Review: Horrible Bosses 2

by Trevor Kirkendall

★

Sequels, sequels and more sequels. When will it end? It never will. Especially when movies that were relatively decent don’t necessarily require a second serving. I could watch Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy go back out for another story in a sequel to “The Heat,” but that’s looking less and less likely to happen. Never once did I think that I wanted to see more of Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis and Charlie Day’s characters from “Horrible Bosses” again, despite liking that movie. But here we are.

After escaping jail time from their antics in the first film, Nick (Bateman), Kurt (Sudeikis) and Dale (Day) have decided they want to be their own bosses. They’ve come up with a product fit for Skymall called the Shower Buddy, which automatically dispenses shampoo and soap onto your person in a effort to cut shower times down. But they need investors to make it happen.

Enter Burt Hanson (Christoph Waltz) and his son Rex (Chris Pine) who place an initial order for 100,000 units. The guys borrow money from a bank to make the order and finish it ahead of schedule. But then Burt cancels it, steals the idea and announces his intention to make their product himself under a different name. The guys are furious, so they cook up a plan to kidnap Rex and hold him ransom for the amount of money they’re going to owe the bank. The only variable they didn’t count on is that Rex wants to be kidnapped so he can take part in this dastardly plot and pocket some of his dad’s money too.

While the original “Horrible Bosses” was certainly enjoyable, the follow up falls into the typical traps that doom most Hollywood sequels. While some filmmakers have figured out how to avoid these issues – many sequels have been pretty decent over the past few years – others have not. Director Sean Anders is a filmmaker who has not, which is surprising given that he’s responsible for the scripts to “Hot Tub Time Machine” and “We’re the Millers,” two very respectable comedies. I guess working off of someone else’s material is much harder to do.

There are two things wrong with “Horrible Bosses 2” and both are cardinal sins when it comes to making a successful sequel. The first is repeating the previous installment’s plot points. Since the majority of the audience saw the first film and liked it enough to pay to see the sequel, the theory is that they’ll enjoy this one if it retains some similarities of the first. But that just shows lazy writing. If you played “Horrible Bosses” alongside “Horrible Bosses 2,” all the plot points would happen at the same time. This is the same aspect that doomed “The Hangover Part II.” These are the exact same movies we’ve seen before.

The second sin is an over embellishment of the character’s personalities. These writers have made everyone a ridiculous caricature of themselves. For example, Sudeikis’ Kurt showed the least amount of smarts in the original. He wasn’t an idiot, but would have been ranked third in the group of three on an intelligence-ranking list. In the sequel, he’s a straight up moron. The things he says in this film will induce many facepalms among the audience. I’m embarrassed for Sudeikis. Then there’s Day’s Dale, who couldn’t stop talking in the first film. Here, he never shuts up and rambles on about the most asinine things. He was so annoying I wanted to slap him.

You can tell these actors were here for a paycheck. All of them looked so uncomfortable doing this film, especially Bateman. I thought he was smarter than participating in a film for such an obvious cash grab. His successful directorial debut earlier this year – “Bad Words” – shows that he has the brains and the talent to accept better roles and work on better stories that this garbage. I guess everyone needs to pay the bills somehow, even Hollywood millionaires.

Furthermore, the presence of two-time Oscar winner Waltz gave this movie a bit of intrigue from the advertisements, but he’s completely misused in every aspect. He’s given one scene where the dialogue sounds like complete swindles of his lines from Tarantino films; it’s very out of place. Then he only appears in about three more scenes. That’s a horrible waste of talent.

While the first “Horrible Bosses” was enjoyable and relatively entertaining, it hardly deserved a sequel. I guess it’s a cheap enough concept so the risk of losing money is rather slim. Truthfully, though, the only person losing money here will be you when you shell out the funds to watch this abomination. I understand that it’s supposed to be mindless and humorous fun. It is indeed mindless, but humorous? Hardly. It’s that awkward laugh you make when a friend tells you a joke that’s not funny, but he’s had such a bad day already that you can’t help but give him a little morale boost by laughing back. This is a quick throwaway film. Seriously, I saw it two days ago and I’m already wracking my brain trying to remember exactly what happened in it. And by the time you read this, I will have already forgot I saw it entirely.

