2 In 1: HORRIBLE BOSSES And BAD TEACHER.

I never do this, but it's been almost a week since I've seen both (and I tend to write reviews the day I see a film) and I couldn't write a full review on either if I tried--and I'm really not in the mood to try, so there's that. On top of that, both films are thematically linked: both involve unlikable characters in a profession they really shouldn't be in... and then have the movie titled about said issue. That being said, here are a couple short reviews on these films.

HORRIBLE BOSSES.

First up we have a film about 3 guys: Nick (Jason Bateman), Dale (Charlie Day), and Kurt (Jason Sudeikis). Nick has been working his butt off for a promotion, but his boss (Kevin Spacey) gives it to himself instead, then treats Nick like crap about it. Dale is recently engaged and wants nothing more than to be a good husband and family man; unfortunately, his boss (Jennifer Aniston) is a little nympho and tries at every turn to seduce Dale and ruin his life. Then there's Kurt, who actually likes his boss (Donald Sutherland)--until the coke-snorting son (Colin Farrell) takes it over and threatens to run the business into the ground. Together, the three men run with the idea to kill each other's bosses, getting advice on how to do so from an ex-con named Motherfucker Jones (Jamie Foxx).

Not only is this movie pretty dang funny, but it has some heart to it. The relationship between the three friends is very solid, and you believe their connection to each other. While everyone is very good at what they're given, the movie truly belongs to Charlie Day, Jamie Foxx, and Kevin Spacey. Strangely, Day's boss (Aniston) seems the most out of place in the grand scheme of things, as if merely put in as an afterthought--but she's still damn funny. And Day is very easy to relate to as your everyman who just wants to have a nice, normal life. Kevin Spacey is menacing and diabolical, and he's totally a guy you love to hate. Then there's Jamie Foxx, who seems to be having a blast with his small but memorable role.

Overall, it was a really fun film that was maybe hyped up ever so slightly by the time I had seen it, but still really good and entertaining. My biggest qualm was that, to me, it moved from its second act into its third act almost undetectably. The conflict and everything bounced back and forth so much, I didn't realize we had reached the climax of the film until it was already over. I was left feeling like there should have been more to it, like the film had barely just gotten started by the time it was ending. Otherwise, I'd definitely recommend it.


A Keanu 'Whoa'

BAD TEACHER.

Then we have this film. Elizabeth Halsey (Cameron Diaz) works the bare minimum as a middle school teacher just long enough to make it to her wedding with a very rich man. Unfortunately, he breaks it off with her, forcing her back into another year. She figures that in order to get a man with some money, she needs a boob job. Lucky for her, a rich heir, Scott Delacorte (Justin Timberlake), begins subbing at the school. Despite her attempts to woo him, he falls for the chipper do-gooder teacher, Amy Squirrel (Lucy Punch). She also keeps fending off advances by the gym teacher, Russell (Jason Segel). But when she hears about a way to make some quick cash--getting the best scores on the state test--Elizabeth will do anything to get it.

It was definitely interesting and somewhat entertaining to see Cameron Diaz play such a despicable character. However, I personally found her to be the most unfunny part of the movie. I felt everyone around her--particularly Jason Segel--to be much better and much more entertaining and fun. Segel steals the show with a character that has both wit and heart, and part of me would have preferred to follow a movie based on the life of this middle school gym teacher instead. Unlisted in my opening paragraph was Lynn Davies, who plays a fellow teacher and is always riding along with Diaz and whatever she's doing. Davies was the next best part, playing a character with no self-esteem, but clearly wanting to burst out of her shell. But then there's Justin Timberlake, who is somewhat wasted with this role. He plays the ultimate naive dork to the point he nearly loses his innate charm. Lucy Punch has her moments, but her character is a bit over-the-top (in her first 5 minutes, she actually reminded me of a teacher I know... but then goes overboard the rest of the film).

