The Hangover Part III

Starring Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, and Zach Galifianakis
Directed by Todd Phillips
Year: 2013
IMDB / Wikipedia

I’m not going to stand here and explain why people don’t like this movie. I’m not going to continue by saying they’re wrong. I’m not going to criticise critics who cannot see past the obvious to what is beneath. I want to do all of these things though because people who don’t get this film are stupid, people who criticise the franchise are weak, but I’m going to abstain.

All of the Hangover films are not supposed to be laugh-a-minute funny. This is not American Pie, folks. Yes, there is funny stuff, yes it is a comedy, but it is a dark comedy. When I think of these films I think about the film M*A*S*H and how they are alike. Both are substantive comedies that are trying to tell a story that, while isn’t inherently funny, has some funny parts in it. As humans, we try and find the humor and levity in every situation and that’s what all of these films have in common.

This third film, I find, does it best because it is not trying to be funny. Want your money back because you didn’t laugh enough? Too bad! This film had more going for it than a bunch of cheap laughs and fart jokes. This is not the movie we deserve but the movie we need. We need to get past the stupid comedies that are being churned out and demand something better. With poor reviews from moviegoers and critics alike I feel that it will be a while before a film like this will ever get green-lit again, but we need this. We need to progress as a culture and realize that, though we may not be laughing the entire time, we can still be entertained.

Most Valuable Actor: It’s hard to argue with Ken Jeong’s performance in any of the three films but, as a central character in the third, he proves that he is almost a Bond-quality villain and almost better than this film deserved. Plus–and this shocked the shit out of my wife–he’s a doctor. A real Medical Doctor.

Trailer:

Star Trek / Star Trek Into Darkness

Star Trek
Year: 2009
IMDB / Wikipedia / Trailer

Star Trek Into Darkness
Year: 2013
IMDB / Wikipedia / Trailer

Starring:
Chris Pine
Zachary Quinto
Zoe Saldana
Karl Urban
Bruce Greenwood
Simon Pegg
John Cho
Anton Yelchin
Eric Bana
Benedict Cumberbatch
and Leonard Nimoy

Directed by J.J. Abrams

In the time of reboots this franchise sets the standard. The first film paid it homage to the original series while striking out on its new, exciting journey that new Nerd King J.J. Abrams wants to take. For established fans (of which I count myself) the characters are familiar if only drawn with more detail. The stories are there, if only more exciting (a PG-13 rating on each helps with that), and all of the space adventure the science-fiction fan seeks is right where they left it. With its decidedly new slant on the original story with these established characters, why did I not feel like I was watching a Star Trek movie.

Probably because these both were action movies–very good action movies–starring the Enterprise crew. The original series of films were more of a thinking-person’s movie, forcing you into a battle of wits and not just photon torpedos. If you want to compare, watch Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (the overwhelming fan-favorite of the original series) and then watch the Abrams version, Into Darkness and notice the difference for yourself. Same characters, same villain with the same motives, but two films that couldn’t be more different. The original built on the suspense and wit that each character brought to it (including villains) while the newer ones, while feeling more organic, try and pack as much action into one film as there was in the six originals.

But, despite the action-packed pace of these newer films, I do have to say I like the character development better. With the old films, it was the Kirk and Spock show and everyone else was ancillary and expandable. In two films, Abrams has made us feel for every principle character (though Sulu’s part went MIA in the newest one) and the films are better for it. Sure, there are some character issues I don’t necessarily agree with but Abrams has made these characters flawed and his own, and that’s a gutsy move considering the fanbase. However, the products have spoken for themselves and these are two fine films, though they do not really fit in with the rest of the legacy.

Most Valuable Actor: As was clear in the latter original Star Trek films, Spock is a better character than Kirk because, despite being the definition of a static character, his is the only character that grows and changes throughout. Quinto’s portrayal of Spock expounds upon the character and the eternal struggle between his logical Vulcan side and his emotional human side.