The terrible movie Bradley Cooper refused to admit was terrible: “It’s not for everyone”
These days, Bradley Cooper is one of the most impressive figures in Hollywood.
As an actor, he’s a proven draw, just as capable of fronting a hard-hitting drama as he is a record-breaking superhero adventure, and he’s also a very talented director with three well-reviewed movies under his belt. At the rate he’s moving, he’s set to become one of the greatest all-rounders the movie business has ever seen, but it took a little while for Cooper to get to where he is today.
After struggling for a number of years with a few bit parts here and the odd unsuccessful lead role there, the handsome performer finally hit the big time with 2009’s The Hangover, the Las Vegas-themed comedy that put him on the map in a big way. It spawned two sequels and, crucially, gave him a platform, and while they were great for Cooper’s career, not everyone was a fan.
In a piece for Pajiba entitled ‘A Painfully Awkward Interview Where I Attempt to Get Bradley Cooper to Admit The Hangover Part III Is a Bad Film’, journalist Dustin Rowles tried to do just that, going back and forth with his subject/victim for a while, before implying that the movie and trilogy as a whole were just a way to “pay the bills”.
Rather than stand up and smack his interviewer in the face, Cooper simply inquired if Rowles had actually seen the film. When they replied that they had and they “didn’t think it was very funny”, the actor offered a surprisingly measured response: “It’s not for everyone. We’re not trying to please the critical community, if that’s what you mean”.
Released four years after the original, the third instalment in the franchise pits the heroes, a group of men who inanely refer to themselves as ‘The Wolfpack’, against their old enemy Mr Chow, played by Ken Jeong. Despite grossing over $300million, it became the least profitable movie of the three and was deemed a financial disappointment.
Speaking of disappointing, in terms of reviews, The Hangover Part II was considered a major drop-off from its predecessor, but Part III was even worse, with critics despairing at the decision to turn the film into a crime thriller and abandon the outlandish humour that carried the series, while many wondered if it could even be classified as a comedy at all.
As for Rowles’ claim that Cooper only made these films to earn a paycheque, that’s probably not wrong. The actor had tried and failed for years to make it big, so when something finally did take off, who can blame him for riding the momentum? So many actors are criticised for ‘selling out’ with low-brow, populist movies, but at the end of the day, they genuinely do have bills to pay. It’s one thing when they continually churn out slop solely to pad their already inflated bank accounts (see Cooper’s Guardians of the Galaxy co-star Chris Pratt), but just look at what Cooper has done in the years since. He’s clearly not just in the movie game for the money, although that probably goes a long way.
The multi-time Oscar nominee still has a good relationship with the franchise that made him famous, and the fact that he can admit it wasn’t made for critics while simultaneously championing what it did for him professionally speaks volumes to the kind of man Bradley Cooper is.
