Movie Review: The Hangover Part 2

This week’s film was The Hangover Part 2, when the original Hangover film came out I was not particularly interested as it seemed to be the kind of brainless humour that I really struggle to get into so I decided not to watch it. As everyone I knew then started to watch it and constantly tell me that it was the funniest film they had ever seen I started to become curious, I tried on several occasions to rent it when it was out on DVD but it was always fully booked out which only seemed to further suggest that it really was as good as people had claimed. I was obviously very disappointed then when I finally got hold of a copy only to find out that it was exactly the film I thought it was and with the exceptions of a few scenes was the lowest form of base humour. I therefore made no plans to watch The Hangover Part 2 when I saw it was advertised however there was nothing else on this week so we went to see it.

Now before I start I should say that this film is not bad, but it is not good either, in fact The Hangover Part 2 could quite easily be a far east remake of the original, there is really nothing that would set this film apart from the original and it sticks to nearly the same structure but then as it is a widely acclaimed film it makes sense not to change it. As I left the cinema I would have said that I preferred this film to the original but on reflection I think that this was simply a difference in expectations, in the original I was expecting to laugh the entire time and didn’t – This time I was expecting not to laugh and did (a couple of times). Overall I found the expectation that I would find humour in the idiosyncrasy of two of the characters funny seemed a little too much like bullying for my liking, The main “comedy” character Alan is designed to be the but of the jokes however the fact that he clearly has a special outlook on life is not, for me, enough to laugh at.

As I say the film follows basically the same plot as the original; Alan, Phil and Stu phone Sasha to say they will not make it to the wedding, Then we see the start of the story up to the guys starting to drink before we cut to the “Next Morning” and see the three guys waking up and trying to piece their story back together. The baby from the original is now exchanged for a baby and they are also joined by Leslie Chow the oriental gangster from the original who was also out with them. The majority of the laughs are supposed to come from Zach Galifianakis (Alan) and Ken Jeong (Chow) who are extreme caricatures of their characters with Alan’s simpleness and Chow’s shock value expected to carry the film. But unfortunately for me, it doesn’t. Bradley Cooper (Phil) and Ed Helms (Stu) seem quite incidental to the scenes that are set up although as the uptight victim of a couple of the set pieces Ed Helms does force a few cringes, however the relationship between his fiance and him is beyond comprehension as I doubt there is any woman alive as forgiving. Overall this film is simply a darker more unpleasant version of the first which really didn’t add anything and made some of the characters just a little more unlikable.

Where does Personal become Racist?

A Newspaper article caught my eye yesterday, it is something I really shouldn’t be worried about writing about but I find that I have to very carefully form the sentences in my mind before typing them such is the fear of offending on such a delicate matter. The Article that took my attention is about Racism and as a White Male I am time and time again told that I have no way of being able to comment on this issue – An Irony that my race would make me ineligible to speak on racism. (In my life I have been on the receiving end of racist taunts and a few racist attacks, I attended a predominantly Asian college and calls of Gora (An Indian term meaning white skinned) were common and unfortunately often accompanied by spitting and on a few occasions violence.)

I think my views on racism are probably that which are held by most rational thinking people, That racism is wrong, not just morally but intellectually, it really doesn’t take much brain power that to group together the Hundreds of Millions/Billions of each race into one group and judge them all on that basis is clearly insane. Surely logic dictates that if you take a million Caucasians and a million Afro-Caribbeans then you will get a very wide mix of experiences and life stories and similarities will come across the groups just as surely as differences must occur within them. Therefore if you are to discount a large proportion of the worlds population on the basis of Colour, just like on sex or education or wealth or any division for that matter, you will be severely limiting your scope.

Anyway back to the actual article, this article was about a dispute with Naomi Campbell and Cadbury’s chocolate, in their latest advert Cadbury’s displayed a picture of their new chocolate bar alongside the slogan “Move over Naomi, There’s a new Diva in town.” Naomi Campbell then came straight out and attacked Cadburys for racism. When I first heard that I was not sure on what grounds but as Naomi says herself “I am shocked. It’s upsetting to be described as chocolate, not just for me but for all black people.” So her issue is with being described as chocolate which I can kind of agree with as this is a playground racial slur and if we are to ever beat racism the battle needs to start on the playground. However the advert does not compare Naomi to a chocolate but rather it compares a chocolate to Naomi which is a very important difference.

