web
counter
 

Horrible Bosses Review: I Am Jack's Smirking Revenge

By Daniel Carlson | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (53)



Horrible_Bosses_Review_1.png

Horrible Bosses is going to invite comparisons to just about every other movie about rotten workplaces, but it acts best as a corollary to Office Space. Not because it’s on the same level as Mike Judge’s modern classic, but because both films are perfectly of their time, capturing a snapshot of the working world as it was or is. Judge’s film was about a man oppressed by boredom and forced to work overtime to update his company’s software for Y2K, a laughably empty threat even when the movie was made and a nice representation for the kind of banal paper-shuffling forced upon the protagonist. Yet the working men of Horrible Bosses aren’t fighting apathy, but evil, and they’re roped to their jobs because of the recession. Each one wants to escape a cruel manager, but they’re all forced to realize that the costs are too high and that they’d be worse off without their paychecks. Twelve years ago, you could make a movie about a guy trapped at a job because he couldn’t think of anything better to do. Now, he’s stuck because there’s nowhere else to go. That’s a huge change, and the timeliness of the subtext gives Horrible Bosses a nice edge and the ability to go to dark, weird places, which it does in entertaining and often hilarious ways.

And there is, to be sure, an emphasis on entertainment. Despite the presence of Kevin Spacey as one of the titular bosses, this isn’t Swimming With Sharks: this is a dark-ish comedy that flirts with twisted ideas but still stays sweet enough to work as a breezy adventure. Chalk it up to the fact that the screenplay is the first feature outing from writers known for, let’s say, modestly aimed sitcoms: Michael Markowitz wrote for “Becker” and Jonathan M. Goldstein worked on “The New Adventures of Old Christine,” while John Francis Daley is best known for acting in series like “Freaks and Geeks” and “Bones.” There’s an innocent, rookie-season vibe to the way the script hits the necessary beats, but it’s no less pleasing for being obvious, thanks to the charismatic performances and able direction. Granted, there’s nothing revolutionary here. Horrible Bosses will not change the face of cinematic comedy. It does not point a new direction in storytelling, nor chart a path to new heights of joy. It is, rather, a simple, nimble, consistently pleasing comedy that gets a laugh with almost every joke, and it does so while playing around with everything from revenge fantasies to action. It gets its job done with energy and charm to spare.

The script revolves around three men dealing with awful bosses: Nick (Jason Bateman) is a financial manager constantly belittled by company president Dave Harken (Spacey); Kurt (Jason Sudeikis) is an accountant tormented by his company’s cokehead owner, Bobby Pellit (Colin Farrell); and Dale (Charlie Day) is a dental assistant working for a sexually aggressive doctor, Julia Harris (Jennifer Aniston). After some brief introductory scenes pushed along by voice-over narration (another first-time screenplay flag), the boys meet up for drinks to share horror stories of office humiliation that’s compounded by their inability to leave. Nick’s boss dangles the promise of a promotion only to take it away, Kurt’s boss blackmails him into firing people at random, and Dale’s boss tries to have sex with him atop unconscious patients. Their talk soon turns to hypothetical rambling about how great it would be if they could get rid of their bosses permanently, and that moment is enough to plant the seed for Kurt to wonder if it would be possible to actually kill their bosses.

The absurdity of that leap — from hating one’s boss to committing murder — isn’t exactly ignored, but it’s not dealt with that truthfully, either. This isn’t larceny or embezzlement, this is full-on homicide, and Kurt’s growing resolve to bump off his boss is as dark a one as you’ll find in a comedy. But the film pulls it off by keeping a sense of wackiness in the plan, as if this is a camping trip that just got a little out of hand. It also works because the bosses are cartoonish exaggerations of real human cruelty, which makes the gang’s attempts at retaliation similarly fantastical. Farrell’s ridiculous bald cap is clue enough that this is all meant to happen in a vaguely surreal world that’s not quite ours. That’s one of the film’s many strengths: to be just crazy enough to inhabit a fictional realm but just grounded enough to connect with real sentiments about working in a down market. Director Seth Gordon proves again that he can make a sharp, fluidly paced film when he’s working with the right material. Breaking from the style popularized by the Apatow school, Horrible Bosses runs a relatively svelte hour and 40 minutes, and Gordon keeps the story scooting along nicely. His debut feature was the documentary The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters, and he’s also helmed episodes of “Parks and Recreation,” “Modern Family,” and “Community.” Only the odious Four Christmases stands out as the clunker on his c.v., but hopefully he’ll be able to work with better scripts going forward.

