Hair of the Dog

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Hair of the Dog

How The Hangover went wrong.

Read Full Article

You know, if I had found out I ended up having sex with a transsexual, and was on the receiving end of it, and cried, and people had pictures of it... I'd probably freak out myself. I doubt anyone who isn't already fine with that first part wouldn't do the same even if only that was true.

And the scene wasn't as drawn out as the review made it seem. Me and my friend were snickering through the whole thing, and rather enjoyed the movie. Just like we enjoyed The Expendables, Fast Five, and Scott Pilgrim.

Also, I really wish I could own a monkey like the one in Part 2...

"Our heroes ladies and gentlemen"

Is that a mystery science 3000 or a Linkara thing to say?

I have not seen the scene so take that as you may. Bob you seem to be equating accepting a transsexual as a person with finding out you have been raped by one. Yes if someone has sex with you and you are chemically impaired it is rape. I can be friends with transsexual I can be nice to them in the street, that said if I wake up with rectal bleeding and someone told me the hot lady I got drunk with last night wrecked my anus I'm going to freak out.

I can't respect any film that dehumanizes a person just because their different. I have gay friends, lesbien friends and transexual friends and I see them persecuted enough on a day to day basis.

Is there some specific limit to the amount of time Moviebob ia allowed to spend talking on his show? I mean, some Extra Credits episodes have gone for nearly ten minutes before. I highly doubt anyone would mind listening to Moviebob elaborate on his opinions a bit longer (and if you do mind, why are you even watching it in the first place?), as long as he's allowed.

This is a really well-reasoned point, entirely correct, and will clear a lot of things up.

Unless, of course, the people freaking out about your review are doing so because they are secretly homophobic themselves and don't want to admit it...

Pro tip: if you're thinking of going to see hangover 2, save yourself a few quid by watching the dvd if the first one and squinting. it's indistinguishable

mcnally86:
I have not seen the scene so take that as you may. Bob you seem to be equating accepting a transsexual as a person with finding out you have been raped by one. Yes if someone has sex with you and you are chemically impaired it is rape. I can be friends with transsexual I can be nice to them in the street, that said if I wake up with rectal bleeding and someone told me the hot lady I got drunk with last night wrecked my anus I'm going to freak out.

But this wasn't some sort of social thing that just happened, it was something the character had actually paid for if I remember correctly. I'd say that makes the situation a bit different, more like someone paying for a service while intoxicated and the person going along with it for the money. Of course, there's also no way of knowing if the group actually behaved like they were all that out of it either. From what it seemed like in the movie, and...

I'm not sure if that combination would have you specifically acting like you were actually in an altered state of mind, as I've never seen anyone under that specific set of circumstances. But I think that's getting too much into the logistics of the situation.

That said, I'll be honest in saying that if I found myself in the same spot as the character, I would freak out as well. I think the movie handled itself badly in the fact that, instead of playing the transsexual to be a person, it never gave any more perspective then the group freaking out. It just seemed to be aimed as an insult towards transsexuals not in the joke itself per say, but the way it was handled in the film. Did it ruin the movie for me? No, but it didn't help it either.

One of the things that bothered me in the movie is just how much Alan seemed to change. He went from lovable man-child who doesn't seem to know any better to a complete ass who really didn't seem to care about anyone else's feelings other then his own. That really bothered me to be honest. It was much funnier when he made mistakes rather then purposefully screwing with people and messing everything up.

MovieBob:
MovieBob: Hair of the Dog

How The Hangover went wrong.

Read Full Article

The first movie challenges our notions of Vegas. The second revels in our notions of Bangkok. The first movie lets us watch the "Three Stooges" getting beat up for being the three stooges. The second movie asks us to sympathize with them.

It's a clear case of the writers not realizing what they had done right, and thus failing to repeat it.

Kapol:
skim

Ah see I was under the impression the movie was exactly the same. That seems to be Bob's mantra. That puts it in a slightly different context. Still the "joke" is in the surprise isn't it? I mean I have nothing against them if they are upfront but they are existentially hiding something major about themselves. A popular theme on Law & Order is that some people are gay but can't have sex unless on meth so they can blame it on the drugs. Maybe this is a similar thing? It was the drugs dude totally the drugs you know I'm not like that right?

I'm going to have to agree with others here. Stu had every right to freak out given the situation. And I don't think the movie de-humanized the hooker as much as it simply didn't give her any character development. She was a side character, that's it.

Crimson_Dragoon:
I'm going to have to agree with others here. Stu had every right to freak out given the situation. And I don't think the movie de-humanized the hooker as much as it simply didn't give her any character development. She was a side character, that's it.

mcnally86:
I have not seen the scene so take that as you may. Bob you seem to be equating accepting a transsexual as a person with finding out you have been raped by one. Yes if someone has sex with you and you are chemically impaired it is rape. I can be friends with transsexual I can be nice to them in the street, that said if I wake up with rectal bleeding and someone told me the hot lady I got drunk with last night wrecked my anus I'm going to freak out.