I definitely don't think it's nearly as bad as a lot of people are making it out to be. But that could also be because I went in with such supremely low expectations. I didn't really laugh all that much. Maybe a chuckle here or there. If you're a fan of Jason Segel, he doesn't disappoint and would probably be the primary reason to see the film. Like I said, the movie isn't God awful, but it does miss its mark. Comedies, by definition, should be funny... and this one plays to the lowest common denominator of jokes. It has some decent ones, but overall doesn't work.


Feed Me, Seymour!

THE BOX.

I wasn't never sure if I was going to see this movie in theater or not. I've seen both Kelly's previous films (Donnie Darko and Southland Tales), both of which take quite a bit of, well, something to sit through and still stay sane. The first time I saw Donnie Darko, I knew I had seen something pretty good. Strange, but good. In fact, it made no sense whatsoever, but something about it still resonated with me. I saw Southland Tales earlier this year after hearing mixed reviews of either "this movie is terrible" and "this is a really good bad movie." And sure enough, it took everything I had to sit through that way too long film, but in the end I felt it was worth it, because it was simultaneously one of the worst movies I had ever seen mixed with one of the most ambitious and possibly genius. And, like its predecessor, it made absolutely no sense.

So enter The Box. When I first saw the trailers, I thought this would be one of his more accessible films. After all, with a pretty straight-forward concept, how could you mess it up? Then the reviews started coming in. Did I actually want to sit through a roughly 2 hour movie that made absolutely no sense and had thus far had a 10:1 good:bad review rating? Everything I had heard said it was just yet another Kelly film: (After the first half of the movie) 1) it just stops making any sense whatsoever, 2) it's confusing, 3) it's weird, and 4) it's pretty terrible. But I was off today and decided to give it a shot. So now that I've seen the movie, do I agree with these sentiments? 1) No, 2) No, 3) Yes, and 4) No.

The basic story for the film is that Norma (Cameron Diaz) and Arthur (James Marsden), a couple in need of money, are given a box with a button on it by a strange man named Arlington Steward (Frank Langella). Here's the deal: If they press the button within 24 hours, they will receive 1 million dollars. The catch? Someone somewhere in the world that they do not know will die.

It's really not until about 45 minutes to an hour into the movie before it starts getting a bit weird. I mean, there's the weird characterizations (disfigured foot, disfigured face, random nosebleeds), but that's nothing compared to what comes later. However, everybody is saying that it makes no sense, it's confusing, and they just had to stop trying to figure it out and roll with it if they were even going to remotely enjoy it. I didn't find it confusing at all. Maybe I'm just weird, but I thought it was pretty easy to figure out and it made quite a bit of sense. I actually thought some of it was a bit predictable, honestly (not everything, mind you). And the closer the movie came to its close, the more I began to like it, as more and more behind the purpose of the box was revealed. I just really liked the whole concept of it.

The acting could have been better, though. I'd say the only two who were really any good were James Marsden and Frank Langella. It's like Cameron Diaz couldn't be bothered to even phone this one in, and all the "blank" people, as I call them, ended up kinda annoying after a while. But Marsden held his own as a leading man, while Langella played a pretty good bad guy. If they had any bad moments, it was a scripting issue. There were a few really cheesy/forced dialogue moments (for instance, the 'christmas tree lights/everybody dies' conversation). But they weren't too terribly common.

The only other thing of note is the special effects. They could have been better. The facial scar on Langella was almost distractingly fake. They could have taken note from The Dark Knight on that one. And all the 'water' effects hardly looked complete. The Abyss had better water effects, and that was made 20 years ago.

Overall, I honestly didn't think I'd end up liking it as much as I did. Will I run out to buy it as soon as it hits DVD? Probably not. But I don't regret seeing it. If I saw it on Showtime or some other movie channel, I might stop and watch. It wasn't remotely as bad as I'd heard, and the story was pretty good. Was it weird? Hell yes. But it wasn't confusing, nor did I have to stop thinking about it to enjoy it. It was good.

I Am McLovin!

(P.S. I'm still not sure if there was some intentional comedy thrown in there from the strangeness, especially with the 'blank' people, but I would hope that Kelly wasn't taking the whole film seriously. Either way, it made for decent entertainment.)