ads

Slider[Style1]

Style2




A lame title, a lame looking cover. That can only mean one thing right? Well no, surprisingly enough it's not a totally lame movie as well.

It looks like a Friedberg & Seltzer movie, it sounds like a Friedberg & Seltzer movie but the good news about this movie is that it isn't a Friedberg & Seltzer movie. Funny enough Friedberg & Seltzer actually did make a "The Hunger Games" spoof last year, titled "The Starving Games" but it was the first Friedberg & Seltzer movie since ages that didn't made a ton of money and wasn't seen by millions and millions of people. I actually haven't seen "The Starving Games" and have no real interest in it either but I'm pretty sure of it that this one definitely is the better spoof of the two and features the better comedy- and has far more creativity in it as well.

Not that this movie is a great one though but thing I can still say about it is that it never becomes a terribly unfunny one. It's basically the one random joke and movie reference after the other but some of the jokes actually do work out. It's never a truly hilarious movie in my opinion but I still have to admit that I laughed a couple of times at some of the movie its craziness and jokes.

As the title and cover would suggest, it isn't just a "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" spoof but a spoof of the 'The Hangover trilogy', among many other things, as well. It actually in my opinion is more of a spoof of the 'The Hangover trilogy' than anything else really, seeing how the main characters are the same characters as the ones from the 'The Hangover' movies (yes, literally!) and the story uses a similar setup. It sounds a bit like a weird thing though; making a spoof of a comedy. Isn't that like double dipping? It besides isn't terribly creative or original of course to use a similar sort of story and setup as that of a 'The Hangover' movie but you know what, it actually does work out well for the movie its comedy, so I'm not even complaining about it.

Of course there isn't much of a story in this. As I mentioned before, it basically only consists out of the one random comical moment and movie reference after the other, without really following much of a main plot line. Yet, it's not an entirely messy and random feeling movie as well. I believe this is because of it that the movie always stays with its three main characters. The comedy and story all may be random but the storytelling itself is pretty focused actually and doesn't feature too many distracting elements, such as pointless side-plots and needless secondary characters in it.

It's a much better spoof than a Friedberg or Seltzer would ever be capable and it's really not as lame and terrible as it all may look and sound to you. It's an amusing enough spoof, that never becomes truly hilarious but luckily also never anything annoying, horrible, offensive, uncreative or unfunny either, as most of the other movie spoofs from recent years.

5/10

Watch trailer

About Frank Veenstra

Watches movies...writes about them...and that's it for now.
«
Next
Newer Post
»
Previous
Older Post

3 comments:

Post a Comment


Top