The Hangover Part 3

Trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUUvJ3jGC4Y

It's easy to accuse the Hangover series of selling out. The fact it's become a series at all has Hollywood making easy money written all over it. It was hard to imagine how they could even make a sequel to The Hangover with it being a standalone story about...well a hangover. The answer was just do the same again but in Thailand. So what can part 3 possibly bring to the series? Another hangover in another part of the world? Thankfully not

There is no hangover in The Hangover Part 3. The film focuses on the same old gang trying to find Mr.Chow or else Fred Flintstone [John Goodman] will kill Doug, the guy who's never really part of the films but is still part of the group. I feel a bit sorry for the actor who plays Doug to be honest. He doesn't get any funny lines or get involved in any of the craziness. His character is just kind of there either kidnapped or passed out while everything happens.

The Hangover Part 3 is funny but not completely hilarious. The film goes for it's biggest laughs from Zach Galifianakis being a bit of an obnoxious man-child and while I did laugh a few times at scenes focusing on him I thought Ed Helms's character was by far the funniest person in the film. The over the top reactions and gagging when he saw something disgusting made me laugh out loud every time.

That leaves Bradley Cooper who is there to kind of just move the story on. I felt that he had the least character of everyone in the film [other than backseat Doug] and he doesn't have many stand out scenes. When you compare this performance to saaaay his character in Silver Linings or Place Beyond The Pines it's almost like this is just a paycheck for him. It's not really his fault but I'm just aware that he's far more established now so it's unusual  to see him fade into the background next to the OTT comedy performances of his co-stars.

The film also feels a lot less zany than the ones before it. They still get into weird and wonderful situations but they feel less set up this time. What surprised me was when the film threw a half serious action scene or tense stand off into the mix. There are times when the laughter seems to stop completely as you get caught up in the actual story which is unexpected. Zach Galifianakis whimpers and makes noises throughout for comic effect but you're so used to them by this point you forget he's even there.

I recommend staying until after the first few credits because possibly the funniest bit of the whole film happens after them. It's good to see them almost poking fun at themselves for taking it all the way to part 3 and is a frightening glimpse into what the film could have been like if they had stuck to the original formula.

The Hangover Part 3 is a good time. They have made an effort to freshen things up a bit and although it will never live up to the original which should have really been as far as the Hangover went, it's got enough laughs and half decent story to warrant it's existence. If the Hangover series was a Ben and Jerrys core sundae Part 3 would be the white chocolate polar bears on top. Not entirely necessary but a nice little addition nonetheless.

7/10

Main Blog- http://www.elephantchris.blogspot.co.uk/

Fast & Furious 6

Trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_puVuHoR6o

What better way to be introduced to a movie franchise than by entering in on number 6. As a man who has seen none of the other Fast & Furious films I didn't know quite what to expect here but the trailer had Vin Diesel driving a car out the nose of a burning aircraft so I got the general idea of what Fast 6 would be like. Pretty mindless car chases and action- and that's exactly what I got. Just done really really well.

If like me you've never looked at the film series before don't worry about it too much. There's recurring characters but they're just Vin Diesel playing Vin Diesel and The Rock playing The Rock etc. Big tough guys who like to fight and drive cars fast with the occasional token female. That sounds sexist but to be fair Fast 6 kinda is. There's plenty of scenes of half naked girls jiggling about all over the place- the film knows it's main target market and it shamelessly goes all out to please them.

That's not to say the film is for just for the simple minded laaaaad. It's been a great year for action and Fast 6 really delivers with some breathtaking chases through London and a particularly fantastic fight scene in the Underground that could be an extra scene from last year's Skyfall. I don't know what it is that makes scenes shot in the Underground so exciting but when shit goes down in those very familiar looking tunnels it just works. Fast 6 almost constantly pushes the tempo as high as it can go and makes the 2 hour 10 run time seem much shorter than it actually is.

It's very over the top, has a tonne of cliches [a personal favourite is the the presumed dead hero walking out from the burning wreckage as the music picks up] and has 'MADE IN AMERICA BITCH' practically spray painted all over it. And it's for these reasons I really enjoyed Fast 6. It never shys away from completely impossible stunts, ignores laws of gravity and is a much better film because of it. My brain is programmed to enjoy fast action and chaos and it very rarely stops.

So what's wrong with it? Well if you're looking for deep story here for some bizarre reason you won't find it. There's sweet little scenes with Vin Diesel and Michelle Rodriguez, who died in the 4th film apparently but is now back to life, but the action set pieces are what really steal the show here. Some maybe feel a little drawn out, especially the film's finale, but there is usually enough going on to just stop your attention drifting. Drifting, is that a pun? Like Tokyo Drift? I'm gonna say yes.

