Horrible Bosses

It's been a while since we have seen a decent black comedy on the Hollywood scene. More times than not, America is unwilling and insecure about dark themes such as murder for laughs. While Horrible Bosses is not a classic by any standards, it is still nice to see a film like this in a market usually stuffed with romantic comedies or males bonding over acting like adolescents. That the film is the reasonably diverting experience that it is, is down to it's lead cast. They help sell the darkness of the premise through, so it doesn't leave a bad taste in the mouth. The film is pure farce, but coasts by on it's lead trios sensibilities. Falling somewhere in between Strangers on a Train and Throw Momma From a Train (something the film gleefully name checks) the film follows three undervalued and very frustrated workers played by Charlie Day and Jason's Bateman & Sudeikis. All of them are good people and just want to work in a non hostile environment and in a place where they can be allowed to reach their full potential. However, all three are hamstrung in their respective positions by their evil bosses. Their bosses are each played with relish by Kevin Spacey (psychotic, morally duplicitous) Colin Farrell (cokehead, clueless and ignorant) and Jennifer Aniston (sex crazed, nympho). Each one goes for their ugly characters with aplomb and show no qualms about acting against type. Sure Spacey has done his bastard office boss a few times in the past but we have never seen Farrell or more importantly Aniston go this against previous conventions like this before. So after one drunken night, the guys decide to hire a murder consultant called 'Motherfucker' Jones played by Jamie Foxx (the story of how he got his moniker is priceless) to help them off their respective bosses. Of course, it is from here that things spiral wildly out of control for the guys.

The film flirts dangerously with going off the rails at a few points. Luckily Seth Gordon (who directed the masterful The King of Kong) and his leading trio keep things on track just as your mind begins to wander. The film is very uneven and features a large overabundance of missing gags from it's beginning and end. This top ended feeling stems from people trying too hard for those laughs that just aren't there. Thankfully, the second act of the film finally shifts into gear as they have to get information on their different targets. Featuring cats, bathroom utensils, a syringe and some cocaine, the extended sequence certainly provide the films funniest moments. Praise as well to everyone for trying even as slightly as this film does, to push the darkness. Of course, the fact that the bosses are as broad as they are only helps sell the reasons why anyone would want them dead. Although Farrell is underused and Aniston's performance is largely one note, they still help control the films charms. At the end of the day there is nothing here truly remarkable or memorable, other than a reasonably diverting Saturday night. You'll laugh and chuckle with the guys, but don't expect anything to truly register. It features it's fair share of contrivances and is wildly uneven, but it is an at times very funny comedy. In the end, your enjoyment will depend on whether or not you can accept the fact that any man would ever want Jennifer Aniston dead for trying to have sex with him.

Verdict: 6/10
A noticeably short supply of jokes at both ends of the film do not hamper what for the most part, is a raucous comedy. Events coast by on the easy charms of it's leads. Just don't expect to remember it afterwards.

"Horrible Bosses" Trailer

The Social Network

How ironic it must be to Mark Zuckerberg to have founded the worlds biggest social networking site, when he himself, is anything but social. Now with David Finchers film bringing even more unwanted attention upon him, it must be a constant chagrin to Zuckerberg, when all he wants is to be left alone with his computer. Or so Fincher's ''The Social Network'' would have you believe. Based on Ben Mesrich's 2009 book, 'The Accidental Billionaires', the film is not, wholly based on 100% fact. This is something that writer Aaron Sorkin, or Fincher ever denied. Sorkin himself was been quite objective on his intentions. He has been quoted 'I don't want my fidelity to be the truth, I want it to be storytelling'. Sorkin wants to entertain, rather than educate his audience. Their intentions known from the start show just what they have achieved here. They haven't set out to fire out facts and events in black and white. They have set out to make a statement. It may be a document of our time, but not of the factual kind. It is yet another triumph added to the most excellent Fincher's list of impeccable triumphs.

