (a.k.a. more excuses to show aliens popping out of people’s stomachs).
Humans still remain ignorant of the dangers these creatures pose, and decide to colonize their planet. After some disturbances, Ripley is sent to the planet to investigate the problem. While there, she befriends a brave little girl (Carrie Henn) who’s entire family has been killed, and runs into hundreds of the man-eating aliens. Ripley, it’s time to get back into badass mode.
One thing I sometimes don’t like about sequels is how most times they’re the exact same story as the original, in a slightly altered package. “Aliens” is the rare sequel interested in actually continuing its original story and allowing for further character development. For example, this certainly is not the same Ripley from the first movie. She is at first more vulnerable, and less prepared. It gives her new levels of emotional depth to explore.
Perhaps the main differences between “Alien” and “Aliens” lies in its two very different directors. The original was helmed by Ridley Scott, and the sequel by James Cameron. Both men are infamous perfectionists, but Scott’s filmmaking goes at a much slower pace. His action was less flashy, and it took much longer to build up to it. Cameron, meanwhile, loves to go all out. That is why “Aliens” is so much more of an action driven film.
I don’t mean this to be a bad thing, as Cameron is a master at large-scale filmmaking. Look no further at his future work on “Titanic” and “Avatar.” The action and the violence of “Aliens” are most definitely stunning. Cameron just knows how to elevate everything, from emotions to sound, to make everything more and more tense. Throughout the film you might hear a constant, creepy dripping of water. Or in another scene, when the background score is heard at different volumes in different rooms.
Cameron, like Scott, proves himself a master at utilizing space. The characters of “Aliens” don’t inhabit a space as vast as Pandora. Cameron uses this to create a tighter, more tense mood. The space is also so complex, that the aliens could literally be anywhere.
What also makes Cameron so great is his attention to tiny details. He turns perfectionism into art. He lets the audience pay very close attention to metal bars falling apart when touched to a flame. He also seems endlessly fascinated and obsessed with the weapons his characters use. Small details like this are all a part of universe building. He manages to do this while still maintaining his story.
Before watching “Aliens,” I wondered why Scott wouldn’t come back to complete his own story. It makes sense though, this is Cameron’s type of story. “Alien” was all about mystery; “Aliens” is all about intrigue. Since Cameron loves those details, he’s great with exploring what exactly these aliens are and what they want with us. This comes even more in handy when we finally encounter the angry, bloodthirsty queen.
All of this contributes to a great sci-fi film because part of great sci-fi is the mythology behind it. There is the mythology of both the dystopian future humans have built, and the habits of the aliens. This is something that will continue to make the “Alien” series standout from most other sci-fi.
Some may view James Cameron as a filmmaking God. But he cannot be because if God exists, he would be flawless. Cameron is in serious need of taking some writing classes. The dialogue here is not as bad as in, say “Avatar.” The movie does have its fair share of memorable lines, one in particular when Ripley faces the Queen.
However, there is so much excess dialogue. A perfectly good battle sequence could be ruined by Bill Paxton’s running commentary of every alien he’s just killed. Sometimes, the only sound we should hear are bullets banging and bombs exploding.
The dialogue is just a tiny little dent in a great product. “Aliens” also has something else most sci-fi movies lack: great acting. Mainly, that’s done by Weaver. She exemplifies a great action hero: tough with a soft spot, and endlessly relentless. She’s both hero and human.
Movies have changed much since “Aliens” first premiered, but it still remains a fine model. If more movies tried to be like “Aliens,” then maybe filmmakers could finally find that perfect balance between intelligent and action packed. It’s possible. To all those who forgave the stupidity of “The A-Team” because of its entertainment value, watch “Aliens” to discover that brains and entertainment can mix quite well.

Movie Review: Toy Story 3

1 Reply

How rare it is to find a sequel that’s not looking to sell a new toy line, or even another three sequels. How nice it is when a sequel would rather continue telling a story, than capitalize off of it. That rare day has come with “Toy Story 3.”

