The Hangover ©Warner Brothers

There is something I can’t pinpoint about The Hangover that I liked so much. Was it the fact that the main cast are B-Listers and all of them together made a good movie? Was it the fact that the movie went there and had no reservation about it? I don’t know, but the movie was good.

The Hangover had a lot of word of mouth going for it (Also the week of it’s opening, Land of the Lost got a negative word of mouth which helped) and after the movie I would definitely suggest it to friends. It is definitely a “Unrated Version” Blu-Ray purchase when it comes out as well, because you just know that there will be funny commentary, extended scenes, and funny outtakes.

The things of note:

+ I found a very Momento-esque element to the movie. I don’t know why, but it probably was the whole working backwards that created the connection.

+ I loved the music choices. The whole Rain Man sequence was funny and I think I saw Rain Man when I was five and didn’t fully appreciate the movie. Note to self: go watch Rain Man.

+ I thought the acting was believable. All of the characters bounced off well and you could clearly see a vibe between the whole cast.

+ It was so over the top that it became believable. You know how sometimes too much of something becomes oversaturated and out of nowhere it becomes acceptable? Like social media. Anywho, I think the whole situation was so left field that it made the movie funny. It’s not like a Seth Rogen comedy where you’re supposed to accept the fact that hot chicks have the hots for fat Jewish men.

The thing about the Hangover is the fact that if you don’t like really low brow humor, I’m not sure if you’d get it. If you watch YouTube looking for videos of idiots on treadmills trying to run onto one and then slamming their face, you probably will like this movie. It’s not a Seth Rogan stoner comedy at all. It’s a lot of over the top moments that mysteriously come together in a very fresh, original manner.

Grade: 94% – It had one of the best credit sequences. Funny though, Up and The Proposal both had funny credit sequences as well. More about The Proposal later.

Tom Hanks as Robert Langdon on the movie poster

I have mixed feelings about Angels & Demons. I feel as though all the pieces were there and yet there was something I can’t put my finger on that I didn’t like. I think that Ron Howard knows how to make a good movie with strong shots, while Tom Hanks both understands Ron Howard and is a good actor in general. Here are some musings about the movie:

I don’t like the whole end twist – It happened in the last movie and they put it in again. Regardless of whether or not it’s in the book, the end sequence is redundant and in both cases makes Robert Langdon just a little dumber.

The music was recycled – I understand as a sequel, the film wanted to reiterate the tone by using very similar music, but I don’t see why they couldn’t play with the score more. Even National Treasure 2 played with their score more.

The opening shot seemed unnecessary – When we first meet Robert Langdon, he’s apparently swimming in his University’s swimming pool. Although it quickly set up Robert’s strong eye, I felt like it was a shameless excuse to have Tom Hanks in a Speedo. I mean there are several ways of opening the movie, like maybe recapping the last movie in some form? I dunno, just a suggestion.

I liked the female character – Vittoria Vetra (played by Ayelet Zurer) felt more integral and useful to Angels & Demons than Sophie Neveu (played by Audrey Tautou) did in The Da Vinci Code.

Why did it feel like most of the budget seem off? – It was like they spent all their money on the beginning sequence and the big end blow out. The middle was just “eh” in comparison.

In the whole, the movie was all right. I think that it was easier to pick up than the first movie, possibly because we knew who Robert was already, but also because it didn’t get as deep into religion as the first one did. Ironic because this one involves popes.

Even funnier fact: I totally didn’t know that Angels & Demons the book was a prequel, but mysteriously the movie is a sequel to The Da Vinci Code.

