The Hangover (Todd Phillips)

[Watashi]

Teaser. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je4itlfGZlc&eurl=http://www.cinematical.com/)

Zack Galifianakis!

[Kurosawa Fan]

That looks very promising. Galifianakis is awesome. Tyson making them be quiet for the drums in "In the Air Tonight" was fantastic.

[number8]

That's a fantastic main cast.

Also, is that Ken Jeong leaping from the trunk?

[Winston*]

"Dude, Where's My Groom?"?

[Acapelli]

Tyson making them be quiet for the drums in "In the Air Tonight" was fantastic.
holy shit yes

[Ezee E]

They can still make comedies without Will Ferrell and/or the Judd Apatow crew?

[Dukefrukem]

bwhahahah Mike Tyson.

[MadMan]

Saw the preview for this last night when I went to Watchmen. It looks beyond hilarious.

[Mal]

Why can't Bradley Cooper star in movies I actually want to see. :(

[Watashi]

Full trailer. (http://movies.apple.com/movies/wb/thehangover/thehangover-tlr1_h480p.mov)

Yep. This looks awesome.

[B-side]

I love this part.

*does drum part from "In the Air Tonight"*

*punches Zach Galifiankis*

[number8]

Good god, this movie is hilarious.

The cast is superb.

[monolith94]

You can tell that the fiancee is evil because of how straight and dark her hair is. Never a good sign in a hollywood movie. Let me guess, he discovers this along the way, and realizes that free spirits like him shouldn't be tied down by squares?

[Spun Lepton]

Mike Tyson for the FAIL.

[number8]

You can tell that the fiancee is evil because of how straight and dark her hair is. Never a good sign in a hollywood movie. Let me guess, he discovers this along the way, and realizes that free spirits like him shouldn't be tied down by squares?

No. She's in the movie for a total of 40 seconds.

Shows how much you know.

[MadMan]

Mike Tyson for the FAIL.:| :crazy: He's one of the funniest things about the whole trailer.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, the Phil Collins song is already huge, and the movie hasn't even come out yet.

[Mara]

I dunno. I keep getting flashbacks to Very Bad Things, which was one of the most unpleasant viewing experiences of my life.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I dunno. I keep getting flashbacks to Very Bad Things, which was one of the most unpleasant viewing experiences of my life.

This doesn't look nearly as mean-spirited.

[Sycophant]

If this film genuinely isn't mean-spirited--which was my primary fear when I saw the trailer--I'm actually game for seeing it. Especially if it doesn't go out of its way to make the fiancée a shrill, unlikeable harpy.

[Dead & Messed Up]

If this film genuinely isn't mean-spirited--which was my primary fear when I saw the trailer--I'm actually game for seeing it. Especially if it doesn't go out of its way to make the fiancée a shrill, unlikeable harpy.

My concern is simpler: that we've already seen the best bits.

[number8]

If this film genuinely isn't mean-spirited--which was my primary fear when I saw the trailer--I'm actually game for seeing it.

It's not.


Especially if it doesn't go out of its way to make the fiancée a shrill, unlikeable harpy.They don't.


My concern is simpler: that we've already seen the best bits.

You haven't. Not by a long shot.

[KK2.0]

Full trailer. (http://movies.apple.com/movies/wb/thehangover/thehangover-tlr1_h480p.mov)

Yep. This looks awesome.

awesomeness confirmed

[Spun Lepton]

:| :crazy: He's one of the funniest things about the whole trailer.

I have no respect for Tyson and I don't particularly care to see him make any kind of "comeback." So, I probably won't be seeing this in the theater. It's a rental at best.

[Derek]

Good god, this movie is hilarious.

The cast is superb.

This is fantastic news. I was hoping Galifianakis would be in a good comedy some day.

[MadMan]

I have no respect for Tyson and I don't particularly care to see him make any kind of "comeback." So, I probably won't be seeing this in the theater. It's a rental at best.This is a non-issue for me. And besides I'll be seeing it for free if I'm still working at the movie theater when it comes out, anyways.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The Arclight is having a 21+ screening this coming Thursday at midnight. Which means you can bring beer. My friend Brian just signed us up.

It's gonna be rough.

[Dead & Messed Up]

This was the funniest thing I've seen since The Forty-Year-Old Virgin.

Holy shit.

We've been getting pampered this summer. Star Trek was a blast, Drag Me to Hell was a blast, and now The Hangover. Wow.

Wow.

[Dukefrukem]

The funnier thing is, I leave for Vegas on Tuesday for a bachelor party. I really want to see this before I leave.

[Watashi]

Yep. This was awesome.

[Rowland]

I guess I'll be the first to meh this one. Too many obvious punchlines, a surprising lack of surprises as the guys piece together the trajectory of their night, some mean-spiritedness (saggy old-man body, eww!), clunky narrative shortcuts a go go, underdeveloped writing (poor Graham), and an unimaginative soundtrack comprised almost entirely of Top 10 hits from the last year all conspire to make this the latest entry in the Todd Philips oeuvre of mediocrity. As has been generally noted however, the performances go a long way towards making this material work as well as it does, as do some of the better non sequiturs and darker bits of humor (that poor baby!).

[trotchky]

Can everyone who liked this (or didn't like it) post whether or not they liked Observe and Report? This is a genuine request, because I'm trying to decide if I should see this.

[transmogrifier]

Can everyone who liked this (or didn't like it) post whether or not they liked Observe and Report? This is a genuine request, because I'm trying to decide if I should see this.

If only there were a way to quickly compare how well liked two films were by the same poster in an unambiguous way. Hmmm....I'm stumped.

[trotchky]

If only there were a way to quickly compare how well liked two films were by the same poster in an unambiguous way. Hmmm....I'm stumped.

Funny, but I had the same thought. It's too bad Observe and Report came out long enough ago that no one in this thread (at least no one I noticed) still has a rating for it in their signature. Which means a simple "yes" or "no" would suffice; or if you prefer, fine, a numerical rating for Observe and Report along with one for The Hangover.

[transmogrifier]

Funny, but I had the same thought. It's too bad Observe and Report came out long enough ago that no one in this thread (at least no one I noticed) still has a rating for it in their signature. Which means a simple "yes" or "no" would suffice; or if you prefer, fine, a numerical rating for Observe and Report along with one for The Hangover.

Okay:

Observe and Report - n/a
The Hangover - n/a

Hope that helps :)

(Actually, I'm looking forward to seeing both of them at some stage)

[Rowland]

Between the mixed reception and my own distaste for Jody Hill's first feature, The Foot Fist Way, I elected to sit Observe and Report out until DVD.

[number8]

I saw and loved both, but the two movies are so different, both in tone and sense of humor.

[Ivan Drago]

My late thoughts, I don't really remember the movie that well:

Observe and Report - 5

It was hardly funny, but then again I was one of the shocked people who sure to laugh or not. But at the same time, it's interesting because like Eastbound and Down, it gives its douchebag of a protagonist an interesting way of thinking and rationale for his actions (not talking about his bipolar disorder.)

[Dead & Messed Up]

I didn't see Observe and Report. Like Rowland, I decided to wait for DVD.

[number8]

Why was Observe & Report brought up, again?

[Rowland]

As Las Vegas bachelor-parties-gone-awry movies go:

Very Bad Things >> this

[Milky Joe]

I guess I'll be the first to meh this one. Too many obvious punchlines, a surprising lack of surprises as the guys piece together the trajectory of their night, some mean-spiritedness (saggy old-man body, eww!), clunky narrative shortcuts a go go, underdeveloped writing (poor Graham), and an unimaginative soundtrack comprised almost entirely of Top 10 hits from the last year all conspire to make this the latest entry in the Todd Philips oeuvre of mediocrity. As has been generally noted however, the performances go a long way towards making this material work as well as it does, as do some of the better non sequiturs and darker bits of humor (that poor baby!).

Seriously? Maybe I should start listening to popular music again, because I thought the soundtrack was excellent. Though I doubt I'd be interested in it outside the context of this film.

Anyway, I really liked this. It was exactly what it intended to be and maybe a little more. It was also one of the more visually outstanding comedies, something the Apatow crew could learn from. 8.75/10

[Spinal]

This was hilarious! So glad I took a chance on something that's not normally my kind of movie. Cast worked great together and I loved that the focus was on trying to pull things back together rather than the antics themselves. Oh man, that Chinese gangster guy was awesome.

[Spinal]

Question ....

The woman giving Zack Galifianakis a BJ in the elevator during the final credits ... was that someone I was supposed to recognize?

[Spinal]

This was the funniest thing I've seen since The Forty-Year-Old Virgin.


I would say funnier and not overlong 40 Year Old Virgin is.

[Rowland]

Oh man, that Chinese gangster guy was awesome.I didn't mention it, but I thought Ken Jeong was hugely wasted here. A few of his line readings were mildly amusing, but i don't think I actually laughed at anything he said or did, seeming too artificial a device by being so overtly caricatural. In fact, the entire movie was played just a bit too broadly, which undercut the potential for tense humor. For instance, I didn't buy that Phil would just drive the cop car onto the sidewalk and compliment a woman on her rack through the speaker, given their circumstances. Too much potential wasn't mined in favor of shorthand laziness. Don't even get me started on that lame sequence parodying Rain Man that I was shocked to discover wasn't a dream, a la a similar scenario in the Farrelly Brothers' cult gem Kingpin.

[MacGuffin]

If I thought Old School was generic crap, should I stay away from this?

[number8]

Question ....

The woman giving Zack Galifianakis a BJ in the elevator during the final credits ... was that someone I was supposed to recognize?

I don't think so....? Now I'm curious. What makes you think so?

[Dead & Messed Up]

If I thought Old School was generic crap, should I stay away from this?

Maybe you could matinee it. I thought Old School was okay, Road Trip was dull, and this was shockingly hilarious, consistent almost all the way through.

[Spinal]

If I thought Old School was generic crap, should I stay away from this?

I thought Old School was awful.

[Spinal]

I don't think so....? Now I'm curious. What makes you think so?

Just because there were other Vegas personalities in the final credits.

