Trailer: CBGB (2013)
A look at the New York City punk-rock scene and the venerable nightclub, CBGB. From: IMDb.com
Directed by: Randall Miller
Starring: Malin Akerman, Rupert Grint, Ryan Hurst and others
Current release date: Ocotober, 2013
A look at the New York City punk-rock scene and the venerable nightclub, CBGB. From: IMDb.com
Directed by: Randall Miller
The Hangover Part III (2013) Directed by Todd Phillips
Well, I'm kind of weird about The Hangover movies. I liked the second one better than the first and I'm also quite fond of this movie, while it seems that I'm a minority on this.
Guess that one of the main reason why this movie isn't as liked as much is because it isn't following the usual 'Hangover-formula'. So no waking up at a weird place, with weird things and animals surrounding our main heroes, while they remember absolutely nothing about what happened the previous night and try to piece things together, as the story moves along. I don't mind this formula and would have been happy to seen it used in this movie as well but at the same time I can also understand why they tried to do something different, this time around. There is of course a great danger that this movie would be nothing more but a rehash of the previous two movies, once it started using the same sort of formula. This was actually something that already started to bother a lot of people, when the second movie of the trilogy came out.
I kind of agree that this movie doesn't really feel like a part of a trilogy but it's still definitely a sequel, in the sense that it's a continuation of the stories of its main characters. The approach to the story is somewhat different but all of the characters and the humor are still definitely the same. No big surprise, since all 3 movies are done by basically the same cast & crew. Director Todd Phillips directed all three movies and I have always kind of liked his comedy and directing approach. He often picks some very formulaic and simplistic sounding comedy concept but always manages to turn it into something special and unexpected. It's also therefore why his comedies are often better and more effective ones to watch than the usual genre attempts, done by different people. It's therefore also absolutely ludicrous to call this movie a bad one, in my opinion. I can understand it being your least favorite one out of the whole trilogy but please don't mistake it for a bad movie as well!
Thing that it all eventually comes down to, is that I was simply entertained by this movie, all throughout It isn't necessarily saying anything about its quality or originality but it is saying something about its effectiveness. As a comedy this movie definitely serves its purpose and it serves it well! Some of the situations made me laugh, some of its dialog made me laugh, most characters made me laugh, so that all makes this a pretty effective comedy in my book!
Of course it's definitely not without its flaws or weaknesses. After all, this is also my least favorite Hangover movie out of the trilogy, so I still had plenty of problems with it as well. The story and comedy doesn't always feel like it's the best or cleverest thing ever and the movie and there's a bit of overkill in the movie. Sometimes less is more and sometimes some things are just funnier and better in smaller doses. This for instance goes for the Chow character. He plays a pretty big role in this movie but he's definitely better, funnier and more tolerable when he shows up for just a couple of minutes, as he for instance did in the first movie.
I also can't really say that this movie feels like closure. There is nothing about this movie that indicates that this could possibly be the last Hanogover movie. It's of course possible that we'll indeed get to see more Hangover movies in the future but the problem is that this movie loves to advertise itself as the end of the trilogy, like it's bringing closure and it's being the ultimate finale. None of that is true really but it's not really something that I'm holding against the movie. It's wrong advertising but you can't blame the movie itself for this.
Simply enjoy it for what it is; a good, quality, comedy. Don't expect the ultimate Hangover movie or one that plays by the exact same 'rules' as the previous two movie.
7/10
Watch trailer
Red band trailer: The Hangover Part III (2013)
This time, there's no wedding. No bachelor party. What could go wrong, right? But when the Wolfpack hits the road, all bets are off. From: IMDb.com
Directed by: Todd Phillips
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis and others
Current release date: May 23, 2013
Trailer #2: The Hangover Part III (2013)
This time, there's no wedding. No bachelor party. What could go wrong, right? But when the Wolfpack hits the road, all bets are off. From: IMDb.com
Directed by: Todd Phillips
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Melissa McCarthy, Zach Galifianakis and others
Current release date: May 24, 2013
Teaser trailer: The Hangover Part III (2013)
This time, there's no wedding. No bachelor party. What could go wrong, right? But when the Wolfpack hits the road, all bets are off. From: IMDb.com
Directed by: Todd Phillips
Starring: Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms and others
Current release date: May 24, 2013
The Hangover (2009) Directed by Todd Phillips
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I really like Todd Phillips as a director. He knows how to bring teenage lame humor as something hilarious and also convincing. His movies have the power to be likable and even credible ones due to its likable main, anti-hero, characters, not matter what crazy situations they are being put in.