Review: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part I

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★ 

For a big budget and over-produced film with “Hollywood” written all over it, “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part I” is a well put together film, rarely lacking in dull moments. I say “rarely” because there are a few yawn-inducing moments here or there that probably could have been easily left out. But overall, there’s a bit more genuine emotion coming through here than you normally would see from they typical crap the studios have been producing lately, which is nice.

“Mockingjay – Part I” picks up almost immediately where “Catching Fire” left off. District 12 is gone. Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is now hiding out in District 13 with former game designer Plutarch Heavesbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman), former Hunger Games victor Finnick Odair (Sam Claflin), romantic interest Gale (Liam Hemsworth) and her former sponsor Haymitch (Woody Harrelson). Her mom and sister are also there. But not Peeta (Josh Hutcherson). He’s being held captive in the Capitol.

The story revolves around Katniss becoming the Mockingjay, a poster child for the uprising among the various districts. The plan is put in motion by District 13 President Alma Coin (Julianne Moore). She sends Katniss out into the bombed out Districts with a propaganda filmmaker from the Capitol, Cressida (Natalie Dormer) to get some footage of her that can be used to rally the other Districts into fighting for the rebellion. But Katniss is cautious of her actions because she knows the evil President Snow (Donald Sutherland) has Peeta in a jail cell somewhere and torturing him. She doesn’t want him to die.

The biggest problem I have with this movie can be summed up with the title: “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part I.” We can’t just get an adaption from a book anymore; it has to be a series, or at the very least, it needs to have “series potential.” So all those good books you read that begin and end between the hardcover, forget ever seeing those on film. Unless some poor screenwriter can somehow concoct a sequel. That’s really the only reason Hollywood screenwriters exist anymore. What a pity.

So we have a series of books: The Hunger Games Trilogy. The trilogy has two great novels, and one crappy novel. “Mockingjay” is the crappy one. I’m sorry if you liked it, but I had to force myself to finish it. We’ve already seen the first two films made from the first two books, which were both pretty good movies. But now we get two movies out of this one crappy book. And for what reason? Because they know you’re going to pay double to see it.

After watching this film and investing two hours into the story, we will now have to wait another 12 months before we get to see the cinematic version of the second half of the series’ worst installment. I mean, if they really wanted to split a book into two parts and make four movies, “Catching Fire” would have been the appropriate candidate. But instead, we get this one, the book with one of the most wretched conclusions of any book I’ve ever read.

But it’s unfair of me to judge the film itself on the greedy aspirations of the executives at Lionsgate. Despite having three separate writers credited here (Peter Craig and Danny Strong on the screenplay and author Suzanne Collins credited with “adaptation” whatever that means – I’ve never seen anyone credited like that), the story is balanced out pretty well. Aside from the aforementioned yawn-inducing moments, the script never feels overinflated. It never feels like filler was jammed in just so that the story could be stretched out into two full-length movies. It actually works well, and yes, I am quite surprised by that, given the source material.

Julianne Moore is a nice addition to the cast this time around, even though her role is reduced to just a woman sitting there during some scenes and delivering morale-boosting speeches to her followers in others. I pictured President Coin with a little more drive behind her. Apparently that’s now how director Francis Lawrence saw the character. Oh well. Moore is always so solid and it’s nice to see her getting a chance to showcase her talents for what will no doubt be a large audience. But of course, the star of the film is none other than Jennifer Lawrence. This is the role that made her a mega-Hollywood superstar, after all.

The story this time around focuses more on her struggles of leading an entire nation in revolution rather than just hanging out in the forest or on a beach trying to avoid death. Here, we finally get to see a little bit more about what kind of a person Katniss Everdeen really is. I always felt that the love triangle between her, Peeta and Gale was a bit ridiculous and was designed to be overly complex just for complexity’s sake. But a lot more goes into her and her feelings toward her two suitors this time around. And Lawrence absolutely nails it.

She runs through the emotional gauntlet as well as she’s ever done. For my money, she’s never been better than her breakout role in 2010’s “Winter’s Bone.” Even her Oscar winning performance can’t touch that one. After watching “Mockingjay – Part I,” I still think my assessment is true, but who could have predicted a performance this good from a movie like such as this? Not me.

