Every Friday night, Movies.com sends cinephiles (and newlyweds) Sarah and Joe Piccirillo to see a film. Afterwards, they answer a few questions about it. Below is their discussion.
Synopsis: The Wolfpack returns. This time around, the guys are driving Alan (Zach Galifiniakis) to Arizona as part of an intervention when they are kidnapped by a drug dealer (John Goodman) and forced to track down their old nemesis, Leslie Chow (Ken Jeong).
Was this a good date movie?
Sarah: I imagine that for most men any movie that shows Ken Jeong’s tiny penis is probably a good date movie.
Joe: I disagree. It haunts my nightmares.
Sarah: But it’s so small!
Joe: I try to limit the number of penises I see to zero. It’s a perfectly fine date movie. Expectations are low for this go-around and the film meets them.
How does the final installment fare?
Sarah: By the time you get to the third installment of anything, I get pretty wary.
Joe: This one is a departure – there’s no drinking, no hangover and no piecing together details from the previous night, which is part of the fun of the other two movies.
Sarah: Yes, exactly. The first two start with a night of wild debauchery and take us through a series of escalating adventures. In the Hangover III, none of that early fun is included and we hit the ground running with a more serious reason for the guys to get together. The silliness and mystery are eliminated.
Joe: Yeah, this had a more serious/action vibe than its predecessors. I wouldn’t call it a comedy. It’s more like Very Bad Things. If you go into this thinking of it as a crime movie with some elements of comedy, you won’t be too disappointed.
Is the Wolfpack the same?
Sarah: Not quite. Stu (Ed Helms) is no longer a neurotic ball of barely controlled rage. He’s just a mild-mannered dentist.
Joe: Right. He isn’t fussy. Both he and Phil play the straight man role in the film, which is weird for a film with four core characters.
Sarah: Yeah, the energy’s different – it’s more coordinated.
Joe: Chow (Ken Jeong) is the Mindy Kaling of movies. Funny as a side character; annoying as a lead.
Sarah: I would say the same thing about Alan (Zach Galifianakis). He shines as the quirky oddball in an ensemble cast but peters out as a main character. When you see Alan’s odd proud peacock stance here and there, it’s funny. After half a dozen times, the joke becomes thin and embarrassing.
Joe: At least Justin Bartha’s Doug is still so boring that nobody notices when he’s off-screen for large chunks of the movie.
Sarah: Poor guy.
What will you be thinking about tomorrow?
Joe: I feel bad for the filmmakers. People criticized the sequel for being a carbon copy of the original and now they’re upset because this movie breaks form and is unlike either of the other two movies. They can’t win here.
Sarah: I feel bad for Melissa McCarthy. When the script calls for a love interest for the simple-minded, pot-bellied sociopath, she’s on the casting shortlist. It can’t feel good to be typecast as gross.
Joe: Well it seems like she’s leaning into it. She’s not ugly but she keeps playing ugly.
Sarah: Very true. Also, I know I’m a weirdo, but the treatment of gold bars in movies is a pet peeve of mine. Three Kings is the only movie that gets it right; moving gold bricks is a long, hard process. An 80-pound villain can’t make off with two duffel backs filled with them.
Verdict
Joe: Murder, decapitation, and mental illness are played for laughs, Michael Bay-style. See it if that’s your thing.
Sarah: This is not as good as The Hangover, but it’s not totally egregious. If you’re comfortable with low expectations and you love Ken Jeong’s junk, see it.
Joe: Please stop talking about Ken Jeong’s genitals.
Sarah and Joe are writers/editors who live in Boston. They met in a bar and married within a year. They love to argue about early Woody Allen films and old romantic comedies. They both agree to hate musicals.
