Film Review: The Hangover Part II

The Hangover part 1 became something of sleeper hit when it was released in 2009. Ever since we've been wanting more of 'the wolfpack', and writer and director Todd Phillips has duly delivered. In the interim, we had to put up with the frankly awful Due Date, which promised to be as good, but failed to deliver on every level. However, Todd's redemption would be consummated if the The Hangover Part II proved to be a return to form...

The plot is much the same as the first. Phil (Cooper), Stu (Helms) and Alan (Galifianakis) awake in a hotel room unable to recall the previous night's events. The only differences are that instead of Las Vegas, they're now in Thailand, instead of it being Doug's (Bartha) wedding, it's now Stu's, and instead of Doug having gone missing, it is Stu's fiance's brother, Teddy (Lee). And so the wolfpack must follow a shattered path of monks and monkeys in order to find Teddy before the big day is ruined.

They say that if it ain't broke, then don't fix it, and there is a degree of truth to this statement. But by the same token it doesn't allow any innovation or creativity, which is the problem with The Hangover Part II. It is quite literally an exact copy of the first film, only in another country. The first time round the formula worked a charm. It was something refreshing and different, cleverly arranging a dumb comedy about a stag night that omits all the 'good stuff' about the night itself and assembles the specifics in memento style flashbacks. One would think that by relocating to the one place on Earth more seedier than Sin City, Bangkok, there would be a wealth more of material to do something different. Rather than using this, Phillips has gone for an exact replication of the first film. In The Hangover each successive event was more audacious than the last which brought surprise and ensuing hilarity. But instead of trying something different, Phillips attempts to copy and paste each scene from the first movie in like for like fashion. While everything is 'bigger', in some feigned vain to make the film more epic, none of it is really an as enjoyable 'WTF' moment as in the first film. Indeed, a lot of it feels padded, especially one story arc involving Paul Giamatti which is particularly devoid of laughs.

All the elements that worked in The Hangover Part II's predecessor, including the characters, have been ramped up a notch to 'just insane'. Where in the first film we found sympathy and charm in Alan, in Part II he has purposely been made more retarded to the point where you almost start to wince. Indeed, Galifianakis' niche as a socially challenged slob is beginning to become tired, fast. While the roles of Phil and Stu as anchoring character and 'the guy all the crazy shit happens to' respectively haven't really evolved, there are two new additions which do add something a bit new. The first is a drug dealing monkey who smokes and acts like people, but it is Ken Jeong's Mr. Chow, endowed with a much larger role, who gets most of the laughs this time out.

The Hangover Part II is essentially more Kanye West, more nudity, more gross outs, but above all, more of the same. And it is because having seen it all before that it is not as funny or original. If you want more of the same then ye shall receive, but it is ultimately disappointing that it shies away from even trying to improve upon the first.

Film Review: Limitless

We all know the age old adage that human beings 'only use 10% of their brain', and many take this to be some sort of established fact based on irrefutable science. It is a myth, and one that persists through the erudition of the popular culture we are exposed to. In a way, it is a somewhat comforting thought, in that it undoubtedly motivates people to strive for greater creativity and productivity in their lives. Indeed, the encouragement and hope this myth offers helps to explain its perpetuation in the cultural zeitgeist. However, like so many uplifting folk tales which appear too good to be true, the actual truth of the matter seems to be the least important aspect.

And so we have a film that is based around this very fable. What would happen if, taking this so called 'axiom' to be true, there was a way to access the remaining 90% of our brain? Limitless offers one take on the realising of maximum human potential. When struggling writer Eddie Morra (Cooper) is offered an experimental see-through pill which bestows him with superhuman abilities, he finds himself able to view the world with total transparency. When, through extraneous circumstances he is able to get his hands on an indefinite supply, he makes an overnight transformation from zero to hero.

The question is, what would you do with all this unlimited brain power? Sure, there's a lot to be said for using your new found intelligence to become rich beyond your wildest imagination, but it's hardly the most enthralling concept for a movie. Limitless is essentially about a man who takes a magic pill and then plays the stock market. Boom. Yes, there is drama and suspense when, attracted by his sudden ascension to the top of the social stratosphere, shady figures resembling Niko Bellic and John Malkovich begin hunting Eddie, but it really doesn't detract from the central realisation of the concept - get rich. Limitless promises much with its daft, yet admittedly fun premise and while it is slow to start, there are parts where you start to feel it might be going somewhere. However, like the pill, no sooner than you feel the rush do you start to feel the come down as the film descends into meandering pointlessness.