EDIT: Hmmm ... they discuss the moment in this interview (http://www.collider.com/2009/06/03/bradley-cooper-ed-helms-and-zach-galifianakis-interview-the-hangover/) and no mention is made of the woman's identity. Guess the gag was just her age.

[Spinal]

I didn't mention it, but I thought Ken Jeong was hugely wasted here. A few of his line readings were mildly amusing, but i don't think I actually laughed at anything he said or did, seeming too artificial a device by being so overtly caricatural. In fact, the entire movie was played just a bit too broadly, which undercut the potential for tense humor. For instance, I didn't buy that Phil would just drive the cop car onto the sidewalk and compliment a woman on her rack through the speaker, given their circumstances. Too much potential wasn't mined in favor of shorthand laziness. Don't even get me started on that lame sequence parodying Rain Man that I was shocked to discover wasn't a dream, a la a similar scenario in the Farrelly Brothers' cult gem Kingpin.

Yeah, I went in expecting low-brow broad comedy and was pleased with what I got. I loved the broad caricature because it was well-done and because it knowingly flew head-first into the stereotype.

[Rowland]

Yeah, I went in expecting low-brow broad comedy and was pleased with what I got. I loved the broad caricature because it was well-done and because it knowingly flew head-first into the stereotype.I dunno, the Asian caricaturing was less shrill and more organic in last year's Pineapple Express. Here, it came across to me as faintly desperate. I honestly think it would have been funnier if the trunk scene was never explained beyond that first reveal, without his place within the schematic timeline ultimately proving so perfunctory, especially since I immediately guessed that the hostage tied up in the van wasn't Doug. My favorite moment involving him was actually a direct visual quote from Scorsese's Casino, which I'd like to believe is poking a bit of fun at that film's more self-consciously baroque qualities.

[trotchky]

I don't know if it's just me, but I'm getting kind of tired of vaguely racist representations of Asians being mined for humor in recent mainstream comedies.

Disclaimer: I haven't seen The Hangover yet because it was sold the fuck out. Maybe tomorrow??

[Rowland]

I don't know if it's just me, but I'm getting kind of tired of vaguely racist representations of Asians being mined for humor in recent mainstream comedies. One of my favorite minor aspects of the otherwise decidely minor Knocked Up was how Jeong's character was handled. I didn't get a whiff of racial condescension from Role Models either for that matter.

[number8]

I must have missed the Asian carricaturing. I don't think they even made any reference to his ethnicity. Ken Jeong's character could have been an Italian mob boss and the jokes would be the same--which is that he's feminine.

[trotchky]

Jeong was characterized as prissy and effeminate in the two movies Rowland mentioned, as well, which might not have anything directly to do with his ethnicity but still makes me a little uneasy when I think about it too much.

[number8]

I love his stand-up, by the way.

[Spinal]

You guys, come on. This is not Long Duk Dong we're talking about. The actor is using an extreme version of who he is in order to create a larger than life character. Part of that comes from his ethnicity. Part of that comes from his effeminacy. Part of that comes from his size. Part of that comes from his energy. It's no more racist than Mike Tyson playing himself.

[Watashi]

Ken Jeong played the exact same character in Role Models.

I didn't know that Ed Helms's missing tooth was actually real. Apparently he was born without that tooth and just wears a prosthetic.

[Spinal]

I didn't know that Ed Helms's missing tooth was actually real. Apparently he was born without that tooth and just wears a prosthetic.

Yeah, for a while I was thinking, damn, that's some remarkable special effects.

[Ezee E]

$40-50 million this weekend. Huge weekend for a R-Rated comedy.

[Rowland]

Ken Jeong played the exact same character in Role Models.His character in Role Models spoke nonsensical Engrish laced with "cock" and "balls" in a high-pitched voice while performing karate moves?

[origami_mustache]

Loved Zach Galifianafuck, Ed Helms did a fine job, and there was actually a few pretty nice shots, but other than that it was a predictable R comedy. I'm sooo sick of the nice car getting destroyed gag...the whole tiger thing was asinine, and "Leslie Chow", albeit funny, was certainly over the top and a bit offensive.

[Ezee E]

Funny consistently, but without anything that will make me want to rewatch it again. Slideshow was the best part about it, not sure if that's good or bad.

[Rowland]

I'm sooo sick of the nice car getting destroyed gag.Yeah, you know you're in trouble when you have a comedic set piece that feels derivative of Tommy Boy.

[Raiders]

My only defense of this movie is that it was funny. It was very rote in many of its developments, though I did like the overall structure of the plot, but the actual scenes themselves were by-and-large very funny. I'm sure if I was so inclined, I could find many things to nitpick, but such is the nature of comedy such as this. If it is funny, then I'm not really concerned about much else.

[Ezee E]

My only defense of this movie is that it was funny. It was very rote in many of its developments, though I did like the overall structure of the plot, but the actual scenes themselves were by-and-large very funny. I'm sure if I was so inclined, I could find many things to nitpick, but such is the nature of comedy such as this. If it is funny, then I'm not really concerned about much else.
Pretty much.

[origami_mustache]

I used to be a lot more forgiving to comedies with formulaic plot points as long as they made me laugh, but Pineapple Express raised the bar.

[Raiders]

I used to be a lot more forgiving to comedies with formulaic plot points as long as they made me laugh, but Pineapple Express raised the bar.

This is very understandable. I liked this movie, but not nearly as much as I loved Pineapple Express.

[Dukefrukem]

This is very understandable. I liked this movie, but not nearly as much as I loved Pineapple Express.

Do you smoke?

[Raiders]

Do you smoke?

Not anymore. Are you suggesting that is a prerequisite to love that movie, or just curious?

[Dukefrukem]

Not anymore. Are you suggesting that is a prerequisite to love that movie, or just curious?

I've found that I generally do not enjoy movies based around pot whereas people who have smoked in the past or still smoke find them much more entertaining.

I was annoyed with Half Baked.

[Raiders]

I've found that I generally do not enjoy movies based around pot whereas people who have smoked in the past or still smoke find them much more entertaining.

I was annoyed with Half Baked.

Have you seen it though? I don't think the movie would fall in the same continent of comedy as Half Baked. I would recommend giving it a spin if you haven't already.

[Dukefrukem]

Have you seen it though? I don't think the movie would fall in the same continent of comedy as Half Baked. I would recommend giving it a spin if you haven't already.

I def. plan to. It wasn't on my immediate "to watch" list because of my past experiences. I do want to see it eventually.

[Spinal]

For me it's as simple as 'what did I want from this movie?' I wanted to have a good time, laugh a lot, be surprised a few times along the way. I found that the film exceeded my expectations. There is certainly a scene or two that I didn't care for. For example, the scene where they're somehow allowed to talk to the doctor while he tends to an elderly patient was both false and crass. However, it would seem unfair to me to laugh as much as I did, have as much fun as I did and then give the film a timid recommendation. I liked the way the film was structured as a puzzle to be solved. I liked that the film was concerned with balancing the desire to be reckless with the desire to be responsible. I liked the way the film made use of the Vegas setting. It was the right film at the right time for me.

[[ETM]]

I smell a franchise coming up.

[Raiders]

;171789']I smell a franchise coming up.

They are already working on a sequel.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-word28-2009may28,0,27759.story

[The Mike]

I must have missed the Asian carricaturing. I don't think they even made any reference to his ethnicity.

"It's OK...I hate Godzilla too." wasn't implying anything?

I'm definitely in the "It was funny" camp on this one. I don't know how much I'll want to revisit it, though it might play better on a small screen with a few friends than it did in an auditorium of crazies.

And I gotta agree with whomever mentioned the soundtrack. Yawn.

[[ETM]]

They are already working on a sequel.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-et-word28-2009may28,0,27759.story

Ouch.... The Miami Hangover comin' up.

[Ezee E]

Miami. Ick. This only works because it's Vegas.

[Spinal]

"Everyone who sees the movie loves it," says Sue Kroll, the studio's president of worldwide marketing. "It always ends up with people laughing hysterically and everyone wants to go back and immediately see it again."

Easy there, Sue. Let off of the gas.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Where did it say in there that the next installment is taking place in Miami? Or was that just a guess?

[[ETM]]

Where did it say in there that the next installment is taking place in Miami? Or was that just a guess?

I hope it's not a guess. Worst thing that could happen are CSI-style sequels, Which is why I'm dreading them already.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Easy there, Sue. Let off of the gas.

She can't. She's a marketer.

And to hell with a sequel. I would love another comedy from this team, but a sequel would destroy one of my favorite things about the movie, which is its relative uniqueness.

I read a lot of reviews that talked about how it was "just another Vegas movie," but I don't get that. How many Vegas comedies like this are there? The only one that I could even recall was Very Bad Things.

Wow. What a huge sub-genre.

[Watashi]

http://tf.org/images/covers/VegasVacation.jpg

[MacGuffin]

I saw parts of that a long time ago. It was weird.

[Milky Joe]

It's always been my favorite of those movies.

[Kurosawa Fan]

It's always been my favorite of those movies.

You like that better than the National Lampoon films? Really?

[EvilShoe]

No Vegas movie will ever top
http://pammyshep.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/vegas.jpg

[megladon8]

#168 on the IMDb 250.

[Spinal]

#168 on the IMDb 250.

And still not as absurd as Star Trek being at #92.

[Henry Gale]

And still not as absurd as Star Trek being at #92.

Or Gran Torino at #77.

This on the other hand was a lot of fun even if it never comes close to being a very good movie. It was a lot more hit-and-miss than I expected, but it never lost me and still had me laughing for the majority of it.

Though I have to agree with those disliking Jeong's character. As much as I like him in everything else and thought his first scene was pretty great, it just felt like he was out of place and just playing a cartoon. Things like his "it's funny because..." remarks just felt like they've been done better so many times before. Another problem I had was how there was so little in terms of payoffs for some big comedic buildups. Like with the second Mike Tyson scene, I was thinking after how even Phillip's own Starsky & Hutch had a better security camera scene! Also, it was really obvious how the baby was clearly a different child from shot to shot even in the single scenes. Don't they usually try and get twins/triplets for something like this?

