Review: Vacation

by Trevor Kirkendall
½★

Dear woman sitting next to me at the screening of “Vacation,”

You are the reason why I love going to the movies, even to the absurdly terrible films like “Vacation.” You see, while I was sitting in the theater hating – seriously hating – the movie, you were sitting next to me cackling at every ridiculous joke that came across the screen. From the legitimately funny situational jokes, to the slapstick scenes that made me shake my head and sigh in disgust. At least one of us was enjoying the film. And I enjoyed your role in the event that was my evening more so than I did any single frame of “Vacation.”

What I’m not saying is that your opinion of the movie is wrong and mine is right. Our opinions of movies are right in our own eyes, and our eyes only. You’ll go home and tell all your friends how hilarious it is, and I’ll be posting to the readers on my website that it’s in the running for worst film of the year. Your friends will choose to agree or disagree with you, and my readers will do the same. As a matter of fact, I’m quite certain people tend to disagree with my opinion more often than they agree with it, a fact that I’m more than okay with.

I found “Vacation” to be largely unfunny, contrary to the vocalization you were making throughout the film. Again, I’m so very glad you vocalized your enjoyment; had you not, I may have stood up from my seat and attempted to stick my head through the concrete wall.

Judging from the fact that you looked just slightly older than me, I’m going to guess your are aware that this movie is a reboot of the 1983 film of the same name from the late-and-great-and-inimitable Harold Ramis. But did you hear the group of high school kids behind us praising the film as the funniest thing they’ve ever seen? Do you think they know this is a reboot? I think the original film had far much more heart than this one, which made it much more enjoyable.

I thought Ed Helms playing the role of Rusty Griswold was a pretty solid choice. He’s a gifted comedian, and the things that make him a joy to watch were on full display throughout the film. But he seemed to phone it in. Only in one or two scenes did he come across looking like the son of Clark Griswold (Chevy Chase). Other than that, he might has well have been playing the role of Andy Bernard from his former TV series “The Office.” Numerous actors have portrayed the character as a kid, and they all brought with them a different take on it. But they all felt like the son of Clark in each outing. That’s not the case here. We only accept that he is Clark’s son because we’re told he’s Clark’s son.

Everything about this film looked like amateurs produced it. You would think that if someone was going to reboot a beloved franchise, they’d at least attempt to retain some of that same soul, but I found none of it. It was just one joke after the other, like is a comedian just standing there rambling without any segue. What’s lacking here is anything even remotely resembling a story. Sure, you could say the story is Rusty Griswold wanting to take his wife Debbie (Christina Applegate) and his two sons James and Kevin (Skyler Gisondo and Steele Stebbins) on an epic vacation to Walley World, just like he did as a kid with his family. That would be the plot of the film, all right, but there’s nothing else to it. Everything is just one poor joke after another, never building on anything that precedes it.

All these other characters are familiar stereotypes lacking any kind of growth and development as this sorry excuse for a story moves on. James is a dorky kid and Kevin is a foul mouthed little brother. Hearing the youngest son say phrases that were well above his age was funny the first couple of times, but quickly wore out its humor. The only time I found the film to have any ounce of legitimate humor was when Helms channeled his inner Chevy Chase. When he looked like the grown up son of Clark Griswold, the film was funny. Unfortunately, this only amounts to about two scenes throughout the entire film.

The thing about a movie like this is that it’s the product of years of market research and numerous test screenings. Which jokes play well to the masses? Which scenes get the biggest responses from the audience? I believe that a movie should just exist on its own without the need of test screenings. Either the film plays well, or it doesn’t. Instead, the final project is hacked-to-pieces mess that technically qualifies as a “motion picture” because a major studio financed it. There’s nothing artistic about this film at all.

“Whoa, whoa, whoa,” is probably what you’re thinking right now. “You just said ‘artistic’ about an R-rated comedy that first introduced itself with a red band trailer earlier this year. There’s nothing artistic about that!” Well, that’s true. I shouldn’t be going into a movie like “Vacation” expecting an Oscar-worthy experience. And I don’t. But I do expect everything released to be good. That’s not too much to ask. The basic pillars of storytelling need to be followed each and every time. I didn’t get that from this reboot of “Vacation” at all.

