Film Review: “Super Troopers 2”

Starring: Jay Chandrasekhar, Kevin Heffernan, Steve Lemme, Paul Soter and Erik Stolhanske
Directed By: Jay Chandrasekhar
Rated: R
Running Time: 100 minutes
Fox Searchlight Pictures

Sometimes you shouldn’t give the fans what they want. But the Broken Lizard comedy troupe put themselves in no-win situation by teasing for years and years that they were working on a “Super Troopers” sequel. It became a reality for thousands when they started an Indiegogo fundraising campaign. By the end, they had doubled their original crowdfunding target goal. Now that the sequel has arrived, some of those 54,609 backers might keep their wallets in their pocket next time Broken Lizard comes around.

“Super Troopers 2” isn’t a complete misfire, nor is it devoid of joy or humor. So in some regards, it’s the best case scenario for a comedy sequel that comes 17 years after its predecessors and nearly a decade after the last Broken Lizard film. The way the crew gets into this film’s main plot is a bit odd and unnecessarily lengthy. When we last saw the former Vermont state troopers, Thorny (Chandrasekhar), Foster (Soter), Mac (Lemme), Rabbit (Stolhanske) and Farva (Heffernan), they had quickly shifted into their new roles as immature local police officers. This film begins with the exposition that they’ve been fired and relegated to mediocrity as lumberjacks or home construction workers.

But a new opportunity arises when a border dispute between the U.S. and Canada reveals that Vermont’s border actually stretches farther North, encompasses a small Canadian town. So the five disgraced troopers are brought in by their former Captain, John O’Hagen (Brian Cox), to set up a new patrol station and make sure the town transition is smooth. It’s a complicated and unnecessary set-up, only meant as vessel for cheap Canadian jokes, north of the border sight gags and some bad accents.

As I said, the movie isn’t completely devoid of chuckles. I was pleased to see that the film didn’t pull an “Airplane II: The Sequel” and simply rehash every quotable joke from the first film. They can’t help but regurgitate some of the more memorable jokes, like them saying “meow” and Farva’s “liter of Cola” bit, but they’re so minuscule compared to the deluge of jokes this film throws at you. You’re likely to forget how the writers were along the way. But because the jokes are so relentless, when the film does pump the brakes a little, a lot of the film’s weaker elements blossom.

The first film felt like a cast of goofballs carrying out their wildest pranks in a reality where law and order is still a thing. This film seems to live in an alternate universe where common sense and international law doesn’t exist, as if it’s a fan-made film. There are certain elements that feel more like Indiegogo requests rather than natural comedic beats for these characters. The original also had a semi-realistic plot with a passable villain while this one feels cartoonish and intentionally over-the-top. Within that 17 year timespan, the Broken Lizard game may have lost touch of what made their characters originally loveable to more than just the stoner crowd.

A good comedy sequel isn’t impossible to make. In some regards, it can be better by embracing what works best and improving upon the film’s previous faults. But because “Super Troopers” is inherently a cult classic, it could never really live up to that status. The sequel feels more like “Anchorman 2” or “Ghostbusters 2.” While “Super Troopers 2” may scratch that itch fans have been feeling for over a decade and a half, that itch won’t go away because of how unfulfilling this film is when compared to the original. Even if you enjoy yourself, you won’t be quoting this film 17 years from now or asking for “Super Troopers 3.”

Behind the Screen – How Hollywood Hypocrite’s Screwed Nate Parker and “The Birth of a Nation”

It’s been quite awhile since I took the time to write something profound and for that I apologize. But when the Academy Award nominations were released, one word was repeatedly bandied about concerning one nomination. The nomination was for Best Achievement in Directing and the nominee was Mel Gibson, who helmed Best Picture nominee “Hacksaw Ridge.” The word in question: FORGIVEN.

Whether on the local news, “Entertainment Tonight” or even in the local paper, talking heads couldn’t help but point out that “Hollywood has finally forgiven Mel Gibson” and given him an Oscar nomination. Every time I heard this I scratched my head, wondering what the meaning of that statement was. We are all familiar in one way or another with some unpleasant reminders of Mel Gibson’s past. Yes, he allegedly is anti-Semitic. And yes, he may have some anger issues and leave some not-very-nice voice mails. In the 20 years since he took home Oscars for directing and co-producing “Braveheart” had he possibly lost out on more Oscar gold as a form of punishment?

Hollywood’s history was built on scandal. From Fatty Arbuckle to Charlie Sheen, the public has eaten up every tasty bit of dirt that Tinseltown can kick up. Charlie Chaplin LOVED blow jobs – especially from younger women. Errol Flynn had such a way with young ladies that they coined an expression – “In Like Flynn” – in his honor. Marilyn Monroe and JFK. Marilyn Monroe and RFK. Rob Lowe’s sex tape with a 16-year-old girl. Woody Allen and Soon-Yi. And these are just off the top of my head.

What they all have in common, besides their sordid back stories, is that none of them were “punished.” Sure, they all had to endure some bad press, but their careers went on quite nicely, thank you. Chaplin is regarded as one of the true genius’ of Hollywood. And rightly so. Flynn was a star until the day he died at the young age of 50. So was Monroe, who died even younger at 36. Rob Lowe continues to work and even endured a comedy roast where his under-age hijinx were frequently commented on. And Woody Allen has received 9 Academy Award nominations since it was learned that he was dating (and later married) the 21-year old adopted daughter of his then girlfriend, Mia Farrow. Where was their punishment? Why weren’t they shunned from the community and cast aside like so many Steven Seagal DVDs?

All of the above has led me to the main point of this diatribe. A few weeks ago, when our various film critics here at the web site listed their choices for the Best Film of 2016 my pick for #1 was “The Birth of a Nation.” I loved the film and when I left the theatre I was certain that the film and it’s break-out star/director/co-writer were destined for a date with Oscar. That seemed to be the consensus of other critics as well. At least until mid-August. It was then that the public learned that in 1999, while a student at Penn State, Parker and his roommate (and co-writer of “The Birth of a Nation”) Jean Celestin were accused of sexually assaulting a fellow student. Parker was tried and acquitted. Jump ahead to 2016. Parker is now married and the father of five daughters and his career is heading upward like a rocket. Until August. Since then, almost every article written that attempted to predict the possible Best Picture candidates dismissed “The Birth of a Nation.” Not because it was an inferior film but because of events 17 years ago. Later news – the woman who accused the two men had taken her life in 2012 – made things even worse. It was like Hollywood was saying, “Thanks for putting your life’s blood into your work, Nate, but like Paul Sorvino in “Goodfellas,” now we gotta turn our back on you. Hypocrites!

NEWS FLASH: As I was finishing up this piece, I see on-line an article from “USA Today” noting that Casey Affleck has aroused the ire of some in Hollywood with his recent Best Actor nomination. It seems that in 2010 two female crew members of a film he was directing filed a lawsuit against him for sexual harassment. Affleck threatened to counter-sue but the case was later settled out of court. Angry Tweets followed the news of Affleck’s nomination. To me he’s the front runner. I would hope that the members of the Academy do what they’re supposed to do, and cast their votes based on the performances of the actors or the merits of the filmmakers. To do otherwise would be a disgrace.