As the story progresses, the men try to formulate ways to off their bosses, going so far as to visit a bar in a rough neighborhood and start asking around for hit men, an awkward move that leads them to the services of Motherfucker Jones (Jamie Foxx), a recently paroled con who pledges to work for them as a “murder consultant.” It gives precisely nothing away to say that their plans don’t really work out the way they were intended to: this isn’t a thriller, but a comedy of errors. The film’s also buoyed by the effortless chemistry between the three leads. These are all skilled comedic actors playing their polished personas to the hilt: Bateman is sardonic and worrisome, Sudeikis is affably lecherous, and Day is manic with a soft side. In other words, these are the personalities we’ve seen worked to a fine gloss on (respectively) “Arrested Development,” “30 Rock,” and “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia.” And that’s not a bad thing at all. They’re all hilarious throughout, a neurotic mix of goofiness and idiocy and deep-down yearning for something better. These performances aren’t about cunning, but about playing to the back of the cineplex with skill and precision. The men are perfectly comfortable together, playing off each other with ease and grace it’s impossible to tell if they’ve forgotten the cameras are there or if they’re hyper-aware of how great they are at mugging for them. Throughout, there’s a tonal sense of the film not just as story but as an experience that’s aware of its own audience, right down to the way the movie ends with a smash cut to credits before popping right back with a blooper reel. This is an escapist tale of fighting back against your boss even when common sense, the economy, and your own best interests tell you not to. The movie knows you’re watching, and it’s a pleasure to do so.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a member of the Houston Film Critics Society and the Online Film Critics Society. He’s also a TV blogger for the Houston Press. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Zookeeper Review: Describing the Final Moments Before I Blacked Out | The Weekly Murdertank: Unlovable Love Interests, Jennifer Aniston, Casey Anthony, and Those Horrible Bosses









Comments

Wanting to kill your boss- repugnant, but not unimaginable that someone would want to do it.

Wanting to kill Jennifer Aniston because she nymphos out on you at work, constantly? Bitch, please.

The Matrix Trilogy makes more sense than that. I'm guessing watching the movie will clarify this- either he's gay, or recently had penile surgery of some sort.

Posted by: logar at July 8, 2011 12:06 PM

Hmmm... where is my thesaurus... I wonder if there is another word for "titular"?

It is still funny though...like farts.

Posted by: MRod at July 8, 2011 12:29 PM

I spent a year in a job where I fantasized about killing my boss every day. Not just "oh I'd love to kill him" but actually putting scenarios together in my head where he would die. One day I found myself day-dreaming that I would be the only person to find him about to pass out in his executive garage spot while his car filled with CO2 fumes and I would watch him pleading with me to open the door while I smiled and waved waiting for him to die. I handed in my notice that day, realizing that his persecution and my resultant revenge fantasies had crossed a dangerous line.

Posted by: PaddyDog at July 8, 2011 12:32 PM

I'm a little concerned that I giggled at "Motherfucker Jones".

Posted by: snapnhiss at July 8, 2011 12:40 PM

Aniston looks hot in this. Rumor is, there is a scene that shows her exposed cans.

/might masturbate to it

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at July 8, 2011 1:04 PM

DC, I appreciate the fact that you give a shit about your craft, please write more reviews. The writing on this site has been lazy of late.