When initial reports came out detailing Finchers new 'Facebook Movie', reaction ranged from baffled to outright horror. This was Generation X's movie punk wunderkind, and he was selling out? Fincher was a master of the macabre, of skewering perceptions of the serial killer genre, not once, but twice. He deals in worlds full of threat and darkness and menace. Of radicalizing notions of pop culture in cinema. Every shot is meticulously planned out, and every subject he draws upon, is researched to the max. Robert Graysmith, the author of 'Zodiac' maintains that Fincher got further than he ever did on the confusing, disturbing and very slippery case. Wasn't Facebook below him? Then something curious happened. Finchers backwards fairytail ''The Curious Case of Benjamin Button'' was released to much acclaim. Sure, some purists might have argued against his branching out to more saccharine subjects, but few could argue against the success of his wild genre change. An epic meditation on love and life, there was no severed heads to be found in boxes anywhere. If this was Fincher selling out, then the grace and beauty and simple power of his love story ensured that no one could argue his commitment to it. David Fincher is the consummate Director. He has too good an eye for detail, too much talent and too much range to simply sell out. Suddenly the prospect of David Fincher's Facebook didn't seem so bad. It was only when Aaron Sorkin was announced as writer, that people began to grasp what was in store for them. ''The West Wing'' is one of the greatest shows ever. While I myself have not seen the full seven seasons, I have seen enough of it to know just how finely tuned Sorkin's ear for dialogue is. It is a pleasure to listen to, and therein lies many of the reasons the show appealed even to those who had little or no interest in Politics such as myself. Sorkin writes drama stunningly. If he can make Politicians exciting for me, then surely he can make Facebook exciting for those who turn their nose up at such a subject. Despite what you may think, Sorkin takes Facebook seriously. Perhaps he takes it too seriously, I will go into more detail on that later, but for his commitment to the story he must be applauded. Because this 'Facebook Movie' is so far, front and center primed to take home a lot of awards come early next year.

Set in 2003/2004, the film concerns itself not with the rise of Facebook, but rather the rise of its creator, Mark Zuckerberg (Jesse Eisenberg), currently, the worlds youngest billionaire. The fact that he helped create the Facebook revolution is only all the more stunning that it came out of something entirely negative and ugly. Ridicule of others online. Zuckerberg himself is painted as someone who's genius is matched only by his ego. He wishes to be held by high esteem by everyone, yet holds nothing but contempt for them. Eisenberg portrays him wonderfully. He is a contradiction of mass arrogance. He seeks everyones approval and yet mocks them. He wants friends, and acceptance yet most people are a burden. A very unenviable task for Eisenberg, he is never less than compelling. Of course the legal spiderweb that entailed the creation of Facebook and its success is what focus is kept on. The linear shifts from its beginnings to the legal wranglings of Zuckerberg and his only friend, Eduardo Saverin, played here by Andrew Garfield propels the drama. That there is also the lawsuit of whether or not Zuckerberg stole the original idea from two Harvard rowing champion twins, shows the potential for much of the story to buckle under the burden of its talky weight. Fincher keeps proceedings fresh and distinctive and shows a wry eye for humour along the way. The soon to be the future Spider-Man, Garfield provides much of the emotion of the film. His fractured relationship to Zuckerberg fuels a lot of the drama on screen. At its heart, the film is all about relationships and the strain money and success places on them. Tension is only further exacerbated with the arrival of Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake). The original founder of Napster, his reasons with getting involved with Facebook may not be entirely honourable and yet it is he, who Zuckerberg looks up to and wishes he could be more like. Parker is everything Zuckerberg is not, but in the end one gets the feeling, that Parker needs Zuckerberg a lot more than Zuckerberg needs Parker. Parkers genius lies in making those around him think they need him when all he really is, is a mouth. Unfortunately, of the three leads Timberlake is the only weak link. While perfectly serviceable I could never once get by the fact that 'Justin Timberlake is acting'. He is not wooden and he can certainly deliver a line, but it is his mere presence that is sometimes too distracting. While this might be what the character calls for, I ultimately found that to be too true to the case in point. Timberlake was portraying a character, next to Eisenbergs and Garfields real people.