But in the end, all quibbles aside... as with most comedies, all I really care about is if it made me laugh enough and if I would watch it again to rely on those moments to be just as enjoyable on repeated viewings. And yes, very much so.

Plus, the end credits are probably one of the greatest ever and make up what is for me the funniest 2 to 3 minutes from any movie so far this year.

[The Mike]

Or Gran Torino at #77.

Or The Dark Knight at #7.

Winner. :cool:

[Rowland]

The Hangover as racist, misogynistic, priviledged middle-class white male fantasy?

http://www.thelmagazine.com/TheMeasure/archives/2009/06/05/the-white-middle-class-gets-a-free-pass-to-fuck-over-minorities

I'm closer to Ben, but I sympathize with Henry and many of his observations a great deal, enough so that I still think this movie is tremendously, bafflingly overrated.

[Watashi]

The Hangover as racist, misogynistic, priviledged middle-class white male fantasy?

http://www.thelmagazine.com/TheMeasure/archives/2009/06/05/the-white-middle-class-gets-a-free-pass-to-fuck-over-minorities

I'm closer to Ben, but I sympathize with Henry and many of his observations a great deal, enough so that I still think this movie is tremendously, bafflingly overrated.

How is it overrated? I don't think anyone here is calling it a masterpiece of comedy or anything.

[Rowland]

How is it overrated? I don't think anyone here is calling it a masterpiece of comedy or anything.77% at RT, 73 at Metacritic, and no outright negative reactions here besides kinda-sorta myself and Origami for a movie I feel is at best comedically mediocre and at worst remarkably wrong-headed and lazy is, by my estimation, overrated.

[Ezee E]

I'm waiting for the "girl version" of The Hangover now.

Or was that Sex and the City?

[Sycophant]

I was going to make a post about how chicks will see dude movies like The Hangover but dudes won't see chick movies like Sex and the City, but S&tC performed better at the box office than I thought it did.

[Spinal]

77% at RT, 73 at Metacritic ...

Seems perfectly fair to me.

And 'duh' it's middle-class white male fantasy. Yeah, it's a broad mainstream comedy. No one's claiming that it should have won the Palme d'Or. It's just a fun, simple pleasure.

[Ezee E]

I was going to make a post about how chicks will see dude movies like The Hangover but dudes won't see chick movies like Sex and the City, but S&tC performed better at the box office than I thought it did.
The Hangover is essentially "Entourage" on film. So yeah, it is this year's Sex & The City. The reason its getting good reviews is because people think its funny beginning to end. I'm not reading any 4-star reviews at all, just that it's a fun time to spend 100 minutes.

Is it that much that we have to ask each movie to be a masterpiece?

[transmogrifier]

The Hangover as racist, misogynistic, priviledged middle-class white male fantasy?

http://www.thelmagazine.com/TheMeasure/archives/2009/06/05/the-white-middle-class-gets-a-free-pass-to-fuck-over-minorities

I'm closer to Ben, but I sympathize with Henry and many of his observations a great deal, enough so that I still think this movie is tremendously, bafflingly overrated.

Henry seems as much of an arsehole as the guys in the movie are supposed to be. And what the hell is up with this comment:

"...getting tasered isn’t funny. Tasers kill lots of people (http://www.alternet.org/rights/44455/) every year."

What an absolutely ridiculous point of view towards a comedy.

[Sycophant]

"...getting tasered isn’t funny. Tasers kill lots of people (http://www.alternet.org/rights/44455/) every year."

What an absolutely ridiculous point of view towards a comedy.

That's positively absurd. Some people die by falling down stairs every year. I know lots of people who've been permanently damaged by falling down stairs and it was no laughing matter.

But goddamn if I won't ever stop laughing at people falling down stairs in movies. It's funny!

[Spinal]

Henry seems as much of an arsehole as the guys in the movie are supposed to be. And what the hell is up with this comment:

"...getting tasered isn’t funny. Tasers kill lots of people (http://www.alternet.org/rights/44455/) every year."

What an absolutely ridiculous point of view towards a comedy.

Dr. Strangelove isn't funny. Nuclear weapons are devastating instruments of death.

Raising Arizona isn't funny. Child abductions are no laughing matter.

Shaun of the Dead isn't funny. If there was a zombie apocalypse, society as we know it would collapse and there would be nothing but misery.

[Rowland]

I don't know, I thought Sex and the City was an unexpectedly ambitious and mature chick flick, less interested in shrill fantasy than its characters coming to terms with the realities of middle age. My chief criticism towards that film stemmed from its egregious over-length; credit where it's due, The Hangover never drags.

[number8]

The idea that only women watch Sex & The City is an absolute fallacy.

[number8]

Also, saying that the guys never grew out of their frat boy persona is missing the point entirely. The idea is that they did--one is a teacher, one is in a domestic relationship, and one is taking the leap into married life--with the one exception being a notedly wealthy, pampered and mentally retarded man child. The whole premise is a bachelor's party, the world of the story is Vegas. It's the one place and one situation where they are permissible to be "frat boys," with that promise of blank slate afterwards (erasing the photos).

[trotchky]

His character in Role Models spoke nonsensical Engrish laced with "cock" and "balls" in a high-pitched voice while performing karate moves?

I think you're overstating the point here. His "Engrish" is far from nonsensical and while that manner of speech probably contributed to the humor of his character for a lot of viewers, it wasn't the root of it--which was, as 8 said, the effeminate remarks and demeanor of this ruthless mob boss.

But yeah, his character here wasn't really like his character in Role Models at all.


"It's OK...I hate Godzilla too." wasn't implying anything?

It was implying that the character who said that was dumb.

[trotchky]

The Hangover as racist, misogynistic, priviledged middle-class white male fantasy?

http://www.thelmagazine.com/TheMeasure/archives/2009/06/05/the-white-middle-class-gets-a-free-pass-to-fuck-over-minorities

I'm closer to Ben, but I sympathize with Henry and many of his observations a great deal, enough so that I still think this movie is tremendously, bafflingly overrated.

I only read the first half of this but I find it funny that the first guy decries Apatow, whose Knocked Up might be the most even-handed, nuanced, sympathetic, human, and even deep depiction of pregnancy (especially from the female side of things) I've ever seen on film.

Aside from that, Role Models might be the only other great movie Apatow has had vague involvement with (although both Observe & Report and Pineapple Express come close), but all of the films I've seen have had strong overtones of post-structuralist understandings of gender and our modern, capitalist world in general.

But then, these dudes apparently had to "crawl out of their art-house bunker" to even see The Hangover, so I guess I shouldn't expect them to give it a fair assessment.

[The Mike]

It was implying that the character who said that was dumb.Dumb enough to make assumptions about race, meaning the race was brought up.

[trotchky]

Dumb enough to make assumptions about race, meaning the race was brought up.

True...

edit: Just clarifying that the humor of the "Godzilla" comment is in the stupidity of its speaker, not "Asians are afraid of Godzilla lol!"

[The Mike]

True...

edit: Just clarifying that the humor of the "Godzilla" comment is in the stupidity of its speaker, not "Asians are afraid of Godzilla lol!"

Oh, I gotcha, I was just sayin that it was brought up in the movie.

[MadMan]

Not much to offer here, aside from the fact that I found this movie to be utterly hilarious. As far as comedies go from this decade I'd say its pretty damn good, and somewhere up there, although still more in the middle of the pack. Its a step up from Old School, another favorite comedy of mine, and thankfully its much better than School for Scoundrels, which was painfully average. Phillips seems to be improving as a director, which is a good thing.

[Pop Trash]

So...if I like (often really like in the cases of Knocked Up and Pineapple Express) the Apatow crew's stuff but didn't like Old School at all (the whole earmuffs thing and Will Farrell running down the street naked were painfully unfunny) would I like this? I kinda want to see it but are there others that didn't like Old School at all but liked this a lot?

[EyesWideOpen]

So...if I like (often really like in the cases of Knocked Up and Pineapple Express) the Apatow crew's stuff but didn't like Old School at all (the whole earmuffs thing and Will Farrell running down the street naked were painfully unfunny) would I like this? I kinda want to see it but are there others that didn't like Old School at all but liked this a lot?

I didn't care for Old School that much but I loved The Hangover. Probably one of my favorite comedies of the last year or so.

[transmogrifier]

I liked episodes 7, 8 and 15 of the latest season of The Office, but detested epsiode 11 with all my heart, and I think I'm attracted to men with beards, but only if it appears as if they trim in more than once every two weeks and it doesn't contain more than 30% flecks of grey, and I like gambling, but with other people's money, and I think global warming is a bit of a myth, and Belgium is my favorite country that I'd never want to visit again, plus I think I've dropped 10 pounds in the month or so.

Will I like The Hangover?

[Pop Trash]

I liked episodes 7, 8 and 15 of the latest season of The Office, but detested epsiode 11 with all my heart, and I think I'm attracted to men with beards, but only if it appears as if they trim in more than once every two weeks and it doesn't contain more than 30% flecks of grey, and I like gambling, but with other people's money, and I think global warming is a bit of a myth, and Belgium is my favorite country that I'd never want to visit again, plus I think I've dropped 10 pounds in the month or so.

Will I like The Hangover?

a) it's a fair question given the comparisons I made
b) The Fall sucked
c) fuck off

[number8]

I believe Old School's weak link was Will Ferrell and Vince Vaughn. This movie has neither.

[MacGuffin]

I believe Old School's weak link was Will Ferrell and Vince Vaughn.

You might be right. Awful "actors".

[Milky Joe]

I believe Old School's weak link was Will Ferrell and Vince Vaughn. This movie has neither.

Ha, they were the only worthwhile parts of Old School. I skip over everything else when I watch that movie. It's nauseating when they aren't on screen.

[number8]

You'd watch Vince Vaughn over Jeremy Piven? Absurd.

[Milky Joe]

I didn't even remember Jeremy Piven had a part in it. But no, not regularly I wouldn't.

[Rowland]

The only scene from Old School I remember was when Farrell stumbled around the kid's birthday party hopped up on horse tranqs. It was funny when he just knocked some kid out of his way... *shrug*

[The Mike]

Old School > The Hangover

[Ivan Drago]

The idea that only women watch Sex & The City is an absolute fallacy.

