Kevin Reviews The Hangover Part III

It's been a while since I've posted a review on here but since it's summer, I'll have more time to be catching up on my movie-watching.  I did see The Great Gatsby and Star Trek recently, however, I chose not to review Gatsby because I couldn't sit through the whole thing, and I didn't review Star Trek because I didn't have a whole lot to say about it.  I did make the mistake of seeing The Hangover Part III today, though.  It was awful, but that should be no surprise.

There were scattered laughs throughout the film.  My personal favorite had to be Leslie Chow.  His character is very hit-and-miss, but he was still somewhat entertaining to watch, although annoying at times.  I'd say the biggest strength of this film is how much thought they put into Alan's character arc.  He is a completely different person in the beginning of the film than he is at the end of the film, and the writers really emphasize the changes he makes throughout the course of the movie.  I can appreciate a good character arc and while I can't say this one was good, I can say it was there, which is hard to find in a film of this caliber. 

This movie is certainly the worst of the Hangover films.  Rather than it being a comedy (as I think it would be better off being), it feels more like a dark crime thriller with a dash of comedy in it.  I found myself wondering why the film decided to take such a dark approach, as there are multiple murders and animal killings in the film.  While they are comical, I can't help but scratch my head and wonder what the hell the director was thinking.  The Hangover was such a hit and is arguably considered a classic comedy, so it is disappointing to see a good franchise go down the toilet because the director gets away from himself when creating the sequels. 

The Hangover III has a few laughs but as a whole is a dud because of the odd mix of genres, overly dark scenes, and a ridiculously unbelievable plot, even for The Hangover.  I certainly would not pay full price for this, however, I'd consider getting it from Redbox if you are like me and just wanted to see it to say that you have seen all three.

MY RATING:

1.5 out of 5

-Kevin Millward- 

Chris Reviews Fast and Furious 6

12 years ago I would never have imagined that an enjoyable riff off of Point Break that featured cars instead of surfing would turn into one of the biggest franchises in Hollywood. What is even more surprising is that after suffering through several bad sequels it managed to rebound and make one of the best summer films in 2011 with Fast Five. So does Fast and Furious 6 keep the fun coming or does it sink back to the terribleness that was 2 Fast 2 Furious? Check out my thoughts below.

The Good-

They definitely keep the fun coming in Fast and Furious 6. Most of the crew from Fast Five returns and the chemistry is surprisingly good. It can be a bit dorky at times but Vin Diesel, Paul Walker and Dwayne Johnson are a strong trio and despite their mediocre acting chops are not terrible. The supporting cast is pretty good to with Ludacris and Tyrese Gibson exchanging funny insults throughout. Director Justin Lin continues to up the ante with some outstanding action sequences. The trailers spoiled the 2 biggest sequences (The Tank scene and the crew taking down a Cargo Plane) but there are plenty of action scenes that keep you entertained. I also love how these films are attempting to essentially become superhero films where the leads are able to do ridiculous stunts and there are at least 3 references to the Avengers throughout the film. That has become the main strength of these films in that they don't take themselves too seriously and just want to have outlandish fun. Watching the Fast and Furious films reminds me of when i used to play with Hot Wheels in my backyard when I was 5 and I mean that in the best way possible.     

The Bad-

While the film is a lot of fun it is not quite up to par with Fast Five. They try to make an overly complex plot that references events that took place in the 4th film (a very forgettable entry in the series) and when these films try to be too smart they tend to fall apart. That was my main complaint with this film is that the premise is really not all that interesting. It's just about some group of criminals trying to make an EMP like device and sell it on the black market but to do this they need to steal the parts, so Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) needs Vin Diesel and his crew to stop them. It was not a terrible plot but just not very interesting in comparison to some of the other films in the series. The action sequences while they were very entertaining where laughably over the top. It got to the point where people where laughing at it and making fun of it in the theater.

Summary-

Fast and Furious 6 is somewhere in between Fast Five and the 4th film Fast and Furious. It features exhilarating albeit WAY over the top action sequences and a serviceable but slightly boring plot. As far as summer blockbusters go this is solid and well worth your money.  Don't forget to wait for the after credits sequence that shows you who the next films villain will be.

MY RATING-

3 out of 5

-Chris "Da Franchize" Hart

      
 

Chris Reviews Star Trek Into Darkness

Star Trek is a franchise that I have invested quite a bit of time and money in. Having watched almost every show with the exception of the animated series and owning all the films on Blu-ray and having watched each of them at least a dozen times I feel like I am qualified to know a thing or two about Star Trek. So obviously this was one of my most highly anticipated films this summer. Did it live up to expectations or did it fall flat on its face? Keep on reading if you want to find out.

The Good-

Similar to the 2009 Star Trek this film impresses with visual effects and action scenes. The opening scene which involves the crew attempting to save an alien race from being destroyed by a volcano is pretty enjoyable. The scale of the action scenes get bigger and bigger until we have ships blowing each other to pieces and crashing into cities. While the action is the primary selling point in these recent Star Trek films I do like the actors that  they have playing the crew. Kirk and Spock have a solid chemistry that helps power the film and Scotty, McCoy and Uhura all get time to shine (Sulu and Chekov don't get much to work with here). So this film essentially has everything going for it that its predecessor did.