My grade: 78%

I ended up going to three different movie theaters, two AMC Lowes, one United Artists (according to Fandango, it is actually owned by the Regal Entertainment Group), and the last owned by National Amusements. Three in New York, one in New Jersey. The quality level of all four movie theaters varied, but the biggest thing was that the prices of all four theaters were different. First I’m going to list off the prices:

• Regal Entertainment – $11/adult (Night at the Museum 2)
• National Amusements * – $14.75/adult (Up)
• AMC Lowes (NY) – $11/adult (Angels & Demons)
• AMC Lowes (NJ) $10/adult (The Hangover)

(Click continue reading for more rambles)

All of the prices represent non-matinee prices. My question is: why isn’t there a universal price for movies? I will admit that I would pay more for the National Amusements based theater because it is the newest, has the best seats, foldable arm rests, quality projection, and a Target downstairs so I can smuggle Raisinets. The quality level of the AMC in NY was sub-par, but the quality level in NJ was on par. Why did I pay an extra dollar for the NY one?

The Regal Entertainment Theater was one of those theaters that I grew up to. The quality level is low, the people that work there represent the phrase “equal opportunity employer,” and the previews and stuff before were of a lesser quality. That theater really has gone down the shitter. The place isn’t worth $11. It’s really an $8 theater.

Sometimes movie theaters are a weird thing to even think about. The real thought is: I’m going to watch a movie. You think about what time the movie is showing, maybe the possibility of getting the 3D version of the movie, maybe budget in food. How often does one think of quality of theater? Projection options? Do the seats have a tilting option? Do the seats smell like sex? I’m willing to pay for quality in every aspect.

Eric & I prefer the National Amusements theater for the reasons above. Their food is insanely priced, but I don’t worry too much because I joined their frequent flier stuff and just got free popcorn. (I felt like such a dumbass for not signing up for the AMC related one, because I could have racked up quite a number of points for two movies.)

It’s definitely the beginning of summer movie season, and there are at least three other movie theaters that I can take a look at. I also have the whole Tuesday free movie thing that I’ve never got to use (because of Dancing with the Stars), so we’ll have something to think about soon.

His tie will disappear halfway through the movie. Someone explain that to me. Did I go pee when he removes it dramatically? Image © Fox

Ben Stiller – HIS TIE DISAPPEARS HALFWAY THROUGH THE MOVIE. In the beginning in the locker room, you can see a tie on him; then out of nowhere, the tie disappears. Either way, Ben Stiller was doing his basic schtick.

Amy Adams – Steals the show, she keeps in character the whole time and just evokes the sense of adventure that Amelia Earhart had.

Hank Azaria – I love his voice acting skills, but couldn’t get the Blue Raja from Mystery Men out of my head. He maintains that wit that he always had as well, and the character really wasn’t a stretch.

Robin Williams – The same as before, doesn’t overact. Thank God.

Ricky Gervais – Usually I’m hit or miss with Ricky. For some reason, I was miss for him in this movie. I guess he really didn’t play a big part, so he kinda just had to say a few lines.

Mizuo Peck – I like her portrayal of Sacajawea and hope to see her in a movie where she actually has some lines.

Bill Hader – Somehow I didn’t know that it was him playing Custer (musta been the hair), so kudos to you. You won me over a little more. Oh and if anyone could tell me who the blonde comedian that I’m thinking of (for some reason I associate him with a bad fake mustache if it helps), please tell me.

Owen Wilson – Okay, I know the movie is over the top, but there are so many things wrong with Owen Wilson in this movie. Firstly, he (and Steve Coogan) had some of the worst green screening. I don’t know why, but you could see their outlines so much more than the rest of the characters. Dammit, Al Capone was black and white the whole movie and it didn’t show any poor green screening (Granted it probably was technologically similar to Plesantville, one funny aside, a still on the official movie website has Al Capone colored in). Then if you are in an hourglass there are several things you can do. How about not standing where the sand falls? Even Princess Jasmine in Aladdin struggled. Also, pacing around in the beginning would help by elevating you as the sand increased. It’s sand, not quicksand. Thirdly, if Steve Coogan’s character can break glass with a sword, why couldn’t Jedediah use the blunt end of his gun and just get out?

Overall, the movie was fun. It was a children’s movie with a few comedian nuances. Amy Adams is the bright spot in the movie providing adventure and excitement with just the look in her eye. For me the movie is like a 72%. The plotline is stupid and there are a lot of plotholes.