That responsibility sits square on the shoulders of the writer/directors John Francis Daley (an actor, primarily, as seen on the TV series “Bones”) and Jonathan M. Goldstein. How these two conned their way into writing and directing this abomination is beyond me. And they’ve somehow worked their way into writing the script for the upcoming Spider-Man reboot for Marvel. How did that happen? To you, they may have cranked out one of the funniest movies of the summer. Again, that’s completely your opinion. One you’re absolutely entitled to and that is perfectly okay. I’m not saying you’re wrong. But wouldn’t this have been even more memorable if there was a decent story tying all these funny jokes together? Would the jokes have had more of an impact if the characters were at least half way developed? The idea about focusing a “Vacation” story on the adult son of Clark Griswold is intriguing, but fails miserably. I wish we could talk a year from now and see if you remember any of the jokes or plot points in the film. Maybe you would. If you do, fantastic. If not, then that would prove my point.

Maybe I am getting too carried away here. After all, the vast majority of the moviegoers in the screening seemed to enjoy themselves. Especially you! I am in no way mocking your opinion here. Just stating what I saw in this film. This is probably not a great review of the film itself since a movie critic shouldn’t get so wrapped up with words “I” and “me," words which I have overused in this review. This was merely a way for me to express my opinion of the movie without being cruel or angry about it. In fact, when I think back to this movie, I’m going to remember your infectious laugh more than anything. So for that, I thank you. Take some comfort in knowing that your enjoyment made me enjoy the experience, which gives this film a bonus half-star rating.

I hope to see you again in another terrible movie sometime in the future.

Review: We're The Millers

by. Joe Moss

★★★

Rawson Marshall Thurber, best known for "Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story," has struck gold again with 2013's "We're the Millers." At times the movie seems a throwback to the National Lampoon's adventures of the 1980's. There's plenty of tongue-in-cheek humor to keep the majority of the audience laughing tirelessly throughout the entire movie. Sure, there are a few down points that make you roll yours eyes, but the movie picks up quickly and you hardly even realize the 110 minutes have flown by...then the blooper reels start to flash. DEFINITELY stay through the bloopers as it ends with the BEST scene that should have remained in the film [in my humble opinion]. 

David Clark (SNL Alum Jason Sudeikis) is a happy-go-lucky, small-time drug dealer with no cares or major responsibilities. He inadvertently helps his awkward, teenage neighbor, Ken Rossmore (Will Poulter) stop a homeless girl, Kasey Mathis (Emma Roberts), from getting mugged. In the process--HE gets mugged, looses his sales money and has to pay the ultimate price for his spontaneous "good guy" moment--become a drug smuggler for his boss, Brad Gurdlinger (Ed Helms) or be killed.

In order to pull this drug smuggling venture off (drug smuggling IS different from drug dealing), David realizes that he needs the perfect cover--and is struck by the revelation that he needs to have a family traveling in an RV. He enlists the help of Ken and Kasey easily; however, a guy with 2 kids looks rather weird and "perverted." David needs a wife--so he asks another of his neighbors, the stripper, Rose (Jennifer Aniston). Initially, she rebuffs his offer, but once her boss decides to "up the ante" of what is offered at work, she has an immediate change of heart for David's offer. Thus the shenanigans begin...with a multitude of SNL type interplay and plenty of sexual innuendo to keep everyone laughing til tears begin to fall.

The screenplay by Bob Fisher and Steve Faber, the creative team behind the 2005 mega-hit, Wedding Crashers, have another gem on their hands. They have definitely written the screenplay with their actors' personalities and strengths in mind.

Even so, Aniston is far and away the STAR of this film--providing not only the glue that keeps the plot together, but is by far the most believable presence on screen.  Her lines are delivered effortlessly allowing everyone else to quickly fall into sync and showcase their own personalities without having to attempt to overact. I think that she has shown the best evolution as an actress over the past decade. If this film is any indication of things to come, watch out Meryl Streep.

This film also introduces everyone to the comedic genius of English-born actor Will Poulter (Voyage of Dawn Treader). While Aniston clearly runs away with the commanding presence of the film, Will has some of the best comedic moments and is clearly not afraid to sacrifice his body for the easy laugh. Emma Roberts (Nancy Drew) provides a solid counterpoint of cynicism to his awkward, but hilarious moments on screen.