This movie is basically one movie to goes from the one crazy event into the other one. Yet it doesn't loose it's focus on its main plot and also knows to find the time to work on its characters as well. The characters are all being handled and build-up well into the movie. It's the same type of comedy approach Phillips used earlier for movies such as "Road Trip" and "Old School".
The movie relies heavily on its main concept. It feels like though that the entire story got based around the writers idea of having a couple of guys wake up in a wrecked hotel room and things are missing and other things suddenly are in their room and most importantly one of their buddies who is about to get married is missing. It's like they first come up with this idea and then decided to write and base the entire story around this. This has as a result though that not all things reach a satisfying closure. It also has as a result that things get raveled at times, as can best been seen during its end credits when gets revealed what happened all during their long night, they remembered nothing about the next morning.
So well, no, the movie isn't perfect but still it's one of the more enjoyable ones of recent years, along with "Tropic Thunder". The movie is throughout funny and even during its weaker moments it knows to entertain, which is also due to its characters. The movie has a sort of adventurous feeling over it, since the movie jumps from the one extreme event into the other one. It's a comedy-odyssey.
The movie doesn't really feature any well known comedy actors in it for its main parts. This works well though for the story I feel, since in cases when movies have big comedy-stars in it, the movie and its humor mostly rely on the performances from those stars and puts most of the emphasis one them. In this case it can rely more on its story, situations and the characters as individuals. The movie still features some well known actors in it though, mostly in some cameo-roles. There are not too many though, which is a good thing, so it doesn't ever get distracting.
It's a real good and fun movie!
8/10
Watch trailer
National Treasure: Book of Secrets (2007) Directed by Jon Turteltaub
-->
(Review originally written at 5 July 2008)
I've seen the first movie "National Treasure" but I basically remember nothing about at it, so it really didn't made a lasting impression. I'm sure that in a couple of months from now I will have forgotten all about this movie as well, since its entertaining and all but also all pretty forgettable.
The movie serves its purpose to entertain and you'll probably won't be bored while watching this movie but the movie also really isn't anything to spectacular. Both 'National Treasure' movies were expense blockbuster, of well over $100.000.000 (this movie actually cost about $130,000,000), which sort of makes me wonder what all that money gets spend on these days. 10 years ago every $100.000.000 would had easily been amongst the top 10 of most expensive movies ever made, now days $100.000.000 will only give you movies such as "National Treasure: Book of Secrets". It really doesn't look or feel as an over $100.000.000 production.
For that amount of money some more fireworks could be expected. Basically "National Treasure: Book of Secrets" doesn't feature anything big or exceptional, which we haven't seen in any other movies before. The first movie was basically more or less a simpler version of "The Da Vinci Code", while this movie tends to lean more toward the Indiana Jones movies, with a sniff of James Bond to it. So seriously nothing too original or new here, which is of course mostly due to the movie its script and storytelling.
The script is simple, though yet of course not very likely. Sure, it's fun to treasure hunt and look for clues all over the world, on famous landmarks but not when basically every 5 minutes the movie is set at a different location (probaly also partly explains the movie its high budget) and we're looking for a new and different clue. This is just the kind of storytelling that does not ever work out very well. Basically the movie tries to achieve too much and a too short amount of time.
