« This Won’t Be Controversial: Jesus As the Product of Rape | Home | Review: “Standard Operating Procedure” »
Review: “Harold and Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay”
By Kyle | April 25, 2008
WAR ON TERROR MEETS WAR ON THE MUNCHIES
102 minutes/Rated R
There is a reason why Foreign Affairs has never run a theme issue devoted to “Dude, Where’s My Car?” But that’s not to say you can’t do funny and terrorism at the same time. (See, and see again, and maybe commit to memory, “Team America: World Police.”) “Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay,” though, doesn’t use the Bill of Rights as the basis of satire. It uses it (literally) for a toilet gag.
Harold and Kumar, whose parents are ambitious immigrants pressuring them to succeed, want to please their folks, make it big, and alleviate the pressure with a lot of weed. These two had more to say about America in their hilarious first movie, “Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle.”
It’s more satisfying to talk to a stoner about politics than it is to parse this movie. The guys (both of whom are now far too old to be living like college students; Kal Penn, who plays Kumar, could play a 40-year-old) wake up the day after their last adventure with plans to go to Amsterdam. At the airport, Kumar is stopped for a random search, but threatens to call the ACLU and escapes scrutiny.
This is one of many fumbled opportunities; comedy is a (twisted) search for truth, the more uncomfortable the better, and if a guy who looked like Kumar started shouting about civil rights at the airport, we all know he’d be subjected to a search down to the sub-molecular level. Instead, in this movie, the TSA sheepishly backs down and lets him get on a plane –not knowing he has some pot and a “smokeless bong” that, when he tries to use it in a bathroom during the flight, gets him and Harold arrested (”it’s a bong” sounds like “it’s a bomb”– isn’t that hilarious?) and sent to Guantanamo Bay.
Never mind that no Americans are ever sent there; H & K are being madly pursued by a federal agent (Rob Corddry) who is so racist, incompetent, and foolish that he never seems like either a serious problem for the guys or a satiric attack on American security. He’s just a giant boob who fades in and out of the movie as the boys easily escape from Gitmo (after a few gross-out jokes), instantly find a boat to Miami (where they attend a party where everyone is bottomless), and drive into Alabama on their way to Texas, where they think they can be helped by the politically connected fiance of Kumar’s ex-girlfriend. They get deer guts splattered on them courtesy of a hunter who offers to let them stay in his country shack– which on the inside is a spotless, lushly furnished book-lined apartment that looks like it was airlifted from Park Avenue.
This is funny because it’s surprising, but the many jokes about people panicking hysterically because H & K are minorities are tired and obvious. And the script amounts to a series of single-idea skits that never get developed. The guys meet some Klansmen and enjoy some beers at a Ku Klux Kegger, which could be funny. Instead, one minute the guys are being chased by a raging gang of white-sheeters, the next, the incident is forgotten, never to be mentioned again. A gag about an inbred one-eyed backwoods Cyclops doesn’t even get that far; we gawp at the character, and that’s it.
The very funny extended cameo by Neil Patrick Harris in the first movie revived the former Doogie Howser, M.D. star’s career and won him a role on “How I Met Your Mother,” but this time we know Harris is coming and he doesn’t do much when he does. Harris (again playing a wild-eyed parody of himself) gives the boys a ride while gobbling magic mushrooms. And this leads to–nothing. Oh, he thinks he sees a unicorn. That’s about it.
Only in the last 20 minutes does the movie suddenly start to put things together. Throughout, Kumar and his girl haven’t seemed to have anything in common except a love of pot, but there’s a refreshingly sweet moment where Kumar shows his love by reading her a dorky/funny math poem.
And in a scene that’s both funny and a little touching, H & K drop in on President Bush at his country house and find that the president is just like them, hiding out from the grownups in a pool room outfitted like Delta House and complaining that his daddy put too much pressure on him. So Dubya smokes grass (“laced with blow,” adds the president, played by James Adomian under a distracting chunk of makeup). The paternal-pressure issue helps the president bond with Kumar and all the young viewers in the audience. Even better, Adomian gets to deliver the only decent political joke in the movie: “Trust the government? I am in the government,” says W, “and I don’t even trust it.” Sounds like Ronald Reagan at his best.
