The Hangover, Part III review

I'll bet you a quatloo (See Star Trek "The Gamesters of Triskelion") that when they made the first The Hangover (2009), nobody was thinking a trilogy. But then it made a gazillion bucks and that in Hollywood screams sequel. Thus came The Hangover Part II. (2011) Of course, that made a gazillion bucks and you know what that means. The Hangover Part III.

The Wolfpack is back in The Hangover Part III. In case you don't know who the Wolfpack is, they are the shallow and handsome Phil (Bradley Cooper); the frequently humiliated dentist Stu (Ed Helms) and the mentally ill, man child Alan. (Zach Galifianakis) Big time crook Marshall (John Goodman) kidnaps Alan's brother in law, Doug (Justin Bartha) to force the Wolfpack to find their Chinese criminal buddy, Chow (Ken Jeong), who is a guy willing to expose his um... well, I'll just say humble privates in front of millions of moviegoers. You see Chow has stolen a lot of gold that was previously illegally taken by Marshall from a sheikh.

Let me digress a little here and make some news. I found Jeong's performance to be funny in the first two Hangover movies. He later devolves into the Chinese geeky male that angry white guys think all Chinese men act like. You know, like out of tune nerdy Chinese singer William Hung of American Idol fame. So today, I announce the Hung Test, it's like The Bechdel Test. To pass the test, a movie must feature a geeky Chinese guy, with an Asian accent, and the guy must do a full frontal showing off his um... humble stuff. And The Hangover III passes the Hung Test. On a more sincere note, I'm a Chinese American and at the pub, I get from drunk white guys requests to act like William Hung. She Bangs, my ass.

Okay, back to the review. Since the first two Hangover movies were comedies you would think that The Hangover Part III would also be a comedy. But Director Todd Philips and Craig Mazin have written a movie that is more crime drama than a tentpole comedy. There's an ugliness to the characters particularly with Chow. None of the main characters have any appeal. Couple that with the paucity of jokes, The Hangover Part III is one unfunny movie. What can I say when the funniest part of the movie is the end credits scene.

If you must see The Hangover Part III to finish the trilogy, save your money and rent it when it comes to pay per view. It's an unfunny conclusion to the story of the Wolfpack. The grade is C+.

Alice Eve's underwear sets the Internet on fire

Radical feminists and the PC police (political correctness police) have had their panties in a bunch over Alice Eve's underwear scene in Star Trek Into Darkness. (STID) Recently, STID co-writer Damon Lindelof through Twitter apologized for the scene which he deemed gratuitous. This has started more controversy on the Internet as radical feminists and the PC police have rallied to the cause that naughty pictures are bad. Thanks Damon. It's bad enough you brought us season six of Lost but now you've reignited a controversy that shouldn't exist.

Star Trek Into Sexiness

I wrote about this controversy earlier this month but thanks to Damon Lindelof, actress Alice Eve's underwear or bikini has set the radicals who hate naughty pictures on fire. First, we need to look and see if the naughty scene in STID is something out of the norm  for Star Trek.   The answer is no. Star Trek as a science fiction franchise had a bunch of sexy scenes going all the way back to the original series. I mean who can forget actress Sherry Jackson's barely there strips of clothing  in "What are Little Girls Made Of?" to the sexual nature of smearing decontamination gel on T'Pol's (Jolene Blalock) scantily clad body in the last series, Enterprise . (Episode "Broken Bow") And the eye candy wasn't confined to woman. Men were also scantily clad in Star Trek. See how many times that Kirk (William Shatner) had his shirt ripped off. That was  a  big joke in the Star Trek parody, Galaxy Quest. (1999)

But why all this sexiness? Look, let's not be naive. Part of it is to appeal to a male audience. But that's too simple an answer for Star Trek. One of Star Trek's biggest themes is the human condition. And part of being human is the act of sex. It's a powerful force. It can be ugly when sex is the result of coercion. It can also be beautiful.     It can be the expression of love between two people. It is also how we were brought to this world.

Spoiler Ahead. But was the scene of Alice Eve in her underwear gratuitous? (Pictured.) Well, the answer is yes and no. Alice Eve plays Dr. Carol Marcus. In the Star Trek universe, she will be Kirk's lover and bear his child. (Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan, 1982) In Star Trek Into Darkness, Dr. Marcus and Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) enter a shuttle so Marcus can prepare to land on a moon and  open up a mysterious torpedo safely. She changes  from her mini-dress into a jump suit. Now this is important. Kirk doesn't order her to change into her jump suit. She voluntarily strips in his presence. So, no sexual harassment here. But is this shot necessary? Not really. Probably, designed to appeal to teenage males who are the main audience of summer tentpole movies. But is it totally gratuitous? No. In a short, playful scene, Kirk gives Marcus the once over. The scene shows that Kirk is sexually attracted to Marcus. And it's likely going to lead to a future sexual encounter between the two. I mean how do you think, that Kirk's son David is going to be created?