"So...it's a show about 3 hookers and their mom?"

[Mal]

Well I had fun in the theater. Then I slept on it and realized it was a piece of crap in the same way most of Phillips' films are. But it is his best film... it's just not good.

[number8]

"So...it's a show about 3 hookers and their mom?"

I could never understand that joke. Who's the mom? Carrie and Miranda don't look any younger than Samantha.

[number8]

Well I had fun in the theater. Then I slept on it and realized it was a piece of crap in the same way most of Phillips' films are. But it is his best film... it's just not good.

I left the part that mattered.

[Mal]

I left the part that mattered.

Puh-leez. It was like watching an episode of Jackass. Except it took longer for me to shake my head.

[number8]

Puh-leez. It was like watching an episode of Jackass. Except it took longer for me to shake my head.
That doesn't change anything.

[Mal]

That doesn't change anything.

So you're suggesting I shouldn't think about the movie? That I just judge my depression-snapping, sugar-infused experience to gage it?

[number8]

So you're suggesting I shouldn't think about the movie? That I just judge my depression-snapping, sugar-infused experience to gage it?

Sort of. Maybe. Eh. Certainly, people are allowed to reflect and change opinions, but viewing experience is not as dismissable as everyone like to think it to be, since it's a large part of what the entertainment industry is all about. Your example suggested that you laugh at Jackass stunts and then decry it afterwards because it's sophomoric. That's rather ingenuous. I don't like Jackass either, because I don't find them funny or amusing, but if the goal is to make you laugh and have fun, and you did, then you should probably dislike it only as much as you dislike yourself. It bugs me because it's the same dismissive rationale people apply to reality TV: Oh, no, I hate the dating shows, but their stupidity makes me laugh so I always watch them to catch those moments. Well, that means you like it.

[Mal]

Sort of. Maybe. Eh. Certainly, people are allowed to reflect and change opinions, but viewing experience is not as dismissable as everyone like to think it to be, since it's a large part of what the entertainment industry is all about. Your example suggested that you laugh at Jackass stunts and then decry it afterwards because it's sophomoric. That's rather ingenuous. I don't like Jackass either, because I don't find them funny or amusing, but if the goal is to make you laugh and have fun, and you did, then you should probably dislike it only as much as you dislike yourself. It bugs me because it's the same dismissive rationale people apply to reality TV: Oh, no, I hate the dating shows, but their stupidity makes me laugh so I always watch them to catch those moments. Well, that means you like it.
You're reading too much into what I said.
I laugh and shake my head at Jackass because it's funny and they're dumb. I don't have a delay in reaction when I watch it most often. If I had watched The Hangover in a different state, I would have come to the same conclusion/rating earlier, without having to sleep on it. Plus having "fun" in the theater doesn't really do it for me overall... it's not like it was A+ fun either. More like B-.

[trotchky]

The "yeah it was really hilarious but that's all it had going for it" reactions are pretty confusing to me. I mean, what more did you expect?

[MadMan]

I like both of the Jackass "movies." But they're not as well made or feature the kind of good comedic timing that is featured in The Hangover.

And I realize that Phillips also directed Starsky and Hutch, which I also liked quite a bit, mainly because it wisely was made as a comedy instead of trying to be an extension/update of the actual TV series.

Old School-82
The Hangover-85

Ratings are fun.

[trotchky]

Party Boy is the best part of Jackass.

[balmakboor]

I enjoyed The Hangover. My only complaint is that Heather Graham isn't on screen nearly enough.

[Duncan]

I only read the first half of this but I find it funny that the first guy decries Apatow, whose Knocked Up might be the most even-handed, nuanced, sympathetic, human, and even deep depiction of pregnancy (especially from the female side of things) I've ever seen on film. Are you talking about the movie that doesn't even have the guts to use the word "abortion"? That movie?

[trotchky]

Are you talking about the movie that doesn't even have the guts to use the word "abortion"? That movie?

Juno? No, I'm talking about Knocked Up, the movie with the staggering evocation of the emotional turmoils of a prospective mother (and sometimes father) and societal acuity, while remaining hilarious, to boot.

[Derek]

Juno? No, I'm talking about Knocked Up

What'd you think of its handling of the shmashmortion issue?

[number8]

Ugh, I hated that criticism two years ago and I hate it now. Just because the movie made a joke out of nonsense words that rhyme with abortion does not mean it didn't have the guts to say abortion. Wow. That is not at all how jokes work, guys.

[Skitch]

Saw it last night. Very funny. Half the theater full...with kids under 16.

[Rowland]

Dennis Cozzalio rips it a new one:

http://sergioleoneifr.blogspot.com/

[Spinal]

Dennis Cozzalio rips it a new one:

http://sergioleoneifr.blogspot.com/

Who the hell is Dennis Cozzalio and why should I care about what he thinks? I mean, this is just another review whining about the fact that the film is centered on white males and whining that the film is making a lot of money.

[balmakboor]

One of my friends emailed me a comment on my review of The Hangover which can be read here:

http://blogcritics.org/video/article/movie-review-the-hangover3/

(If the site is working. It's been up and down today.)

His comments:

I read and enjoyed your review of The Hangover. One comment which I think I shared with you when we discussed Knocked Up some time ago. One convention of these films is that men are stupid and women can be cruel. I think that is a kind of political correctness. They want to show that women can be self-assured, confident, and intelligent, but that's boring so they make them mean. In the "meantime" guys end up as stupid. Notice how often men in commercials are depicted as bumbling and incompetent while their spouses and girl friends are so organized and sensible.One of the nice things about gay themed movies is that they show why someone might like and even love a male human being.

[number8]

Who the hell is Dennis Cozzalio and why should I care about what he thinks?

I dunno, but I decided to Google him and found nothing really telling, except for his picture.

http://filminfocus.com/uploads/image/mediafile/1236979205-99fcb3fabda131f195f4cded280fdf 3f/250.jpg

[Spinal]

I'm not listening to anybody wearing a Dodgers hat.

[Derek]

Ugh, I hated that criticism two years ago and I hate it now. Just because the movie made a joke out of nonsense words that rhyme with abortion does not mean it didn't have the guts to say abortion. Wow. That is not at all how jokes work, guys.

Very true. The problem was not that joke, which wasn't a particularly funny one at that, but that it's indicative of the film's dismissive attitude towards abortion as not only a viable possibility but even one worth discussing or mentioning. I don't have much of a problem with that (I like the film) except when people praise it for being some sort of revelatory take on modern women and pregnancy. Despite the crass humor, it's a pretty conservative film in its approach to unplanned pregnancy and in its general representation of family = maturity while leaving its man-children, ironically a good deal of the Apatow fan base, hanging out to dry.

[number8]

I can certainly agree to it being conservative, though really, if the film isn't somewhat dismissive towards abortion, then the premise wouldn't even work. They had to get it out of the way. What irks me is that everybody points to that schmorbortion scene as proof that the film doesn't want to entertain the option and they somehow forget the scene where Heigl's mother asks her if she'd considered an abortion and Heigl refuses, which gives the "out" that the decision to keep the baby is the character's choice, not the movie's lack of presentable options. Pro-choice is exactly what it is: choice.

[trotchky]

Very true. The problem was not that joke, which wasn't a particularly funny one at that, but that it's indicative of the film's dismissive attitude towards abortion as not only a viable possibility but even one worth discussing or mentioning. I don't have much of a problem with that (I like the film) except when people praise it for being some sort of revelatory take on modern women and pregnancy. Despite the crass humor, it's a pretty conservative film in its approach to unplanned pregnancy and in its general representation of family = maturity while leaving its man-children, ironically a good deal of the Apatow fan base, hanging out to dry.

I see the movie's attitude towards abortion as dismissive in as much as the movie doesn't want to be about abortion. Kind of like how race is never brought up in Rachel Getting Married.

[Ezee E]

I figure in RGM that the couple had been together so long that there was no need for race to be brought up. It had been past that for quite some time.

[Derek]

I see the movie's attitude towards abortion as dismissive in as much as the movie doesn't want to be about abortion. Kind of like how race is never brought up in Rachel Getting Married.

A movie about a young professional woman who gets knocked up during a one-night-stand with a shlub overlooking abortion is hardly the same as a movie about a recovering addict coming home for her sister's wedding ignoring race.

[Pop Trash]

A movie about a young professional woman who gets knocked up during a one-night-stand with a shlub overlooking abortion is hardly the same as a movie about a recovering addict coming home for her sister's wedding ignoring race.

I think their points are that just because she chooses to have the baby, doesn't mean that the movie overlooks abortion. I mean there wouldn't be a movie without the pregnancy. The movie is (in part) about them having a baby, it's not about them having an abortion. It's as ridiculous as complaning that 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 days isn't enough about being pregnant.

[Derek]

I think their points are that just because she chooses to have the baby, doesn't mean that the movie overlooks abortion. I mean there wouldn't be a movie without the pregnancy. The movie is (in part) about them having a baby, it's not about them having an abortion. It's as ridiculous as complaning that 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 days isn't enough about being pregnant.

Yes, I'm saying that she should've had the abortion. At least someone's reading my posts carefully.

[trotchky]

A movie about a young professional woman who gets knocked up during a one-night-stand with a shlub overlooking abortion is hardly the same as a movie about a recovering addict coming home for her sister's wedding ignoring race.

I still don't know what you're talking about when you say the movie "overlooks" abortion. The characters certainly don't.

[Duncan]

Even in that scene with the mother the word abortion is never used, and Heigl never really considers the option viable. Fair enough by me. I don't think that's a very honest portrayal of a woman in her position, but if the movie wants to sidestep abortion, well, alright. HOWEVER, I think that decision pretty much automatically negates any claims that this is one of "the most even-handed, nuanced, sympathetic, human, and even deep depiction of pregnancy (especially from the female side of things) [anyone] has ever seen on film," because clearly it's only examining one side of things. Furthermore, the examination of that side of things is off somewhere in Hollywood dreamland. No realistic consequences come of her choice to have her baby. Instead of her career being hindered, her career flourishes because, get this, babies are cool nowadays. All the stars are having them. Not only does this promote a false reality, it promotes an irresponsible falsehood and disregards the emotional, financial, social, and temporal responsibilities inherent in motherhood. Plus, she just happens to fall in love with the pothead loser she had a one night stand with. Okey dokey. Could happen, I guess. Even Heigl herself claims it's a misogynistic film. Although, she did agree to act in it, so...

