Showing posts with label double feature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label double feature. Show all posts

23.5.14

IHAO on ... The Hungover Games AND The Starving Games DOUBLE FEATURE

I had always intended to do more Double Features, but this marks my second one for the site.  I suppose it is because I didn't have enough things to really watch and correlate to unless it was something like Rocky Week I did a little while back, which was just too much information for a single article.  But oh ho HO, did this one work out.

How and why can there be two Hunger Games parody films, both out at relatively the same time?  Who knows, but I watched them both marathon style.  My roommate bought the Hungover Games and the Starving Games is on Netflix.  So let's do this!



Hungover Games is a pretty unique take on the spoof genre in that what it tries to do is to mesh a spoof of The Hangover with a spoof of the Hunger Games, using both plot elements to create a new spoof-ing property, as well as making a lot of other jokes, mostly focused on how Hollywood creates films to present them to the masses.  Also, Jamie Kennedy is all over this thing, as writer, producer, and in a small handful of roles.  This smells like it could be disaster, with a bunch of Johnny Depp roles, a Ted spoof, a gay Thor, a Borat parody, and just a billion other things.

But it works.  It works surprisingly well.  And that comes down to two factors: writing and acting.  The writing of this film is impeccable.  They really did take the two films and smash them together to create a single film that hits all the plot points of both franchises, the Hangover and the Hunger Games.  You have the Ed Helms character from the Hangover series also playing the role of Pita ... well, really all of them do, but Ed Helms is the most specific a combination character as he does all the Pita jokes of falling down and being completely useless, but all the plot points for Pita uses the whole Hangover gang.  You really wouldn't think this would work, but it does.

The whole schtick is to use the Hangover plot as a framing mechanic and as the lead characters and their motivations, and then the Hunger Games plot as the actual moving parts of the film, including setting and setup, with representatives from each of the 12 Hollywood Districts being in the games: puppets district, gratuitous nudity district, superhero district, Johnny Depp district, etc.  The way these are weaved in, it makes all the references that could be just terrible one-offs all plot relevant, as well as giving them meaning and importance.  I do not care for either franchise this film spoofs, but knowing what I do of both enhanced my viewing of this film, which already worked alone and is just funny.  The jokes make sense and are great, like Bruce Jenner's just absolute hatred for nudity as the commentator for the game, or everyone constantly reminding Ed Helms that Katnip (the Katniss parody) is 17.  Hell, the contestants in this film are more well developed and expressed to the audience than they are in the ACTUAL Hunger Games films, either of them.

The second reason it works is the characters.  These characters have to be able to act and do all the emotions of the story, selling it for real just like you normally would in any film, but are also being really spot on impersonations.  The three Hangover guys are actually named for the actors they are spoofing PERFECTLY: Zach, Bradley, Ed, and Doug is still Doug, which is a great joke in and of itself.  Hell, the worst actor of the bunch is Jamie Kennedy, which is unfortunate, because he is doing a good job trying to portray the characters he is, but the lines just aren't as funny (I hope they were not improvised) and he doesn't quite do Johnny Depp-Wonka or Woody Harrelson-Hamish very well or recognizably.  But everyone else just does perfect.

The movie has some jokes that don't hit, and there's some stuff I hated, like Ted's teddy bear penis being out the whole time or a few of the referential gags that just don't hit well.  But overall, this movie is the most clever spoof I've seen in a very long time, and it really surprised me with its quality.  The way that they mashed the two films together still astonishes me.

Grade: B+





The Starving Games is another from the guys who ruined spoofs for everyone, the Selzer brothers.  Every atrocious thing you think about spoof movies comes from their films.  Meet the Spartans, Epic Movie, Date Movie, Superhero Movie, all that garbage.  Their films are notorious for instead of creating story, jokes, characters, or plot, instead they shoehorn in references, poop jokes, sex jokes, and awkwardness.

Starving Games is exactly the same.

Yet it is somehow even worse.  No character is well acted, no shot is well shot, there is nothing redeemable about this film.  Together with my roommates, we counted 5 funny jokes, and I didn't agree with one of them.  That is one one hand the number of jokes that made us laugh and were well crafted.  But this movie is worse than that.  It included a 4 minute blooper reel at the end of the film to pad things out before the credits.  This is after the already created padding of a Sherlock Holmes spoofing where Cantmiss (Katniss' parody name here) imagines the best way to subdue her attackers ... then you see the exact same footage again.  They use the same reaction shot from the games maker 4 times.  And this is in a movie where his joke is that he has corporate logos in his beard ... except they should change as the film goes forward (and do) but on this same shot they use over and over it is an old sponser.  That is how little they care.

Oh oh oh, here here, check this.  A burn wound from Thor's hammer is CGI on a dude's arm.  A burn wound.  A thing that would have cost maybe $5 to buy the makeup for to look as good as the REST of this film's crappy makeup effects, they opted to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to make it an effects shot because they couldn't be damned to work hard.

