The Brewhaha on... "Horrible Bosses"

“I’m sorry.  I had no idea…”  *bursts out laughing*  “…that you called your grandmother ‘gam gam’!  I’m sorry…you didn’t get to say good-bye to gam gam!!!”

-Kevin Spacey, as himself

“The would-be assassins’ hopelessly bungling efforts produce a steady supply of laughs, though the jokes are often extremely rude and crude and the meandering plot doesn’t make the most of the film’s set-up. […]  Fortunately, the actors rise above the script.  Day’s shrieky performance is irritating, admittedly, but Bateman underplays beautifully and Spacey, Farrell and Anniston totally nail their despicable characters.”
-Jason Best, What’s On TV (U.K.)

 

“One by-product of a recession is that it traps people in jobs they don’t like under bosses they can’t stand, so the idea behind the comedy should have been timely and cathartic.  But here the script constantly sacrifices wit, heart and plausibility in pursuit of cheap laughs and filthy banter.”

-Chris Tookey, DailyMail.com

“Look at how crazy is the craziness we are doing for you. Isn’t it crazy? the movie shouts, and the more it does, the less you’ll laugh. This thing has a ‘The Hangover’ hangover.”

-Kyle Smith, The New York Post

Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis, and…that guy from “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia”…star alongside their opposites in Colin Farrell, Jennifer Aniston, and Kevin Spacey, the title characters of the black comedy “Horrible Bosses.”  Specifically, the title cartoon characters.

We, as moviegoers, don’t ask much of our movies—well, besides decent casting and acting, proper direction, consistent characterization and tone, coherent cinematography and editing, and plausible writing and plot-building.  As well as gratuitous action pieces, precise and thrilling fight choreography, and attractive, over-feminized love interests placed in threatening situations while gradually losing all but the absolutely essential articles of clothing.  (The use of rambling, pseudo-philosophical monologues is also a plus as far as film critics go.  On a related note, I’m seriously looking forward to the new Dark Knight movie.)

The one thing viewers (well, at the least the viewer writing this) yearn for, though, is that a movie doesn’t stray too far from its basic premise, the strength of many an “indie” film given to us by the Judd Apatow school of filmmaking.  “Juno” gives an interesting exploration of teen pregnancy, “(500) Days of Summer” is a questioning look at romance, and “Scott Pilgrim,” as completely ridiculous as it is, shows us just how annoying a 22-year-old slacker can really be, and how much you want to punch him in the face.

By contrast, while “Horrible Bosses” is an interesting look at what can happen when three beleaguered employees are pushed too far by their abusive, apathetic, or just plain amoral bosses, it’s not really the interesting look at such a situation.  It’s a black comedy, it’s just not the black comedy I was hoping it would be.  Even with Charlie and his two Jasons at the helm, these otherwise excellent leading men just can’t salvage the script, which is basically “American Pie” meets “Nine to Five,” or if not the latter, then at least some mid-season story from “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia” where the gang tries to off Frank or one of the other regular characters.

Sometimes I wonder if I’m simply tone-deaf when it comes to movie trailers.  When it comes to something like the upcoming “Cowboys and Aliens,” I can tell right away that it’s not going to be a typical cowboy movie, nor is it going to be a typical sci-fi movie (though with the onslaught of Hollywood aliens ever since Independence Day roared through theaters, one can never be sure).

But with something like…that one movie I must never speak of again…it was impossible for me to tell that there would be…ugh…romance to go along with the explosive spy action.  With this film, it should’ve been far easier to bridge the gap between my own expectations and what this movie would be:  the whole “gam gam” exchange, the scene where Charlie is trying to give Spacey the Heimlich maneuver, the prison interrogation where Bateman confesses to not being a good street racer—all of these were in the trailer, and should have been dead giveaways that this movie was going to be a bit too light on the “black” in “black comedy.”

The casting alone should have been another dead giveaway; Bateman and Charlie have built up cult followings over the years through their respective comedies of errors, “Arrested Development” and the above-mentioned “It’s Always Sunny.”  What the studio has given us is less a comedy involving murder and more simply a comedy of errors.  Charlie’s character is a reflection of this, in that he’s essentially the same character he plays in “It’s Always Sunny,” which is to say, a stammering, hopeless, somewhat well-meaning idiot.  And Bateman is essentially the same character he played in “Arrested Development,” which is to say, a condescending, wisecracking “generic” guy, and possibly the only sane character in the entire film.  And Sudeikis…I don’t even know.  He was in SNL, wasn’t he?