While Cooper's character is charming and likeable, it is still difficult to garner whether he's cut out for a main role. There's definitely something that doesn't quite fit with him being leading man material, but then that might be because you'll find him more often playing roles which rely on group dynamics, such as in The Hangover or the A-Team. Thankfully however, Robert De Niro seems to be back on form as Eddie's billionaire mentor, Carl Van Loom. It is always nice to see an actor effortlessly enjoying the material, especially one as great as De Niro having fallen so far from grace in a string of shitty movies of late. You'll also never see Anna Friel look so bad. *shudders*.

Limitless is an interesting concept, and overall a reasonably solid and entertaining effort. Unfortunately it stutters in too many places and perhaps doesn't deal with the material as well as it should. The ending is particularly weak and there are so many gaps (explained by the drug's handy side-effect of causing blackouts) that we're just left to assume things - particularly an unsolved murder sub-plot merely brushed under the rug. Consequently, Limitless' potential capacity for greatness is never fully realised and thus, unfortunately, remains limited.

Film Review: The A-Team

(Chopper) Duh duhduh duuhhh, duh duh duuhhhh! Duhduh duh duhhh, duhhh duhduhduh duhhhhh! Sorry, had to be done. Even though this was an eighties show, many of you in my generation will remember it being shown on Channel 4 on Sundays. It's mildly peculiar why it's taken until now to bring such an iconic franchise to the big screen, but finally here it is.

This is an origins story of how The A-Team came to be, tracking how they all became acquainted. Liam Neeson plays Army Rangers Colonel 'Hannibal' Smith (Neeson), accompanied by Lieutenant 'Face' Peck (Cooper), Captain 'Howling Mad' Murdoch (Copley) and of course one of pop-culture's most talismanic figures, Corporal 'B.A.' (Bad Attitude) Baracus (Jackson), or more commonly referred to as 'Mr. T'. Together they form an elite Special Ops team working for the US military, that is until they are framed for a crime they didn't commit and imprisoned. Busting out of jail, they must clear their names, find the stolen US mint plates and capture the mercenary who stitched them up, Pike (Bloom).

Following on from its predecessor, the plot doesn't really matter here. It is, for all intents and purposes, convoluted garbage. If you actually sat there attempting to use your brain you would merely end up frustrated at the numerous plot holes. Indeed, The A-Team has never really been about the story, rather famed for its over-the-top action sequences and cartoon violence. In that sense what you're here for is a massive spectacle, which is precisely what the film delivers. There is seldom a moment where there is not some form of action happening. This ranges from the typical set-piece explosions and chase sequences to the downright ridonkulous, including flying a tank. Yes, one of those 60-ton armoured vehicles. From 20,000 feet.

Director Joe Carnahan has faithfully tried to recapture what made The A-Team unique, the characters, which should satisfy those with nostalgic tendencies. However, there are small differences. Liam Neeson's 'Hannibal' lacks the smugness of George Peppard where Quinton 'Rampage' Jackson's 'B.A' lacks much of Mr. T's charisma. Bradley Cooper's 'Face' and Sharlto Copley's Murdoch however do well at capturing the originals' ostentatiousness and lunacy respectively, whilst also managing to add their own new dimensions to the characters. It is nice to see Copley in his first major film since District 9, with one brief and amusing moment where he is allowed to showcase that South African accent we remember from the Wikus' character. As characters go however, the villains really suffer. There is no sense of an 'uber' bad guy as the narrative never allows for a strong villain character to develop. Pike is consequently relegated to no more than a guy who's there to fill the gap.

There is no doubt that 2010's rehash of The A-Team is a definite romp, but you will not enjoy it if you think too deeply about it. It is silly, like the original, but it is also chaotic and meandering with a wandering narrative. Perhaps the biggest disappointment is the failure to use the original eminent theme tune. Still, even though the plot is a shambles and the villainy somewhat underwhelming, the plan, sort of, comes together. For such a mindless film it is still an enjoyable bash.