The Hangover (2009) came out this past June and became an instant hit and was being hailed as the summer comedy of 2009. It holds such distinctions of being the highest-grossing R-rated comedy ever, breaking the record held by Beverly Hills Cop for nearly twenty-five years. It had Mike Tyson in it. You have heard of this movie if you have not seen this movie if you have not seen this movie multiple times. It was a huge success. I am talking to myself in this review. But no matter--here is what I thought about it, starting with a basic assessment, per my three reasons for wanting to see it: it looked interesting, attention-grabbing, and it had a good actor in it.Was The Hangover interesting? No. Not, it was not. The "We got drunk and forgot about everything we did; lets try to piece it all together" premise has been declared legally dead and, you sirs, have just committed a gross act of necrophilia. What you did was make it look interesting. Very good job of making the trailers look as such. It got you tons of money. But the movie itself was not all that interesting. But...
Was The Hangover attention-grabbing? Hell yes. Absoument. The unbelievable chaos that is created in the lives of the four friends in the movie is way more than a car wreck--wanting to look away while being unable. My girlfriend mused that it was like Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas with the scary stuff removed and being replaced with funny stuff; then it became 21. My feelings is that they read the Worst Case Scenario Survival Handbook: Las Vegas Edition and made a movie about it. Either way, it grabs you by your metaphorical testicles and forces you to endure it in its entirety.
For who I wanted to see in the movie, I was referring to Zach Galifinakis. I've been a fan of him since I was in high school and saw his Comedy Central thirty-minute special, and even when Eliza Dushku was talking to dead people (see Tru Calling). I was excited to see him get some decent work--especially such work that grosses ten times its budget. But was he in the right role? No, I don't think he was. The character of Alan was funny, and his style is even kind of matched with Galifinakis, but Galifinakis' style as to always be smart with an odd quirk or dozen, but all around an intelligent human being who occassionally does or says a dimwitted or awkward thing. His role of Alan matched the second part but lacked all the intelligence, saving for the part where he counts cards in black jack. It was the polar opposite of Zach, where he is smart most of the time and quirky less. He did what he could with the role, I guess.
The writing of Jon Lucas, Scott Moore, Todd Phillips, and Jeremy Garelick coupled with Phillips' directing made for a really good show. My problem is that I don't think I was set up properly for it. The movie was horrifying. I wanted to laugh, not be frightened. The things you see happening or about to happen, or narrowly missed is goddamn awful. They're already planning a sequel and I'm terrified to see what happens next time. All the claims that it's the highest-grossing R-rated comedy ever is a misnomer--this movie is up there with Funny Games in terms of horror in the way of is if these things were actually happening to you, you would be scared out of your skull. If only for the creepy Asian dude.
-Evan "Dez" O'Connor
If I had attempted to turn in this quality of writing for a high school English assignment, I would have been lucky to salvage a D.
ReplyDeleteProtip: you can't be a writer until you learn to write.
i am going to agree with the above comment... I hope you didn't pay any institution of higher learning for this writing skill. Being opinionated is the LAST place to begin writing a review... you're supposed to approach the subject objectively and without any preformed opinion, otherwise -- your review is crap.
ReplyDeleteWriting for class and writing for entertainment use two completely different methods. I wouldn't pass this shit in for class either. I do this because it's fun and I have shit to say.
ReplyDeleteOpinions are what make reviews. Opinions differ, which is why different reviewers say different things. When reviewing a movie that came out months ago, especially one that broke records, it's hard to not go in expecting something good. I didn't find it that good. I don't write to be agreeable or contrary--only to say what I thought of things and share my opinions.
Criticism is welcome, just make it more constructive in the future or I will ignore it as baseless trolling.
"Writing for class and writing for entertainment use two completely different methods. I wouldn't pass this shit in for class either. I do this because it's fun and I have shit to say."
ReplyDeleteFair enough. There's definitely something to be said for that, although, if you've deliberately watered down your writing to make it more entertaining or catchy, then I'd suggest that you stop doing it. If you're going to bill yourself as a writer, as you do in your bio, then some basic level of competency needs to be demonstrated. Otherwise (and this is exactly what's happened in your case), you sell yourself and your opinion short making yourself appear underqualified at the very skills by which you define yourself. In short: don't shy away from your talents (if you have them, as you claim you do).
"Opinions are what make reviews."
That, right there, demonstrates everything that's wrong with how you're doing this. Opinions are most definitely *not* what make reviews. Opinions are the end result, and a byproduct of the overall process. What actually makes a review is careful consideration and deconstruction of the core elements of the subject, so that you can thoughtfully apply what you learn to say something meaningful about its content.
While there are many ways in which you can do this, you haven't managed it in any review that I have seen so far. Even when I agree with you (S. Darko), that's beside the point, because my understanding and appreciation for the subject matter is not enhanced in any way by your analysis. If the reader isn't learning something new, or seeing things in a new light, then you're simply not doing a very good job. In short: you've added nothing.
I don't mean to be a dick, but I guess the reason why I have a problem with the whole of this is because, when it comes to getting the blogosphere taken seriously on a large, public scale, you're clearly a part of the problem. For every blog that offers incisive, interesting, and well-written analyses, there's one that does... this. You apply middle school-caliber logic, with high school-caliber writing, and call it a day. And normally I wouldn't go around ripping on a guy for inadequately developing and expressing opinions, but when you bill yourself as a writer, you assume the burden of displaying some competency as one, which you have failed at entirely.
Maybe it's the trainwreck, but that just made perfect sense to me and I will take your suggestions very seriously. I'm not joking or begrudging you in any way when I say that I greatly appreciate your comment. One of the few things I have any kind ego about is my writing, and I should stop trying to be entertaining and actually accomplish something, and I should portray what I am actually capable of. Thank you again. That's exactly what I was looking for--good, constructive criticism.
ReplyDelete