The same, thankfully, can’t be said of our antagonists, with some exception; as a president of sales who is despicable in every sense of the word, Spacey is at least channeling the now-overquoted nemesis of Superman in his latest role.  Meanwhile, Aniston, having left behind that one show all of my female friends keep referencing (besides Buffy) long ago, embraces her role as Nurse Nymphomaniac to an increasingly stammering Charlie, threatening to ruin his engagement to his would-be fiancé unless he has sex with her.  Rounding out the trio of bad bosses is one bald-cap-boasting Colin Farrell, who plays a coke fiend who abuses his new power as the company owner for…basically drugs, sex, and rock and roll (in other words, the Vince Neil approach). 

Completing the main cast is Jamie Foxx, who appears in a couple of scenes as a “murder consultant,” an ex-con who gives the protagonists advice on how to kill their bosses and how not to discriminate against individuals such as himself based on race.  Malcolm X he is not, though; he instead functions as a reminder of what happens when you walk into the first bar you find and try to find a hit man on the cheap.

The plot is the typical Hollywood fare, and the characters are written as such, dumbed down for the lowest common denominator.  Even before the halfway point of the movie, there are telltale signs of how much the story eventually spirals out of any semblance of control, tone, writing, or meaning:  for instance, Aniston’s character trying to mount Charlie in the middle of the exam room (the dentist’s office), Farrell’s character closing his office blinds and having an orgy in the middle of work, Sudeikis’s character shoving his genitalia into a pie.  (Okay, that last one might be from a different movie, but he might as well have…)  All of this typical Hollywood fare spirals into typical Hollywood hijinks, and then abruptly transitions into a typical Hollywood ending just when it seems like the story’s starting to resonate with its potential premise.

The end result is a movie that, while neither excellent nor horrible, is just ridiculously, absolutely, gratuitously typical.  An otherwise okay beginning transitions into an aimless hour or so, and then shifts abruptly into a near-incoherent and implausible ending; the sum of these parts is a lukewarm movie.  If nothing else, the actors, creators, and producers are clearly aiming for a darker version of “Hangover,” when all they’ve really given us is Hangover-lite.

Note:  The Brewsky is an enthusiastic contributor and movie reviewer.  And some day, I am going to kill him.  Or I will hire someone to kill him.  (Just kidding.  Okay, not really.)

The Brewhaha on..."Deathly Hallows Part 2" + "Transformers 3"

"This is a masterful and worthy final chapter in the best franchises ever put to film."
-Richard Roeper, on that first movie

"Tone is for single-purpose machines. Consistency is for Decepticons. Michael Bay's ideal movie shifts from action movie to teen comedy to political drama with the same well-lubricated ease that his cars become men."
-Charlie Jane Anders, io9.com, on that second movie

"What the hell have you been doing all summer?"
-A buddy of mine

This summer definitely hasn’t been short on blockbusters.  Having opted to lock myself in the closet of my local movie theatre for the past few months in order to avoid paying for tickets (you know how expensive they are lately?), I can safely say I’ve caught my fair share of the latest films.

For starters, the Part 1 I reviewed before the turn of the year has promised the long-awaited finale to the Harry Potter series (with all the related trailers, merchandising, and fans camping out for days before the midnight premiere).  7/15 serves for many an antithesis and antidote to 9/11, recipients are turning out in droves with invitations to Voldemort’s funeral, those first eight notes to the Harry Potter theme will be ringing in my ears for the next year.  The other day I saw the top ten Harry Potter quotes on the back of a passerby’s shirt; the famous “Not my daughter, you bitch!” line was only number eight.

I can only assume the film I ended up seeing on 7/18 (because I didn’t feel like camping out the night before 7/15) was fairly faithful to the book, with some exception.  For instance, with every “Not my daughter, etc.,” there should have been an “M-word” thrown in.  This racial epithet in question was left out of the film version in an ill-advised attempt to avoid offending the “Muggle” crowd, while arguably detracting from the character arc of a certain fan favorite.

Plus, unlike many fans, I came out (or rather, was dragged kicking and screaming out) of the theater not necessarily hating the epilogue.  It served as a nice coda to the series, establishing the characters we’ve come to grow up with as adult wizards in their own right while introducing us to a new generation of wizards not unlike the main trio back in “The Sorcerer’s Stone.”  It was almost as if the whole world was starting fresh again after the war against Voldemort.  (Personally, I’m looking forward to the ninth movie, in which Harry Potter treats his kid to Chuck E. Cheese.)

The war itself was handled like anything else in Hollywood—namely, with a lot of flash and noise.  If there’s a spell for sound and fury, this film pulled it off.  Harry Potter and co. have been on the lam for most of their seventh year, but their quest for the Horcruxes, picking up where they left off in Deathly Hallows Part 1, soon takes them back to Hogwarts, where one of the teachers randomly chases off the new, EEEVIIIILLL headmaster Snape.  (Why McGonagall waits for the better part of a year before doing anything is beyond me, though I suppose the EEEEEEVVVVIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLL Lord Voldemort being BAAAACCCKKK might have a lot to do with it.)

