The Hangover (2009)

IT WAS HARD – really hard – to ignore the success of The Hangover.

A comedy with a simple premise, and no marquee stars, blows up through strong word of mouth and good reviews to become the highest grossing R-rated film in history ($270 million as of this writing).

So, much like Let The Right One In, I had to blot out everything I saw or heard that raved about The Hangover so I could objectively review it myself.

Plot:
• The big wedding day is near for Doug (Justin Bartha), but first he’s being taken to Las Vegas for his bachelor party by his groomsmen: party guy Phil (Bradley Cooper), henpecked boyfriend Stu (The Office’s Ed Helms), and odd, future brother-in-law Alan (Zach Galifianakis).
• They check in to Caesar’s, then sneak to the rooftop for an amazing view of Sin City and a toast to the upcoming evening. Alan breaks out a bottle of Jagermeister…which, as those of you who have partaken can attest, is a sign that the evening is not going to end well.
• The rooftop scene fades, and we next find Phil, Stu, and Alan in their hotel room the following morning – with a chicken, a tiger, and a baby as guests. Also, Doug is nowhere to be found. Unfortunately, the groomsmen have no recollection of the prior evening, so they spend the remainder of the film backtracking their steps – and being confronted by all sorts of people from the night before, for reasons the guys can’t understand or remember.

Critique:

I’m not going to pontificate about the cinematography, lighting, or mise en scene of The Hangover, since you probably just want to know: Is it as funny as everyone says it is?

In a word, yes. There are loads of hilarious antics, scenarios, and dialogue in the first hour alone – enough to fill three times as many of the so-so “best comedies of the year” we’ve been assaulted with recently. (I’m looking at you, Knocked Up.)

While credit for the comedy starts with the script by Jon Lucas and Scott Moore, a huge amount of the success rests squarely with Cooper, Helms, and Galifianakis. Each one is perfectly cast in their role, playing an entirely different character from the other two – yet the trio interact amazingly well on screen.

Director Todd Phillips (the overrated Old School) does a great job of balancing the real and the ridiculous to create an ideal blend for an outrageously funny film. Naysayers may claim it’s all too unrealistic, but part of the beauty is that there is a chance, however slim, that the events of The Hangover could actually happen to these guys.

Some nits to pick: I can’t decide whether the appearance of Mike Tyson (as the owner of the aforementioned tiger) is funny or forced. Ken Jeong’s role as a gay Asian mob boss is clichéd, stereotypical, and worst of all, unfunny. And the way the guys finally find Doug (what, you thought they wouldn’t?) is a bit anticlimactic, compared to everything that transpired beforehand.

Like most comedies, the third act tapers a bit because plots need to be resolved, so time for comedy is sacrificed. But never mind: The Hangover is a very funny, unapologetic, un-PC, R-rated comedy starring grownups, about grownups, without a high concept. I haven’t laughed out loud this much since Superbad.

The Hangover is still playing in some theaters. I highly recommend you track it down, or be sure to check it out when it hits home video or On Demand. (And be sure to watch the end credits.)

Awesome post-script: To get The Hangover made with the actors he wanted, director Todd Phillips waived his salary and received part ownership of the film instead. With the movie’s killer box office, you probably don’t need a calculator to figure out it was a wise gamble. From Variety:

Because Phillips insisted on his cast, [he was given] a budget ceiling of $34 million, and the only way he could make that number was to work for scale and use salary and gross to buy his way into being an equity investor…That puts Phillips on track to earn $35 million or more on "The Hangover."

Like I said: awesome.

Rating:

Will your kids want to see it?

Doesn’t matter; they shouldn’t. While The Hangover is hilarious, it’s justifiably rated R. There are tons of F-bombs (amongst many other profanities), plus copious amounts of nudity, drug references, and several scenes of a baby in comedic distress. I’d say high schoolers should be the youngest age group for viewing The Hangover, and even then I’d say only upperclassmen.

Will your FilmMother want to watch it?

I would think The Hangover’s humor would play to both genders, but you’ll have to judge for yourself. Like I said earlier, it’s a pretty good balance of real-life comedy and outrageous antics. Look, it ain’t Hamlet; as long as she goes in looking for laughs and not high art, I think you’ll both like it a lot.

Hello...AAA? You're not gonna believe this.

The Hangover
• Director: Todd Phillips
• Screenwriters: Jon Lucas, Scott Moore
• Stars: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis, Justin Bartha, Heather Graham
• MPAA Rating: R (pervasive language, sexual content including nudity, and some drug material)


Buy The Hangover for less at Half.com >>
Netflix >>

Interview with John Wildermuth, First Assistant Director, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009)

FILMFATHER: As a first assistant director (AD), what are your roles and responsibilities?
JOHN WILDERMUTH: Someone asked me that once and I simply said I’m responsible for helping the director by managing the crew. A producer was nearby and said, "Are you kidding? He tells a crew of 300 mooks what to do every day!"