The characters are a little generic with their little wise-cracks and tough-guy personas but they're not unlikable because of it. Any deep character traits would just get lost here but they do their job fine. Sudden revelations that what they're doing is dangerous and is putting people at risk would somewhat ruin the tone of the film.

It won't change your life but it's some of the best fun you'll have in the cinema this year. It's keeps the adrenaline up for it's duration and is a film I'd happily watch again.

8/10



Main blog-
http://www.elephantchris.blogspot.co.uk/

Mud

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2m9IFlz2iYo

It's hard to get excited about some films. Especially films that are named Mud. I don't know why I hate the title so much but I just do; it just gives connotations of dirt and grimness. Mud happens to be the name of Matthew Mcconaughey's [a name I definitely didn't need to google to spell there] character in the film which makes a little more sense but is still stupid. Who actually calls their kid Mud?  It's silly.

When I see a little a little 'Cannes Film Festival Award' on a poster as well it does put me off a bit. I assume it'll be overly arty and I 'should' be enjoying it but I don't understand why I'm not. Shouldn't judge a book by it's cover though, or in this case film by it's poster and title. Did it turn out to be a surprise hit?

Sadly not. I never got fully engrossed by Mud and as much as the story was interesting enough it did all seem a bit dreary. I always knew it wouldn't be an explosion packed thrill ride but I at least expected to form some kind of attachment to the characters.

I did enjoy parts of Mud. The story of two boys coming across this mystery man in the middle of nowhere who had a lot of secrets and history kept my attention. I really wanted to find out more about Mud and what he'd done to be hiding away from society and it just gets more intriguing when his face starts to appear on wanted posters.

Matthew Mcconaughey acts fantastically as well and it's just a shame that who Mud turns out to be isn't that interesting. He plays a sort of hobo-Sawyer from Lost character and other than the occasional burst of anger or change of heart he doesn't have any particular stand out scenes. It's a shame really because I thought he had a lot of potential, especially after you're first introduced to him.

Length is always an issue with me [should probably re-word that but nah] and at 2 hours 10 I felt the film was far too long. Entire characters and scenes could have been taken out I feel and the film would feel exactly the same, just mercifully shorter.

Maybe it's not just for me though. It has won awards and critics seem to really like it. Getting back to my earlier point of the film winning an award at the Cannes film festival however [possibly Sundance now i think of it], I felt like Mud was a good film but I just really didn't understand why. As a result I found it all a bit boring.

5/10



Main Blog:
http://www.elephantchris.blogspot.co.uk/

Star Trek Into Darkness

Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAEkuVgt6Aw

Well I pissed off some Marvel fans, time to piss off some trekkies. 

Before I start I want to make it clear I know next to nothing about Star Trek other than watching this movie and the one before it. So if I say something that is totally wrong, please, be kind. 

That being said- here's my review of Star Trek Into Darkness. 

When JJ Abrams's Star Trek came out 4 years ago I was a massive fan. It had heart and great action and I felt like it was a great introduction to to the series, introducing characters I was aware of due to the various TV series and films but never knew much about. It was a massive summer blockbuster and gave Into Darkness mighty big shoes to fill. 

While the sequel doesn't quite live up to the original it's still a very enjoyable film. 

The thing I remember most fondly from Star Trek is that huge action packed intro with that killer emotional punch. The intro to Into Darkness is similarly breathtaking but just lacks the added heart the original had. It's good to see all the characters back and immediately getting themselves waist deep into the action.  

The film does feel like a bit 'what happened next' as opposed to a stand alone story. The film mainly focuses on Kirk and Spock and the rest of the characters are just kind of there getting shoe-horned into the story wherever they can. The villain played by Benedict Cumberbatch steals the show here however showcasing a villain that I'd call Loki from the Avengers if he wasn't such a pompous weakling. He's unpredictable and confident and puts on a great show. The progression from being  composed and having everything under control to him going near mad with anger is fantastic to watch and very well done. 

There are a few moments in Into Darkness that lost my attention somewhat. Personally I found the story a little more complicated than it needed to be but it's the small details that huge fans of the series love. Luckily there's never a shortage of great action scenes to grab your attention back when you start to zone out. There are a lot of explosions and a lot of lasers being fired. Things blow up and it all looks very nice. 

The last quarter of the film in particular is when Star Trek Into Darkness really shines. When the story is stripped down to good guy vs bad guy and 'what can they possibly do to survive here' it's where Into Darkness can really show off what an action-packed good time the film is. They even manage to get a bit of heart back near the end of the film which saves it from becoming a bit soulless.

Overall I had a good time watching Star Trek Into Darkness and was just a little disappointed that it's not quite as good as the 2009 epic. It's still a great summer blockbuster and is deserving of your time, trekkie or not. 

7/10