Quantcast Jeff Derrickson | Vagary.TV

About Author: Jeff Derrickson

Website
http://vagary.tv
Description
Jeff Derrickson is a member of the Perfectly Sane Show and co-host of Movie Dudes. He studied English and mass media at Northeastern Illinois University.

Posts by Jeff Derrickson

0

XBLA Review: Puddle

By
Jeff Derrickson
– January 30, 2012Posted in: Reviews, Xbox 360

Puddle could be titled after the tears you’ll shed playing it. It’s a clever physics based platformer in which you must guide various liquids from point A to B through increasingly devious levels. The game goes from challenging to frustratingly difficult within its first set of stages and never looks back. Most gamers will move onto something less painful before they beat the game, which is too bad because the concept is interesting and the fundamental gameplay is enjoyable. It had the potential to be better.

Ironically, Puddle has the simplest of control schemes. With the left and right trigger, you tilt the level and move the liquid. Those are the only two buttons you’ll ever use. The difficulty comes from punishing trial and error level design and the fact that you don’t have direct control over the liquid. If you tilt the level too much and the liquid goes off a ramp with too much momentum, it will fly into a conveniently placed patch of fire or something that will destroy the liquid. If you don’t tilt the level enough, most of the liquid won’t make it off the ramp. You have to get each step along the way just right in order to reach the exit. This involves lots of learning and memorization, as well as a bit of luck.

The goal is to reach the exit in the shortest time possible with the most amount of liquid still left over. Liquid is lost along the way due to hazards in the environment and the liquid getting split up and some getting left behind. A meter shows the minimum amount of liquid required to beat the level. Dip below that line and you have to start over from the beginning of the level. There are no checkpoints. At the end of the level, you receive a copper, silver, or gold medal based on speed and remaining liquid.

There is no story, nor does the game need one, but there should be some coherence and sense of what’s going on. The levels are tangentially linked by simple cutscenes and a general scientific theme, but none of it makes much sense. For instance, at the end of a set of stages titled Laboratory, you mix together a liquid and there is a brief cutscene that shows a silhouette of a human drinking it. The next set of stages takes place in the human body. The lack of a story is fine, but the game often forgets to relate essential information, such as what type of liquid you’re dealing with; I didn’t know I was working with nitroglycerine in the Laboratory levels until I was told in one of the all-too-frequent loading screens that nitroglycerine makes a sound when it’s about to explode. For that matter, does nitroglycerine make a sound as it’s about to explode? And why do Venus fly traps present a danger to lava???

But these odd quirks are forgivable. Again, Puddle’s biggest sin is extreme difficulty that is amplified by inexcusable technical shortcomings and design choices. The game knows it’s hard. If you fail a level, you’re given the option to “whine and skip” it. Unfortunately, you’re only allowed to skip a level twice throughout the entire game. To earn the privilege of skipping another level, you must first go back and beat one of the levels you previously skipped. A few more skips and checkpoints and perhaps the option to tackle levels out of order would have gone a long way toward making Puddle more approachable and less frustrating.

Worse, every time you fail a level, you’re forced to sit through a loading screen. Although these loading screens are brief, you are going to fail and see them a lot. I’m no programmer, but it doesn’t seem like Puddle is so complex a game that levels should have to be reloaded every time you fail. The levels are short enough and failure is so frequent that the loading screens become annoying and disrupt the flow of the game. And if you decide to restart a level before you officially fail, you’re inexplicably kicked out to the main menu and have to restart the game completely – with a loading screen in between, of course.

There are roughly 50 levels spread across eight sets of stages with different liquids and themes and very little to extend longevity. Only the truly bored and masochistic will go back to find hidden levels and earn gold medals and Achievements. Most people will give up long before even reaching the end. There are leaderboards, but no multiplayer or other online features. There is a mode actually titled Laboratory, which allows you to change the wallpaper of the main menu. Nobody will ever use it.

