The Hangover III

By M

The first is my favorite, the second is the best, this one has very little interest.

The aesthetics are obviously the same as in the previous two, except Bradley Cooper is now old and fatter – I do not know when that happened, but it happened. Maybe it happened because of Silver Linings.

Many things were interesting about the first movie, it was seemingly outrageous, but not really – Bradley Cooper’s character, who was supposed to be the prick disrespectful of women turns out to be utterly in love with his wife and happy with his kid, etc. The movie didn’t harm anyone (this is not a commentary about the first so I should probably stop right there) and was a good laugh. It was humor by surprise, and it felt really refreshing.

The second was better, because the limits were further away. In the first, taking drugs and marrying prostitutes was the ultimate offense. In the second one of the characters loses a finger and he is told to pull himself together, Bangkok is just a bit crazy. Another character, the one who is getting married, has a relationship with a trans and everyone is super cool with it, he himself assuming his bisexual tendencies. It was also way more delirious as the crazy characters encountered in the first, were given more space, and again, a full defense of bisexuality was on the table. So I say: BRAVO.

On this one… nothing like that. Nothing. At all. A few jokes here and there. Some of them amusing, some of them less provocative than those of the previous two, and overall a boring message about love, how everyone finds it, how everyone is saved by it,  how it’s waiting for you where you expect it less and how everything has a meaning.

The good news is that this appears to be the last one (I know, we are all sure it won’t).

I would strongly recommend that you don’t lose your time watching it.

Failure to Launch

By M

This had to happen sooner or later. I could resist after The Paperboy, Bernie, Magic Mike and even Killer Joe (I don’t know how I resisted after Killer Joe), but not after Mud. It’s decided, I am up for the whole of Matthew McConaughey’s filmography. And there is a lot of (let me bet: crap) movies to watch.

Thankfully, I am three down. I have watched “How to lose a guy in 10 lessons” and “Ghosts of girlfriends past” on the plane. Who doesn’t enjoy watching bad movies on the plane, with the engine noise that prevents you from hearing ANY of what is being said. The third of the “Matthew McConaughey’s movies from before” that I watched is Tropic Thunder, which is not a memorable movie, but certainly not a bad one. That said, I have no recollection of Matthew McConaughey in it.

Anyways, so I watched Failure to Launch. I have no idea of why I started there, it was pure hazard. I was surprised to see Bradley Cooper in it – I do not understand anything about Bradley Cooper, so I am always surprised to see that Bradley Cooper is in movies. There is also Zooey Deschanel who plays a weirdo as brunettes always do in romantic comedies (of the top of my head, see for instance Silver Linings Playbook, Bachelorette). And Sarah Jessica Parker, against whom, I must confess, I have absolutely nothing, but she is not the greatest actress on earth.

I expected this movie to be much worse than what it is. I mean, there are a few unbearable gendered cliches (men lose interest after sex – keep in mind that the characters are supposed to be 35), the plot has no interest whatsoever and is exactly the same as in How to lose a guy in 10 lessons, the gags are so poorly integrated in the movie that they are all but funny. I also acknowledge that the characters are all predictable and banally plain. On top of that, the images have very little interest and the quantity of nature shots is at best abusive and at worst, enough not to watch the movie.

That said, there is Matthew McConaughey. With his southern accent. And there is his absolute control over his body, notably when he plays with the dishcloth, when he catches an apple. It’s not his fault that he is asked to pet a dolphin.

I won’t go as far as recommending to watch this movie, because someone might read this. But I am glad to confirm that Matthew McConaughey already knew how to act in 2006.

He’s Just Not That Into You

By M

This movie is shockingly bad: I literally had to have a drink after watching it. Of course, this was obvious from the very beginning so it is to be wondered why on earth I watched it. I really needed to hear that “He’s just not that into you”, so I was looking for a tough, heart-breaking-here-is-real-life romance à la Blue Valentine. IMDb’s paths are inscrutable, so I ended up watching this.

Anyways, in terms of following contemporary actors, I guess the movie needs to be seen (I specifically mean when commenting movies is something you do for a living, not my case): there is Scarlett Johansson, saving the movie (she fails, but she acts). It’s also worth mentioning that Bradley Cooper gives you another confusing piece to nourish the debate: “why does everyone seem to think Bradley Cooper can play? (The Hangover excluded)”. Those who spent last decade delusional on Jennifer Connelly should definitely watch this movie, just to confirm that keeping the same face and repeating lines is not acting.

Besides that… I mean, I am particularly interested in the differences in the execution of well-defined genres, not to mention subgenres, so the existence of this movie is certainly a source of delight for me. The genre is obviously romantic comedy, but it belongs to that unbearable subgenre of interlinked mini-stories which purpose is to illustrate that despite the differences there are fundamental truths to humanity. This romantic comedy combines that subtype with another one, where you have a main character commenting on the world and life changing experiences (don’t look too far, it’s just a voice off), to help you take away a powerful lesson. Oh lord.