Then again, this should’ve been expected by this point. Pixar cemented its status as the greatest animation creator since Walt Disney years ago and they proved they could handle sequels when “Toy Story 2″ was released 11 years ago.
Rather than start directly where it last left off, “Toy Story 3″ takes place in the present day. Andy is now 18 and heading off to college. He hasn’t played with any of his toys in years. While he means to keep them stored in the attic, the toys end up being donated to a day care center by accident. What seems at first like paradise with a benevolent bunch of toys, including Lotso (Ned Beatty) and Ken (Michael Keaton), turns into a living hell for deserted toys. The mission, once again, is to get back to Andy.
Despite being locked up in a chest for years, the toys haven’t changed at all. Woody (Tom Hanks) remains the most loyal friend in the world. Buzz (Tim Allen) still believes he’s a real space cadet. Jesse, Mr. and Mrs. Potato Head, Rex, Hamm, and even the little red monkeys, are all still there. And let the nostalgia begin.
When the original “Toy Story” was released in 1995, it ushered in an era of computer animation. It’s incredible to see how far the genre has come since then with the characters that started it. By this point, “Toy Story 3″ doesn’t even look like it was created on a computer. It might as well have been shot on real Hollywood sets. Well, it might just look even more real than that.
“Toy Story 3″ also has the benefit of 3D. That’s right, I said benefit. The only other movie I’ve seen that’s benefited from 3D is “Avatar” (the wine cork scene from “The Final Destination” doesn’t count). What works with the 3D in “Toy Story 3″ is that its not gimmicky. Nothing pops out at you. The characters and settings pop out of the screen organically. If more filmmakers could harness 3D in appropriate ways like this, then I might just hop on board.
“Toy Story 3″ certainly doesn’t hide behind its visuals. Who needs them with a story this good? The movie might be a slightly basic variation of the first two (toys get lost, toys try to get back from Andy), but that doesn’t mean it’s not original. Most sequels usually lazily ripoff their predecessors. Pixar is too good for that.
Not only does the story feel fresh, but so does every individual moment. That’s another rarity. For example, “Shrek 2″ tried to teach important lessons like its predecessor. Yet, they were basically the same as the original, and therefore felt nowhere near as effective. However, every little poignant moment in “Toy Story 3″ feels so new.
And once again, Pixar proves it amazing ability to bring human qualities to the nonhuman. Sure, its not too hard to feel sympathetic for a fish, or even a kind rat. But making the audience care for inanimate objects is no easy task. Once again, this task is pulled off perfectly. What we see is that a toy can be just as good a friend as any person.
To classify “Toy Story 3″ as a kids’ movie would be a gross inaccuracy. It is a family movie, meaning any member of a family, at any age, will get something out of this movie. Children will learn the value of friendship and commitment. They will also get an exciting story. Teens and adults might even get a more enriched experience. Some of the humor involves a keen sense of observation, and some film knowledge (spot the “Cool Hand Luke” reference). This movie should finally teach the haters that animation is not purely kiddie junk.
Now, I’m going to do something I don’t normally do. Rather than discuss “Toy Story 3″ for what makes it such a great movie, I’m going to discuss what this movie means to me. The “Toy Story” series will always hold a special place in my heart, and this sequel certified it. How amazing it is that the creators coincided Andy’s life with both the beginning of mine, and my entry into adulthood. Pixar doesn’t always deal much with its human characters, but Andy’s college angst feels too familiar. “Toy Story 3″ made me want to rediscover my childhood.
This also helped make every character even more meaningful to me. There is a moment toward the end, which I obviously won’t fully reveal. It was handled so maturely, and it’s so dark, that I’m shocked the studio didn’t alter it. Yet, it shows us the unbreakable friendship between the toys. After all these years, they’re still together. After all these years, I still want to be a part of their journey.
As a friend lamented once the movie ended, “‘Toy Story 3′ represents the end of my childhood.”* Pixar bookmarked the start and end of my childhood. It was one of the first movies I remember seeing, and one of the last ones I’ll see before I walk down graduation isle. As the film’s conclusion showed, it’s not just about the end of one phase of life, but the beginning of a new one. And if this new beginning might also signal more time with Woody, Buzz, and the gang, then count me in.
*Quote attributed to Reverend Doctor Eric H. Wessan

Kill Bill Volume 3: Why I’m Excited

Leave a reply

Whenever someone asks me how I got so into film, I give them a simple answer: I watched “Kill Bill: Volume 1.” In a way my life is split in two parts: before I watched “Kill Bill,” and after I watched “Kill Bill.”

