The Hangover

Woon:
Giving a movie a title like The Hangover does not leave much to the imagination. And from the ad campaign, which was quite extensive in my opinion, the entire plot was essentially told to you even before you paid for your allocated seats at the box office. I was expecting a T&A romp much like Bachelor Party from the early 80's where movies of that period, such as Animal House, Porky's and Revenge of the Nerds pushed the taste and ratings classification boundaries. And even if I knew the plot and most likely the ending, I was hoping Heather Graham would make it worthwhile.

I believe this movie was trying to sell itself as THE naughty movie for the noughties, but alas, it was not. Everything was so PC and stereotypical. The plot for the first half felt like a TV cop show episode where the protagonists worked from clue to clue, going from the previous nights consequence to consequence. Many of these consequences, as I've said before, were shown in the ads and when the scene came up, it just didn't make me chuckle. It just felt like a re-worked version of Dude Where's My Car.

There were funny moments though but more in the stupidity of the lines delivered as apposed to the situation they were in. The stereotypical characters were well played. In particular the Asian gang leader, quite different to his role in Knocked Up. In fact, this is probably its saving grace. I give it a "Wait for it in a 3 in 1 DVD release"

Holland:
After seeing the crap trailer, I had absolutely no interest in seeing this movie, but I was convinced to go by a favourable review from Margaret and David and a text message from my friend Kristy stating "Funniest. Movie. Ever." (she probably didn't use that many full stops because she's not that geeky, but I know what she meant).

There were a lot of jokes in this movie. Some fell pretty flat, and some brought a small chuckle but were childish, e.g. lets all laugh at the naked fat guy, the naked old man or the naked Chinese guy. Still, there were enough original, clever and funny jokes that I went along for most of the ride. And any movie that can get away with masturbation jokes involving babies gets a thumbs up from me.

While the performances are perfectly fine, all of the characters are pretty much your stock standard bachelor party stereotypes - the obnoxious stud who is up for anything; the nerd who constantly worries - with the exception of the socially inept Alan, played by Zach Galifianakis, who may well have created a new stereotype, like a cross between John Belushi in Animal House and Rain Man. He gets all of the best lines and I would say that this was a not that great movie without him, but include him and it becomes a pretty OK movie.

I found my interest waning from about the middle of the movie, and while most of the movie thankfully lacked melodrama, the ending was painfully awash with schmaltz, and my groaning was only halted by some silly crassness over the end-credits.

Woon, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. I don't think they were trying to make this the naughty movie of the noughties, as much as you love the pun. This is just the latest in a long line of frat pack movies, the only difference being that this one doesn't have Vince Vaughn and/or Will Ferrell in it. Just look at the director Todd Philips' filmography for starters. And I think you'll find that the naughtiest mainstream comedy this year is Kevin Smith's Zack and Miri Make a Porno. It's rated R for starters.

All, up there is quite a bit to like about this movie, and there are enough one-liners that repeat viewings will probably throw out a few gems missed on earlier viewings. I give it "watch the DVD with a couple of mates and a keg".

Woon:
Having Vince Vaughn AND, not or, Will Ferrell in this movie would not have saved it. Nothing was missing from the acting, it just lacked cleverness in the lines. It needed a bit of Apatow wit sprinkled on it.

Holland:
I think having those two in it would have made it a much worse movie. The great thing about the Alan character was that he was so quiet and understated, and if Will Ferrell had played him (as he surely would have) it would have been so manic and over-the-top that the whole thing would have been ruined and I would have had to book the next flight to Hollywood just so I could track him down and punch him in the face.

I've just been looking through his filmography, and I've realised that I haven't seen a single movie that Judd Apatow has written or directed, and of those he has produced, I've only seen The Cable Guy (funny), Anchorman (very funny) and Taledaga Nights (ugh!). We might have to book in an Apatow festival.

Terminator Salvation

Holland:
Here is the basic premise of T4: John Connor is searching for a young man, Kyle Reese, so that he can then send him back in time to have sex with his mother and, hence, become his father. But John Connor is already there, so he must have found Kyle and sent him back, right? So why all the stress? Time travel movies require the suspension of disbelief, and this is fine, providing the movie is funny (Back to the Future, Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure) or kick arse (T2). In T4, it is just annoying. The other annoyance is with the Terminators themselves, and this is a 2-part annoyance: 1. Why are there so few Terminators, the third act is set in a fricking Terminator factory? 2. Why do they insist on throwing people against walls, giving them a chance to escape or be rescued instead of a) shooting them dead or b) smashing their head in?