The Bad- (SPOILERS!)

In order to fully flesh out my complaints it is necessary to give a few spoilers so read on at your own risk! First lets address the structural issues with this film because there are numerous logical issues, poorly written characters and moments, not to mention that the third act pretty much rips off Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Starting with the opening scene there are things that do not make sense. While the crew is attempting to save the planet the Enterprise is hiding under water, why does this make any sense to do this? They are using a shuttle craft and end up transporting Spock out of the volcano in the first place so what was the purpose of hiding the ship underwater when they could have done the same thing in orbit? Obviously the reason is so that they could throw in a cool effect shot of the ship coming out of water. This scene encapsulates my entire problem with J.J. Abrams directing style in that he pushes action and effects over logic.

There are a lot more scene like this but I don't want to ruin the entire film for you. Now lets talk about the poorly written characters. There are two major characters in the film that I have issues with. Carol Marcus is probably the biggest waste of screen time in the film with the exception of her undressing scene that has caused a lot of controversy. The problem with her character is that she really has no purpose in the entire film. She sneaks on board to investigate these weird torpedoes and helps with that, then just hangs around until her dad tries to destroy the Enterprise and gets transported to that ship and then Khan breaks her leg and that's about it. They were clearly trying to do fan service as Carol Marcus was an important character in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (created the Genesis Device and mother of Kirks son David) but they failed to make her interesting or even establish a relationship with Kirk.

Looks or brains?

The Second Character that I had a lot of problems with is Khan. Yet another character they ripped off from the previously mentioned film. There were several things I was disappointed about with his character, the first is that he used way to much
exposition to tell his story. There are several scenes where he is just standing in a cell telling them stories of what he has done. It would have been much more compelling had they shown this. His motivations where very confusing, I know he wanted to save his crew but why did he put them in torpedoes to hide them in the first place. That seems like just about the dumbest place to hide people. Overall he was just a very bland and poorly thought out villain which is disappointing when compared to Ricardo Montalban's fantastic performance in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

Which Khan did you like better?

I know some people will argue that we should not compare it to past films and that I am just being a fanboy. While that seems like a valid argument I really don't think it applies in this situation because the filmmakers asked for this. They were the ones who decided to rip off stuff from the best of all the Star Trek films and thus asked for this comparison. Why couldn't they have come up with an original villain and story? It's because J.J. Abrams just does not understand Star Trek and makes films like someone who only knows the pop culture references. The third act is a great example of this and is where the film really falls apart. Abrams decides that he wants to rip off arguably the best scene of any Star Trek film (Spock's Death) except he is going to have a twist and kill Kirk instead. The scene is completely unconvincing as they blatantly show you in some previous scenes that they will be able to bring him back to life. So the scene serves no real purpose except for making a reference to a past film. Then of course we get Spock yelling KHAN! which is a cringe worthy scene as it is just so tacky. I could go on and on with complaints about this film but I think that would just be beating a dead horse.

You can't top this

Summary-

This is film that features some solid action sequences and visual effects but lacks the emotional depth of previous Star Trek films. The writing is borderline awful and unoriginal and the film pisses on pretty much everything that it means to be a Star Trek fan. I put this near the bottom of the barrel of Star Trek films right up there with Star Trek V and Star Trek Insurrection.

MY RATING

2.5 out of 5

-Chris "Da Franchize" Hart

Chris Reviews Iron Man 3

After last summers amazing success that was The Avengers, I was not sure if Marvel could top themselves. Then I saw that Shane Black who wrote one of my favorite film franchises (Lethal Weapon) had been given the directors chair and the trailers that came out looked pretty good. So does Iron Man 3 continue the fun that was put out in the Avengers or does it sink back to the boredom that I felt when watching Iron Man 2? As usual read below to find out.....

The Good-

This is probably the most entertaining film in the Iron Man franchise. The usual witty banter from Tony Stark and overall humor work well and the action sequences are pretty engaging. The villains are great in this although I wish I could have seen more of them and there is a surprisingly good plot twist that actually caught me a little off guard. So overall it has all of the essential elements of a slick looking and very entertaining summer blockbuster.

The Bad-

I had a lot of issues with the writing of this film. While I thought the dialog was well written, the plot had a lot of issues. At times it did not seem very well thought out and that resulted in some head scratching moments. Not only that but parts of the film felt very forced and cliche. The worst scenes where when Tony Stark is teaming up with a kid who sort of becomes a side kick for part of the film. It felt like it was forced in their to appeal more to kids but the scenes just did not work for me at all. I was also not crazy about the ending to the film either but I won't spoil that for anyone. 

Overall-

Despite the numerous flaws with the plot I still think this is a pretty good summer blockbuster. It may not be at the same level as the Avengers but it is definitely better than Iron Man 2 and comes close to the first Iron Man from a purely entertainment perspective. If you can handle the convoluted plot then you should be able to have a good time watching this.

MY RATING-

3.5 out of 5

-Chris "Da Franchize" Hart