But no, I wouldn't call this movie horrible or anything. It's still professionally made, though not with a lot of imagination. Perhaps it's time for Jon Turteltaub to pass on the directing honers to a new and different director for the third movie of the series, which is currently in its early production stages. It also obviously wouldn't hurt to hunt down a better script this time. But oh well, I at least I wasn't bored while watching this movie and therefor I can't really regard this movie as a weak one, since it obviously served its purpose to bring entertainment.
Nicolas Cage seems to enjoy his role in these movies, which shows on the screen and he is well cast in his role. His acting is right for the part, though probably not a lot of people will agree with this, or at least they won't admit that they do. Most of the characters and actors from the first movie return again in this one (Justin Bartha, Diane Kruger, Jon Voight), which is probably due to the fun it must be to make these sort of movies or perhaps just because of the fat paychecks. It also explains why actors such as Helen Mirren, Ed Harris and Harvey Keitel appeared in this sequel. They are just not the type of actors to normally appear in a big summer blockbuster. Nevertheless they of course are a welcome addition, though their characters aren't the most interesting ones and some roles even feel a bit redundant for the overall movie.
Nothing too remarkable, just some decent entertainment.
6/10
Watch trailer
I've seen the first movie "National Treasure" but I basically remember nothing about at it, so it really didn't made a lasting impression. I'm sure that in a couple of months from now I will have forgotten all about this movie as well, since its entertaining and all but also all pretty forgettable.
The movie serves its purpose to entertain and you'll probably won't be bored while watching this movie but the movie also really isn't anything to spectacular. Both 'National Treasure' movies were expense blockbuster, of well over $100.000.000 (this movie actually cost about $130,000,000), which sort of makes me wonder what all that money gets spend on these days. 10 years ago every $100.000.000 would had easily been amongst the top 10 of most expensive movies ever made, now days $100.000.000 will only give you movies such as "National Treasure: Book of Secrets". It really doesn't look or feel as an over $100.000.000 production.
For that amount of money some more fireworks could be expected. Basically "National Treasure: Book of Secrets" doesn't feature anything big or exceptional, which we haven't seen in any other movies before. The first movie was basically more or less a simpler version of "The Da Vinci Code", while this movie tends to lean more toward the Indiana Jones movies, with a sniff of James Bond to it. So seriously nothing too original or new here, which is of course mostly due to the movie its script and storytelling.
The script is simple, though yet of course not very likely. Sure, it's fun to treasure hunt and look for clues all over the world, on famous landmarks but not when basically every 5 minutes the movie is set at a different location (probaly also partly explains the movie its high budget) and we're looking for a new and different clue. This is just the kind of storytelling that does not ever work out very well. Basically the movie tries to achieve too much and a too short amount of time.
But no, I wouldn't call this movie horrible or anything. It's still professionally made, though not with a lot of imagination. Perhaps it's time for Jon Turteltaub to pass on the directing honers to a new and different director for the third movie of the series, which is currently in its early production stages. It also obviously wouldn't hurt to hunt down a better script this time. But oh well, I at least I wasn't bored while watching this movie and therefor I can't really regard this movie as a weak one, since it obviously served its purpose to bring entertainment.
Nicolas Cage seems to enjoy his role in these movies, which shows on the screen and he is well cast in his role. His acting is right for the part, though probably not a lot of people will agree with this, or at least they won't admit that they do. Most of the characters and actors from the first movie return again in this one (Justin Bartha, Diane Kruger, Jon Voight), which is probably due to the fun it must be to make these sort of movies or perhaps just because of the fat paychecks. It also explains why actors such as Helen Mirren, Ed Harris and Harvey Keitel appeared in this sequel. They are just not the type of actors to normally appear in a big summer blockbuster. Nevertheless they of course are a welcome addition, though their characters aren't the most interesting ones and some roles even feel a bit redundant for the overall movie.
Nothing too remarkable, just some decent entertainment.
6/10
Watch trailer
National Treasure (2004) Directed by Jon Turteltaub
(Review originally written at 12 January 2007)
Of course this movie is a simple version of "The Da Vinci Code" but at least it's more entertaining to watch. It has just as many vague and unlikely clues at some unlikely historical places and on historical items, that lead to even more clues about the location of a large treasure.