There are a couple of pretty good action scenes, and I like all of the actors (Sam Worthington is particularly good). It also has a brief surprise appearance from an old friend, which got a good crowd reaction. If it was a stand alone futuristic action/sci-fi movie I probably would have thought that it was an OK popcorn movie. But this is a Terminator movie, and I demand more, dammit!

The ending of T2 was kind of corny, but it was also perfect. The ending of T4 is kind of similar, but is just stupid. Actually, I think this pretty much sums up the whole movie. It ticks all of the boxes for what you'd expect in a Terminator movie, but it just isn't very good.

They are certainly keeping their sequel options open. Not only does nothing really get resolved in this movie, they don't even get up to the point where Reese is sent back in time. Urgh!

I don't want anybody else spending money seeing this movie. It will just encourage them to think that people liked it, and when the next Terminator movie is made (which is pretty much inevitable), we might get lumped with another mess like this. My score therefore has to be: If you really want to see it, "see it on TV".


Woon:
Let's face it. Time travel movies are a fallacy. James Cameron essentially screwed the pooch in the original Terminator when he let John Conner send his own father back in time to let him be born. There are so many plot holes to do with that side of the story that the only way not to give this movie a zero is to review it without that subplot. OK, so the baddie robots are from the baddie aliens (BA) and the goodie robots are from the goodie aliens (GA). John Conner has a unique DNA mutation that threatens the existence of the BA race. The GAs must protect John Conner because he is the ultimate weapon. Both aliens can't come to earth because it would freak everyone out and we would kill them both.

T1: BA sees John's mother as having the potential to mutate. GA recruits Kyle Reese to protect her. Cool looking robots, bit of T&A, explosions and ends in an industrial setting. T2: BA sees the mutated John, sends next model to kill him. GA sends captured old model to protect. Cool looking robots, no T&A (just male glutious maximus), explosion and ends in an industrial setting. T3: BA still looking for John, GA sends captured old model to protect. Cool looking robots, censored T (dammit), explosions and ends in an industrial/military setting.

And now to T4, well you know the drill. The look of the film was a lot grittier than T2 and T3. Scenes reminiscent of Mad Max 2 during the highway chase and Saving Private Ryan during the headquarters escape. All the old favorite lines were there as well as the T-800 (with and with out skin - spoiler). It definitely is like all the other Terminator movies, but minus the fate/can't change destiny tagline. I was expecting a John Conner centric story with his heroism finally shown, but this was not the case. I think the makers could not decide whether to focus the story on him or the Terminators and in the end it was a half arsed attempt to do both and they failed at both.

Giving it a rating of "worth a torrented DVD rip but only if you have nothing else to use your end of month quota on".


Holland:
I'm not sure that your rewriting of the Terminator mythology minus the time travel solves any of the problems with this movie. It vaguely works for the first three, but the whole point of T4 is that it is the future and John and the Terminators are looking to change the past. I prefer to leave time travel in and just not think about it too much. It got me thinking though, that the makers of T4 should have taken your advice and removed the time travel element from the movie. Then we could have just sat back and enjoyed a futuristic robot vs man (I bags being the robot) action romp.

And thanks for the reminder about the hot naked chick in T3.

Woon:
Whomever fed the knowledge into Skynet so it could become self aware should have shown it less of the Austin Power's trilogy and more of Third Riech playbook. I'm calling this as the last of the franchise.

----

Next up: Hanna Montana.

Star Trek 11

Woon:
7 Years since the last movie and 4 years after the television series ended, this is the much anticipated JJ Abrams reboot. Made for $150M and targeted for a more "general audience", there is no doubt that the franchise owners are hoping for a revival to match that of the 90's.

I am not a fan of TOS but I did follow TNG, enjoyed a bit of DS9, tried to get into VOY but by ENT, the stories were becoming all too familiar and the battles all to infrequent. The canon definitely needed something spectacular. I was hesitant at first that this film would be diluted by TNG centric jokes and the other Star Trek directives of peace, love and conflict resolution without violence. This was not the case and it definitely delivers.