I also don't find that Leslie Mann's character resembles any woman I've ever met.

[Duncan]

Actually, even Apatow himself admits it's a sexist film (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knocked_Up#Accusations_of_disc rimination).

[trotchky]

Yeah, I don't agree with any of that, but I also don't remember the film clearly enough to articulate a decent response (drugs, you see). Shrug.

[trotchky]

One thing I will say is..if she had an abortion, it wouldn't be a movie about pregnancy, it would be a movie about abortion. Duh!

[Dead & Messed Up]

I also don't find that Leslie Mann's character resembles any woman I've ever met.

The Mann-Rudd dynamic struck me as the more authentic relationship. Mann's character was more sharply defined, a loving, yet suspicious woman who's afraid of her husband leaving her. Her hypocrisy (visiting clubs for validation) was interesting, and her resolution seemed more honest than Heigl's, which depended on Rogen reading two baby books (witnessed during a montage - how imperative!).

[trotchky]

Oh yeah and I found Knocked Up so moving that I cried three separate times during it.

[trotchky]

The Mann-Rudd dynamic struck me as the more authentic relationship. Mann's character was more sharply defined, a loving, yet suspicious woman who's afraid of her husband leaving her. Her hypocrisy (visiting clubs for validation) was interesting, and her resolution seemed more honest than Heigl's, which depended on Rogen reading two baby books (witnessed during a montage - how imperative!).

I don't think there's any indication that the two leads won't still have to work at their relationship even after the baby is born (in fact, I think it strongly implies the opposite). Some of Rogen's actions towards the end indicate that he has grown a bit and assumed a certain amount of responsibility, but it's really Heigl's power and self-assuredness that shines through(out).

[number8]

One of the subplots of the film that I admit was left unsaid but strongly hinted was Heigl and Mann being envious of each other's lives.

[Duncan]

One thing I will say is..if she had an abortion, it wouldn't be a movie about pregnancy, it would be a movie about abortion. Duh!

And I'm saying it's (definitely) not a movie about abortion, and it's (imo) not a film about pregnancy, but that it is a fairytale version of what women in Heigl's position would actually go through. I mean, I've known people in her position, and it sure as hell didn't work out like it did in the movie.

[Duncan]

Yeah, I don't agree with any of that, but I also don't remember the film clearly enough to articulate a decent response (drugs, you see). Shrug.

Not everything I said there was opinionated. There are some straight facts presented there that I don't think can be refuted with a mere "I don't agree with any of that."

[Duncan]

The Mann-Rudd dynamic struck me as the more authentic relationship. Mann's character was more sharply defined, a loving, yet suspicious woman who's afraid of her husband leaving her. Her hypocrisy (visiting clubs for validation) was interesting, and her resolution seemed more honest than Heigl's, which depended on Rogen reading two baby books (witnessed during a montage - how imperative!).

It struck me as contrived and false, and unlike anything I have ever encountered in real life. I've met hypocritical women before, I've met overly needy bitches before, but Mann's character is, as far as I know, purely fictional. She doesn't resemble any of my experiences with women. Maybe you've met different kinds of women than I have.

[trotchky]

And I'm saying it's (definitely) not a movie about abortion, and it's (imo) not a film about pregnancy, but that it is a fairytale version of what women in Heigl's position would actually go through. I mean, I've known people in her position, and it sure as hell didn't work out like it did in the movie.

It's filled to the brim with too many emotional turmoils on her part to be a fairytale. Her decision might not be the most commonly chosen one for women in her position, and I think the movie acknowledges that (ie. her battling tooth-and-nail against basically everyone in her life (except, hey, Rogen) thinking the whole arrangement is a bad idea, even if the word "abortion" is never spoken), and makes it a part of her struggle and hence a reflection on the strength of her character.

[trotchky]

It struck me as contrived and false, and unlike anything I have ever encountered in real life. I've met hypocritical women before, I've met overly needy bitches before, but Mann's character is, as far as I know, purely fictional. She doesn't resemble any of my experiences with women. Maybe you've met different kinds of women than I have.

She's certainly a better person than most women I've known, I'll say that much.

On the other hand, Rogen's character is about as much of a prick as most men I've known, if not slightly less so.

[Duncan]

It's filled to the brim with too many emotional turmoils on her part to be a fairytale. Her decision might not be the most commonly chosen one for women in her position, and I think the movie acknowledges that (ie. her battling tooth-and-nail against basically everyone in her life (except, hey, Rogen) thinking the whole arrangement is a bad idea, even if the word "abortion" is never spoken), and makes it a part of her struggle and hence a reflection on the strength of her character.
Fairytales can be highly emotional. That's usually the point of a fairytale: to appeal to a fundamental part of a person (whether it be primordially human or cultural) and exploit it for emotional resonance. From Peter Pan's fountain of youth nonsense to Little Red Robin Hood's don't be promiscuous young lady or your grandma will get eaten nonsense or Cinderella's prince charming will find you and your foot will be a perfect match for that silly glass slipper nonsense. I don't deny that they speak to us in a moving or even profound way, but emotional engagement doesn't necessarily negate a film's essential fairytale-ness.

Also, I never said that it's a fairytale because it's not the most common choice by a woman in her position. I believe it is a fairytale because it presents a highly unlikely outcome based on the lead character's choices.

[Duncan]

btw, I saw The Hangover and thought it was pretty funny but agree with the people who claim it trades in broad racial stereotypes for humour. I found the initial naked leap from the back of the car hilarious, but nothing afterward from that dude made me even smile. Maybe it's the PC world we live in, but I found it actually pretty weird that there wasn't a black/Indian/East Asian/Native American/Jewish friend just thrown in to balance shit out a little. Even in the cloistered confines of prep schools nowadays there is a decent amount of racial diversity. OK, maybe that's not a big deal, it's a fun time anyway. I dunno. Masturbating baby was hilarious.

[trotchky]

Fairytales can be highly emotional. That's usually the point of a fairytale: to appeal to a fundamental part of a person (whether it be primordially human or cultural) and exploit it for emotional resonance. From Peter Pan's fountain of youth nonsense to Little Red Robin Hood's don't be promiscuous young lady or your grandma will get eaten nonsense or Cinderella's prince charming will find you and your foot will be a perfect match for that silly glass slipper nonsense. I don't deny that they speak to us in a moving or even profound way, but emotional engagement doesn't necessarily negate a film's essential fairytale-ness.

Also, I never said that it's a fairytale because it's not the most common choice by a woman in her position. I believe it is a fairytale because it presents a highly unlikely outcome based on the lead character's choices.

A friend of mine who looks a lot like Seth Rogen also called the movie fairytale-esque. He didn't like it, either. I can see it now, based on your description of what a fairytale is, but I don't think that negates its validity.

[Ezee E]

I'm pretty sure that the Rogen/Heigl relationship would've ended up a disaster at one point in their lives.

[Dead & Messed Up]

It struck me as contrived and false, and unlike anything I have ever encountered in real life. I've met hypocritical women before, I've met overly needy bitches before, but Mann's character is, as far as I know, purely fictional. She doesn't resemble any of my experiences with women. Maybe you've met different kinds of women than I have.

It isn't that I've met women like her. It's that I found her more interesting, which tempered any need for her to be instantly relatable. As the film progressed, I liked seeing how much of her attitude came out of fear and desperation. And I liked how Rudd's character facilitated that unknowingly with his need to keep arbitrary secrets - a way to liberate himself, however dishonestly, from her grip.

[trotchky]

I'm pretty sure that the Rogen/Heigl relationship would've ended up a disaster at one point in their lives.

I agree.

[DavidSeven]

I always thought Knocked Up was pretty damn sexist. If not sexist, then it at least seems to have no idea how women behave or perhaps doesn't really care. It's mostly covered by Duncan's posts and the Wiki page he posted. I thought the scene where Heigl decides to sleep with Rogen (the second time) after he verbally degrades her was particularly troubling.

[trotchky]

It's no less accurate a depiction of female behavior than it is of male behavior.

[trotchky]

Not everything I said there was opinionated. There are some straight facts presented there that I don't think can be refuted with a mere "I don't agree with any of that."

What, you mean the parts where you specified the opinions of Heigl and Apatow? Yeah, I guess it is objectively true that they said those things. Or when you said Heigl's character wasn't like any woman you've ever met, or that she "just happens" to fall in love with "the pothead loser"? Yup, I guess I really can't refute those things, either. Boy am I red in the face!

[Spinal]

Todd Phillips is on the Travel Network right now playing at the final table of a World Poker Tour event.

[transmogrifier]

I think the error most people make regarding the central pairing in Knocked Up is confusing the usual course of events with the ONLY possible course of events. Just because most pretty successful girls wouldn't necessarily jump into bed with a Seth Rogen-like slacker doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Therefore the argument is groundless; why not go after easier targets, like the fact that it is way overlong and not really that funny?

[MacGuffin]

like the fact that it is way overlong and not really that funny?

I may be will to give you overlong, maybe... but the fact is, I think it becomes less of a comedy when the lead characters realize the circumstances they got themselves into.

[transmogrifier]

I may be will to give you overlong, maybe... but the fact is, I think it becomes less of a comedy when the lead characters realize the circumstances they got themselves into.

So allow me to add: dramatically inert.

[Duncan]

What, you mean the parts where you specified the opinions of Heigl and Apatow? Yeah, I guess it is objectively true that they said those things. Or when you said Heigl's character wasn't like any woman you've ever met, or that she "just happens" to fall in love with "the pothead loser"? Yup, I guess I really can't refute those things, either. Boy am I red in the face!