Then, as the main characters start trying to whittle away at old Voldy’s horcruxes, the film slowly rises to a climax, and then backs off of that climax, and then races back to try and retrace its steps, and then realizes it’s forgotten something back at the office, and then there’s some sort of…thing…snake?...phoenix?...giant spell made of fire our heroes have to outrun outfly, all while saving that one blond kid I grew to hate over the course of the series.  Then, as the film reaches its climax again, it’s had a few beers by now, so it stops and just starts pulling donuts in the parking lot, so you can’t tell which way it’s headed.

My point being, the life of a boy wizard is unbelievably awesome.  Depending on whether you’ve read the book or not, you may either share this view, or you may be waiting for Harry Potter to just jump in the fridge and wait for the nukes to go off.  Our boy wizard peeks back out long enough to watch Snape’s life flash before his eyes, and then the film, drinking some coffee to get itself “buzzed,” starts roaring toward the climax, a hundred miles an hour, and ends up ramming the fridge into a gas station.  Located next to a bus full of nuns.  Next to an orphanage.  My point is, there’s never a dull moment.

Speaking of dull moments, Molly Weasley got maybe two people in my theater (including myself) to clap for her.  That’s sad, isn’t it?  Neville Longbottom got a round of applause out of the right half of the theater, but Molly “Not My Daughter You Bitch” Weasley gets two people.  To be fair, Neville did take out a horcrux, and Mrs. Weasley…never really got that much focus in the movies anyway…

Another new movie I was looking forward to is Transformers 3.  I’ve seen the first, and while it makes for an okay action movie and an okay (if somewhat implausible) sci-fi movie, it probably isn’t the best Transformers movie, in that there’s too much focus on the humans and not enough on those giant robots they’re all either running away from, making friends with, or trying to blow up.

My comment about nuking the fridge comes to mind when referring to the second movie, in that Michael Bay went out of his way not just to nuke the fridge, but to try and nuke the sun.  I remember something about an old guy-type Transformer, wizened and hunched over, with a beard made out of little aluminum tendrils, but unlike the other two movies, I never saw “Revenge of the Fallen” in the theater, so I was actually spending most of that movie doing homework, checking my emails, and messing around on the all-consuming black hole that is TV Tropes.

“Transformers 3:  Dark of the Moon” was a back-to-basics approach in that it was an okay action movie and an okay (if somewhat implausible) sci-fi movie, but also not the best Transformers movie, in that there is too much focus on the humans and not enough on those giant robots that just got captured offscreen.  Also, Megatron is a punk in this one.  He is an absolute blight on movie villains everywhere, and every time he was onscreen, I either felt pity for the poor soul, or I just wanted to facepalm.  (Seriously, the Beast Wars version of Megatron would be disappointed.  Yeeesss…)

Where Megatron himself is lacking, though, the other Transformers have much more distinct motivations in this film, and the backstory (including the actual presence of Cybertron) seems more fleshed-out this time.  Mind you, even Optimus wasn’t someone I really felt like rooting for when it was all said and done, and all this film really did for me was reinforce the stereotype that machines will destroy us all in the future, but it introduced us to Transformers beyond “good guys” and “bad guys.”  Like big (i.e., car-sized) Transformers and the little ones Sam Witwicky’s been keeping with him for some reason.

Speaking of Witwicky, he’s kind of the hero.  He has some plot about a new girlfriend, and not being able to get a job, and there’s also this other guy he’s jealous of, but let’s face it, you’re not going to see movies like this for those meatbag human characters.  You came to see the robots.

The nice thing about Transformers 3 is that there’s at least an A-plot.  Mind you, the same thing could probably be said about the second one too, but the latest edition is quick to tie in the exploits of us meatbags (what with that whole “moon landing” we all make such a big deal about) with the war between the Cybertronians (or the Transformers, as us meatbags call them).  And while it still fulfills its role as a straightforward action movie, especially with a climax that just keeps dragging and dragging and dragging for upwards of the last hour, there are much darker undertones to this tale of boy meets city-destroying robots.  I know this because some characters died, some other characters betrayed the rest of the characters, and because Michael Bay said so.

A question to filmmakers, though:  What is the big deal about 3-D?  The trailers and commercials make better use of the 3-D technology than Michael Bay did.  Sure, the little CGI mascot demonstrating how our $3 glasses work just jumps off the screen, but the most we get out of Transformers is a little explosive debris headed our way.  Why so stingy with the visual effects?  If robots are destroying our world, I want to be able to feel like my fragile human form is about to perish at the might of headache-inducing action sequences.

Note:  The Brewsky is an enthusiastic contributor and movie reviewer.  He’s a cool guy.  Eh’s engaged to a girl at the local theater, and doesn’t afraid of anything.