Posted by: Greedy at July 8, 2011 1:08 PM

What's the matter Carlson, you giving up completely, or what? "Breezy?" "Able direction?" "Entertaining and often hilarious?" What, did you raid the USA Today film review style guide or something? Scathing my ass.

Posted by: Jimjoe Bob at July 8, 2011 1:16 PM

@snaphiss - No joke. Cue minority group protest in 3...2....1....

And PaddyDog, that's nothing. My team keeps a short list of people who need to die in horrible IT accidents - boss or no.

Posted by: NateS1973 at July 8, 2011 1:26 PM

I admit that I have entertained thoughts of offing my bosses at one time or another. The last time was in 1999.

Posted by: The Wanderer at July 8, 2011 1:36 PM

Posted by: Greedy at July 8, 2011 1:08 PM

Posted by: Jimjoe Bob at July 8, 2011 1:16 PM

I find the fact that these two posts are back to back quite funny.

Posted by: Socrates_Johnson at July 8, 2011 1:36 PM

I had a boss that I last saw in 1995 who would still be in mortal peril if I ever met him in a dark alley. Slimy shitstain weasel toady. He used to get off on intimidating his female subordinates. He tried it with me and the look of terror in his eyes when I responded with WHAT DID YOU SAY? was awesome. Never have I been so close to punching a boss, and I've worked for some real bottomfeeders.

Posted by: Wednesday at July 8, 2011 2:28 PM

Mr. Carlson,

I want to tell you something I've been thinking for a long time. I love your writing style. You're very specific in your criticism, you use metaphor effectively, you discuss and consider the context of each film just enough, and you have a precise vocabulary.

But I often skip your reviews because they're just too detailed about the plot!

It's a shame for me, because you are one of the reviewers on this site whose taste in films I really rely on. I mean, I love Dustin's over-the-top style but some of his raves have sent me into movies I hated.

But I like to be surprised when I watch a film, just as you do I'm sure. Often the best thing about a movie is the way it unfolds and plays with your expectations. And it's not the same if you already know what's coming.

I think if you skimmed over a few of your reviews you'd notice there's a strongly chronological slant to the organization. "First this happens in the movie, then this, then at the end, yadda yadda." You could use some of the plot points to illustrate your conclusions without summarizing the whole story, is all I'm saying.

And yes, I am a writing teacher. But don't hold that against me. This is my genuine frustration, and I just thought you should know cause I do want to read your reviews in their entirety, and I just can't, and that makes me sad.

Posted by: AM at July 8, 2011 3:06 PM

AM: First, thanks for actually being constructive and polite with your negative feedback. That puts you ahead of 99.9% of the Internet.

I'm afraid I don't know how to answer your complaint -- that I divulge too much of a film's plot -- without further playing into it. Looking back over this review, I can think of plenty I didn't reveal about the film, let alone allude to, for fear of spoiling it for viewers. I mentioned several story moments as evidence for my arguments because I believe that criticism should offer analysis, not assertion, and that claims should be backed up by the art. But there are many more moments I had to leave untouched because to discuss them would be to ruin the fun of the film. I'm as loath to see something that's been spoiled as I imagine you are. But I can't give specific examples of the ways I didn't spoil Horrible Bosses without, well, spoiling Horrible Bosses. All I can ask is that you trust me.

You also wrote:

I think if you skimmed over a few of your reviews you'd notice there's a strongly chronological slant to the organization. "First this happens in the movie, then this, then at the end, yadda yadda." You could use some of the plot points to illustrate your conclusions without summarizing the whole story, is all I'm saying.

I understand that, too. Not to get too involved or risk talking too much shop, but a few months back I had a total breakdown in terms of how I approached and organized reviews. I realized that I'd fallen into an awful habit of: opening paragraph with vague thesis; second paragraph that describes Act 1 to tack onto thesis; third paragraph that drives that home; fourth paragraph that talks about acting; closing paragraph. I was a machine. I was still fully invested in being a good critic and working as hard as I could to talk about the film at hand, but I was doing so in an awful, stagnant way. (The number of reviews of mine with second paragraphs that start with "The story begins..." is staggering. I beg you not to Google this.)