I had already written this film off when I went into it, but I must admit to being impressed. But the unfortunate thing is, I don’t feel like I watched a whole movie. A story is a beginning, middle and end. This is just a middle – a two hour second act. The third act is still a year away. I can’t support the studio executives in their blatant cash grab attempts but putting unnecessary yearlong breaks between movies like this. And it’s not going to stop anytime soon either. But, I guess I can’t really complain too much if the movies are good, especially from the studios. “Mockingjay – Part I” isn’t bad. It just shouldn’t be two parts. And while there might be a little bit more action in “Part II,” I just can’t get psyched up for it. At least not right now. I guess I’ll conclude my “Mockingjay” review next November. Tune in then.

Review: Interstellar

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★½

If Christopher Nolan didn’t direct it, would there still be all this mass praise for “Interstellar?” Or would we just be discrediting it and not paying any attention to it like almost every other original sci-fi film released by Hollywood? Don’t get me wrong, I do love it when an original film from the Hollywood studios gets release and people actually go see it. People always seem to be interested in a movie when Nolan is involved.

And that’s a good thing, by and large. It’s always a good thing when an auteur such as Nolan is allowed to thrive without too much studio interference. If this were anyone else, the studio would have demanded cuts to drop its 170-minute runtime down to a more acceptable two-hours. They would have also demanded the scientific/technical jargon be completely cut out since you – as an audience in the opinion of a studio – are too dumb to figure complex language and plot devices out for yourself. Studios think so little of their audiences today.

We’ve been on the lookout for “the next Spielberg” for a long time now. A filmmaker who is just as much of a draw to moviegoers as the A-list actors at the top of the poster. Let’s face it; people aren’t going to see this film because two Oscar winning actors have their names at the top of the poster. They’re going because it’s a film by Christopher Nolan. So if anyone is still looking for “the next Spielberg,” I say look no further. But even the great Spielberg can’t always crank out winners every time. While “Interstellar” is by no means a dud, it’s one of the weaker films Nolan has put together.

“Interstellar” begins at some undisclosed time in the future. The world is falling apart thanks to all the food supplies dying out. We meet Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), a former NASAS pilot turned farmer and widowered father of two. Corn is about the only crop that can still be grown on the dusty planet earth. But some mysterious circumstances around the house lead Cooper to Professor Brand (Michael Caine) and his daughter Amelia (Anne Hatahway). They help make up what’s left of NASA and are attempting to come up with a plan to save the people of earth.

Over 10 years ago, NASA sent a team of explorers out to travel through a newly found wormhole and see if they can find other planets capable of supporting life in different galaxies. They think they have three promising possibilities. They are asking Cooper to pilot a mission out there with Amelia and a crew of two others. The duration of their flight: unknown. Much to the dismay of Coopers daughter Murph (Mackenzie Foy), Cooper reluctantly goes.

Much like any other Nolan film, you’re expected to pay attention because the script is packed with many different twists wrapped inside a complex story structure. There’s no denying Nolan and his writing partner/brother Jonathan are gifted screenwriters. After all, they’ve been able to make films with complex plots that leave their audiences with a desire to see it again and again to catch the things they’ve missed.

That being said, their screenplay for “Interstellar” is a bit overinflated. It takes almost an hour for us to get into space, yet the setup of the characters and the initial plot points are rushed through. Cooper is determined to take on the mission, but there’s not a whole lot given in his development that would lead us to believe he’s the kind of person to give up everything that a bunch of strangers tell him. Sure, the script provides all sorts of explanations as to why, but they’re not satisfactory answers.

“Interstellar” is a visually stunning film, there’s no denying that. It looks great on the large format IMAX screens. Nolan has always been one to use more practical effects in his films rather than relying on CGI like some of his contemporaries. But for the first time in his career, Nolan has relied on the effects – both practical and CGI – to be the focal point of his film. With “Inception,” the effects were eye-popping, but they were secondary. The story was the star. Here, it’s the other way around.