Bob did not say the reaction in the film was unrealitic, or that Stu shouldn't have reacted that way. He said it wasn't funny. I don't want to see a realistic depiction of events giving someone a nervous breakdown in a comedy film, and if Bob is right then there isn't anything funny about this scene other than 'gross, transexual!'. If thats the caliber of the jokes in the film, it isn't a good comedy film.

Kapol:

One of the things that bothered me in the movie is just how much Alan seemed to change. He went from lovable man-child who doesn't seem to know any better to a complete ass who really didn't seem to care about anyone else's feelings other then his own. That really bothered me to be honest. It was much funnier when he made mistakes rather then purposefully screwing with people and messing everything up.

I noticed that as well, but I always figured it was due to the introduction of the little brother. They weren't too happy with Alan, especially Stu, after the events of the first movie. Alan might of secluded himself because of that, and when the gang finally invites him back, only to see the little brother, he feels like his spot in the "Wolfpack" is being replaced.

It's focusing more on that "man child" aspect he has. As a kid, if you and your friends hung out a lot and did things together plenty of times, and all of a sudden there's another kid who just joins up, one might get a little jealous of the new kid especially if the friends gravitate from you to him. Alan just has the added access of drugs, and the naivety to use them without thinking. He also tries to avoid getting yelled at, and thus lies to the other characters, just as he did in the first.

And throughout most of the second film, their attention wasn't focused on a 4th friend, but on that unknown, which he probably didn't like at all, hence why he started acting self-centered.

mcnally86:

Kapol:
skim

Ah see I was under the impression the movie was exactly the same. That seems to be Bob's mantra. That puts it in a slightly different context. Still the "joke" is in the surprise isn't it? I mean I have nothing against them if they are upfront but they are existentially hiding something major about themselves. A popular theme on Law & Order is that some people are gay but can't have sex unless on meth so they can blame it on the drugs. Maybe this is a similar thing? It was the drugs dude totally the drugs you know I'm not like that right?

The joke was in the surprise, but I think the main thing against it was the surprise became the focus of the movie for too long, to the point where it became too much. I mean, under normal circumstances I think that freaking out like that would have been normal, but without giving both sides instead of just the perspective of those who were freaking out, it seemed more like a one-sided attack against transsexuals.

cursedseishi:

Kapol:

One of the things that bothered me in the movie is just how much Alan seemed to change. He went from lovable man-child who doesn't seem to know any better to a complete ass who really didn't seem to care about anyone else's feelings other then his own. That really bothered me to be honest. It was much funnier when he made mistakes rather then purposefully screwing with people and messing everything up.

I noticed that as well, but I always figured it was due to the introduction of the little brother. They weren't too happy with Alan, especially Stu, after the events of the first movie. Alan might of secluded himself because of that, and when the gang finally invites him back, only to see the little brother, he feels like his spot in the "Wolfpack" is being replaced.

It's focusing more on that "man child" aspect he has. As a kid, if you and your friends hung out a lot and did things together plenty of times, and all of a sudden there's another kid who just joins up, one might get a little jealous of the new kid especially if the friends gravitate from you to him. Alan just has the added access of drugs, and the naivety to use them without thinking. He also tries to avoid getting yelled at, and thus lies to the other characters, just as he did in the first.

And throughout most of the second film, their attention wasn't focused on a 4th friend, but on that unknown, which he probably didn't like at all, hence why he started acting self-centered.

I do know where you're coming from. Being replaced did make him act even worse, but you could see the behavior even before the new character was shown. The first scene where he came into the movie dealt with him betraying the trust of his 'friends' then acting like there was nothing wrong with it, and then treating his mother like his personal servant. Yes, that also caters to the man-child aspect of the character, but it also makes him seem much more unlikeable in my opinion.

As well, I didn't see any of the group really gravitate towards... I can't remember his name, the bride's brother. They actually seemed to use him more often then not at first. I do agree that having the 'new friend' around would make him jealous. Another factor that likely made it even worse was the fact that the kid was supposed to be a genius. Alan, who always thought of himself as "special" (also shown by the sign on his door) likely didn't take too kindly to that. But it wasn't just his actions towards the bride's brother that gave me the impression that he'd turned into more of a spoiled brat character. That's not even getting into the rest of the movie either.

The first movie had him seem more like an innocent dufus that messed up, while the second movie made him seem more like a malicious child who hates not getting his way. That's the way I see it at least.