Basically, I chucked the old way out the window. I now force myself to write differently, to try new structures and ideas, to shake loose the chains of the auteur theory, etc. You're right that it doesn't always work, but I believe that it works most of the time, and even does in this review. For me, part of the fun of writing is keeping it fresh. I hope you go see Horrible Bosses and enjoy it -- it's one of the most consistently funny films I've seen in a while, and I laughed harder and more often than I did at Bridesmaids -- and that you keep reading. Thanks a bunch,

Dan

Posted by: Dan at July 8, 2011 3:45 PM

Who the hell do you think you are Carlson? I'll teach you to dis me in public, you and your worthless little oeuvres that you think are so precious.

Posted by: 99.9% of the Internet at July 8, 2011 4:06 PM

I would have to disagree that the review revealed too much. It actually revealed far less than every single preview and commercial I've seen.

Posted by: Protoguy at July 8, 2011 4:25 PM

Looks like AM and Dan need a room...

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at July 8, 2011 4:27 PM

This little back and forth between AM and Dan just makes me love Pajiba so much more.

As for the movie, I'm happy to hear it lives up to the trailers. And if Dan loved it as much as Bridesmaids, which I loved, then I am definitely going to see this one.

Posted by: MelBivDevoe at July 8, 2011 5:02 PM

BSlim, you're just jealous. You and your elegant Carribean shoulders.

Dan, I gotta apologize.I did not read the review in its entirety as this is a movie I plan to see and I don't want to know much about the plot. Now that I've given it my full attention I see that it's much less revealing than I expected. I particularly missed this:
"It gives precisely nothing away to say that their plans don’t really work out the way they were intended to: this isn’t a thriller, but a comedy of errors." That's a deft way to discuss the direction of the plot without specifics. Partly you're a victim of my bad timing. I've been wanting to say all that stuff for probably two years, and of course I waited until you've already begun to address the issue to take the time to put my thoughts down!

Your comments are enlightening and humbling. We armchair quarterbacks need to be reminded of the hard work that goes into being a good critic. I didn't know you were struggling with and retooling the direction of your writing, but now that I do I have a lot more respect for you and the other contributors on this site. Thank you for considering my comments and having a real dialogue with me.

I do still think you could trim the fat just a bit when talking about characters' actions. For example:
"As the story progresses, the men try to formulate ways to off their bosses, going so far as to visit a bar in a rough neighborhood and start asking around for hit men, an awkward move that leads them to the services of Motherfucker Jones (Jamie Foxx), a recently paroled con who pledges to work for them as a 'murder consultant.'” A little laborious, no?

Anyway, I'm usually a total butthole around here (whatever happened to Butthole Days, anyway? Was that something I imagined or did that really happen around here?), and I have pointlessly flamed more people than I've had sex with. Not that I won't keep it real with you a-holes as needed, but this was a welcome detour into civility for me.

Now carry on, ya jerks.

Posted by: AM at July 8, 2011 5:04 PM

I wholeheartedly agree with several previous commentors - this is a great review. It's balanced, informative without giving away or summarizing the plot, and evaluated several different and important elements of films in general and issues specific to this film in particular. You are very good at your job, sir, and I hope you are paid a great deal*.

*In Pajiba dollars, so you can never leave.

Posted by: BiblioGeek at July 8, 2011 6:08 PM

AM: What can I say, I'm addicted to subordinate clauses. And meth. But mainly the clauses.

Posted by: Dan at July 8, 2011 6:59 PM

I want to see this because of Charlie Day and I'm a HUGE Sunny fan. I saw them perform on stage in LA! They were so good.

