Summary
This is a movie review on the film Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay, a sequel of Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle. The writer, Dana Stevens, says, “Everything you need to know about the difference between [the two films]…is right there in the titles”. She talks about the original movie being a “flop” on the big screen, only getting recognition from a small group of people after it came out on DVD. Dana talks about the plot of the first movie stating the possible themes: “tribute to friendship, spontaneity, racial tolerance, and the problem-solving properties of weed”. Dana attributes the first movies popularity from the “cult following on DVD” (one can only guess what she meant by cult) to these themes of high, brotherly love. The tone in the sequel is “far more serious”, touching on “racial profiling and the war on terror”. The writer is unimpressed with the themes of this movie since those themes have been heavily and frequently touched on, “render[ing the films point] completely banal”.
Dana runs through the plot of the sequel, talking mostly about the parts that she didn’t like or the ones that were very close to being funny. Apparently, the sequel is a direct continuation of the first film, starting with “the first of the many scatological gags”. Even with heavier themes, this film’s humor “is too shallow to constitute real satire”. Dana feels that the sequel totally ruined “the spirit of the stoner comedy” that was built up in the first movie.
Analysis
There is only one time when she appeals to the ethics of the reader. She refers to the part in the movie where George Bush gets high with Harold and Kumar. It is ridiculous to her that they happened to find themselves in that spot, but also that they show the president “getting blazed”. It doesn’t make sense that the guy who is “responsible for Guantanamo” would be able to enjoy the pleasures in becoming “a high-fiving bro…betraying the spirit of stoner comedy”. Is it ethically sound that the ultimate antagonist would get to have the same fun that the protagonists have?
It is strange that Dana uses logic to show most of her opinions on this very irrational and illogical movie. Often times, she gives her own opinions as facts in her logical arguments, making them seem a little weak. The best example of this is when she calls Neil Patrick Hariss’s future “a puzzling downer”, when some people might not have been feeling that way while watching the movie. She also talks about the poor impression that James Adomian gives of George Bush, making a subjunctive statement for her argument that's not factual at all. Her point is that, logically, if you weren’t a stoner (or you didn’t enjoy that type of humor) and you still had plans for seeing the movie, you aren’t missing anything. She says that all of the events that drive the movie's plot are predictable from the title, again encouraging people no to see it. Even though she warns that this movie could ruin the good parts of the first film, her warning is not strong enough to sway some readers from their want for more frat-boy humour.
No comments:
Post a Comment