Action scenes were fluid, the level of detail superb and the cinematography extremely grand. The only complaint is to turn down the lens flare. Not every external space shot needs it. The acting was adequate and given that it was a prequel, the writers pretty much had the freedom to do what they wanted as long as the actors were the right colour and had the right accent.

Overall, a solid effort and not a hint of cliffhanger-ness. Score: "Worth a Friday night viewing"

Holland:
TOS, TNG, DS9, VOY and ENT? It took me a couple of minutes to decipher these acronyms, so I am clearly not much of a Star Trek fan, and I certainly would not consider myself a Trekkie, or is it Trekker? I therefore hope that none of the die-hards read this and take offense that an ignorant outsider is reviewing their precious, precious movie. Actually, given that Trekkies are all four-eyed weaklings with a rudimentary knowledge of astrophysics and a penchant for made-up languages and dress-ups, I don't really care what they think.

But enough of the unnecessarily derogatory taunting, because I actually quite enjoyed this movie. I think the story was well thought out, with the characters introduced in a believable and entertaining way, and it had a good twist of sorts that ensures that the franchise can move into the future unencumbered by the baggage/events of the previous 10 movies. Based on my limited experience - I've seen most of the movies and a couple of episodes of TOS and TNG - this was a bone fide Star Trek experience, complete with ridiculous time-warps, over-the-top space battles and in-the-nick-of-time improvised weapons.

The one gripe I have that totally bugged the hell out of me was a totally contrived and way too coincidental sequence of events leading to Kirk meeting one of his 'old' friends. What are the chances that a person ending up in a random location on a barren planet would, within five minutes, just happen to be saved from certain death by a stranger who just happens to be the one person in the universe that can help him save Earth? Well, I guess it worked in The Empire Strikes Back.

I agree with Woon on the CGI lens flare. Seems like they were trying a bit too hard to make it look like it was actually filmed in space. I think the score "Worth a Friday night viewing" is a bit generous and doesn't give you much room to move up in the scoring system when you actually see a really good movie, especially seeing as "See it on opening night" really isn't an option at this point.

Overall, an entertaining if somewhat forgettable film, like most of the Star Treks. Score: "See it in the cinema, but wait for a 2-for-1 offer"

Woon:
The Force explains a lot in the Star Wars galaxy, but no such luck in the Star Trek one.

Holland:
There might be some lame-arse Vulcan mind thing going on, but I don't buy it.

----
So that's it for this review. It seems kind of poetic that our attempt at rebooting the Holland vs Woon franchise is though a successful reboot of another franchise. At least I hope it is poetic, and not ironic.

As always, comments are more than welcome, and are cherished like diamonds magically falling from the sky into our desperately outstretched hands.

Guess who's back? Back again... Daryl's back... with his friend

Hey there. It's been almost two and a half years since our last post, and we owe you a lot of reviews. The only solace I can offer is that at least two and a half years isn't as bad as the terrible Two and a Half Men. Boy does that show suck (1 star).

So finally, after some nagging from Meatpopsicle following the latest Star Trek flick (review pending), helped by my being forced to watch MasterChef Australia (2 stars) by the wife and hence I desperately need a distraction, I've rejigged the blog and am attempting to get back into the habit of posting. Note: the writing of this post is now slowing because MasterChef has finished and the very funny Talkin' Bout Your Generation (4 stars) is on.

So what's been happening with Holland vs Woon since the last post? I decided to consult our good friends at Google Analytics for some answers. Amazingly, since my last post on the 12th of February 2007 there has been 427 page views from 398 visitors. Cool! The most popular post has been my rather harsh review of the Nigerian classic End of the Wicked (63 page views, including an amazing 19 on the 10th of November last year... how come?), followed by some other reviews I did of extremely obscure recent British and German genre films (e.g.). Given all of that interest, surely we have a duty to get this blog back in action. Right? Anybody?

Clearly we're bored of the old format, so expect a totally new, totally original new format. Details to follow soon.

If you never got around to deleting us from your rss reader, and that magic '1 new post' icon flashes up like that time you answered the door to find a long dead relative standing there with worm-eaten flesh hanging over some just recognisable bones, say "hi" in the comments section. If we actually know that people give a toss about what we think, we're much more likely to give a toss about telling people what we think.

Hello?