It wasn't my intention to try to embarrass you. I was just pointing out that I presented some facts that you disregarded or classified as opinion, hence your:
Yeah, I don't agree with any of that, but I also don't remember the film clearly enough to articulate a decent response (drugs, you see). Shrug. But since you have either intentionally misconstrued my posts or, perhaps, are on drugs again, let me refresh your memory. First of all, I said Mann's character didn't resemble any woman I've ever met, not Heigl's character. Facts from the film that I presented in my earlier post: 1) In response to people claiming critics had forgotten about the scene with the mother as a discussion of abortion, I pointed out that that scene also (conspicuously) omits the word "abortion". 2) The second fact is that Heigl's career flourishes because, in the film's world, babies are cool nowadays. It turns out to be a career blessing for her. Fact, no? The opinion part is that a newborn is highly unlikely to further a woman's career. I don't really know what you're trying to accomplish by putting some of my phrases in quotation marks. Sarcasm, I guess, but I don't understand what you're being sarcastic about. I said she just happens to fall in love with Rogen's character and that I found that unlikely, but that I could accept that such things do happen. I mean, I consider that a pretty reasonable position. Repeating what I said in a sarcastic tone is just childish.

[Duncan]

Also agree that it is overlong, only kinda funny, and dramatically inert. Please note though that I never claimed any of these things, especially the relationship between Heigl and Rogen, couldn't happen. Only that they were unlikely. The part that I find next to impossible to swallow is that the baby furthers her career.

[Boner M]

Who the hell is Dennis Cozzalio and why should I care about what he thinks? I mean, this is just another review whining about the fact that the film is centered on white males and whining that the film is making a lot of money.

Welcome to our newest member, Dennis Cozzalio (http://match-cut.org/member.php?u=1792)
Welcome, indeed!

[number8]

Hahaha.

[trotchky]

Priceless.

[Spinal]

That's funny.

[Dennis Cozzalio]

Hi, kids!

Are we all Giants fans here, or am I just being too sensitive? :)

If there's any real interest, I think a closer reading of what I wrote might reveal that my objections to The Hangover have nothing to do with the movie "centering on white males," which would be a pretty perverse objection to raise considering a) I'm a white male and b) most movies, include many I find to be just peachy, center on or feature prominently this most common of movie types. Why, some of my best friends are white males too! (I'm pretty sure that being dismissive of or derisive toward other races is not a phenomenon that is exclusive to white males either.)

Nor am I at all interested in the amount of money the movie is making other than to emphasize the absurdity of Warner Bros. (or anybody else) feigning surprise that this movie, which is engineered to appeal to the broadest possible audience and has been marketed like it was a tentpole franchise (which it may very well turn out to be), is a huge hit. These facts are not exactly, no matter what the latest breathless piece in Rolling Stone or Entertainment Weekly would have us believe, a qualification for "sleeper hit" status. Again, it would be a very odd thing to use as criteria to measure the quality of a movie, this ability, or inability, to rake in money. Many great comedies have been monster hits, and some of them have been ignored by ticketbuyers. So what? The money The Hangover is making is interesting only insofar as it speaks to Warner Bros.' success at convincing the public going in that they're in for something special. Even whether the general public likes it or not is immaterial to my review. My only responsibility is to explain why I found the movie lacking as a film, as a comedy, as a piece of narrative writing. If you think I've failed in that regard after looking at what I've actually said, well, what more can I say?

But to get back to the original question, why should you or anyone else care what I think? Sorry, but I wouldn't presume to try to answer that one. (Dodger... cap... on... too... tight...)

[Watashi]

I don't believe it.

He's just another Rob Humanick.

One post and he'll be gone.

[Spinal]

Hi, kids!

Are we all Giants fans here, or am I just being too sensitive? :)

If there's any real interest, I think a closer reading of what I wrote might reveal that my objections to The Hangover have nothing to do with the movie "centering on white males," which would be a pretty perverse objection to raise considering a) I'm a white male and b) most movies, include many I find to be just peachy, center on or feature prominently this most common of movie types. Why, some of my best friends are white males too! (I'm pretty sure that being dismissive of or derisive toward other races is not a phenomenon that is exclusive to white males either.)

Nor am I at all interested in the amount of money the movie is making other than to emphasize the absurdity of Warner Bros. (or anybody else) feigning surprise that this movie, which is engineered to appeal to the broadest possible audience and has been marketed like it was a tentpole franchise (which it may very well turn out to be), is a huge hit. These facts are not exactly, no matter what the latest breathless piece in Rolling Stone or Entertainment Weekly would have us believe, a qualification for "sleeper hit" status. Again, it would be a very odd thing to use as criteria to measure the quality of a movie, this ability, or inability, to rake in money. Many great comedies have been monster hits, and some of them have been ignored by ticketbuyers. So what? The money The Hangover is making is interesting only insofar as it speaks to Warner Bros.' success at convincing the public going in that they're in for something special. Even whether the general public likes it or not is immaterial to my review. My only responsibility is to explain why I found the movie lacking as a film, as a comedy, as a piece of narrative writing. If you think I've failed in that regard after looking at what I've actually said, well, what more can I say?

But to get back to the original question, why should you or anyone else care what I think? Sorry, but I wouldn't presume to try to answer that one. (Dodger... cap... on... too... tight...)

So, Dennis ... Spidey Sense tingling? I'm not going to ask how you became aware of a throwaway remark made on the fourth page of a lightly trafficked movie discussion forum. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that one of your loyal readers tipped you off because the alternative is that you submit your name to a daily Google search. And that would just be too sad. ;)

I'm not sure why you felt compelled to come defend your work against someone of so little consequence as myself, but since you have taken the time to become a new member of our website, let me first say 'Welcome' and then offer you a response. As someone new to the site, you may not be aware that many posters here share a history together and many posters have certain tendencies and shortcuts that they gravitate towards. Sometimes the predictability of these tendencies can be slightly annoying to others. For me, I would say that flippancy and humor are certainly 'go-to tactics'. Our mutual friend, Rowland, has a history of using links to random bloggers in the place of making a counterpoint.

The point of my flippant comment was not necessarily to call into question the legitimacy of your viewpoint, although I do think that you miss the mark quite severely in the comments that Rowland referenced. The point of my remark was to question why your particular voice was being brought into this particular conversation. Rowland is capable with argumentation, but I think he likes to present other people's thoughts as if they carry more weight simply because they appear on a reasonably well-maintained blog. There are numerous intelligent posters here who are well-versed in cinema, including Rowland. I did not understand the tactic of bringing your voice into the conversation (who is after all, like us, just another guy popping off on the internet) rather than Rowland relying on his own. It would be equally absurd for someone to write in the comments for your website, "Well, Joel Harmon said this ..." (That's me, by the way.) Why would you care? What history do we have together? You have a blog. I have a blog. Numerous people here have blogs.

You object to my characterization of your argument in regards to the film "centering on white males". Let me be more clear. You object to the film centering on a characterization of white males that you seem to think is a fictional construction. For me, the film is not showing us guys as they should ideally be. The film is showing us a group of guys who get together and feel like they have to play the part. The characters in the film are essentially trapped by conventional notions of what a good ol' American male should be. They have an idea that to lose that part of themselves that is reckless and insensitive is to lose a core part of who they are. They go to Vegas to play out that role for a weekend and then spend the entire movie paying for it. (This doesn't apply to the Zach Galifianikis character, who is probably a legitimate tool.) You complain about the film not focusing on the antics, but, Dennis, that is precisely what makes the film so special! We are not intended to laugh at the fact that the boys misbehave so much as we are to laugh at the fact that they have allowed themselves to be in a position where that juvenile need to indulge has been set loose. It is precisely the clean-up, the pulling your shit together, the temptation to play out a role among members of your own gender for bad reasons that I related to when watching the film. I think claims of sexism, racism and homophobia are kind of disingenuous, giving the filmmakers no credit for self-awareness.

As for the making money issue, I will simply say that I tire of reading after the fact people try to explain away a film's success with the general public. Much as you think Warner Brothers should not feign surprise at having a hit, I wonder why you would feign surprise at Warners Brothers framing the situation in their favor. They're a giant corporation. They know how to market. It seems that both of us feel that this is not a very compelling topic, so I'll drop it. Perhaps I am too wary of blogger contrarianism, this need to flow against the mainstream. Not that this is true in your case, of course. Simply a knee-jerk reaction on my part.

At any rate, welcome to the site, if indeed you intend to stay and have not just arrived to swat back at my meager little two-sentence posts. I am sure Dennis Cozzalio will soon be a minor internet sensation and that I will come to rue my reckless sass. Best of luck with the website and enjoy the rest of Manny's suspension.

[Rowland]

For the record, I've already made my argument relating to this film. I posted a link to Dennis' rebuke because I figured some posters around here who likely know who he is, given that he's a prominent voice in the film criticism blogosphere (perhaps most notorious for his Speed Racer love), would like to read it, and I'm always attracted to provocative contrarian perspectives. If you haven't heard of him, as in the case of Spinal here, a sample doesn't hurt. I'm a film blog junkie, so as far as I'm concerned, the more voices the better. If I see points made elsewhere that intrigue me, I'd rather post them than have them not brought up, or worse, I pretend they're my own.

[Dukefrukem]

Saw this movie last night... meh...

[Dennis Cozzalio]

I'm not going to ask how you became aware of a throwaway remark made on the fourth page of a lightly trafficked movie discussion forum. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that one of your loyal readers tipped you off because the alternative is that you submit your name to a daily Google search. And that would just be too sad. ;)

Spinal, although I have searched my name on Google occasionally, you are right-- a daily indulgence would be very sad. I use a service that tracks the addresses where direct hits on my site come from, and one day when I was checking on this page the link to your discussion came up. Apparently someone clicked on the link Rowland provided and checked out my site while initially parked at yours. So I guess I was tipped off, not by a loyal reader however but instead by a good ol' technological marvel of Internet linkage.


For me, the film is not showing us guys as they should ideally be. The film is showing us a group of guys who get together and feel like they have to play the part. The characters in the film are essentially trapped by conventional notions of what a good ol' American male should be. They have an idea that to lose that part of themselves that is reckless and insensitive is to lose a core part of who they are. They go to Vegas to play out that role for a weekend and then spend the entire movie paying for it.... I think claims of sexism, racism and homophobia are kind of disingenuous, giving the filmmakers no credit for self-awareness.