And with a lack of attention on the humans, I find my willingness to care about them greatly diminished. Cooper wants nothing more than to get back home and see his kids again. He continues to see them in video messages from earth even as time moves a bit faster there than it does in the deep reaches of space. Soon, his kids become grown adults (Jessica Chastain and Casey Affleck). Cooper, of course, hates that he’s missing their lives and McConaughey portrays this misery well, but it just doesn’t have the emotional impact it probably could have. The further along the movie got, the less I started to care whether or not he gets to see his kids again.

Much like last year’s “Gravity,” “Interstellar” is all about the experience and I think most people who will watch this movie will enjoy it immensely. It’s just a flawed film from a storytelling standpoint. Like every other Nolan film, a repeat viewing might be necessary. However, I’m inclined to think that there might not be much more to get out of it, especially on my home TV where the magnificent effects might not look nearly as amazing. At least it’ll be quieter. For crying out loud, this movie’s sound is mixed way too damn high! And Hans Zimmer’s score is so overpowering that it’s almost unbearable. I swear I had to strain to hear what these characters were saying to one another during the action sequences.

Many people will love this film, but I wonder if they would still love it if it were directed by a lesser know – yet still relatively proficient – filmmaker.  Will all the love be because Nolan’s name is on the screen, or will people love it just because it’s something grand and extravagant? I may seem to be bashing this movie a little bit, but I did like it. I just expected more out of Nolan given his sensational history. But this film is by no means a new “2001” for this generation, as I’ve heard a few people call it. “Interstellar” is good in its own right, but it is nowhere near the level of mastery of “2001.” And it’s certainly one of the weaker films Christopher Nolan has put out.

Review: Left Behind

 

by William Hill
★

I have returned from the wastes of the cinema, friends, and I have no idea how I made it back after seeing "Left Behind."

The latest in a long string of faith-oriented films, "Left Behind" is...well, allow me to retract that previous statement. "Left Behind" is a movie, but I won't actually attach the Bible to it. Regardless of whether you believe in God or any other god that may or may not exist, no one should be so malicious as to attach "Left Behind" to a faith of any kind. It's bad enough that Nicholas Cage put his name on this thing...though Chad Michael Murray kind of deserves this, considering he's a well known tool.

I'm really not getting to the point am I? Let's try this again.

This is the worst remake of "Die Hard 2: Die Harder" that I've ever seen.

Seriously.  It's "Die Hard 2" minus everything that people like about "Die Hard 2." It replaced John McClane with one of the many interpretations of the Biblical apocalypse, in this case, the Rapture, where Jesus Christ takes his followers to Heaven prior to the rise of the Antichrist. Not that you'll see evil show its face at any point in this flick; that might make an interesting movie. I'd be much more interested in watching Nic Cage go into full on Cage Rage, shouting at the Antichrist, and I'm pretty sure that this movie might have gone into much wider release.

Instead, Nicholas Cage plays Rayford Steele - and I assure you that he, nor anyone in his family are porn stars - an airline pilot who is cheating on his wife for his birthday. His daughter, Chloe (Cassi Thomson, who I've never heard of) shows up at the airport, and is disappointed that he won't be home to celebrate. She's an atheist who likes to pick fights with Christians, like her mom, Irene, played by a misplaced Lea Thompson. The first half of the movie takes place in airport lounge, and is so heavily front-ended with mountains of forceful "Religion Is Right" dialogue that it's hard to care about who is talking. Also, Chad Michael Murray shows up as a journalist named Buck, adding to the awkwardly funny names. Honestly, this is not how you name characters. If you are a well-versed moviegoer, you might relate him to a certain five second joke from "Kill Bill," especially when paired with a whole family of Steele's. If you are finding that I'm barely talking about the movie, it's because I'm trying to fill space where the movie didn't take the time.

Eventually, the Rapture comes, and viewers are treated to an awkwardly hilarious sequence of "rioting" and "chaos". Yeah, those quotations aren't an accident. Unlike the fact that every crashing car, airplane, bus, and drive-by looter is after Chloe Steel while she looks for her brother. Mind you, her brother was taken in the Rapture, so her quest is less than fulfilling. We'll get to that later. Let's get back to a car almost hitting her, followed by a single engine Cessna slamming into the back of her car, and a bus nearly tumbling over on top of her. All I could think about the Cessna is that it was a perfect metaphor for her parent's broken marriage.