This movie angered me in its laziness and lack of skill.  It knew that people would watch it and buy it because it was a spoof, and that was the end.  They absolutely did not care at all about making a good film, or even worse, thought they were making one and gave us this instead.  I loathe this film.  It is one of the worst comedies I've ever seen on a technical level, right there with Leonard Part 6 and the Pest, but I despise it more than The Pest.  Maybe more than Leonard Part 6.  Jury's still out, I think.

So yeah, avoid this one like the plague.  But give The Hungover Games a chance.

Grade: F--

19.2.14

IHAO DOUBLE FEATURE on ... Monument's Men and LEGO Movie

I was able to double feature two movies that are still big in theatres currently, so why not double feature them together as soon as I can?  I hope you all find these reviews helpful.  Let's get on with it.



Monument's Men is a George Clooney acted, directed, written, and produced film.  I wouldn't call it a "vanity" project, but a passion piece.  Clooney, while the narrative voice and framing structural character of the film, really isn't particularly important beyond hammering home the sentimental purpose of the film over and over.  The film itself is about the true story of the Monument's Men during WW2 who spent their time trying to find all the greatest art, be it paintings, sculptures, or ... other stuff ... I'm sure there was other stuff, but the movie focused on those, anyway, they searched for all the stolen art and tried to stop Nazis from destroying art.

This is a real thing that happened, so let's go ahead and put that out there.  The way things happened probably all happened as well.  Let's just assume other than jokes and little character beats, everything happened.  Ok.  

I found this movie to be sentimental, with very few stakes.  Yes, yes, historical film means that we knew the outcome, but that's not what I'm actually saying about stakes.  "Stakes" are what you need in a film to get invested.  Stakes are created by tension and character action.  The characters are the audience's way into the film.  And I found that Clooney, who did a very good job with the shots and pacing and such on the director's side, created caricature characters that were very simple to understand and like, then used quick vignettes to hop about the plot of the movie, instead of really giving us character moments to build our tension.  Blanchett got the most actual character time, but that quickly went away after the Monument's Men were doing their thing.  

Smiley Frenchman was my favorite character in the movie.  Look at him smile.  :)

With all the stakes removed from characters, all that is left is stakes based on the art itself.  And even there, we see a cheap writing tactic of taking a character and putting all his importance onto a piece of art, so that we are rooting for the Men to find that art as a way to save the character.  It isn't bad or anything, just forced.

Everything Clooney did was good.  My complaints are about the lack.  The lack of interesting choices and scenarios beyond simple vignettes for our characters.  What we did see were are well done.  But if there had been motion between the vignette scenes, if we had really gotten to know the characters beyond the caricatures of "sarcastic elderly dude," "little jewish dude who doesn't like the sarcastic one," "smiley french guy," "husband," "Clooney," if we got to get a real sense of characters, this movie could have been something real special.  The movie handled emotion well, it just didn't truly earn the emotion.  

If you love art.  If you love history.  If you love Europe.  I can very much see this movie being a favorite, even a top 10 for you.  And that's great!  But I personally found it a little lacking, while overall a solid film.  I wouldn't recommend a theatrical viewing (there's nothing really special or necessary about seeing it on the big ole screen) but there are way worse things to rent or Netflix or borrow from that uncle or aunt of yours who you KNOW will own it because it is a war movie that has hunky George Clooney in it.

Grade: B




Chris Pratt is so wonderfully likable as a leading man.  I have to say it right now.  If I liked Tom Hanks, I would compare him to Tom Hanks.  I don't like Tom Hanks, though, so I'm just going to compare him to ... himself, I guess.  I love Pratt.  And he is perfectly suited as a leading fella in this movie and in his new movie, Guardians of the Galaxy.  Trailer below:


This movie is a fun look at the creative force of the Lego.  And a big ole commercial.  There is no denying it, the whole thing is a commercial.  Yes, it goes beyond that, but come one, don't try to fool me people.  The better the movie, the better the commercial.  And it was a very good commercial.

Great joke.  One of probably ... I dunno, a bunch.

The voice acting all around was spot on.  And the world created was even better.  The way it was filmed was fantastic, as it looked like a basically seamless mixture of CGI and stop motion, or just incredible CGI that left fingerprints on things.  It looks very good.  And the movie does go beyond what it could have been to really give us a perfect family film with some new ideas that fit our current culture and parents, as well as our children.  While there are still some things that could have been done, it just leaves room for a sequel, which I'd be shocked if there wasn't one ... actually, I take that back.  This film has a message and moral to it that seems standalone.  So I hope there isn't another.  But there probably will be.  Commercials make lots of money in film form.

This movie really is great.  I don't love it, personally, but I cannot deny great quality when I see it.  And I don't really know what I'd change if I could.  Go see this flick.  You won't regret, and the big screen treatment for these tiny squares is gonna be very much worth your time.  Also, Green Lantern is the new Aquaman.  