But I can't. Can't stand the Aniston hype machine. Can't stand that woman. She's taken over all the promotion of this movie as if she's the only one who matters. On Huffington Post, every single article is about her getting raunchy in this movie, about her acting. That's all she does is self-promotion: a bunch of interviews about her acting style, about her in a brown wig, about her getting a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame today, her rep talking about her new tattoo, etc. It's just me, me, me. She's all about self-promotion, but has little talent to back it up. Nope--can't do it. Not that it matters because I'm sure the movie will make a mint and Aniston will take all the credit, coasting along to her next movie. But whatever.

Posted by: Kat at July 8, 2011 7:09 PM

Dan is my favorite reviewer, followed VERY closely by Drew Morton* (almost tied, actually). BUT DON'T TELL THE OTHERS, SHHHHHHHHH!!!

*Yes, I know they have very different styles. I like both.

Posted by: Snuggiepants at July 8, 2011 10:13 PM

Awesome, a movie I can actually drag my wife to the theater to see. Since I harass anyone who uses their phone to text in a theater, she doesn't want to go much anymore.

So stop f'n texting in movies you f'n morons, you light up an entire row, don't you understand that???

My common line to them is, "Please put your phone away...or I will."

Posted by: TrickyHD at July 8, 2011 10:59 PM

If you diagrammed that sentence, it would look like my family tree. And we're Catholic.

Posted by: AM at July 8, 2011 11:13 PM

Uh-oh, another clause flame war.

Posted by: Brenton at July 8, 2011 11:50 PM

I dunno, personally, I think Aniston should always be supporting cast. It's about time both she and Hollywood realize she's never going to be the lead they wish she were.

Posted by: Protoguy at July 9, 2011 12:07 AM

Kat: I second everything you said about Aniston.

Posted by: Snuggiepants at July 9, 2011 1:58 AM

So I can go back to worshiping the Aniston again?

And while I'm at it, I think her entire success is based on the fact that she's pretty enough to be attractive to men but not so gorgeous as to be threatening to women.

Posted by: , at July 9, 2011 2:31 AM

So this is basically 9-5 for the twenty-first century?

Posted by: Alarmjaguar at July 9, 2011 2:43 AM

I think I dislike Angelina Jolie as much as some people here dislike Aniston (not because of Brad Pitt, but in a general sense). I don't like Aniston much either, but at least she avoids putting out press releases in which she tells us all how to think about current events. Seriously, Brangelina, no one gives a shit about what you think about gay marriage.

Posted by: Uncle Mikey at July 9, 2011 9:12 AM

Mr. Carlson,
I want to tell you something I've been thinking for a long time. I love your writing style. You're very specific in your criticism, you use metaphor effectively, you discuss and consider the context of each film just enough, and you have a precise vocabulary.

This without the other stuff attached to it.

Posted by: duckandcover at July 9, 2011 9:35 AM

AM, that's why I always read the Pajiba review after I see the movie.

First watch the movie, then read the review to see if I agree.

Posted by: Joseph at July 9, 2011 9:49 AM

Fuck you Carlson, you don't know me!

Posted by: The other 0.1% at July 9, 2011 10:50 AM

Why bring up Brangelina in an Aniston movie thread? But, while we're on the subject--yep, celebrities who support tolerance of others are so loathsome. Totally understand that sentiment. Much better that they shut up, look pretty and go shopping as much as possible. God forbid anyone in vapid, shallow Hollywood-land want to do something else.

Posted by: shade at July 9, 2011 11:14 AM

Dan's review is a little 'damning w/ faint praise' for me. The talent in this calls out for a pull-no-punches dark comedy in the vein of Very Bad Things.

Posted by: stryker1121 at July 9, 2011 11:40 AM

Mr. Carlson,

I want to tell you something I've been thinking about for years. When I grow up, I want to write reviews that are as readable and thoughtful as yours. I don't remember ever reading a plot-heavy review from you. That's more than I can say for a lot of Internet-based critics.

Thank you.

Posted by: Robert at July 9, 2011 11:40 AM

Who the hell do you think you are Carlson? I'll teach you to dis me in public, you and your worthless little oeuvres that you think are so precious.