Topics: Comedy, Iraq, Movies, Politics |
April 25th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
I hate to get all ideological, but this movie would be getting trashed by most critics had it not been for its anti-war on terror theme. As of now, it’s got the same rottentomatoes rating as “Baby Mama,” a far superior flick. The first “H&K” wasn’t a classic, but it gave us some good laughs. This one … not so much.
April 26th, 2008 at 1:54 am
Most professional critics will not bother to see this movie. It is not unusual for reputable movie critics to pass on a film of this genere inorder to view something with more substance.
They’ve taken into account that the audience for this film, which has been targeted at the demographic of teenage males who might have an interest in the drug culture, will not be overly concerned with a either a positive or negative review. However, the readers of these of critics have higher standards for film, and rely, to some degree, on being informed on what is worth seeing and not seeing.
“…it’s anti-war on terror theme”
There is no ‘anti-anything’ theme.
If there is something possibly being promoted, it’s the recreational use of drugs.
Assuming there actually is a theme, or even a plot other than: ‘two stoners get on a plane, get mistaken by other passengers as terrorists, get detained, end up in Guantananmo Bay, escape and smoke pot with the president’ somehow implies an “anti-America” stance by a movie studio is not only a stretch of the imagination, it’s also completely absurd.
It is highly unlikely that anyone will be persuaded after seeing this movie to go home, get on the internet, go to “Jihad.com” and swear an oath to Osama bin Laden and recieve their sercret terrorist decoder ring.
They are far more likely to stop by a head shop, purchase a bong and several bags of Doritos.
It also assumes that the so-called “The War on Terror” is more than an empty, meaningless slogan created by a Washington ‘think tank’ to sustain a constant level of fear.
April 26th, 2008 at 9:33 am
“Most professional critics will not bother to see this movie.”
Well, except for those from most major newspapers:
http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/harold_and_kumar_2/
April 26th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
JohnA - the film mocks airport security standards, mocks Gitmo, mocks our approach to detaining/interrogating terror suspects. Have you seen the movie? No one said anyone will be convinced to declare Jihad after seeing this nonsense, but it clearly mocks the war on terror tactics. Nothing wrong with that — it’s the filmmaker’s choice. But that’s what it does.
I did enjoy your use of the “so called” before War on Terror. Just ask the 3,000 dead souls in NYC and the poor souls the world over if there’s a war going on. If they could speak they’d say ‘yes.’
April 26th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
My reference was directed towards amature movie ‘critics’ on the web: those who post on “RottenTomatoes”, “imdb” and similar websites are not considered ‘professionals’ who work for major publications. For example: if I post a movie review here, that does not qualify me as a ‘movie critic’ on the same level as Ebert and Roeper.
Christian: Have you been to the airport(s) lately?
Have you read any of the NSA reports that have stated that not only is airport security ’seriously lacking’ post 9/11, though also the security of our nation’s sea ports, borders and energy facilities, including nuclear plants, oil refineries and gas lines?
Why has nothing been done to better protect these potential targets?
The current administration has come nowhere near providing what has been recommended by the 9/11 Commission report, NSA reports, Defesnse Department and other security agency recommendations.
Anyone who has questioned this administration’s policies or has been ‘mildly’ critical of it’s decisions have been forced out: just ask terrorist expert Richard Clark, four-star Marine general Anthony Zinni, Colin Powell (he quit), and everyone else on a long and growing list of military generals, commanders, navy admirals, officials and personel within the security and intel communities: CIA, NSA, FBI and DoD security analysists.
Why do you think Cheney gets such a ‘warm’ reception when he visits the Pentagon these days? The top brass can’t stand him. And Richard Perle dare not set foot in the building after they threw him out in ‘03 for “wartime profiteering”: something that has become somewhat of a ‘common practice’ with members of this administration.
*I recommend the documentary “Iraq for Sale” by Greenwald. And Former Nixon legal advisor John Dean also discusses these topics in his books: “Worse than Watergate” and “Broken Government”.
I don’t think any of the mass ‘retirements’ or resignations had anything to do with the lack of paid vaction time and a dental plan.
After the US invaded Iraq, terrorism on a global scale increased well over five hundred percent. The Iraqi civilian casuality toll exceeds three-hundred thousand, and this figure is considered a conservative estimate by the UN, several NATO nations (including England) and humanitarian relief organiztions (including Amnesty International). The actual death toll might never become known.