Grade: A

6.2.14

IHAO DOUBLE FEATURE on ... Haywire and Surviving the Game

Because I missed the past two days of updates, I now present a DOUBLE FEATURE!  I plan to do these every now and again when I see two films that I think really compliment each other or attribute to the review of both.  We'll see how these go, and everyone likes them, maybe I'll try to do more of them.  On with the reviews!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


This movie suffers from directorial influence incredibly hard.  What was filmed could have been a really cool spy thriller action film, kind of a more interesting Bourne film starring a real fighter as our lead action star, Gina Carano.   And before I get any farther, she is amazing(-ish).  The fact that she isn’t Wonder Woman is criminal.  To the world!  They even make a TERRIBLE put-down about it in this film.  DC, cast her!!  Anyways.

What we got was a first half of a film that built tension incredibly well and was intriguing with cool characters and a neat mystery, and a second half that was just a wheezing sigh of meh.  Which is frustrating, because I was loving the ride I was on.  It’s like going on this awesome roller coaster, building up, taking a cool twist and spin here, climbing up for a big climax, and then it just kind of is a gentle slope down to the bottom. 
This movie is very reminiscent of another Soderbergh film from a few years earlier, the Girlfriend Experience.  That is a movie about an escort with a pornstar as the lead, Sasha Grey.  

These two films could be a Double Feature between just the two of them.  They both aren't told linearly;  they both are hyper-stylized cinematic-ally (think like Breaking Bad except it is really noticeable and distracting);  they both take a basically non-actress actress and get around lack of acting skill with well used silence and reactions to coax emotion; they both fall emotionally and entertainment-wise flat around the halfway mark.  Haywire is better than the Girlfriend Experience, easily, because other than the climactic fight scene between Carano and Ewan McGregor - which jump cuts a few dozen times over the span of two minutes - Soderbergh gets out of the way of the action and lets Carano do her thing.  And when she does, it is great.  But the fight scenes are few and far between just after the half-way point, and many happen off screen.  Because that’s what we as the audience want in our action film, to not see the action.

Ok, she either just broke a dude's neck ... or broke a stool on a kitchen island.  This sounds great!

I cannot recommend this movie, because as a film, it peters out and becomes a waste of time.  And I hate that.  I really wanted to like this movie, I wanted to have a new star to look for.  Carano showed up in Fast and Furious 6, which I haven’t seen yet, but I plan to watch just to see how they utilize her.  She is  a precious commodity for Hollywood: an incredibly attractive, incredibly tough, real-deal fighter with that intangible “it factor” that could really propel her to amazing heights.  I hope that this film, being her star-vehicle that just kind of petered out and went nowhere because the director got too heavyhanded and watered down the film, I hope that this film doesn’t drag down what could be an amazing career in film for her.  We’ll see.

Grade: C-


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Surviving the Game is everything an action movie should be (other than innovative).  Except it stars Ice-T, who is quite possible the worst actor working in film and television.  Ok, ok, too bold a claim, and I don't normally like being completely hyperbolic and negative, but Ice-T really is out of his league in this film.  The movie covers for it pretty well once the action gets going, but for the first act we have to sit there with him and his perma-scowl face as he mumbles through lines, wearings a dredlock wig so fake that it makes 8 year-old rastafarian costumes on Halloween look authentic, and just does not do particularly well. 

The movie is not a new premise, and for some people, that will be an immediate turn off.  It is another in a long list of films that are based on “The Most Dangerous Game” short story conceit.  The thing that makes those movies different are the characters and way things go.  Going into this film, you know Ice-T is going to get hunted, so they don’t beat around the bush or pretend like he isn’t, which I appreciate.

The movie did two things incredibly well: great actors playing great characters as our hunters, filled with the likes of John C. McGinley, Charles S. Dutton, Gary Busey, F. Murray Abraham, and one of my favorite actors ever, Rutger Hauer.  They are all well-established characters, with unique traits and great moments to savor in this film, especially Busey, who delivers just a phenomenal monologue, known as the Prince Henry Stout monologue.  It is truly an awesome piece of acting.  I don’t normally link videos, but this one is too perfect to not include.


Pretty quickly, the focus shifts to the hunters instead of Ice-T, which is a very good idea, and fixes most of the problems with the film.  Though it is particularly off-putting once the light-skinned Ice-T ends up covered in soot to make him look like he is in blackface.

This movie is filmed with fun moments, twists and turns that I could never call before they happened, and a group of great characters.  And the only really BAD thing about the film is Ice-T himself, and the fact that this isn’t a new idea, or even a new take on an old idea.  It is an interesting, but classic, version of the Most Dangerous Game, but I will definitely watch it again, and I do recommend to any action fans.

Grade: B+