Yes, I get it, Bob. You don't like that scene about the transexual hooker.

Could you please move on to something else that's wrong with the film? Like how Ken Jeong can go crawl in a hole and never come out?

Harmondale2:
I can't respect any film that dehumanizes a person just because their different. I have gay friends, lesbien friends and transexual friends and I see them persecuted enough on a day to day basis.

This.

Sylocat:
This is a really well-reasoned point, entirely correct, and will clear a lot of things up.
Unless, of course, the people freaking out about your review are doing so because they are secretly homophobic themselves and don't want to admit it...

And this.

Well said. ^^

And Bob, if you're reading this - great review and great article. I'm really glad you decided to talk about this - it needed to be said, and you said it well. Thank you.

Am I the only one remembering "ey dude where is my car"?
Because that is the same movie as the Hangover.

These movies have to be formulaic. It is always thee same thing and that's what people want to see.
Of course Hangover was the better one but that's it. The setting does not leave much more approaches open.

Straight white male outraged at the insensitivity of society toward minority groups expresses his outrage to show how he is different and compassionate; Film at 11

mcnally86:

Kapol:
skim

Ah see I was under the impression the movie was exactly the same. That seems to be Bob's mantra. That puts it in a slightly different context. Still the "joke" is in the surprise isn't it? I mean I have nothing against them if they are upfront but they are existentially hiding something major about themselves. A popular theme on Law & Order is that some people are gay but can't have sex unless on meth so they can blame it on the drugs. Maybe this is a similar thing? It was the drugs dude totally the drugs you know I'm not like that right?

While I'm not entirely clear about the overall point you're making here, the 'hiding something about yourself' problem has no obvious answer.
The nature of transsexuals makes being upfront and obvious about it kind of difficult. After all, you don't go announcing your gender and sexuality to everyone you meet right?

Trouble is, if a transsexual got what they wanted, you'd have no way of knowing they were one, even if you had sex with them.
That means they have to go out of their way to tell you something about themselves, because you'd never figure it out on your own.

That's a pretty difficult situation to be in. It's not 'hiding' something about yourself, so much as it is having to choose between people taking you at face value, or you having to explain to them what's going on.
Assuming they even know what you're saying.

If you tell someone you're a transsexual, I've found a lot of the time they don't actually know what you mean.
And typical explanations are frequently offensive, and don't mesh very well with how transsexuals think of themselves.

(Consider the psychological difference in perspective between thinking of yourself as a woman that happens to have a penis, VS a man pretending to be a woman. (or the reverse) - The second implies a kind of deceit that the first does not. - But, there we run into serious clashes in perspective between how transsexuals think about themselves, and how the rest of the world thinks about them.)

InsomniJack:
Yes, I get it, Bob. You don't like that scene about the transexual hooker.

Could you please move on to something else that's wrong with the film? Like how Ken Jeong can go crawl in a hole and never come out?

Why? It's not a particularly interesting film. There's not a whole lot worth saying about it, and it's certainly not worth devoting an entire column listing specific examples of why the film isn't good, when he's already spent a video talking about it in broader terms. Conversely, the treatment of the transsexual prostitute in the movie is something that's already been brought up, is a strong illustration of the difference between the first movie and the sequel, and was a major topic of discussion and criticism in the comments of the review. He said it himself - if it didn't seem to warrant further discussion, then this week's column would've been About Critics Part 2. He didn't write this week's column because he was interested in further dissecting the nuanced cultural implications of The Hangover 2, he wrote this week's column as a response to his viewers.

Also, even if you find the topic dull and uninteresting, is it really beyond your abilities to understand that the dehumanisation of transsexuals is, in fact, a real problem that hurts people in a very real way? That it deserves, if nothing else, to be talked about? Or is your thought process really so simple as "I don't care, therefore, it doesn't matter"?

Sylocat:
This is a really well-reasoned point, entirely correct, and will clear a lot of things up.

Unless, of course, the people freaking out about your review are doing so because they are secretly homophobic themselves and don't want to admit it...

well that's the catch-22 of it isn't it?
you don't agree, you're homophobic.
you agree, and you hate the movie.

in any case, i won't be seeing it simply because i have yet to see any comedy movie POSSIBLY have a good sequel.

Wow, I'm still in awe after reading that. Couldn't be said better Bob!

CrystalShadow:
While I'm not entirely clear about the overall point you're making here, the 'hiding something about yourself' problem has no obvious answer.
The nature of transsexuals makes being upfront and obvious about it kind of difficult. After all, you don't go announcing your gender and sexuality to everyone you meet right?

I think their point was that Stu actually likes being sodomised but blames it on the drugs. The person hiding something in that case wouldn't be the transsexual, but Stu. It wouldn't seem that much of a stretch, as it's not uncommon for men to believe that if they like it, it makes them gay, even if they only like when it's a woman doing it.