In essence the Advert takes one element of her personality and assigns it to the chocolate bar in this case her reputation as a diva. Now you could argue if this is bordering on an attack on her by accusing her of being a diva (Even if it does then it would clearly be personal and not racially motivated.) however by her own admission their reflection on her personality must be correct, After all the advert does not say “Move over Naomi Campbell” it only says Naomi it is the usage of Naomi and diva in the same sentence that she has taken as being a clear indication that it is her, if it said “Move over Naomi – there’s a new astrophysicist in town.” It is unlikely anyone would be thinking of Naomi Campbell.

So as she is clearly being mentioned in this advert due to her personality trait and not her race then clearly the only think that is holding up her claims of racism is that chocolate is brown, following this complaint through to it’s natural conclusion therefore would basically be stating that no Afro-Caribbean people could advertise chocolate or for that matter anything that is brown – Assumingly this would be a real headache for Hagen-Daz who would have to carefully monitor that they don’t have the wrong people advertising their chocolate ice cream or heaven forbid a white woman selling vanilla. So in Naomi Campbell’s ideal world the jobs people could do would be dictated to by their colour – Thank god she is fighting against racism!

Quite unbelievably when looking up a few facts for this post (I know it is hard to believe but I do occasionally check the facts I am writing about.) I came across calls from “Black Civil Rights Groups” calling for a boycott of all Kraft goods and a quote from Lee Jasper (Controversial Former equalities aide to Ken Livingstone when he was mayor) who has said “Part of the problem is that [These companies] don’t see it as offensive.” Perhaps the problem is that this isn’t offensive unless you look for it, perhaps the fact is that Naomi’s race didn’t come into the equation at all they simply asked who was the biggest Diva they could mention and Naomi’s name was at the top, so in fact it is just possible that despite Mr. Jasper’s claims this incident is a symptom of a less racist world, but for that to happen we must all leave behind the hang ups of the past.

Movie Review: On Stranger Tides

Next trip to the moving picture house was to see the latest in the Pirates of the Caribbean Movie, On Stranger Tides. The movie is a bit of a step back for the franchise returning to the more compact stand alone format rather than the connected stories of Dead Man’s Chest and At Worlds End. The original trilogy has always put me in mind of the Matrix trilogy (A good first film followed by two linked pieces of pap) so I was glad that they decided to go back to a simpler plot line. The plot is based on the book by Tim Powers simply updated to fit into the Pirates of the Caribbean universe to enable Jack Sparrow to be the hero. The Director is now Rob Marshall who has a background in dance and musical numbers (including winning an Oscar for Chicago) and this is quite evident in some of the fight scenes. So Keira Knightly and Orlando Bloom are out and Penelope Cruz is in as Depp’s love interest. Ian “Lovejoy” McShane comes in as the infamous pirate Blackbeard, for those of us who grew up with 90’s BBC programming it is very difficult to think of him as anything else than the antiques dealer but for American audiences he is probably better known for his role in Deadwood which paints an altogether less PG interpretation.

The film itself has Jack Sparrow searching for the fountain of youth and being pressed into service of the supernatural Blackbeard, at the same time Geoffory Rush returns as Captain Barbosa (Hasn’t he been killed several times now?) who has crossed the legality divide to claim the fountain for the British Government whilst trying to stay ahead of the Spanish party. (Basically the story is three groups trying to get to the fountain.) Along the way there are mermaids to capture, treasures to uncover and all of the usual pirates fare. Overall the cast give a good performance and with the exception of one particularly frivolous sword fight (It is a Pirates movie after all) the plot clips along with a decent tempo. Depp is always very committed to the role he clearly enjoys and McShane and Cruz work very well alongside him to make this movie, whilst not a classic, a couple of hours of harmless fun and a welcome change from the last two films in the franchise.