Terrorism is an ideology: you can’t shoot an ideology, drop laser-guided 2000lbs. bombs at 15,000ft from an F-18 Hornet on it, nor by killing everyone who has accepted the ideology. History has shown that violence can only do one thing to an ideology: increase it. It’s influence will dramatically grow, not diminish, as some have mistakenly thought.
An ideology can only be fought by providing another ideology that is by far more appealing and will provide greater benenfits than the current ideology does. The concept/strategy of “winning the hearts and minds” is based on this school of thought.
The reason there has not been another attack on US soil: there doesn’t need to be one. The reactions to the 9/11 attacks have followed what the terrorists had hoped to accomplish: fear, paranoia, suspicion, hate, and the handing-over of our basic civil liberties and Constitutional rights into the hands of government.
The infamous “Mission Accomplished” banner could have easily been delivered to Osama bin Laden and made a cozy addition to what is most likely a bland cave that could probably use some color.
They are winning. We are not.
We can celebrate “The Fourth of July” everyday, though it will not change anything.
Thomas Jefferson was very suspicious of not only religion: he was concerned about the radical use of nationalism and patriotism. I think he would be extremely dissapointed if he could see this nation today.
The American empire will collapse from within, as empires have generally done in the past.
I believe it was the great Roman general, and later emperor, Julius Ceasar who best described what happens when a leader “beats the drums of war loudly…makes the blood of the citizens come to a boil…fills their eyes with fear and anger…and they will all so willingly had over their freedom and rights…without the leader having to pursuade them to do so”. It was serious warning.
As for this movie being ‘un-patriotic’, ‘un-American’ and ‘mocking’ something that has already created a mockery of itself: perhaps it will take someone to point out the flaws in our nation’s false sense of secruity by taking the sarcastic humor approach of what you see as ‘mockery’.
It might same some lives in the long run.
During the 60’s, it took a film like “Dr. Strangelove’, which was extremely unpopular at first with American audiences, to generate some thought on what was really going on and challenge what society was being led to believe.
More films would follow this example, and challenge the extremely nationalistic war films Hollywood had been producing which glamourized warfare, and had been used as nothing more than tools for military recruitment.
Films including: “The Deer Hunter”, “Coming Home”, “Apocalypse Now”, “Hamburger Hill”, “Platoon”, “The Iron Triangle”, “Born on the Fourth of July” and others broke through the “red, white and blue barrier” to show the other side, the uglieness, the destruction,t he untold stories that had to be told inorder to get people thinking.
“I did enjoy your use of the “so called” before War on Terror”.
I stand firmly by that statement. And I know that I do not stand alone.
“…enjoy…”
I realize that this is an attempt at wit and sarcasim, though I think it is actually a thin veneer which covers the anger you have inside towards those who have quite different opinions than you hold. Not to mention towards those perhaps ‘better informed’ than yourself.
“Just ask the 3,000 dead souls in NYC…”
According to Judaism, Christianity and Isam:
-I can’t communicate with the dead. Attempts to do so have been declaired as either witchcraft, heresy, or my personal favorite: demonic possession.
-”dead souls”: actually, a ’soul’ would not be classified as ‘dead’, because it is not a physical being. I’m not sure if a soul can be classified as ‘living’ either. I’ll have to watch “Ghost Busters” again to be sure.
-wouldn’t these ’souls’ in fact be in ‘Heaven’, not hanging around NYC? It also assumes that there is an afterlife. Maybe we should call those guys over at the “Brooklyn Ghost Busters”, just to be safe from any uncool paranormal activity.
-If they could ’speak’, you might not like what they have to say (hint: it might be along the lines of what their living relatives are saying about the Bush administartion right now).
The 3,000 dead souls in NYC: perhaps had Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, Rove, Rice and the rest of the administration been doing their jobs for the eight months prior to the terrorist attacks, there would be tow tall towers standing in lower Manhattan and 3,000 living human beings enjoying life at this moment.
To their credit: the Bush administartion has done a excellent job for terrorist recruitment world-wide.
*”Jihad.com” can’t keep up with the number of applicants, and those ’secret decoder rings’ are on back-order for at least six months.
A good friend of mine in advertising once stated that : “If ignorance is truly bliss, then the radical right must think it’s marching orders are coming directly form Heaven”.
I couldn’t agree more.