Sorkin's script is 166 pages long. Usually each script page counts for a minute of film and yet the film runs to just over two hours. Finchers way of getting the running time down, while still including everything the story needed and deserved was to merely get his cast to talk fast. Really fast. That should give you an idea of how rapid the dialogue is presented. From the off in a fantastic pre-credit sequence Fincher draws us into our leads. Two characters involved in quick rapid fire dialogue across a table. Character traits are immediately established along with motives and shifting dynamics. It is the perfect introduction into this Harvard elite Fincher presents us with, and shows how rash decisions can lead to huge consequences. Like the founding of a multi billion dollar online empire for example. Eisenberg and Finchers new 'Lisbeth Salander' Rooney Mara trade insults, barbed delusions about the world and a complete relationship break down all in the space of four minutes. It is a masterclass in dialogue and is arguably the finest and most important scene in the film. Sorkin litters his screenplay with choice moments of necessary humour. The film might get bogged down were it not for this. And yet, I cannot help but wonder if a lighter touch still might have worked wonders for the film. It seems to be lacking from a true sense of drama as there never truly seems to be anything at stake or anything for the audience to invest emotionally in. There is next to no surprises in the plot for the film to be fully captivating. Zuckerberg himself, seems to take a back seat to Saverin and Parker in the second half, which is a shame, as his downward spiral into loneliness and social rejection was one of the most intriguing aspects for me. Fincher however surprises again with his film. He is comfortable dealing in any genre he feels like and his extraordinary vision is evident in every frame. And in those twins, he creates the most seamless special effect I have ever witnessed as one actors head is invisibly grafted onto another actors body. Twice. And you thought an ageless Brad Pitt was good?

Verdict: 78%

David Fincher adds another impressive layer to his bow and Sorkin reminds just how peerless he is when it comes to dialogue. Trent Reznor provides a fantastic debut score and Eisenberg excels. However, the lack of any true drama and urgency and Timberlakes casting takes it back down from masterpiece status. A fantastic nights entertainment with one of the best auteurs of our generation is waiting for those who decide to log on.

''The Social Network'' Trailer

The A-Team

Let it be noted that anybody walking into "The A-Team" without their brain switched off is bound to detest the 2 very loud hours they have ahead of them. It is dumb, shallow and very far fetched at times. It also is the most out and out 'fun' movie I've seen so far this Summer. Languishing in development hell for years, credit must go to Director Carnahan, for rescuing and giving the script the polish I'm sure it deserved. As far as translations of old TV shows to the screen goes, this film is certainly one of the better ones. In keeping within the original show's giddy and frivolous mood, it is suitably OTT. However most of the films success is down to its cast. It is the one thing that separates it from the other action films. Its leading cast members look as if they are having fun. Their sense of mischief and camaraderie is evident and can be equated in the same way a fit of giggles can spread throughout a group of people. It is quite enjoyable and easy to surrender your charms to this group. If the cast were not as good and did not look as though they weren't enjoying themselves so much, then it would not nearly be as enjoyable as a film this bombastic and overblown has any right to be.

The plot follows the same route as the original TV show. In keeping with its new time setting, the action is switched from the originals Vietnam to the Middle East. After a lengthy pre credits action scene bringing the four together, we are thrust forward to '8 years and 80 missions later'. Events take a turn when the gang are imprisoned for a crime they did not commit and sent to prison. Can they break out and gain vengeance on those responsible, while still clearing their names? As you may or may not have guessed, the plot is almost of no importance other than to string together the many set pieces the film has. If you find yourself paying too much attention you will see huge plot holes, some lackluster villains and non-sensical character arcs. Liam Neeson as the teams leader 'Hannibal Smith' is as level headed and stern as the character calls for. 'Rampage' Jackson takes over the now iconic part of 'BA Baracus' however leaves something to be desired. While perfectly suitable looks wise, he doesn't quite manage to bring enough charisma and personality to the role, on at least not the same level Mr T did, back in the 80's. The two standouts are Bradley Cooper as 'Face' and Sharlto Copley as 'Mad Murdock'. Both have great fun with their characters and could not be a better fit to their 80's counterparts. Cooper elicits easy fun and laughs as the womanising number 2, without making him sleazy or unlikeable. Copley showing again that he is going to be a great success after his breakout in "District 9" last Summer, gains the films most laughs. His insanity and penchant for using fake accents and languages provides some of the films stand out moments. In fact one of the films main problems is that it is almost too eager to get to each beat of action. Scenes of interlinking dialogue and plot cohesion seems like an afterthought, which is a shame, as I would have liked to spend some more time just hanging out with our leads. Jokes come thick and fast and while most are instantly forgettable and hardly belly aching, they add to the films charms.

