FILM REVIEW: THE CAMPAIGN

A scene from The Campaign.

Democracy for dollars

By Don Simpson

The United States finds itself teetering on the verge of becoming an oligarchy (or corporatocracy) under the guise of capitalism and free enterprise. Just as money makes the world go round, it is money that determines who will be elected into our government. Money also determines whether or not any legislation will garner enough support to become a law. Oddly enough, despite the polarization of our nation's two political parties, almost everyone seems to agree on this; but rather than doing anything about it, we just point fingers, blaming it all on the other side. Politicians provide us with endless lip service about changing the way things work in D.C. The problem is our political system is structured in such a way that things will never change. The three branch system of the U.S. government serves one purpose: to ensure that. The political environment is one of compromise, which means it is reliant upon persuasive powers and there is nothing more persuasive in our society than money. The two party political system is all about compromise as well, leaving most Americans with the option of voting for the better of two apparent evils or not voting at all.

Jay Roach's The Campaign presents us with a political climate that is controlled by the purse strings of billionaire brothers, Glenn (John Lithgow) and Wade Motch (Dan Aykroyd). The Motch brothers' bankroll carries so much persuasive power that it can instantly transform a stereotypical loser like Marty Huggins (Zach Galifianakis) into a viable candidate. On the other side, we are presented with the long-term incumbent Cam Brady (Will Ferrell) who has historically run uncontested. The Motch brothers have one goal, to get Cam out of office, but Cam will not go down without a ridiculously long and drawn out fight.

What could have been a biting political satire, The Campaign comes off as totally toothless and downright stupid. Other than its all-too-easy condemnation of the Motch brothers (who are modeled after the Koch brothers), Roach opts to not offend anyone...except his audience. The plot is a directionless blob that serves the sole purpose of setting up a nonstop barrage of absurd humor. If The Campaignis about anything, it would be the horrors of one-upmanship. Just as Marty and Cam try their darndest to out do each other, Galifianakis and Ferrell seem to be immersed in their own no holds barred competition for the most outlandish gag. Sure, some of the jokes are funny, but Galifianakis and Ferrell are trying way too hard. A little restraint would have gone a long way.

FILM REVIEW: HANGOVER II

Stu (Ed Helm) in Hangover II.

Monkey pee, monkey poo

By Don Simpson

The Hangover is the highest-grossing R-rated comedy to date, and for good reason. It was a cleverly conceived, somewhat novel story with a lot of unexpected twists. In some ways it makes perfect sense that The Hangover Part II would be almost identical to The Hangover in terms of narrative structure and pacing. Heck, even some of the same gags are recycled and the gags that are not exactly the same are similar enough: instead of finding a baby in their hotel room, the guys find a chain-smoking monkey; instead of waking up with a missing tooth, Stu (Ed Helms) wakes up with a Mike Tyson-esque facial tattoo; instead of bursting into song at a piano to sum up their horrible situation, Stu bursts into song with an acoustic guitar; and instead of having sex with a hooker, Stu has sex with...well...a more endowed hooker.

In other words, it is absolutely pointless to synopsize Part II. Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, Ken Jeong, and Justin Bartha reprise their roles -- with a few additional minor characters added to the mix, including Paul Giamatti, Jamie Chung, and Mason Lee. If you have seen The Hangover you will be able to predict exactly what happens (and when it happens) in Part II, and if you have not seen The Hangover, go rent it instead of wasting your money on Part II.

Other than the obvious location change -- The Hangover takes place in Las Vegas, Part II in Bangkok -- the most significant difference between the two films is the Part II’s propensity for pushing the envelope way too far. Where The Hangover is ridiculous and unrealistic, Part II is incomprehensibly exaggerated and hyper-unrealistic. As it turns out, Part II has inexplicably succumbed to becoming a lowest common denominator gross-out fest, relying much too heavily upon stupid penis jokes and demeaning Thaistereotypes. Oh, why bother. Let’s just say that Part II is for all of you who think a monkey licking and chewing on penises is funny.