April 26th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
JohnA. Yawn … I fell asleep mid rant … what did I miss?
I woke up briefly when you recommended a doc by Greenwald. What, Michael Moore too fair and balanced for you?
April 26th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
“those who post on “RottenTomatoes [...] are not considered ‘professionals’ who work for major publications.”
Yes, you’re right. A.O. Scott of the New York Times is not considered a professional critic who works for a major publication. Neither is Joe Leydon of Variety, J. Hoberman of the Village Voice, Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune, Richard Corliss of Time magazine, Steven Rea of the Philadelphia Inquirer…
I really must stop reading the oppinions of those amateurs they have on Rotten Tomatoes.
April 27th, 2008 at 4:16 am
Christian:
“Yawn”? Is that really the best you can do? Pathetic, and ignorant.
A ‘rant’? Is that the ony thing you can come up with? I somehow am under the impression that you probably have much more experience in the that department.
“What did I miss?” Aside from you quoting your wife (or boyfriend?), can’t you come up with something a bit more original?
“…you recommended a doc…” For some strange reason I was under the assumption that you might be an opened-minded, rational person who just might shed their deep-rooted personal biases long enough to hear another point of view. OK, I was grossly mistaken.
Wait a minute…
OK, out of curiosity, I just checked your profile: now I completely understand, it all makes perfect sense!
You are a free-lance movie critic for the Rev. “Crazy” Moon’s fascist tabloid: the Washington Times.
No wonder you’re arrogant, pompos and condescending.
Are you a member of the Moonie cult?
How did you land that gig? I know the Wash. Times doesn’t have the highest journalistic standards (and I hate to use the word ‘journalism’ here) though you really can’t write worth a damn.
Nice photo too.
Are you homosexual? Because you look like one mean queer queen.
Now that’s a rant. You bitch ; )
April 27th, 2008 at 4:27 am
jic: Did I not place enough emphasis on the word ‘amature’? I am well aware that, yes, professional critics do allow their reviews to be placed on various websites, however, the ‘general public’ can also chime in on the blogs. I know this because I have a membership with imbd that allows me to add my ‘two cents’ on any movie I want to give a review on.
I hope that is enough this time. Unless, of course, you want to disscuss the hideous photo of Christain toto on his profile page. trust me, it is good for a laugh to say the least.
If I looked like him, man, I’d be the last person on Earth…no, the solar system…ever be critical of anyone.
April 27th, 2008 at 9:01 am
JohnA — Did you just make fun of my face? Oh, you really made my day. Love it. Wish you could see the smile on my face right now…
April 27th, 2008 at 10:35 am
“jic: Did I not place enough emphasis on the word ‘amature’?”
Well, yes; but given the context, I’d assumed you’d miss-typed-
You: “Most professional critics will not bother to see this movie.”
Me: “Well, except for those from most major newspapers:
http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/m/harold_and_kumar_2/”
You: “My reference was directed towards amature movie ‘critics’ on the web: those who post on “RottenTomatoesâ€Â, “imdb†and similar websites are not considered ‘professionals’ who work for major publications.”
I simply assumed that you’d meant to write ‘my reference was *not* directed towards amature movie ‘critics’ on the web’; because otherwise that makes no sense in context.
April 27th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
JohnA: You’re not married? Shocking. Girls, there is one heckuva catch out there just waiting to be had.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:49 am
“Harris (again playing a wild-eyed parody of himself) gives the boys a ride while gobbling magic mushrooms. And this leads to…nothing.”
Nothing? How about the biggest surprise of the movie; him getting shot and killed…
April 28th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Chrissy: sorry, I already have a girlfriend. You will just have to keep on looking for than hunk. Don’t give up.
April 28th, 2008 at 12:58 am
correction: “that hunk”.
April 28th, 2008 at 9:45 am
@Cory, “Character gets killed” is closer to “We couldn’t think of anything else to do with this guy” than “funny.”
April 30th, 2008 at 1:07 am
@kyle,“Character gets killed†is closer to “We couldn’t think of anything else to do with this guy†than “funny.â€Â
Yeah well thats a far cry from “leads to nothing”, that’s all.
April 30th, 2008 at 10:24 am
@Cory, the meaning is: leads to nothing funny.
The movie is supposed to be a comedy. Nothing funny happens with the character.