Director Carnahan knows exactly what the film is and does not try to make it anything that it isn't. The film is very loud and sometimes very clunky, but are you really looking for anything other than a rollicking time when you pay your money over to a film with this title? It strives for fun and for the most part achieves it. Action scenes carry the quick ADD editing that more and more action films seem to be favouring. While there to add to the adrenaline and excitement, most of the time they elicit more of 'what just happened there?' reaction. For the most part the set pieces are fun and offer plenty of explosions for the 13 year old boy inside of you. With this years other 'ensemble team' action films "The Losers" and the forthcoming "The Expendables", the film had a surprising amount of competition on its hands. As one of the better blockbusters this Summer, it won't be memorable or achieve immense runaway critical or commercial success but if a film in which our heroes fly a tank appeals to you, then I certainly recommend checking out this team.

Verdict: 60%

A fun frothy night at the movies which is all its director and cast ever set out for it to be. Incredibly hyperactive and over the top, but its cast gain plenty of charm and provide most of the reasons to the films success.

"The A-Team" Trailer

Retrospective - 'In The Company Of Men' (1997)

How utterly despicable can a lead protagonist be before the audience feels like switching off in disgust? After all, the audience can take a bad guy being as ruthless as possible. Most of the time we thrive on the knowledge that no matter how cruel and sadistic they may be, that come the end credits, our hero will have vanquished them once and for all. When the lead character is portrayed as these things, it can more times than not, be very hard to swallow; why would we want to spend two hours of our time in the shadow of these wretched people? Scorsese has made a career out of portraying incredibly unforgiving anti-heroes, and making them interesting and watchable. Just look at DeNiro's 'Jake LaMotta', 'Travis Bickle' or 'Rupert Pupkin'. These are all incredibly hard and complex creations. They exhibit nasty and and sometimes brutal behavior and yet they are three of the most captivating characters in screen history. While characters like 'Hannibal Lector' and 'Darth Vader' usually top 'best ever villain' polls, they offer us sometimes cartoonish and unrealistic portrayals of psychopathic tendancies. That is why we love them so much; they are the epitome of evil, but offer us no grounds to assume people like this exist in real life. We can look on from afar, completely removed from the action on screen. That is why they are so fun to watch. Which brings me to "In The Company Of Men". This film I propose has the most vile, and stomach churning characters in recent memory. And why is this? Well because in the ways that we enjoy other villains for their over the top theatricality, those presented here are all the more barbaric and ruthless in that they stem from a very real place. There are people like that out there today. We can run into people like this just outside our door. And that is what makes "In The Company Of Men" the uncomfortably fascinating experience that it is.

Whatever happened to Director Neil LaBute? It was with this that he made his Directorial debut and it was met with much critical acclaim and award winning success. Now wasting his considerable talents on execrable affairs such as 2006's horrific remake of "The Wicker Man" (one of the worst films I have ever seen) and this years pointless remake of "Death At A Funeral", that he crafted something as scathingly clever and well observed as this, is quite surprising. Working from his original stage play the film plays on its own terms and offers plenty to think about come the end credits. Chad and Howard have both been recently dumped. On a six week business trip to an unnamed city they find themselves both embittered by women. Sick of pining and feeling terrible for those they perceive to treat them like rubbish they both hatch a plan. Both will date the same 'lowly' woman for the time they are in town. Both will treat her like royalty. Then, when her spirits are raised and she begins to feel great about herself for the first in a very long time, they will both humiliate and dump her. It is their way of 'taking back the power' and enacting revenge on the female species they feel has wronged them so. That their pray in question is the meek and very unassuming Christine, a deaf employee at their agency, things begin falling into place. That is until both mens actions have unforeseen affects on them. An unusual and often uncomfortable examination of misogyny in the workplace, this is one film going experience that could not be described as an 'easy or fun watch'. Indeed, upon watching it, I myself began to feel quite queasy at the sheer level of cruelty and torture on display. Not quite the same form of torture used in the "Hostel" and "Saw" films; what our protagonists specialise in here is emotional torture.