Interesting that you would get the sense that these guys were in some way reacting against having to play the part of boorish, insensitive and/or entitled jackasses (I'm thinking mostly of Bradley Cooper here, but everyone else has their moment). My take on the moment was a far more conventional one-- that the boys were using this weekend as the opportunity to be who they could not be in the shadow of the responsibilities of relationships and suppressive jobs, and that trather than being forced somehow to play these roles, they are essentially freed by them and actively resent having to go back to their real lives. I think the filmmakers are plenty self-aware, which is why the characteers are granted the luxury of having their every debauched moment erased as if it never occurred. And I really do wish that the piecing together of the clues were fun, but as I wrote in my review, the clues themselves are never used with wit and never add up to anything more than what we could have guessed for ourselves about this wild and crazy night.


Best of luck with the website and enjoy the rest of Manny's suspension.

Hehheh! As much as I am enjoying how the Dodgers are playing right now, I don't suspect for a minute that Manny's return will somehow upset the apple cart of the team's chemistry any more than it did last August. My best friend's wife and I have a blood bet ($50) that the Dodgers will appear in the World Series this year, and that bet was made before Manny boned up. I must admit it is weird sitting this high up in the catbird seat, but I refuse to brag and be the one to cause them to take a nosedive after the All-Star break! :)

Finally, I can't say that I will be a regular here because I barely have time to write, maintain and interact with my own site, but at least I wasn't one and done. I'd just like to say that in no way was I insulted by the mention I got here, nor did I feel it necessary to come here to defend my position. I just thought the questions as posed were curiously compelling and figured, as long as I wasn't spoiling for a pissing match, why not?

Have a great week, gentlemen!

[trotchky]

Seems like a cool guy.

[Spinal]

Seems like a cool guy.

Indeed. :)

EDIT: Except for that Dodger loving. That shit's obnoxious.

[Watashi]

Dodgers > Spinal's favorite team

[Spinal]

Dodgers > Spinal's favorite team

We've had a rough couple of weeks, you and I.

[Dukefrukem]

Just for the record, I still support Manny... and I'm a Red Sox fan.

And the Dodgers were my pick in the NL WS this year, considering all the other teams are awful and someone has to go...

[The Mike]

Saw this movie last night... meh...

the Hangover [88]

:crazy:

[Dukefrukem]

:crazy:

I changed my score this morning (and still may change it again) after thinking about it. I fell big time victim to having a lot of the jokes ruined for me in the trailer. I must have watched the trailer a dozen times. It didn't start to pick up until the encounter after the visit to the chapel. The initial shock humor was a bit flat. I didn't think Ken Jeong's character was funny at all however the ending slide show was great. I also had a bunch of teenage girls sitting to the right of me quoting almost the entire movie line by line... i heard them say something to the effect of this was their third time seeing it... I def. need to watch it again under my own conditions.

[trotchky]

Strange, I found it less funny the morning after...

[number8]

I found it harder to remember the morning after.

[MacGuffin]

I haven't seen the movie, but I too find it less funny the more that I think about it.

[The Mike]

I def. need to watch it again under my own conditions.

I definitely agree about this statement. This is one of those movies that a crowd kinda hurts, at least from a critical standpoint.

[Sxottlan]

I enjoyed this movie well enough, but I think the best jokes were spoiled in the trailers.

[Sycophant]

So, I saw this yesterday. I liked it quite a bit, actually, and I'm wondering what happened to the 20-year-old version of me that would have preferred physical torture to paying to see a Todd Phillips film.

I've been doing this thing a lot with movies, lately, where I'm more interested in and entertained by tiny little moments, fleeting, almost indescribable from actors. And everyone seemed to be on their A-game here. I enjoyed the film on the whole, as well, but moment-to-moment, the movie kept me smiling.

I liked the bit with sneaking the tiger out of the hotel. Such classic antics! I was in stitches.

[trotchky]

Has anyone seen Todd Phillips' Hated: G.G. Allin and the Murder Junkies? I've been interested in it for a while and it's free to stream (http://pitchfork.com/tv/#/episode/1971-hated-gg-allin-and-the-murder-junkies/1) on Pitchfork.tv right now.

[Sycophant]

Y'know, I really liked the way the actors in this movie played off each other. If they want to do a sequel with them, I'll watch it. I'd like it if it were kind of a Marx Bros.-style pseudosequel with the same cast, playing basically the same characters but in a different environment instead of a direct, literal sequel, but what the hell.

[Ezee E]

Y'know, I really liked the way the actors in this movie played off each other. If they want to do a sequel with them, I'll watch it. I'd like it if it were kind of a Marx Bros.-style pseudosequel with the same cast, playing basically the same characters but in a different environment instead of a direct, literal sequel, but what the hell.
It may have just been made up here, but rumor had it taking place in Miami.

I, for one, would like to see it take place in their hometown, in a simple attempt to either get away, or how they act with each other, and change for their homelife.

[Sycophant]

It may have just been made up here, but rumor had it taking place in Miami.

I, for one, would like to see it take place in their hometown, in a simple attempt to either get away, or how they act with each other, and change for their homelife.

I'd be game for that.

I'm just frequently pining for old-school style Lewis & Martin/Rogers & Astaire/Marx Bros./Abbott & Costello kinds of screen partnerships.

[Milky Joe]

The amount of interest I have in a sequel to this hinges entirely on the amount of Zach Galifianakis involved with it.

[Ezee E]

The amount of interest I have in a sequel to this hinges entirely on the amount of Zach Galifianakis involved with it.
Less or more?

[Milky Joe]

More, more, more! Or at least as much as in this one. Put it this way: if he's not in it, I'm not watching it.

[Winston*]

This movie was great! Zach Galifianakis being Zach Galifianakis-y in a major movie, how can you beat that?

[baby doll]

This movie is seriously funny.

[baby doll]

This movie was great! Zach Galifianakis being Zach Galifianakis-y in a major movie, how can you beat that?Oh, what's his line? "I'm not really supposed to be within a hundred feet of any schools. Or Chucky Cheese"?

[Milky Joe]

"When you look like I do, it's hard to get a table for one at Chuck-e Cheese."

Er, that's from his standup.

[Winston*]

"When you look like I do, it's hard to get a table for one at Chuck-e Cheese."

Er, that's from his standup.

Baby doll's right, they use the basic joke in the movie too

edit: they also used Fat Jesus.

[Fezzik]

For some reason, my favorite line (that I can remember off the top of my head) was about Galifianakis's character..

Doug: Tracy said we probably shouldn't let him drink. Or gamble too much.

Phil: Jesus, he's like a gremlin. Comes with instructions and shit.



Very funny movie.

[number8]

Pretty sure he adlibs half of his dialogue.

[Sycophant]

This movie is seriously funny.

Part of me wants to hound you for 30 posts, trying to get you to justify this statement and your 3.5 stars.

[Derek]

Part of me wants to hound you for 30 posts, trying to get you to justify this statement and your 3.5 stars.

It is an incredibly high rating for a trite film with no directorial stamp. It cannot logically be given more than 3 stars.

[Dukefrukem]

I'm probably the only one in this thread that thought this movie was ok to good.

Sure funny. Oldschool was better.

[Derek]

I'm probably the only one in this thread that thought this movie was ok to good.

No, I'm with you. Loved Galifianakis though.

[baby doll]

It is an incredibly high rating for a trite film with no directorial stamp. It cannot logically be given more than 3 stars.It might not have an auteurist stamp (Phillips obviously isn't as sophisticated a director as Wes Anderson or Albert Brooks), but I was surprised how well directed it was in terms of having a surprising number of group stagings in medium long shot, and saving the close-ups, quick editing and handheld camera movement for the more frantic moments, like when the tiger wakes up in the backseat. I think this is just one way in which the film is a lot better than it had to be.

Three and a half stars simply means it's worth going out of your way to see--for instance, if you're some one like me who doesn't see a lot of films like this, because it's simply the funniest new movie I've seen in a long time. It has some the usual limitations of these kinds of films (mainly, none of the parts for women are well written), but it wears them lightly, and it has some uncommon strengths, like the mise en scène (see above), and the fact that it's genuinely funny. Also, human beings aren't logical.

[number8]

Holy shit, this movie is the highest grossing R-rated comedy of all time, depending on whether you consider Beverly Hills Cops an action or comedy. 10 more million and the point is moot.

[baby doll]

Holy shit, this movie is the highest grossing R-rated comedy of all time, depending on whether you consider Beverly Hills Cops an action or comedy. 10 more million and the point is moot.How did it get an R rating, anyway? Maybe what I saw was the sexed up Québecois version, or maybe I was just hallucinating, but I'm pretty sure I saw Zach Galafianakis getting a blowjob in the photo montage at the end. Can anyone confirm this for me?

[Sycophant]

How did it get an R rating, anyway? Maybe what I saw was the sexed up Québecois version, or maybe I was just hallucinating, but I'm pretty sure I saw Zach Galafianakis getting a blowjob in the photo montage at the end. Can anyone confirm this for me?

Oh yeah. That was weird. I didn't think erect penises (and certainly not the fellating of such)were allowed in American movies.

[baby doll]

Oh yeah. That was weird. I didn't think erect penises (and certainly not the fellating of such)were allowed in American movies.I guess the MPAA makes up for it by over-enforcing the rules for low-budget independent films.

[Winston*]

That bit was blurred out in the version I saw.

[Spinal]

I think it got by because it's not a real penis.

[number8]

The answer is that it was a still.

[baby doll]

I think it got by because it's not a real penis.


The answer is that it was a still.Yeah, I don't see how either of those things makes a difference.

[number8]

Yeah, I don't see how either of those things makes a difference.

You can use them to argue with the MPAA. Movie ratings aren't a set of rules, it's a negotiation process. And once one movie breaks ground, you can use that movie to argue your movie's case. "That movie had a fake erect penis and it got an R, so and so movie had a hardcore sexual situation as a photo, and so do we, it's just a fake staged photo for laughs, it's not even sexual, etc etc." Those two things contribute to making negotiating an R way easier than Chloe Sevigny licking Vincent Gallo's cock.