Having gone into this movie fully expecting all of the funny moments to have been included in the trailer, I have to say that my wife and I laughed continuously the entire film. It was easily one of the funniest films I have seen this year. If you are a big fan of Saturday Night Live (c) or Chelsea Lately (c), you should easily love this film.

Review: The Hangover Part III

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★

In 2009, a little movie called “The Hangover” opened and made a pretty big splash with audiences and critics alike. I was kind of skeptical of the film judging from the trailer. It looked like just another raunchy comedy with no plot that would be satisfying only to the college crowd. What we got was something so much more that that. It was smart, something you don’t see in a typical comedy. And it wasn’t all that raunchy either. But then they had to follow it up with “The Hangover Part II,” a carbon copy of the first film. Only this time, the setting was different and the jokes were raunchier. Even the main characters didn’t act the same as they did previously. It was absolutely awful. So what does the inevitable “Part III” going to bring to the series? Fortunately, it is a vast improvement.

“The Hangover Part III” opens with the death of Sid (Jeffery Tambor), who is the father to Alan (Zach Galifianakis). The family, including Alan’s brother in law Doug (Justin Bartha), decides it’s best that Alan enter into a rehabilitation center to try and figure out what’s wrong with him. Fans of the other films will know there is quite a bit wrong with Alan. He agrees to go to the rehab center and is accompanied by Doug and his best friends Phil (Bradley Cooper) and Stu (Ed Helms).

They never quite make it there, and its not because they got drunk and wake up in a strange place with no knowledge of the previous night. They’re ambushed on the highway and taken captive by none other than the man who sold Alan the drugs in the first film, Black Doug (Mike Epps). He’s working for his drug dealer boss Marshall (John Goodman) who has a bone to pick with The Wolfpack.

He wants them to find Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong) who has just broken out of a Bangkok prison and his headed to the west coast. Mr. Chow has stolen millions of dollars worth of gold bricks from Marshall and he wants them back. He holds Doug hostage until they bring Chow and the gold bricks back to him.

Unlike the second installment to the trilogy, “Part III” does not rehash the plot of the original once again. “Part II” was an absolute abomination for its choice to copy Jon Lucas and Scott Moore’s brilliant screenplay almost scene-for-scene changing only the location of the events. If you missed the second film, you missed nothing. Just watch the original twice and you’ll be good.

Writer and director Todd Phillips, working once again with his “Part II” co-writer Craig Mazin, have completely redeemed themselves from that garbage of a script they called “Part II.” There are no plot points from the first two that repeat themselves. This is a completely original idea, which is a very refreshing way to close off this series. There is an appearance from Stu’s stripper girlfriend (Heather Graham) he married briefly in the original, and her kid (who Alan calls Carlos).

The Wolfpack only drink a very small amount of alcohol together. They are completely sober for their entire adventure. It brings a different kind of perspective to the film. We’ve already seen these guys run around drunk and confused for two whole movies. This time we see a more mature and determined Wolfpack (well, okay, a much more mature and determined Stu and Phil; Alan is still Alan).

What’s made these movies so successful is the chemistry between Cooper, Helms and Galifianakis. In the original film, these were three different guys on three very different career paths. If you didn’t know who they were prior to 2009, you know who they are now. And they were paired together so perfectly, something you don’t see too often. In “Part II” they worked well together, but you could tell that even they knew the movie was terrible. But with a much better screenplay to work from, they really work well together in “Part III.”

The plot is, for the most part, pretty well put together. It definitely has a different feel to it than its predecessors. “Part III” is a bit more gritty. Since plot and story seems to be of greater focus for Phillips and Mazin this time around, the jokes do suffer some. It’s not as funny as one might expect. The trailers don’t give all the jokes away so there are some surprises in there. But overall, the film has a more suspenseful element at times, rather than just one crude toilet joke after another (which was “Part II’s” downfall). If the raunchy jokes are what you came for, then you’ll want to wait for just a moment when the credits roll at the end. There is an additional scene just for you.

“Part III” is a pretty satisfying way to close off this series. I’m not sure they’ll surprise us with a fourth installment somewhere down the line, so this is it for the Wolfpack. It’s not on par with the original, but how many sequels ever are? It is a satisfying was to close out this trilogy. Just don’t expect your stomach muscles to be sore after its over.