That was the deepest thought I had throughout the entire movie.

Back on the plane, the worst collection of atheistic stereotypes gather and panic about the disappearance of many of the passengers. Among them are a cocaine addict, a paranoid mother who thinks her husband paid everyone on the plane to ignore him taking her daughter (Jordin Sparks, everyone; let's hope that this is the end of her acting AND music careers), and...and...just everyone was a joke. There was even a vertically challenged gentleman who was racist against a Muslim. There is also a conspiracy theorist played by a dude named Han Soto. I wonder if he's going to give up that name now that he's ashamed to have played in this movie, because I would take it.

And that's about it until we get a scene ripped off from the end of "Die Hard 2," where Chloe blows up a car to light up a place for the plane to land. I even sang Let It Snow to complete the vibe. Seriously, that's all that happened in this movie; stereotyped atheists, picture perfect Christians, and the "Die Hard 2" scenario sans terrorists.

I've read "Left Behind," the often preachy first novel in the long series of Christian novels about a group of post-Rapture Born Agains fighting against the rise of the Antichrist. I haven't read past the first one. It was an entertaining book, in its way, I guess. I haven't felt the need to return to it because, well, frankly, I've got better books to read. I've even read better Christian fiction, like the Narnia books and the Space trilogy, both by C.S. Lewis. I only state that this for the record, because I can tell you from experience that "Left Behind" the movie has so little to do with "Left Behind" the book that I don't know why they even bothered to use the character names. Everything that this movie spends two hours doing was done in about sixty pages in the book.

And the editing doesn't help. Every scene awkwardly cuts away without bothering to finish the sentence it started. The opening scene in the airport lounge just dragged out for way too long, and was basically shot-reverse-shot for twenty minutes. Rayford Steele basically sits in the cockpit, staring at instrumentation and asking Buck to tell him what the engines look like. I can imagine him shooting the entire movie inside his green screen equipped trailer, he looks so bored. Every actor looks like they are depressed that they signed on to doing this film. I know that Nic Cage is dealing with tax issues, and I really feel bad for him after seeing him slum to this level. I know that the guy has much better chops than this. I saw "Adaptation." This was not okay!

Every problem that I've mentioned is made all the more horrible by the fact that it looks like it was shot for television, and the music is so bland that it wouldn't feel out of place in a P.S.A. I can't believe that I paid to see this movie in a theater, and it wasn't presented as a result of the local church group buying a DVD and paying to screen it there. It's an abysmal production. I have a hard time believing that this thing exists at all. I'm depressed for Nicholas Cage. And why was Lea Thompson in this thing? The rest of the cast is a miracle of reverse stunt casting. Why would anyone cast Jordin Sparks? Who are these other people behind Nicholas Cage?

Don't see this movie. It's offensive to me as a Christian. It's offensive to me as a moviegoer. It's offensive to me as a writer. If you are an atheist, it will offend you because it will paint you out to be a cartoon stereotype. I can't think of a group of people who wouldn't be offended by this flick.

Allow me to close on this very strange note: "This Is The End" is a much better Rapture film, and it even has a clearer Christian message than "Left Behind." It's an R rated film with a bevy of toilet humor. Think about that.

Review: Gone Girl

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★½

“Gone Girl” arrives with much fanfare and anticipation. The book upon which this film is based is an international bestseller. I have no doubt that someone somewhere has said something to you along the lines of “seriously, you HAVE to read this book.” Whether you have read the book or not, this is one of those rare films that stays faithful to its source material while still feeling original and fresh.

The film follows Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) who is about to celebrate his fifth anniversary with his wife Amy (Rosamund Pike). Their marriage is falling apart, something Nick confides in with his twin sister Margo (Carrie Coon). But Nick’s problems today are just getting started. He soon discovers his wife missing. Their living room looks like some kind of struggle took place, and trace elements of blood remain visible. Detective Boney (Kim Dickens) and her partner Gilpin (Patrick Fugit) are on the case, but all the evidence points to Nick. He maintains his innocence, but it gets increasingly difficult with so much evidence pointing to him as the murderer and the national media crucifying him each night on TV.