The movie is structured through inter-titles that conjugate all the instances of someone “not being that into you”. Examples: he doesn’t call, she doesn’t sleep with you… The first part of the movie has a very sexist message that basically divides the world between the human beings who live under the illusion of the constant need of interpretation of “signs” (female) and those who are simple and take everything for face value (men). The rationale is outspokenly presented as gendered even though one of the male characters suffers women’s curse of over-interpretation.

You know, one might need to hear that life is simple and that if someone doesn’t call you it’s simply because (s)he is not interested enough. What can I say… fair enough. Of course, the problem comes in the second part which basically says: there are exceptions, and these are automatically where you don’t expect them.

If that is annoying, it’s even more annoying that the main character does not choose men but jumps on the man whom she finally manages to interest.

Nothing in this movie is acceptable, anything at all. There are no aesthetics whatsoever, even Scarlett’s perfect body is cheaply blurred in the total lack of aesthetics.

Don’t watch it unless you feel like a mojito on a Tuesday and have absolutely no excuse to have one. But be aware that you might need at least two mojitos to recover.

The Place Beyond the Pines *Spoiler*

By M

I had read a couple of reviews before watching this movie and I was pretty much convinced the movie would not be excellent. And it wasn’t. Yet, it begins with an almost 10 minute long sequence starting on Ryan Gosling’s six pack and following him as he simultaneously dresses and walks towards his bike. It made me totally forget about the reasons the reviews had given me against the movie and I was ready to collect as many arguments as possible to defend it. The sequence is superb. You are intrigued by this world we seem to be entering, the world of in-cage-motorbike-riders, and you almost forget that since Drive was made, making Gosling play a driver is… tricky.

The story is three-fold: 1- Ryan Gosling learns he has a baby and tries to orient his life to make sense of that fact / 2- Bradley Cooper is traumatized by killing Ryan Gosling (and leaving his son “orphan” – which is a scandalous interpretation of what happens because the kid still has parents, except his dad is not his biological dad) and tries to follow his own dad’s steps while neglecting his kid (who is the same age as Ryan Gosling’s) / 3- “15 years later” both kids meet and become friends (it ends poorly).

There are a few things to save in the movie besides the magnificent introductory sequence. A few. The final credits, for instance, are sober and elegant, and Cianfrance plays a very loud, easy-listening music, which produces a fantastic effect. Gosling’s smile is cracking sometimes, for instance, as he hides Eva Mendes’ eyes for a picture pose. Right after the movie I could think of a couple of lines that I found great, but now I can’t remember any.

It’s also great that Eva Mendes spends her time crying and Gosling pretends not to notice. Gosling’s relationship with his retard friend is also great, we don’t quite know what to make of it. The shooting of the ride between the pines, when they first meet, is also very good. The greatest scene besides the first sequence is the one with Ryan Gosling throwing up in the truck after he completes his first bank robbery. It’s also worth noting that Gosling sings for Mendes’ mum in Spanish and that he dances with his friend’s dog. The rest of musical choices, except for the final credits, are bad.

The stories are ok: it’s interesting to talk about motorbike riders (except it sounds like a remake of Drive), it’s interesting to talk about corruption in the police and it’s interesting to talk about childhood and adulthood.

Many choices are terrible. My friends thought it was a good idea that Ryan Gosling’s son (Dane DeHaan) did not kill Bradley Cooper’s son (Emory Cohen), which he almost did to revenge his father. The more I think about it, the more convinced I grow it was actually a terrible choice. The whole movie is about reproduction of patterns, one of the most visible ones is that Ryan Gosling did not grow up around his father (he informs us of this himself) and his son is not going to grow up around him (he is dead). Bradley Cooper becomes like his father, and his son (the final scene tells us) is likely to follow that path. Now, if Emory Cohen had died, he would have avoided Cooper’s path. Therefore, Cianfrance would not have surrendered to the unbearable narrative of ‘everything reproduces itself to the infinite’. Now, we can be sure that DeHaan will die as soon as he has a kid.

So many other choices are regrettable, for instance that DeHaan “has a temper” just like his father. That he is instinctively good at riding bicycles and motorbikes, just like his father. That Gosling quickly becomes good at robbing banks. That his voice is extremely high when he robs.

The actors are not amazing: Ryan Gosling is invisible, it could have been anyone else. Eva Mendes gives us a movie-long frown (you can check on the movie poster). I have absolutely nothing to say about the rest of them, except for DeHaan, who is good.

The editing is strange, notably the fusion between scenes. I remember one in particular, mixing together the image of Gosling and Mendes’ couple with the scene that follows, right after they first meet, under a very loud and cheesy music. It’s almost shocking.

Some of the story details are not that acceptable either: that Eva Mendes and her mum speak Spanish around Kofi (Mendes’ partner) but not around Gosling (why?); that Google only tells DeHaan that his father died, assassinated by a cop, and not that he was the greatest motorbike rider ever (EVER)…

I don’t know if you should watch it or not, if you don’t, you won’t be missing out.