Horrible Bosses

Directed by: Seth Gordon

Written by: Michael Markowitz, John Frances Daley, Jonathan M. Goldstein

"Horrible Bosses" isn't horribly funny. It isn't horrible, but it isn't horribly good either. (Enough with the horrible gag now.)

Three friends (Bateman, Day, Sudeikis) commiserate on their crazy bosses. One boss (Aniston) is sexually aggressive, one boss (Farrell) is a cocaine addict, and one (Spacey) is just plain rotten. With a little help from Jamie Foxx's character, the buddies conspire to kill each others' bosses. Things quickly fall apart, though, and things go awry, leaving the friends running for the lives.

This movie was weak, all around. It felt like everyone - from the director on down - just decided to go through the motions. Even Jason Bateman - usually very funny - never broke from his typical character.

This is unfortunate, considering the material could have been molded into something great. The premise itself was funny in an absurd way, and it just needed to be fleshed out accordingly.

As with most comedies, the plot was a problem. In this case, frankly, there was too much of it. Too much time was spent getting to know the characters and establishing their backgrounds. It takes the story too long to get to the point where they decide to kill their bosses, considering that it's the basis of the action and was revealed in the trailer.

There were a few good points, though. Jennifer Aniston played her role well - which is to say she didn't play the usual Jennifer Aniston role. Although his role wasn't necessarily demanding from a technical aspect, Kevin Spacey really played his nasty, smarmy character well. Jamie Foxx stole the few scenes he was in, though I'm glad that his scenes were limited - he could have easily been overexposed.

"Horrible Bosses" earns a "not very good" review. I can't say that it's awful (unlike "Bad Teacher), but it definitely failed to reach its potential.

Juno

So, I finally broke down and saw Jason Reitman's 2007 film "Juno" - mainly because Nicole wanted me to.

The movie follows the pregnancy and related life-changes of a teenage girl named Juno (Ellen Page). Not only does she have to deal with her pregnancy, but also the complexities of giving the baby up for adoption as well as the typical challenges of being an American teenager. She decides to give her baby to a young couple - Mark and Vanessa (Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner) - whose marriage then proceeds to fall apart. In the end, she gives away the baby to the suddenly-single Vanessa, and then realizes that she is in love with the father of the child. The end.

There is a moment very early in the film in which Juno's father, just informed of her pregnancy, says that he thought she was the kind of girl who knew when to say when. Juno responds by saying "I don't know what kind of girl I am."

Frankly, that's how I felt about the whole movie. I could not tell which way it was going or what kind of message I was supposed to be getting out of it. Was it supposed to be a realistic drama about teenage pregnancy? Was it supposed to be a comedy? A tragedy? A romance? (I pretty well eliminated sci-fi adventure after the first scene.)

As a realistic drama, it failed. The character of Juno was completely unbelievable. No high school junior is familiar with Iggy and the Stooges, the Carpenters, Sonic Youth, Mott the Hoople and is completely comfortable referring to the early seventies as "Punk, Volume One" as well as readily referring to McSweeney's (among her many other underground cultural references). She had the witty comeback and the right thing to say simply too often to be believable. Her parents were even less believable, leaving reality the moment they said that they couldn't believe she was pregnant because they were expecting her to have a DWI or be into hard drugs. Let's face it - no parent would act so casually so soon after hearing that kind of news from their teenage daughter.

As a comedy, it failed. Rainn Wilson and Michael Cera are great at what they do in their other movies and TV shows (well, maybe not Rainn Wilson in his movies), but in this movie their performances seemed forced and fell flat. Rainn Wilson's only scene was shown, nearly in its entirety, in the trailer, and seemed only there to leverage his star power from "The Office." Michael Cera, meanwhile, wasn't given nearly enough screen time to do anything meaningful, except eat Tic-Tacs, or have any impact on the film (but more on that a little later on in this post).

As a film tragedy (perhaps tragedy is the wrong word - character piece?) about the trials and tribulations of a pregnant teenage girl, it failed. Juno cries or shows any major emotion about her situation once (maybe twice) in the entire film. Instead, she spends most of her time showing off how hip she is (or, rather, how hip the writer and director are to include the references) and occasionally complaining about how much she has to pee. I'm not saying that I wanted the baby to die or anything, but a little bit of suffering - or even some discomfort - would have been a bit more appropriate. Instead of any sort of panic or worry when her water breaks, she once again takes the chance to show off how cool she is by referencing the Thundercats when she needs to leave.

Finally, as a romance, it fell completely flat. Juno's romantic interest is her best friend Bleeker (played by Michael Cera), who also happens to be the father of the baby. Yet, he only appears in a handful of scenes. Which is what makes it so surprising that the big cathartic moment in the resolution is when Juno realizes that she is truly in love with Bleeker, and they go playing guitar together happily ever after. I didn't see that coming - mainly because that subplot was so insignificant for the entire movie up until that point!

So - what kind of movie was "Juno" then? (And if anyone says anything like "it was an indie movie," I'm going to pummel them with a truckload of DVDs of the movie!) I'm not quite sure. And that leaves a really dissatisfying taste in my mouth.