Posted by: 99.9% of the Internet at July 8, 2011 4:06 PM

Holy hell that made me laugh.

Posted by: Colin at July 9, 2011 12:17 PM

Saw it, genuinely enjoyed it, and had several guffaw moments. More than I can say for the heinously un-funny and repetitive Hangover 2. Gawd, that movie blew monkey butt.

I think the thing I liked the best about this one was the easy riffing between the three actors -- I'd be interested to see how much of the movie was improvised, because a lot of the dialogue just was so effortless and fun, and genuinely funny. And the three horrible bosses were definitely having a wonderful time being awful, awful people -- all three of them.

Posted by: linny at July 9, 2011 12:20 PM

Can't wait to see it. Great review, Mr. C.

Posted by: Moviefraud at July 9, 2011 12:41 PM

@Uncle Mikey. Well, JenAniston gave a press release about her dog dying, and then released another one about how she got a tattoo on her foot--for her dog. Personally, I would rather hear about Brad's views on gay marriage than that.

Posted by: sphire at July 9, 2011 1:25 PM

AM × Dan = my OTP.

Posted by: duckandcover at July 9, 2011 5:49 PM

I understand your post. It is very refreshing when you plan most interesting attractions to visit. You can do it with parents. Check on link and read about most popular tourist sightseeing on the World. You will find photos. Unique fature is gps coordinates. See you ...

Posted by: Luigi Fulk at July 10, 2011 8:16 AM

Tip:

If it's a movie I think I want to see, but I'm a little unsure. I read the opening few lines of the reviews, then skim the last paragraph. That gives me a general if they liked it or not, but not enough info to color my thoughts on a film if I see it.

Posted by: e at July 10, 2011 9:51 PM

Enjoyed thoroughly

Posted by: Protoguy at July 10, 2011 11:03 PM

Worth every dime, it was.

Posted by: PissBoy at July 11, 2011 8:09 AM

i agree that the rapport between the three leads is the strongest point of this film.
the weakest? its blatant sexism and racism; symptomatic of its lazy writing.
sorry to be a buzz-kill but... come on! a female boss can only be an asshole if she's a super-hot nympho? the only black character [i would say character of color, but let's not forget the asian prostitutes] is a criminal who's bad at math?
i mean, jesus. get with it--this is the 90's!

Posted by: eldopa at July 11, 2011 11:51 AM

Is this post recent at all? Thanks by the way.

Posted by: Verda Ulmer at July 12, 2011 12:41 AM

Scarier and scarier... just when you thought it was safe to go back into phone hacking, the picture gets even darker. Gordon Brown now says they were after details of his children, an appalling revelation. Whatever will come out next?

Posted by: Car Accessories at July 12, 2011 9:37 AM

This movie caused me physical pain to sit through. Every joke was telegraphed, every stereotype was met, and there wasn't a single character I liked. I walked out about an hour in, my constant sighs were disturbing my neighbours.

Is it so complicated to write a decent script?

Posted by: gob at July 13, 2011 4:47 PM


this movie was ok but dan;s review is much too kind.... reads
like he thought apatow had a hand in it .

Posted by: snake at July 18, 2011 5:29 PM

Thank you for posting the recent entry; looks like at least someone in the world thinks the same way that I do. What year did you first start blogging? My son got me into the 'blog-world' about 3 years ago and I haven't stopped since. Working on starting the newest WordPress in about a month.

Posted by: Gabriel Gillingham at July 20, 2011 8:21 PM

great points altogether, you simply gained a brand new reader

Posted by: Cheap Calls to Pakistan at July 23, 2011 8:14 AM

Wise up Virginia .. Perhaps you need to read the bill as well Its only good for Common Americans, but Congress and Federal employees are Exempt . If ONE thing changes to your current health plan and it can be as small as the deductible amount you pay, then your put in the Government plan!

Posted by: Brenton Pancheri at August 8, 2011 4:07 PM