No Man's Land.

If you get a chance to read the Internet comments on articles about Alice Eve's underwear, you will get a dose of radical feminism. First, let me say I'm no conservative, I'm a liberal who believes in the Lilly Ledbetter Act, a woman's right to choose, pay equity for women etc. But some of these radical feminists want to force their vision on art. They like to submit their movies to the Bechdel test. For a film to pass the test, there must be a scene with two women who have a conversation and the conversation must be about something other than a man. Kind of sucks the fun out of a movie doesn't it?

But what does it say about radical feminism? They hate men. Since men are eliminated from the conversation, half of humanity are removed from the human condition. And the test would eliminate conversations that are not just about a woman's relationship with a men. It would eliminate a conversation about a men that has nothing to do with a personal relationship between the women. For example, if Uhura and Marcus wanted to talk about how they can rescue Kirk, then the conversation would not pass the test. Men don't exist. It's a form of censorship. It forces ideas on writers that don't belong to them.

I find the scene of Alice Eve in her underwear to be appealing. She's a beautiful woman. So, sue me. Alice Eve is a human being who has feelings, and aspirations. There is nothing wrong for any person to find the scene pleasing. Just don't take that paintbrush to label those people who find her attractive as sexist. Unless you know the person, you can't tell whether he or she is a sexist.

Trailer with the naughty scene.

Star Trek Into Darkess IMAX Review; Star Trek Into Darkness 3D Review

I've seen Star Trek Into Darkness in IMAX 3D and regular 3D. This review will cover both. So, in the words of the movie's antagonist, John Harrison, "Shall we begin."

Star Trek Into Darkness is the sequel to the 2009 successful reboot of the Star Trek franchise, Star Trek. J.J. Abrams who directed the 2009 movie is again brought on to direct. The 2009 writers Alex Kurtzman and Bob Orci also return to create the screenplay with Damon Lindelof. I'll admit that I'm a Trekker and liked the 2009 movie but found it light in terms of being Star Trek. So I'm a harder critic of the Star Trek films.

Star Trek Into Darkness starts out with the crew of the Enterprise working to stop a volcano from erupting on the planet Nibiru. The Enterprise is hidden underwater so it won't be exposed to the primitive population. Such contamination would violate the Prime Directive which prohibits interference with native populations. Spock (Zachery Quinto) gets stranded in the volcano. Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) decides to expose the Enterprise to rescue Spock. Back on earth, Kirk is punished for violating the Prime Directive and he loses command of the Enterprise to Admiral Christopher Pike. (Bruce Greenwood) While accompanying Pike to a meeting of senior command, the conference is interrupted by an attack from John Harrison. (Benedict Cumberbatch) He's a member of Starfleet who recently bombed a London Starfleet archive. He flees to the Klingon home world of Kronos. Admiral Alexander Marcus (Peter Weller) sends the Enterprise back under the command of Captain Kirk to kill Harrison.

Kirk is portrayed here as an older but not wiser Kirk. In the first movie, he's confident but kind of an arrogant jerk. Chris Pine gives him that swagger. But it's the beginning of the evolution to a more mature Kirk that is on display here. Pine's Kirk shows insecurity, doubt and finally humility. Zachery Quinto's Spock is a wonder here. There's a line where Quinto's Spock acknowledges that he displays multiple attitudes at once. You see Quinto plays a Vulcan, a member of a race that suppresses emotions. It's remarkable that Quinto displays emotion in a cool and collected manner. Zoe Saldana is Uhura. She's not given much to do but when she is on the screen, she loves her man (Spock) and is a bold, take charge woman. Karl Urban comes back as Dr. Leonard McCoy. He's pitch perfect. His McCoy is not an imitation of DeForest Kelley who originally played him. It's a performance that captures the passionate doctor of the sixties show. Peter Weller gives Marcus a regal and commanding vibe. But it's Benedict Cumberbatch as Harrison who nearly steals the film. He's a chameleon when it comes to his motivations. He manipulates. He's vicious. It's a magnetic performance.

Director J.J. Abrams doesn't doesn't ditch his trademark style for Star Trek Into Darkness. It's a visual style that has a rich color palette. There are epic scenes. He handles action sequences well but has bad tendency to keep the camera moving at warp speed. This leads to confusion. That happens when there's a battle between Kirk's squad and Klingons. It makes me want to say to Abrams that it's a movie not a documentary. Fortunately, 3D filmmaking prohibits aggressive camera movement since that would make the audience sick. So Abrams is a little more restrained here. But there's still his love of the editing technique of fast cutting. While Abrams use of it adds to the excitement, it can come off as an appeal to teenagers with ADHD. Still, Abrams does a much better job of balancing dialogue with the action by breaking up the action set pieces. This movie breathes better than the 2009 movie. Abrams also has a great rhythm when it comes to getting out the emotion and humor in a scene.