I haven't see the movie, but I'm getting here that the transwoman is pre-op? I thought you said transgender if there hadn't been surgery and transsexual only if there had been. At any rate, I'm assuming it was a flesh penis and not a toy, as otherwise the woman being transsexual or not has no relevance at all.

I think to know if it's about transphobia, you'd need to wonder if the reaction would have been the same if it was a woman who wasn't trans who had pegged him.

Anyways, I agree with Bob's point. It doesn't really matter if Stu's reaction is realistic, this isn't a drama, it's a comedy. So it was supposed to be funny, and I don't see how it is. Either he genuinely feels violated and it's sad because it's nobody's fault (she did what he hired her for) or he's just being a douche and that's not funny either.

Actually, I have an equivalent to that. There are lots of "jokes" that are about a man happening to be naked and other characters going "ewww" or "I don't need to see this". And I'm always curious what's funny about that. The only thing it seems to say is that male bodies are apparently ugly, which I couldn't disagree with more, and that the characters are immature enough to still have a "eww" reaction about it instead of just not looking if they don't want to see it. But it seems to me it's a North American thing, I haven't really noticed that same attitude towards nudity here.

I was just going to agree with the point that there's a pretty big difference between being accepting of the LGBT community and a straight man unknowingly having sex with a transsexual, and it doesn't make someone a bigot if they freak out as a result.

That said, this thread has already been won.

Mister Linton:
Straight white male outraged at the insensitivity of society toward minority groups expresses his outrage to show how he is different and compassionate; Film at 11

EDIT: Yeah I personally would have freaked a bit, too. I know enough people that don't identify as heterosexual to know that it's absolutely not unusual to feel strange after doing something in bed that made you question your exact sexuality, I wouldn't have a nervous breakdown but I'm not going to sit around and say it wouldn't affect me.

Haven't seen Part II as of now.

Bob, what you're saying is that that particular scene would've been better if
1. Wasn't trying to be a re-hash of the same scene from Part I
2. Deliver the big reveal and then just get it over with; as in not turning the hooker into a de-humanized being by having Stu go nuts

Right?

Articles like these make me realize that I still have a lot to learn about how good movies are made.

This is the first time in my lifetime where I disagree with movie bob. I saw the movie with friends, and we all laughed. Stu had gay sex. He has a dem*cough* semen in him. It's FUNNY.

While I mostly agree, Bob, I think you might be missing what I found the coolest (for lack of a better word) part of that scene. I liked how the director tricked the audience into what amounts to a psychological mind-fuck by showing the strippers topless first. Leading the entirety of the audience to silently comment to themselves, "Now THOSE are some nice breasts" and then revealing that they are breasts attached to someone with a dick maybe me chuckle at all of the people having to face that unorthodox question: are those breasts still nice even on him/her?

It is unfortunate that it had to come at the expense of an entire sexual society, but that is comedy.

Folix:
Pro tip: if you're thinking of going to see hangover 2, save yourself a few quid by watching the dvd if the first one and squinting. it's indistinguishable

I completely agree with you. I saw it this weekend and I only remember laughing ONCE the entire movie, although I can't for the life of my remember what I laughed at, which says a lot about the quality of the movie. I immensely enjoyed the first one and still laugh at it, having seen it at least 5 or 6 times.

I'm really glad I didn't pay for my ticket, but feel kind of bad that someone else did.

I remember the Hooker from the first Hangover. She was probably my favorite character, next to Mike Tyson who's just awesome.

Preach it, Father Bob!

Mister Linton:
Straight white male outraged at the insensitivity of society toward minority groups expresses his outrage to show how he is different and compassionate; Film at 11

Orrrrr, how about speaking out about these things because they deserve to be spoken out against, no matter who you are?

Try to use your privilege for the benefit of others who lack it.

Serge A. Storms:
I was just going to agree with the point that there's a pretty big difference between being accepting of the LGBT community and a straight man unknowingly having sex with a transsexual, and it doesn't make someone a bigot if they freak out as a result.

That said, this thread has already been won.

Mister Linton:
Straight white male outraged at the insensitivity of society toward minority groups expresses his outrage to show how he is different and compassionate; Film at 11

Justified outrage belittled by short sighted bigots once again.

A society where whatever you slept with while high warrant equal amounts of freaking out would definitely be less bigotted. Sure, as you are now, with sexual orientation being such a big deal this may be hard to accept. But you just need to put things in perspective.
In a way Hangover2 to is a lot like those old movies who used to make stupid fun of blacks and asians. Hopefully future generations will distance themselves from that kind of movie the same way we distanced ourselves from these old movies.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here