Hangover Drops the N Bomb

I am a fan of the first Hangover, so naturally I went to see the second one. I was excited and sat down with GREAT expectations, but the movie failed me. The humor was so over the top and the plot was exactly the same, just with new locations. I was extremely disappointed. It depicted so many stereotypes. What angered me the most though was the fact that the N word was used MULTIPLE times by three different characters in different ways, none of which were acceptable. I do not mean to spoil the movie at all but the use of the word was by three individuals who were not of African descent and even if they were I still don’t think it was acceptable. The writers then went on to defend the use of the word in an article by saying that, “For someone to say that word so cluelessly, it’s funny because it comes out of a place of ignorance, and Alan doesn’t know any better; he’s just an idiot. Anyone who would say that so loosely is an idiot. That word can be very inflammatory but Alan is such a dimwit, it’s not excusable at all but you’re making fun of people that would say that word.” I however did not see the humor in it at all.

Source: http://www.eurweb.com/?p=106591

Hangover 2: New story or same old plot line?

I will openly admit: probably one of my favorite movies of all time was the Hangover. Classic comedy that, even after watching it 20 times, never gets old. So you can bet that when I found out they were making a Hangover 2, I was beyond excited like a little kid in the candy story.

But then I saw it.

The trailer that is.

Sadly, it looks awfully familiar to the first one. Similar story plot: friend’s getting married, groom and friends decide to drink, wake up lost the next morning (notice, it is the same 3 guys who got lost the first time around too), one friend is missing, and then the search for that friend begins with the help of a Mr. Cho. Needless to say there are some definite differences, such as instead of finding a baby, they find a monkey, and they are in a different country.

But why is it that producers/directors decide to make another sequel to an already awesome movie? Maybe it is because the first one was such a hit, they decided to make another one. Or maybe it is because they knew it would make profits again, and why not remake something that already made a ton of money?

Normally, sequels end in disaster. I am hoping for the reputation of the first one that this one is at least comparable. Either way I am for sure still seeing this movie, despite all the very weird similarities. I will be keeping my fingers crossed when I eat my popcorn and pray that the director/producers throw in many different twists that keep me on my toes.

And I hope I get a good laugh too.

Happy Ending?

As an avid movie watcher I have come across the wonderful film of “Thelma and Louise” about a year ago and the story of friendship and women empowerment was something quite different. Today I came across the article in Yahoo regarding this film in discussion to the memorable “fly off the cliff” ending in cinematic history. According to the article by Matt McDaniel, there was an alternate ending which reminded me about the semiotic reading of films. The original ending was to have the main characters fly off their ’66 Thunderbird convertible off the cliff and have the detective Hal chase after them and gaze down the canyon then gathering the police forces around as a montage of Thelma and Louise begin to play. It is said that the ending that we all know, shows a more hopeful ending, it manages to give the audience freedom to draw out the conclusion if the women survived or managed to go into a more metaphorical bitter sweet ending. As the ending shows them hold hands, drive off the cliff and the picture freezes with the car in mid air the screen goes into a white fadeout. McDaniel, discusses that when the movie was shown to audiences they said that the white fadeout gave a different meaning rather than actually seeing the car drop down. The semiotic readings really managed to alternate depending on the simple contexts of just seeing a car drop or freeze over, which I totally agree upon as I felt that the freezing of the car in mid air managed to show the women be more triumphant in their journey.

Article: http://blog.movies.yahoo.com/blog/1399-thelma-louise-opened-20-years-ago-almost-ended-differently

Is He Just Not That Into You?

Over this past weekend, some of my friends and I decided to have a girls night. You know, eat ice cream, paint nails, and watch a chick flick. Well, the movie we decided to watch (one of my favorites) was “He’s Just Not That Into You”, which made me question how being female affects one’s dating life.

I guess I was brought up that the guy always makes the first move: if he likes you, he calls you, asks you out on a date, or simply pays you some attention. But why, I always wondered, was it frowned upon for the girl to make the first move? Like, what if the guy was shy, or nervous to ask you about because he felt you were so much better than him? Isn’t that being slightly sexist?

I’m not going to lie, I like it when the guy makes the first move, but why is it frowned upon if the girl does it? Does it really mean he isn’t into you? Or do we still live in a slightly old fashioned society where a man needs to treat a woman ultra special? I am not complaining about this, but I don’t think a woman should be scolded if she makes the first move.

As far as the rest of the movie goes, it is pretty accurate how girls make up excuses for guys if they don’t call you back, but I was happy to see that they also added the male version of this so it wasn’t totally sexist.

I guess when you are into someone, you want them to pay you attention, no matter.