The Brewhaha on..."Green Lantern"

“The one thing a Green Lantern is supposed to be is fearless.  That isn’t me…”
-Ryan Reynolds, as himself

“Is it possible that the comics franchise is inherently retrograde? Does the commitment to childish characters and mindless action prevent creativity, believability, intelligence? Hal Jordan’s magical ring of virtue, given to him by the intergalactic Green Lantern Corps is a talisman devolved from Wagner and Tolkien. […] The action stays superficial despite Campbell’s advance in the depiction of disaster as spectacle; disaster doesn’t just happen but is full of threat and, importantly, witnessed by many.”
-Armond White, New York Press

“Filled with unintentionally laughable characters, intergalactic gobbledygook, sudden pacing shifts and a hero whose superpower is downright cartoony, this latest comic adaptation makes something like ‘Spider-Man’ look both grounded and brilliant.  It's ‘Star Wars’ meets Tex Avery with blotches of feel-good therapy thrown in, garnished with light shows and destructo scenes.”

-Tom Long, Detroit News

“Overall, director Martin Campbell and his screenwriting quartet do a much better job with the film's Earth-based story lines - especially its gothic horror arc - than the portions set on Oa. Many of the effects are good, trippy fun, and the 3-D conversion is A-OK. But a movie that advocates the power of imagination might have tapped a bit more of the stuff itself.”
-Amy Biancolli, The Houston Chronicle

For something as potentially epic as a Green Lantern film, it’s sad to hear comparisons to the much-maligned “Daredevil” film.  There’s nothing particularly bad about the new “Green Lantern” starring Ryan Reynolds as the title character…but on the other hand, nothing particularly outstanding about it either.  It’s basically an unimaginative, by-the-numbers, CGI-filled superhero film.

"Green Lantern” was directed by Martin Campbell, who was at the helm for films such as “Casino Royale,” “Goldeneye,” and “The Mask of Zorro.”  On top of this, the screenplay was provided by nearly half a dozen writers.  So what could have gone wrong?

Well, if you asked me, and you asked my friends, not much, if anything at all.  Ryan Reynolds (not to be confused with his replacement in the 90’s, or the original one, or the black guy from “Justice League,” or the nearly 3,000 other Lanterns from all over the universe) gets his ring, gets the girl, creates a freaking machine gun out of pure willpower, and saves the day.   A couple of my friends went to see it in 3-D (which, even without the glasses, I could tell the filmmakers easily capitalized on) and were blown away.

The sad truth is that, for all of the glowing green cosmic power and emerald constructs at a Lantern’s disposal, and all the glowing green CGI at Hollywood’s disposal, “Green Lantern” never really boasts anything truly original or unique.

You might remember in my review for “Galaxy Quest” that I mentioned being “turned off” of anything sci-fi, specifically by one crazed Star Wars fan.  You see, every once in a while, you run into one of those Star Wars fans who will assure you that a Star Wars movie (or prequel, or game, or cartoon, or the endless list of EU novels) is “great” based on how much its characters throw around light sabers and Force powers.  When this friend in question decided to show me five…FIVE!!!…different endings for the Force Unleashed, I couldn’t have cared less about this secret Sith apprentice Vader has apparently had all this time.  In fact, I grew to hate the guy.  (And as they all say, hate leads to suffering…)

“Green Lantern’s” cardinal sin is much the same, in that they “Force”-feed us a Luke Skywalker-in-training-type character whose starting powerset alone would probably put the Super Friends themselves to shame.  There’s no tension when you basically have a magic “do-or-make-whatever-the-hell-I-want” button.

Comparisons to the original Skywalker aside, though, Ryan Reynolds is at least in that rare class of movie heroes (along with Iron Man, Superman, and possibly Spider-Man around the first hour or so) who seems to enjoy what he does.  The movie also benefits from the presence of fellow Lantern Sinestro (excellently portrayed by Mark Strong and himself not a great victim of the film’s overuse of CGI), no doubt a potential General Zod should a sequel ever come up.

I would agree with the general consensus that the Earth-based portions of the movie were the strongest, especially upon the introduction of a human villain, one Hector Hammond (who is played either by the guy from “Jarhead,” or Hyde from “That 70’s Show,” it was hard to tell).  One could argue he doesn’t necessarily make a great villain, but that’s probably the point; he’s basically the end result of an intellectual, introverted nervous wreck who ends up biting off more than he can chew, and he makes a disturbing contrast with the fratboy hijinks of Reynolds’s character—a contrast that doesn’t quite escape the attention of Hammond’s father (“Some people are thinkers, and some people are doers…”).

Other than that, though, there isn’t much to say about “Green Lantern” that can’t be said about lots of other superhero films, or other films in general.  Despite the conflict eventually degenerating into an almost embarrassing CGI-fest once Parallax finally shows up, the movie still manages to end on a high, if somewhat cheesy note.

Note:  The Brewksy is an enthusiastic contributor and movie reviewer. 

He wants you to see this movie.