Since “Kill Bill” wrapped up five years ago with its amazing sequel, I was sure that would be the last time we’d ever get to see Beatrix Kiddo (Uma Thurman).
But ever since Quentin Tarantino released part two in 2004, rumors and speculation about a third part were all over the internet. Some said it’d be a prequel, chronicling The Bride’s days as a member of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad. Others said it would be shot totally in anime. Others thought it would be about an older Nikki Bell avenging her mother’s murder. I dismissed these theories as pure rumors. Not anymore. Yesterday, Tarantino announced that he plans on making “Kill Bill: Volume 3.” He claims he would want a 10-year break between the second and third film. If so, then it should be released around 2014.
When I first saw this I thought perhaps it was a joke. But during Cannes ’08, Tarantino promised that his WWII film “Inglourious Basterds” would be ready for the Festival in 2009. While Tarantino is usually known for taking time between shooting films (there was a six year gap between “Jackie Brown” and “Kill Bill: Volume 1″), he showed up one year later with one of the strangest, funniest, and most mesmerizing war films I’ve ever seen.
Now that “Basterds” has grossed over $114 million and allowed me to say the word “bastard” without getting into trouble, Tarantino will now likely be given the artistic freedom to do whatever he wants with this sequel. Since no hint of a premise has been given, it’s time to speculate. As great as it would be to get a D.V.A.S prequel, I think the great thing about the original “Kill Bill” films is that The Bride’s past is mostly shrouded in mystery. The extent of her skills as a killer must be left solely to the imagination. Also, it would be impossible to do this prequel, since Carradine died earlier this year.
Of the theories, Nikki Belle’s revenge sounds most plausible. When The Bride tells her “when you’re older, if you still feel raw about this…I’ll be waiting,” it’s almost an invitation to make a sequel. Here’s another possibility: Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah) remained alive after her eye was plucked out. Will a totally blind Elle try to strike back at The Bride? Or maybe Tarantino will bring back Michael Parks. His performance as Esteban Vihaio was just too good for Oscar voters to understand.
As ecstatic as I am for the prospect of this sequel, I do hope that Tarantino gets back to work on making more original characters. The Bear Jew is already one of my favorite movie characters of the decade, and Hans Landa is certainly one of the creepiest villains the silver screen. But as long as Tarantino’s knack for brilliant dialogue, deep characters, and visual humor still holds up, then a little more “Kill Bill” should never be a problem.
In Other Awesome Pop Culture News: Chris Lilley, Australia’s answer to Christopher Guest, is slated to make another comedy for HBO. This follows the success of his brilliant, twisted “Summer Heights High.” It’s called “Angry Boys.” It’s about what it’s like to be a man in the 21st Century. This show will also be shot in mockumentary style, and Lilley will also play multiple characters. Please, please, bring Jonah back.

Movie Review: The Final Destination (3D)

2 Replies

When did audiences stop caring about life and start cheering on merciless, unnecessary death? I didn’t realize this was the case until I sat through “The Final Destination.” In 3D. And felt myself cheering too.

Maybe it wasn’t such a bad thing that we were all cheering. After all, what sympathy could be felt for the characters? Not one felt the least bit developed. Well, maybe a little bit. The most I could say is that Nick (Bobby Campo) goes to a race car event with his friends. There, he has premonitions of a disaster in the stadium causing brutal death. Him and his friends, along with a few others, narrowly escape the carnage. They have cheated death. This sets off a chain of events that leads to each of them being killed off in the most unpleasant ways imaginable. Oh, and Nick also has a friend named Hunt (Nick Zano) who’s kind of a tool. I don’t remember any other of the characters’ names. And I don’t really care. 
The actors certainly don’t help bring sympathy to the characters. Their dull and lifeless delivery bring nothing to the script; not that there’s anything good to the script. The dialogue is nothing but a series of platitudes and cliches. At one point, one character actually says “you only live once” and tries to pass it off as original, moving, and insightful. Of course, it is none of these things. 
The film’s director, David R. Ellis, has a strange resume that includes “Final Destination II,” “Snakes on a Plane,” and “Homeward Bound II.” In directing “The Final Destination” he breaks the rule that makes a horror film great: waiting. Don’t try to hit your audience with so much in so little time, you have to let the characters grow. You have to let the fear grow. That’s what makes horror films like “Psycho,” “The Silence of the Lambs,” and “Carrie” so effective: they grow on you. And then, suddenly, they give you and incredible jolt out of the dark.
The debate “The Final Destination” covers is one that has been argued for centuries on and off the screen: fate vs. freewill. Can you cheat death? And if so, will death find you again? “The Final Destination” obviously leans towards the latter. However, it seems to believe that spilling blood and guts is an effective way to prove a point. Believe me, it’s not. If you’d like to see this topic discussed much more eloquently, watch an episode of “Lost” or read “Man’s Search for Meaning.”
Now, most of you wanting to see this movie aren’t looking for a sophisticated debate; you’re looking for escapism. Well, you won’t find it here. Escapism is enjoying a film that provides a sort of world you know can’t exist, but for a limited amount of time, you’ll believe it does anyway. The kind of escapism “The Final Destination” provides is the kind where you can laugh at the ridiculousness of the film. But this is not enjoyment. For real escapism, go see “Inglourious Basterds” instead.
I will admit, this is only the first “Final Destination” movie I’ve seen. I felt confused at first, so my friend explained the premise of the other three to me. The premise was the exact same for each movie, and he seemed to have a good feeling that this installment would go the same way. I doubted him for a second, thinking nobody could possibly carry out the same idea and get away with it three times. He was right.
Note: Don’t let the title fool you. Even though it’s called “The Final Destination,” the film is truly “Final Destination 4.” This just marks a weird trend where studios try to wipe out a franchise history by leaving out the number of the film (ex: Fast & Furious, Rambo). Sorry guys, it isn’t working.