Hey, everyone. Capone in Chicago here. This may be one of most unusual reviews of any movie I've ever written for the plain and simple fact that I saw the film two times, and each time I had radically different reactions to it. Of course, every critic--hell, every human being--has good days and bad days; we bring prejudices into a film, both positive and negative; and we all think we're mature enough to not let those things influence the opinions we put forth in the most unbiased way possible. We go into each film with higher or lower expectations than we did the last one for various reason, whether it be a particular actor in the film or the movie's director, plot, writers, etc. The key to dealing with these prejudices is to acknowledge them and compensate for them when formulating a critique. The other thing I do, when given the opportunity, is take note of how an audience of non-critics reacts to a certain film. I'm not looking for cues when to laugh or scream or cry; but if I go to a movie aimed at little kids, and I'm not enjoying it but the kids in the audience clearly are, I'll mention that in my review. It won't in any way change my opinion of the film, but parents contemplating taking their kids will at least know that their youngsters might enjoy a movie even if I didn't. With horror films, I'm not easily scared or shocked, but if the crowd seems freaked out by a certain amount of blood or scares, I'll mention that in my write-up, especially if I didn't like the movie. As a rule, I'm not a big fan of watching comedies or scare films in a roomful of critics; the reactions very often seem off and not like those of audiences made up on the general public. I love my Chicago critical peers, but they are a tough audience. If you can win them over, they will love you; but if you can't, it kind of poisons the experience for me. This isn't always the case, but when that Chicago screening room is quiet when it's meant to be filled with laughter, the silence is deafening. Sometimes, the silence is well deserved; other times, I'm less sure. Case in point: THE HANGOVER. The first time I saw the film was with an audience of critics, who laughed only a couple times during the entire movie. I'm including myself in that mix. I didn't laugh often, nor did I feel compelled to. I wasn't holding back because I didn't want to stick out in the void. I just didn't find the film that funny or entertaining, to the point where I started thinking about other things. That's right; I'll admit it here. I started daydreaming during THE HANGOVER. But then something weird happened a couple days later. I was doing a Q&A with Bradley Cooper, and I wandered into the last 10 minutes or so of the movie, and started watching it again...and I started laughing at what I was seeing and hearing. Now, I've done enough Q&As over the years that I don't even have to like a film to do a decent post-screening interview, so my finding the film's ending funny had nothing to do with Cooper being nearby. About a week later, something even stranger happened: I saw the film again at an Ain't It Cool screening that I agreed to do before I'd even seen the film once. Now normally, I wouldn't sit through a film again I didn't like the first time, but I suspected something might be up, and I actually watched the film again. My reaction the second time made me feel like I took that punch from Mike Tyson that you see in the trailer. Now I'm sure you will all offer up your opinions (constructive and useful, I'm sure) about why my opinion has changed. And while I certainly don't embrace THE HANGOVER as much as some have (or the way I did with Warner Bros. other wildly inappropriate comedy this year, OBSERVE AND REPORT), but at least I get where they're coming from. I was perfectly content with my original observations on the film, so it's not like I was stressing out over other extremely positive reviews and wondering why I didn't feel the same way. No, I just genuinely liked the film the second time; it clicked with me; I found myself on the exact same wavelength and I just rode it. The basics of my point of view are still the same. Zach Galifianakis is the stand-out, star-making performance in the film. From now on, casting directors may look to him when they can't get Seth Rogen. Bradley Cooper is largely the straight man in THE HANGOVER, so he doesn't get as many of the funny lines, but the few that he does get are damn funny. The guy plays a great male pig. Justin Bartha plays the guy getting married who vanishes in the midst of his all-night bachelor party, so he's not really in the movie that often enough to judge or even care about. I think my biggest 180 on the film comes when watching Ed Helms as the friend who goes from hen-pecked dentist to wild man thanks to a whole lot of legal and illegal substances. He sings a song at the piano concerning Mike Tyson's tiger that is so funny, just thinking about it makes me laugh. A lot of what changed my views on THE HANGOVER has more to do with the smaller moments and supporting cast. They just seemed funnier in the second time around. The couple that run the wedding chapel; the doctor who treated Cooper's head injury; the aforementioned cameo from Mr. Tyson; the baby's masturbatory habits; Mr. Chow (a couple of dip-shit critics named Ben complained about the gay stereotyping going on with Mr. Chow, while completely ignoring the horribly offensive Asian stereotyping going on as well, and completely missing the point that Ken Jeong's performance is meant to make fun of both stereotypes; so suck these Chinese nuts, Bens), all seemed much more well conceived. There are still jokes that don't hit--a couple that are DOA--and the spaces between big laughs are still too far apart for my tastes. The biggest complaint I have with the film is that the female characters seemed wedged into the story as either shrieking harpies or kindly strippers, and either way seems equally insulting. That's nothing new for director Todd Phillips (OLD SCHOOL) or writers Jon Lucas and Scott Moore (FOUR CHRISTMASES; GHOSTS OF GIRLFRIENDS PAST), but that didn't stop me from being disappointed. This review in no way represents me going to highest peak in the land and declaring my undying love for THE HANGOVER, but it does represent me admitting I got it wrong the first time, and I'm glad I had the opportunity to get it right. In my lifetime, I've seen my film critic heroes, Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel, both admit they'd gotten an initial review wrong (or at least see a film's strong suits upon a second viewing). It's tough for anyone to admit they were wrong, and I'm glad I didn't write my review up after I saw this film only once. I'm not encouraging anyone to see the film more than once, if that's what you're thinking. You shouldn't have to; I think you'll find it funny and different enough from a lot of other recent R-rated comedies to see its strong points the first time around. -- Capone capone@aintitcoolmail.com