[baby doll]

You can use them to argue with the MPAA. Movie ratings aren't a set of rules, it's a negotiation process. And once one movie breaks ground, you can use that movie to argue your movie's case. "That movie had a fake erect penis and it got an R, so and so movie had a hardcore sexual situation as a photo, and so do we, it's just a fake staged photo for laughs, it's not even sexual, etc etc." Those two things contribute to making negotiating an R way easier than Chloe Sevigny licking Vincent Gallo's cock.Well, to paraphrase Ebert, R ratings are only for movies with fake blowjobs. I think The Brown Bunny was released unrated, but it's not like kids were going to see an art film about a guy driving across the country picking up lost women. With The Hangover, I know that my thirteen-year-old cousin will see it if he hasn't already.

"We're going to sneak into an R rated movie."
"It's called Barton Fink."

[Sven]

The R rated film Kinsey had a photograph of real penetration.

Don't know where that fits into the argument, but there is some kind of precedent, I suppose.

[angrycinephile]

This was pretty awesome. I laughed quite a lot. Unlike many recent comedies (Tropic Thunder among others) it also didn't overstay it's welcome and became tedious towards the end. It worked the whole way through I thought.

Already rumors of a sequel? Hmm, I don't know about that...

[Kurosawa Fan]

This was pretty funny. It's a bit too mysogynistic at times, and I hated Mr. Chow, but I was laughing consistently, and that's really all I want out of a comedy. Helms and Galifianakis stole the show.

[trotchky]

Saw it again today (sober) and liked it more than the first time (not sober). Still, it's not on the same level as recent Apatow comedies.

[baby doll]

Saw it again today (sober) and liked it more than the first time (not sober). Still, it's not on the same level as recent Apatow comedies.No, it's on a much higer level than that. Part of the problem with, for instance, Superbad is that the characters never get into any serious trouble. Here, there are tigers in the bathroom, and naked Chinese guys in the trunk of the car, and they're driving around in a stolen cop car. Also, the movie doesn't seem too concerned with making the characters likeable. There's that scene at the beginning where the kid asks one of the guys a question after school, and he says, "It's the weekend. You don't exist."

[trotchky]

No, it's on a much higer level than that. Part of the problem with, for instance, Superbad is that the characters never get into any serious trouble. Here, there are tigers in the bathroom, and naked Chinese guys in the trunk of the car, and they're driving around in a stolen cop car. Also, the movie doesn't seem too concerned with making the characters likeable. There's that scene at the beginning where the kid asks one of the guys a question after school, and he says, "It's the weekend. You don't exist."

I don't know why that's a problem, but okay.

Observe & Report's protagonist is far more morally questionable and frankly creepy than any of the guys in The Hangover.

Role Models is also a great movie that isn't "too concerned with making the characters likable," and there's actually some sort of point to its humor beyond "haha look at all the crazy shit these guys did when they were fucked up."

And Step Brothers satirizes traditional Capitalist notions of success and professionalism, which makes it more pointed and therefore more compelling to me than the comparatively aimless The Hangover.

What's more, every Apatow-related production I've seen has serious post-structuralist overtones that attempt to say something about the folly of legitimizing one specific lifestyle as "correct" or "adult," and in some cases (Forgetting Sarah Marshall) extends its criticism of binary thought to gender. I know you don't care about ideology in movies and will probably respond with something like "who cares, it's just trying to be funny," but I don't see things that way.

[baby doll]

I don't know why that's a problem, but okay.

Observe & Report's protagonist is far more morally questionable and frankly creepy than any of the guys in The Hangover.

Role Models is also a great movie that isn't "too concerned with making the characters likable," and there's actually some sort of point to its humor beyond "haha look at all the crazy shit these guys did when they were fucked up."

And Step Brothers satirizes traditional Capitalist notions of success and professionalism, which makes it more pointed and therefore more compelling to me than the comparatively aimless The Hangover.

What's more, every Apatow-related production I've seen has serious post-structuralist overtones that attempt to say something about the folly of legitimizing one specific lifestyle as "correct" or "adult," and in some cases (Forgetting Sarah Marshall) extends its criticism of binary thought to gender. I know you don't care about ideology in movies and will probably respond with something like "who cares, it's just trying to be funny," but I don't see things that way.Well, you have to admit, using the phrase "post-structuralist overtones" to describe Judd Apatow comedies sounds pretty ridiculous. I can't comment on the films you've mentioned, because I haven't seen them, but going back to Superbad, the whole point is that the childhood friendship between the two boys is precisely what's holding them back from having mature relationships with girls, a point expressed by the film's wistful food court farewell as the boys say goodbye to childhood and venture off into the adult world. So I don't see where the post-structuralist critique lies in that film, unless you're saying that it represents an abberation from Apatow's larger ideological project.

Why is it a problem that the characters don't get into more trouble? Basically, the worst thing that can happen to these boys is that they aren't going to get laid. Big deal. Buster Keaton had to deal with Southern blood feuds and the American Civil War, among other things. Incidentally, there's no "point" to Keaton's humor beyond, "Ha ha, look at all the crazy stuff this guy has to go through"--let alone a satire of traditional capitalist notions of success and professionalism--but he still managed to direct some of the funniest movies ever made.

[trotchky]

Well, you have to admit, using the phrase "post-structuralist overtones" to describe Judd Apatow comedies sounds pretty ridiculous. I can't comment on the films you've mentioned, because I haven't seen them, but going back to Superbad, the whole point is that the childhood friendship between the two boys is precisely what's holding them back from having mature relationships with girls, a point expressed by the film's wistful food court farewell as the boys say goodbye to childhood and venture off into the adult world. So I don't see where the post-structuralist critique lies in that film, unless you're saying that it represents an abberation from Apatow's larger ideological project.

I don't think the whole point is that their friendship is holding them back; I think the point is more a question of: Why should they give up their friendship for "mature relationships with girls"? The former is certainly how the characters see it for most of the movie, but I see the finale as being more than a little bitter-sweet, and even tinged with regret: they finally feel the weight of what they are giving up...and for what?

Anyhow, I wouldn't call Superbad an abberation, but it's certainly one of his weakest films (just above The 40-Year-Old Virgin).


Why is it a problem that the characters don't get into more trouble? Basically, the worst thing that can happen to these boys is that they aren't going to get laid. Big deal. Buster Keaton had to deal with Southern blood feuds and the American Civil War, among other things. Incidentally, there's no "point" to Keaton's humor beyond, "Ha ha, look at all the crazy stuff this guy has to go through"--let alone a satire of traditional capitalist notions of success and professionalism--but he still managed to direct some of the funniest movies ever made.

That's all well and good, but comedy isn't dependent on some kind of risk-reward equation. Not much is evidently at stake in movies like Slacker and Smiley Face; doesn't stop them from being hysterical. If not much happens, who cares? The sheer inanity of the characters' goals in Superbad is certainly part of what makes it funny.

[baby doll]

I don't think the whole point is that their friendship is holding them back; I think the point is more a question of: Why should they give up their friendship for "mature relationships with girls"? The former is certainly how the characters see it for most of the movie, but I see the finale as being more than a little bitter-sweet, and even tinged with regret: they finally feel the weight of what they are giving up...and for what?For what? To get laid. Duh!


That's all well and good, but comedy isn't dependent on some kind of risk-reward equation. Not much is evidently at stake in movies like Slacker and Smiley Face; doesn't stop them from being hysterical. If not much happens, who cares? The sheer inanity of the characters' goals in Superbad is certainly part of what makes it funny.First of all, Linklater's film, not having a conventional narrative arc, is something of a special case. Amdittedly, it's quite funny in places, but I don't even think of it primarily as a comedy. In a more conventional comedy, there has to be some comic momentum. Superbad doesn't have that spark of craziness.

[trotchky]

For what? To get laid. Duh!

Yes, but by the end the characters are rethinking their priorities, hence the "I love my best friend and I'm not afraid to say it" scene and the melancholy of their parting. Their goal all along has been to get laid, yes, but in those final moments they are moving towards a more "mature," adult world, and the value of that world is ambiguous at best.


First of all, Linklater's film, not having a conventional narrative arc, is something of a special case. Amdittedly, it's quite funny in places, but I don't even think of it primarily as a comedy. In a more conventional comedy, there has to be some comic momentum. Superbad doesn't have that spark of craziness.

I'm not too keen on defending Superbad's comic value, but I don't agree that comedy needs to be momentous or crazy. Completely banal situations can be hilarious. That's why The Office (UK) is one of the funniest shows ever.

[baby doll]

Yes, but by the end the characters are rethinking their priorities, hence the "I love my best friend and I'm not afraid to say it" scene and the melancholy of their parting. Their goal all along has been to get laid, yes, but in those final moments they are moving towards a more "mature," adult world, and the value of that world is ambiguous at best.But what's the alternative? To remain children forever?


I'm not too keen on defending Superbad's comic value, but I don't agree that comedy needs to be momentous or crazy. Completely banal situations can be hilarious. That's why The Office (UK) is one of the funniest shows ever.Even in "The Office," where you have this comedy of embarrassment, the situations build and become more embarrassing. It's monumentally embarrassing.

[trotchky]

But what's the alternative? To remain children forever?

Why not? The adult world blows.


Even in "The Office," where you have this comedy of embarrassment, the situations build and become more embarrassing. It's monumentally embarrassing.

And in Superbad, their efforts to bring booze to a party and get laid are increasingly frustrated by a series of bizarre mishaps. It's not like they encounter no opposition. Still, I'm with you inasmuch as it is not a very funny movie.

[baby doll]

Why not? The adult world blows.I strongly disagree. But let's look at this: If instead of becoming grownups, the characters continue to be friends, don't move out of their parents' houses, never get laid, and regularly attend Comi-Con... Well, that's what you call being a loser.


And in Superbad, their efforts to bring booze to a party and get laid are increasingly frustrated by a series of bizarre mishaps. It's not like they encounter no opposition. Still, I'm with you inasmuch as it is not a very funny movie.The mishaps aren't that bizarre.

[megladon8]

Only losers attend ComicCon?

[baby doll]

Only losers attend ComicCon?No, but come on, are you saying there aren't any losers at Comi-Con? That seems like a stretch.