The Hangover III gets a promising, if potentially misleading trailer.

It's tempting to be somewhat intrigued by the darker tone of this initial teaser for The Hangover part III.  But let us recall that the first act or so of The Hangover part II teased a proverbial Heart of Darkness journey only to cop out during its second half into a tiresome retread of the first film.  Still, if this is really the series finale, then Todd Phillips arguably has complete creative freedom to make whatever movie he wants, including the kind of movie that I'd argue he wanted to make last time around.  Still, this does look a little better than the last film and John Gooddman's inclusion is promising (I'd argue Paul Giamatti was the best thing about the last time around).  Three final thoughts.  First of all, the final gag is a genuine winner.  Seocnd of all, what exactly is the logic of Warner Bros. not waiting a week and attaching this to their The Incredible Burt Wonderstone?  Did they rush it out so they could attach it to prints of Oz: The Great and Poweful? Finally, I can only hope (foolishly I know) that Warner Bros. chooses not to cut any more trailers for this picture, as I can't imagine anyone not knowing whether or not they want to see the movie at this point regardless.  Let's hope they keep whatever surprises the film has in store out of the marketing for as long as they can.  The Hangover part III opens Memorial Day weekend.  As always, we'll see.

Scott Mendelson

PS - I love the poster they dropped yesterday.  I hope whomever drew that Enemy Mine poster back in 1985 gets royalties.

Review: Despite solid chuckles and insightful commentary, The Campaign (2012) fails to respect the reality of its story.

The Campaign

2012
85 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

Jay Roach's The Campaign is both painfully stupid and pointedly smart at the same time.  As a film, it's a chaotic and implausible mess, going from one major event to another with no real connective tissue.  It has outrageous events occur onscreen and mostly ignores the real-world implications of said event.  Yes, it is technically 'funny' in that its major characters do and say things that elicit laughs.  But those laughs come at a high cost, as the film often sacrifices its inherent drama and potential realism for the sake of extended improv riffs.  But in terms of what the film has to say about modern politics, it is both insightful and painfully cynical.  Jay Roach has played in the sandbox of real political drama, having helmed the superb Recount and Game Change for HBO.  Like Ferrell's last big-scale vehicle, The Other Guys, it has whip-smart social and political commentary trapped inside a genuinely bad film.

Weekend Box Office: Bourne Legacy tops while The Campaign and Hope Springs debut well and The Dark Knight Rises presses upward.

To the surprise of no one, the top film of the weekend was The Bourne Legacy.  With $38 million, the fourth entry in the ten-year old franchise opened well above the $27 million debut of The Bourne Identity during June 2002, but that's mostly due to ten years of inflation as The Bourne Identity's opening would equal $38 million today.  It's below the $52 million debut of The Bourne Supremacy back in July 2004, and understandably well below the $69 million opening weekend of The Bourne Ultimatum back in August 2007.  This spin-off/reboot of the Matt Damon-led Bourne series showcased Jeremy Renner as a totally different government assassin in the same world as the three prior Bourne films.  Helmed by Tony Gilroy (who had a hand in writing all three prior adaptations), Universal sadly spent $125 million on this quasi-sequel.  So if the film 'merely' approaches the $121 million gross of the first film and earns about that much overseas ($92 million for a $214 million total), it won't be profitable.  The endless loop on USA starting in 2015 won't hurt. The second and third films grossed $176 million and $227 million in the US respectively while earning $288 million and $422 million worldwide respectively (Bourne Ultimatum basically doubled Bourne Supremacy's overseas take).  If the film excels overseas, which it now must, matching the $288 million gross of Bourne Supremacy isn't out of the question (it opened in a few markets this weekend and earned $7.8 million overseas).

John Gosling previews the week's new releases (08/10/12)

This week brings us three major releases, one opening Wednesday, the other two on Friday.

The character of Jason Bourne made his debut in the 1980 Robert Ludlum book, The Bourne Identity. The story opens with Bourne being found with bullet wounds and no memory of who he is or why he has been shot. As the tale unfolds he soon discovers that he is a highly trained individual, possibly a spy or assassin, and begins to piece together the reasons why he was left for dead. Since his debut, Jason Bourne has gone on to feature in two further Ludlum penned stories, along with six written by Eric Van Lustbader (a seventh is due at the end of 2012). The character actually made his screen debut in an extended TV movie in 1988, which featured Richard Chamberlain as Bourne, and Charlie's Angels's Jaclyn Smith as Marie. While there were differences between this version and the novel, it would be a closer adaptation than the next version to reach the screen. Director Doug Liman, a fan of the book since reading it in high school, decided he wanted to adapt it for the screen while finishing up work on his breakthrough movie, Swingers. It would take two years before he could wrangle the rights from Warner Brothers and a further year of writing with Tony Gilroy before a workable script emerged. Liman discarded all but the central premise for his version, contemporising the themes and politics in the process. He also added elements garnered from his father's memoirs, a former NSA operative, who had had dealings with Oliver North - traits of whom would be the basis for the character of Alexander Conklin.

Review: The Hangover part II (2011) teases darkness before reverting to formula.

The Hangover part II
2011
102 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

The biggest problem with The Hangover part II is not that it is a general retread of the first film.  After all, while we might have been spoiled by a decade full of part 2s that were not so much a sequel as a second chapter to a large continuing story, prior to 2001 (IE - Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings), it was not uncommon for a sequel to merely be a glorified remake of the first picture.  Sometimes it worked (Terminator 2: Judgment Day), sometimes it did not (Home Alone 2: Lost in New York).  The problem with The Hangover part II is that it's an EXPLICIT retread of the first film, hitting most of the same comic bits and character interactions but with neither the inventiveness of the first film nor the guts to go further with the premise.

The Hangover II gets a shockingly unfunny trailer, just replays the first film ala Home Alone 2: Lost in New York..

I make no bones about my admiration for the first Hangover. It had a tight mystery screenplay that worked as a light thriller first and a comedy second. And even back in June 2009, I said that I had no interest in a sequel, especially one that just repeated the story of the first one. And that's basically what Todd Phillips and his friends have done this time. Same three guys, same basic set-up, same core problem. Last time, it was a missing groom, this time it's a missing brother-of-the-bride. Oh, and it's in a totally different country this time. Oh, and the trailer fails to score a single laugh. It's been awhile since we've seen a sequel that so obviously seems to be just replaying the first film. The obvious precedent is Home Alone 2: Lost in New York. That's not good. Anyway, this one comes out May 27th.

Scott Mendelson

Right or Wrong, The Hangover 2 does not need Mel Gibson.

Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms and the rest of the cast just plain didn't want Mel Gibson in The Hangover 2. That much we know, as his cameo role as a crazed tattoo artist was announced, then retracted and recast with Liam Neeson in just a few days last week. Since then, there has been much speculation and discussion in the blogosphere, much of it centering on the alleged hypocrisy of allowing a convicted rapist (Mike Tyson) to appear in the original Hangover while crying foul at casting a man who is an occasional drunk driver and periodic anti-Semite/racist asshole. But sometimes it's really not that complicated. What if the disapproval over casting Mel Gibson in The Hangover 2 had nothing to do with morality, but with simple business sense?