While “Gone Girl” tells the tale of a dysfunctional marriage, there is one marriage here that is perfect. That’s the marriage of director and source material. Very rarely these days do we see a story come along and find its way to a filmmaker with such a unique and distinctive style that matches perfectly. David Fincher has made a career out of telling stories about outcasts or about people living their lives behind a façade.

Fincher is so polished in his craft, making him one of the absolute best filmmakers working today. “Gone Girl” is yet another example on how far he has come as a filmmaker. His chaotic, breakneck pace of storytelling in films such as “Seven” and “Fight Club” have given way to much more provocative films with infinitely more depth. That’s not to say “Seven” and “Fight Club” are bad films – they’re not; far from it, in fact. But he’s become much more versed in character and story that he doesn’t need the fancy visual tricks to carry his films. He was already proficient with the camera and with the dark suspenseful elements of filmmaking, but ever since “Zodiac” he’s taken his films to an entirely different level.

As a man always drawn to the dark and the mysterious, Fincher and “Gone Girl” is a perfect match. If you’re someone who hasn’t read the book, then you probably know someone who has. And that person has no doubt pressed you time and time again to read it. It’s the kind of story that shrouded in so much mystery that it keeps its readers guessing and addicted. The film is just as cryptic thanks to the fact that the novel’s author – Gillian Flynn – is also the screenwriter. Flynn already knows the story and the characters forward and backward which makes her the perfect candidate to adapt the novel. There are differences between the novel and film, but nothing too earth shattering. A few minor elements are left out or glossed over just for the sake of pacing, but this is an otherwise very faithful adaptation.

The dark and twisted elements of the book are brought to life so well thanks to Fincher’s grasp on the source material. I knew going into this film that there were some shocking and crazy parts to it, but Fincher turns it up a notch to make it one of the most compelling examinations of modern marriage this year. The book raises a lot of questions about how well we know our spouses, but the film visualizes it so flawlessly that it could leave any husband keeping a watchful and frightful eye on his wife moving forward.

And Fincher's familiar tone is on full display here. He always tends to work with the same people to give his films a similar yet distinctive feeling. Dark and dimly lit cinematography comes courtesy of his longtime director of photography Jeff Cronenweth. The multi-faced story occurring in different times and places is spliced together with such precision from long time film editor Kirk Baxter. And the bone chilling score from Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, who wrote one of the most inventive and original film scores in years for Fincher's "The Social Network," adds the perfect element of mystery to a film where over half the audience knows what's coming next. All these familiar elements help Fincher focus on the story and the acting rather than micromanage all other elements of his production.

But “Gone Girl” couldn’t have been made possible without the work of Fincher’s perfect casting. Affleck is great as Nick Dunne. Many people have a hard time taking him seriously as an actor after that terrible movie he made with his then-spouse over a decade ago. He’s not a bad actor, and he proves it here. This is one of the better roles he’s done. The supporting cast around him also fits into their roles perfectly including Carrie Coon as his twin sister and Kim Dickens as Detective Boney. Lighter supporting work from Tyler Perry as Affleck’s lawyer Tanner Bolt and Neil Patrick Harris as Desi Collings – a rich ex-boyfriend of Amy’s – are also solid despite limited screen time. The real star here, however, is Rosamund Pike as Amy Dunne. The adjectives I would use to describe her character could very well spoil some of the surprising elements of this film for those who aren’t familiar with the story. Let’s just say she plays the part subdued and low key – slightly different than I imagined it in the book – and plays it very well.

Anyone worried that “Gone Girl” will be another Hollywood butcher job of one of his or her favorite books can rest easy. At a time when Hollywood takes too many liberties with popular novels, this one turns out to be one of the most faithful adaptations of a book in recent years. There isn’t a better director out there to handle subject matter such as this than the masterful David Fincher. He’s taken a story that’s not just dark and turned it around to be a social examination on both marriage and the media’s guilty-until-proven-innocent stance. There’s so much to enjoy about this film. No matter if you’ve read the book or not, it’s a wild and crazy ride from beginning to end.