"Horrible Bosses" by Seth Gordon - movie review

Can not answer all questions "Because it's summer!" But if we are wondering why we are going to rest from our daily routine or why we are going to drink mojito on the beach or why we will be part of the next crazy outdoor music party ... In these cases it is allowed! But when it comes to movies like "Horrible Bosses," the above answer is not!

Why?

1. that this movie does not fall into the (difficult) apology category "blockbuster"
2. it can not even be described as a comedy
3. that in his team there are also real geniuses, non-booters, and mediocre additions, and frank misunderstandings in the acting profession

From 1, 2 and 3 follows that the movie falls among the "undefined" - not bad, so frankly you say "Welll, it is not worth it and it is"; but it does not conquer you with anything, and in the end your reaction is - "so what"?

The plot promise in itself is quite attractive. Who did not want to liquidate his boss? Especially if there are cardinal character discrepancies - as happens with Jason Bateman's characters (impressive filmmaking of mostly minor roles), Charlie Day (an actor with television series experience) and Jason Sudeikis (with an active accumulation of roles after 2007). The circumstances surrounding the life of three childhood friends have been staggered so that life - and their future prosperity - depends on the goodwill and understanding of the principality. The corresponding "boss images" are inflated with (supposed) horrifying traits. The psychiatrist will give you a glass of whiskey at 8 in the morning to get you an alcoholic and not get the damn promotion. The janitor will entice your wife to the dentist's chair in his office, he will seduce you and want to f*ck you. The magician will proudly teach that he wants to take money from his newly deceased father's business and will force you to help him. And the good-luck boys will decide first of all a joke, and then - not quite that they have to get rid of their bosses ... finally.

The quick "fly-over" through Colin Farrell's screenplay as a "toady" saves him from overexposure - his hero is already ridiculous, he plays it with his inherent, casual but conscientious attitude - he is typing from all over. Aniston's monster misunderstanding ... - I think the two epitaphs say everything. And I sincerely sympathize with Charlie Day's character. Kevin Spacey's presence ennobles "Horrible Bosses". It is clear that director Seth Gordon and the production team have staked on "pure", "characteristic" images built on the specific scenarios - Spacey fits perfectly into the manipulative, manic and power-loving, obsessing psychic he has to play. Makes him a true professional, the audience feels his incredible potential, but it all happens somehow - because he's committed because maybe he's a boss, and because it's good to show up on a screen occasionally (Spacey's dedication to the theater scene). This unique, charismatic actor is just fucked up in the movie, because "Horrible Bosses" does not deserve it, and perhaps because he takes part in it by the way ...

The three mighty heroes are probably "ok" as characters from the viewpoint of the ordinary Popcorn viewer in the United States. But I did not have to look at such attempts for comedщ. I do not deny - I also laughed "It's been a couple of times, but it's probably the frankly cartoon-like moments that have been put in the movie to" break our own shortcomings ". Look, that's what happened - the scenes in which Jamie Fox was present were the only ones with a thin, self-critical sense of humor ... I do not know, I can not understand too much about cinema, but why should the time and energy of the otherwise talented (with one or two exceptions) actors be consumed? Writers may be able to write television series sketches - yes, most of the time my movie looked like a sitcom shot in the movie industry.

image source - 1, 2