But a good movie starts with a good screenplay. And Star Trek Into Darkness' has a good screenplay. As actor Leonard Nimoy likes to say, Star Trek works on multiple levels. There's adventure. There's emotion. And there are ideas. Scientific or philosophical. Star Trek Into Darkness explores many ideas. The Prime Directive. War. The war on terror. Revenge. Death. Yet the film flies between all these ideas with grace and humor. And the humor works better this time. It's not forced but flows from the situation. Still, this is a summer tentpole. And the action pieces are all logically connected smartly by various plot devices. A tribble makes a innocuous appearance here and turns into an important plot point later. Excellent stuff. There are very few miscues. I'm not a big fan of the literal references to an earlier Star Trek movie but I'll just accept that maybe it's the new timeline trying to correct to the old one. (You have to watch the first movie and get the reference to "alternate reality.")

As for the which version of Star Trek Into Darkness, you should see, let me start first with what kind of 3D film it is. It's a 3D conversion from 2D. The process of converting a 2D movie into a 3D movie is like creating a cinematic pop up book. Don't expect to see nooks and crannies, light and shadow that a 3D camera rig will pick up. As the late film critic Roger Ebert likes to say, you cannot make a 2D movie into a 3D movie.

Someday, say in the twenty third century, the technology to convert a 2D movie into a movie that looks like it was filmed in 3D may exist. But as of 2013, we don't have that capability. Paramount forced 3D on director J.J. Abrams. So, one can argue it's a cash grab. But Abrams does something different here. He filmed empty sets to help in the conversion process. Did it work? No. Both the IMAX and 3D versions lack pop, and depth. Neither version made me say "wow." There were many times I questioned whether the movie was released in 3D. While the IMAX version has 30 minutes specifically shot for the format, it's not special enough from the regular 3D version. IMAX does have the better resolution and consequently it had better 3D effects. So if you must see Star Trek Into Darkness in 3D choose IMAX. Otherwise choose the 2D version.

Star Trek Into Darkness is an exciting, funny, smart film. The best compliment I can give to any Star Trek production is that they made Star Trek. In Star Trek Into Darkness, they made Star Trek. The grade is A.

Stephen Colbert's Threat Down looks at Gay Marriage, online Viagra, and addicted bears

Last night, Stephen Colbert did another Threat Down piece where he "freaks" out as a fake conservative over news items. In his piece, he covers gay marriage, online Viagra and junkie bears. Check it out. Funny stuff.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,Video Archive

Stephen Colbert takes on the Benghazi "scandal"

Okay, Fox News has been trying to make the tragic attacks on American consulates in Benghazi to be a new Watergate. Yep, they really hate President Obama. Well, after last weeks's inert congressional hearings on Benghazi, Stephen Colbert takes a look at the all the fuss. And by the way Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Ca.) acts of terror are the same as terrorist attacks. Yeesh. And Happy Birthday Stephen Colbert!

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,Video Archive

Stephen Colbert takes on the IRS scandal

Okay, it's wrong for the IRS to single out conservative groups for special treatment when it comes to applying for tax exempt status. But Stephen Colbert takes a look at it and explains it is more complicated than it looks. Check out his funny piece.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Indecision Political Humor,Video Archive

Reds' Brandon Phillips fantastic double play

Did you see this Cinicnnati Reds highlight? Against the Milwaukee Brewers in the seventh, the Reds were clinging to a 3-2 lead. There were two on for the Brewers at first and second. A Brewer hits the ball up the middle towards second base. Cincinnati Reds second baseman Brandon Phillips grabs the ball with a bare hand and starts to fall on second. He steps on second and flings the ball across his body for an inning ending double play. Look you have to watch the astounding video below. He also blasted a home run in the bottom of the inning to give the Reds four runs. By the way the Reds ended up winning the game, 4-3.

I've been following Brandon Phillips since he came to the Reds in 2006. He's been making great plays in the field every month. I will say he's the best fielding second baseman the Reds have ever had. Yes, Hall of Famer Joe Morgan was great at second base but he didn't have the range that Phillips does. My favorite Phillips fielding play happened in 2007 against the Pittsburgh Pirates. He races into right field to field a single and whips around. He throws a strike to the catcher for the final out at home plate. Reds win. Watch Brandon Phillips regularly and you will get a great play every month.