As a first AD, I’m the director's right hand. The director is responsible for overseeing all of the creative aspects of making a film, and it’s my job to help him or her realize their vision. I’m responsible for making sure everything and everyone is there for each scene. I begin two to five months ahead of the start of photography, breaking down every scene in the script and creating a shooting schedule. It’s like a giant puzzle that’s continually changing and evolving as locations are found and actors are hired.

On Pelham I had five months of prep, beginning with a two-week scout of New York City locations with [director] Tony Scott, executive producer Barry Waldman, production designer Chris Seagers, and location manager Janice Polley. We started with an MTA track safety class so we could scout subway stations and tunnels with active trains all around us. I also worked on hundreds of versions of the schedule as we continued to scout and figure out how to shoot each scene in the most exciting and efficient manner.

Once principal photography begins, I’m by Tony’s side every minute of the day, helping manage all the elements needed to shoot the scenes on the schedule. I have a staff of 10 ADs and production assistants to help speak to the crew and direct all the background action, cars, and stunts. Often, the script is being re-worked and I continue to change the shooting schedule to accommodate any revisions. For Tony, I type up notes each night to help him prepare for what we’re shooting the next day.

FF: What’s the biggest difference between the new version of The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 and the 1974 original?
JW: The original Pelham is a quintessential New York film and set the template for action movies that continues to this day. It’s a classic film, but today's audiences are different and Tony was looking to do a "re-invention" rather than a traditional remake.

The new Pelham takes place in a post-9/11 New York City. There are no longer Transit Police [like in the original Pelham] because the NYPD now has authority over the MTA. Also, Denzel Washington did not want to play a cop. Tony is notorious for his extensive research, and he’s always looking for real people to base characters on for his movie. Denzel's character is an MTA executive under investigation for taking a bribe on new train contracts. He's demoted to a train dispatcher pending the outcome of the investigation, and he just happens to be on [duty] when the call comes in that Pelham 123 has been taken. John Travolta's character is also based on a real person, a smarter and more dangerous man than the classic Robert Shaw character. I won't say any more because I don't want to give away too much.

FF: In addition to being an AD on Pelham, you’re also an associate producer. What additional responsibilities come with that?
JW: This was my seventh film with Tony, and my involvement in his projects is on a much deeper level than just being an AD. Most films today have an executive producer, the hands-on person overseeing the project from start to finish. Usually, this person is a former AD, having learned the nuts and bolts of filmmaking from the ground up. Although I desire to direct my own movies, I do help produce [the films I work on], and the associate producer credit is a recognition of the role I play on Tony's films.

FF: You mentioned you’ve made seven films with director Tony Scott (including Crimson Tide, Man on Fire, and Domino). What draws you to work with him so often?
JW: Tony is the most challenging director I’ve ever met. He’s also the hardest-working director in Hollywood. I’ve been drawn to him time after time because he challenges me to be at the top of my game every single day. The experience I’ve gained standing at his side and helping him make his movies for 14 years has given me a lifetime of experience from one of the modern masters. I’m planning on using that experience to direct my own films and follow in my mentor's footsteps.

FF: At your blog, you often write about time spent on film locations versus time spent with your kids when you’re home. How hard is it balancing the two?
JW: When my children were young, it was hard to be away from them, but it was also easier for them to come with me. I was still married to their mother and, for example, on Spy Game they came and lived with me in London for six months. As they get older, I’m finding it increasingly challenging to be away from them. They are 10 and 12 now, and it’s painful to go so long without seeing them. I’ve tried to take several months off between projects in recent years to give me more of a balanced life, as movies with Tony are 7-day-a-week jobs. I’m doing a movie now which shoots in Vancouver – a shorter project with a director who doesn't work 7 days a week and is allowing me time to fly home to Los Angeles on some weekends.

FF: Your IMDb page says you worked on 1992’s School Ties. My wife has a huge crush on Chris O’Donnell, so she’d kill me if I didn’t ask what he was like on the set.
JW: Chris was great, a super-nice guy! I was able to re-schedule some scenes so he could go to New York to audition for Scent of a Woman, and you know the rest. I'm happy that he’s gone on to have so much success, because I think he really deserves it.

FF: What’s your next project? You mentioned on your blog last month that you were scouting locations for a movie based on the Marmaduke comic strip…
JW: Yes, I’m working on Marmaduke; we start filming in July in Vancouver with some scenes to be shot in southern California in September. We’re using real dogs, and the visual effects team from Beverly Hills Chihuahua will animate their mouths to make them talk. It’s a lot like a 1980s John Hughes movie, with the dogs playing out their high school scenes at a local dog park. This movie is way outside the box for me, but my kids have been asking me for years to work on a kids’ film and I just couldn't pass up the opportunity. The movie comes out around Easter 2010 and I’ll write about my experiences on my blog this summer.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 opens Friday, June 12.