Eckhart in his first lead role in a major motion picture is repulsive, malevolent and magnificent. His is a character that thrives on power over others. He could be seen is quite a misogynist, what with his scorned put downs and general dislike of those of the opposite sex. I however believe him to be more misanthropic in nature. Look closer and you see that while on this particular occasion, those on the receiving end of his power hungry trip are women, he has the same scant regard for everyone. His hatred in this case might extend to Christine, but he holds everyone he works with in that regard. They are puny to him and he must have dominance and power over them. Eckhart portrays him brilliantly. Underneath his good looks and wide smile lies very complex and sociopathic tendencies. It could be argued that Eckhart built his career on the back of this performance and he gives it everything he has got, despite the fact it is such an ugly person. A very risky part indeed, but under Eckhart's wing it is guided to safety. He is joined by Matt Malloy as Howard. An actor I have heard nothing of before or since, he nontheless plays the puny and weak number two, to Eckhart. Sure he doesn't come up with the original plan, but he doesn't do anything to stop it. Malloy is the audience in this game of destruction. We are complicit in Chads ploy, just as Howard is. As he grows ever more uncomfortable of the game, so does the audience. Howard just might be the worse by sheer fact that he has the ability to tell wrong from right. Chad it seems has lost that trait a long time ago. As a foil to Eckhart he contrasts him in not only in looks but also personality. He is the submissive, to Eckharts domineer. Completing the trio of characters is Stacey Edwards as the unfortunate prey. She is heartbreaking in her role. Portraying deaf in a character cannot be easy and is always a tight line to walk, but Edwards here exercises a wealth of emotion with her eyes. It is through them we see the sheer pain events have transpired to. The cast are without a single false note.

As the source material is originally a play, it is evident throughout the entire film. In fact, this is one of the films criticisms. The film has very little cinematic quality to it. It favours long takes, over stylish cinematography and quick cuts. As a result the film moves at quite a languid pace. This style, certainly does allow events and actors to breathe but for such a dialogue based piece, it demonstrates very little to set it apart from its original stage production. Music is initially disjointing, until you realise the tribal rhythms are intentional in reflecting the predatorial tendencies of the protagonists; they are on the hunt and the music emulates this. Morals run very murky indeed here. LaBute seems intent on showing what men are truly capable of. Do all have the potential to be either a Chad or a Howard? LaBute seems to think so; in his world all men are cowards or barbaric. Christine is the one pure thing in this world and it is she that the men are conspiring to destroy. The title itself could mean both the sexist, male domineering company these men work for, or either the time we spend in their company. The film will almost certainly not be to everyones taste; those who don't mind the heavy dialogue and pitch black humour the film strives for, might find the uncomfortable subject matter and lead characters too miserable to want to see them through to the end of their little 'game' Those who have the head and stomach for it though will be rewarded with a very interesting and probing examination of the darkest side of men. LaBute writes fluidly and callously and exhibits a great ear for dialogue. All in all, not exactly a truly fun experience, but overall, very rewarding and rich for all the right reasons. Just remember Chad and Howard the next time someone brings up how horrible their favourite movie monsters are. After all, the scariest monsters, are those that really exist.

Verdict: 81%

A very well observed but sometimes excruciatingly cruel debut from LaBute. The cast all exhibit high standards and the writing is pitch perfect but watching in any sort of nihilist mood is 100% not advised. If this is, as it is suggested a 'black comedy', then it must go down as one of the darkest in recent memory. A fantastic debut from both Eckhart and LaBute.

"In The Company Of Men" Trailer