The whole concept of treasure hunting is of course one that really speaks to the imagination and this movie greatly takes advantage of this, by putting in the movie every formulaic element you would expect from a movie like this one.
It's not that the movie is bad but it just isn't anything fresh or renewing either. It's an Indiana Jones and "The Da Vinci Code" wannabe that doesn't add enough on its own to the genre. Nothing wrong with a little bit 'borrowing' from other movies, as long as it works good for the movie and its story. "National Treasure" is a movie that entertains but that's basically all there really can be said about the movie.
The story is fun and adventurous and the movie features some good actors that are being played by some surprising big names. The movie has some good moments and action sequences, that aren't too big (the movie most certainly does not look like an $100,000,000 movie) but are entertaining nevertheless.
The movie is good looking with a good visual style and a nice suiting action score from specialist Trevor Rabin.
It's a bit of a shame that the movie is just so formulaic. Nothing in the movie comes as a surprise and it features all of the typical elements you would expect from a movie like this one. At times the movie could had really used some more originality to make it more entertaining-, or at least less predictable to watch. Like I said before, the movie is still good and fun enough to watch but it could had really been so much better with a tiny bit more of originality of its own.
The characters are also quite formulaic, though it fits the genre well I guess; a friend turns villain, a love interest and a comical sidekick. Why do movies always think they should have comical sidekicks? It's starting to get really annoying, especially if the characters aren't even funny, like in this movie is the case. It sort of helps though that all of the characters are being played by some well known names. I like Nicolas Cage and he shows that he can also play a convincing main 'heroic' character. Sean Bean plays the villain and like expected he does this in a great way, like only he can play a villain. The movie further more also features Jon Voight, Harvey Keitel and Christopher Plummer in some smaller roles.
All good fun, as long as you don't expect something original- or to be blown away by it all.
6/10
Watch trailer
Of course this movie is a simple version of "The Da Vinci Code" but at least it's more entertaining to watch. It has just as many vague and unlikely clues at some unlikely historical places and on historical items, that lead to even more clues about the location of a large treasure.
The whole concept of treasure hunting is of course one that really speaks to the imagination and this movie greatly takes advantage of this, by putting in the movie every formulaic element you would expect from a movie like this one.
It's not that the movie is bad but it just isn't anything fresh or renewing either. It's an Indiana Jones and "The Da Vinci Code" wannabe that doesn't add enough on its own to the genre. Nothing wrong with a little bit 'borrowing' from other movies, as long as it works good for the movie and its story. "National Treasure" is a movie that entertains but that's basically all there really can be said about the movie.
The story is fun and adventurous and the movie features some good actors that are being played by some surprising big names. The movie has some good moments and action sequences, that aren't too big (the movie most certainly does not look like an $100,000,000 movie) but are entertaining nevertheless.
The movie is good looking with a good visual style and a nice suiting action score from specialist Trevor Rabin.
It's a bit of a shame that the movie is just so formulaic. Nothing in the movie comes as a surprise and it features all of the typical elements you would expect from a movie like this one. At times the movie could had really used some more originality to make it more entertaining-, or at least less predictable to watch. Like I said before, the movie is still good and fun enough to watch but it could had really been so much better with a tiny bit more of originality of its own.
The characters are also quite formulaic, though it fits the genre well I guess; a friend turns villain, a love interest and a comical sidekick. Why do movies always think they should have comical sidekicks? It's starting to get really annoying, especially if the characters aren't even funny, like in this movie is the case. It sort of helps though that all of the characters are being played by some well known names. I like Nicolas Cage and he shows that he can also play a convincing main 'heroic' character. Sean Bean plays the villain and like expected he does this in a great way, like only he can play a villain. The movie further more also features Jon Voight, Harvey Keitel and Christopher Plummer in some smaller roles.
All good fun, as long as you don't expect something original- or to be blown away by it all.
6/10
Watch trailer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