For something that started as a student project and evolved into an XBLA/PSN release, Puddle is impressive, but more frustrating than fun. The fundamental gameplay is a pretty cool idea, but the developers gleefully embraced sadistic level design and neglected to make simple choices that could help alleviate the pain. Puddle could be improved in a sequel with checkpoints, fewer loading screens, and a more gradual difficulty curve. This first effort is hard to recommend, even at $10. Listen to my whining and skip it.

Pros

• Simple control scheme means anyone can play.

• Interesting concept.

Cons

• Extreme difficulty means most people won’t want to play.

• Constant, inexcusable loading screens.

2/5

7

Review: Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword

By
Jeff Derrickson
– December 13, 2011Posted in: Nintendo Wii, Reviews

After five years, at the end of the system’s life cycle, a Zelda game developed for the Wii has finally arrived.  No matter the result, Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword had an uphill battle to prove it was worth the wait.  Anything short of greatness was bound to disappoint.  I had lots of fun in my 50-hour playtime, but I never felt like I was playing the next big thing or something truly special, which is a rarity for a Zelda title.  There are flashes of greatness in Skyward Sword, but they are weighed down by vast stretches of dull, formulaic design and repetition.  Charles Dickens said it best: “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.”

The story is typical Zelda fare.  This time, legend tells of a world where bad guys emerged from the earth and took over the land.  People took refuge in the clouds, and that’s where we find Link, a teenager living in the town of Skyloft, studying at the Knight Academy.  After a long introduction that features high school drama, a bully subplot, and a bird race, Link takes his classmate and lifelong friend, Zelda, for a ride on a giant bird.  Just as he is about to get some action, a tornado sweeps her away.  Once again, Link must save Zelda and the world.

The story is simple, but it has more charm than ever, and the characters have even more expression in their faces than the purely cel-shaded Wind Waker.  The relationship between Link and Zelda is also deeper and filled with more history and romance than at any point in the series’ history, and it lends meaning and urgency to the adventure.  That said, it takes too long to get going, and it adds to one of the largest problems with the game, which is a ridiculous amount of dull, filler content.  And while the ending is certainly beautiful, it doesn’t have the payoff fans have always wanted, which is odd, because the beginning sets up the payoff that doesn’t happen.

As the franchise ages, it finds itself in an awkward, mid-life crisis transitional phase, struggling to maintain relevance without losing its identity.  Change too much, and it’s not Zelda; stick too closely to the formula, and it doesn’t feel special, despite the wait or general  quality of the final product.  Skyward Sword features lots of tweaks to the formula, but it still adheres a bit too much to the path paved by modern Zelda titles, particularly Wind Waker and Twilight Princess.  There are strokes of brilliance, but they fight against repetition, outdated hardware, deliberate pacing, instances of lazy design, and the series’ biggest innovation, a new control input.

Skyward Sword is designed exclusively for MotionPlus, the enhanced motion control technology for the Wii.  It generally works, but it’s not how I’d prefer to play, and it doesn’t prove its necessity.  Both combat and puzzles are built around the advanced motion controls, and while they inspire innovation, especially in combat, all of it could have been accomplished with a standard, dual-analog controller.  Boss keys are now puzzle pieces that have to be rotated into place, and while there is a certain novelty and immersion to rotating your Wii remote to do that, it could just as easily be done with an analog stick.

Same goes for the combat.  Sword combat requires slashing in specific directions, which adds a layer of complexity to a series that has mostly relied on pressing an attack button to tackle enemies, but this added depth could have also been achieved by mapping sword combat to a right analog stick.  Motion controls are integral to the design, but they never prove there isn’t a way of working around them with a more traditional controller.  There should have been an option to play with the classic controller for those of us who would prefer it that way.

Worse, the motion controls aren’t 100 percent accurate, and they don’t provide the fidelity of standard controller inputs.  MotionPlus has a tendency to get wonky and lose your positioning.  It’s nice to free yourself from pointing at the sensor bar, but that comes at a price.  You can hit down on the directional pad to re-center the pointer, which works for situations where you have to aim, but that doesn’t help you when you’re in the heat of battle, and the Wii remote misreads a vertical slice as horizontal.  The game is generally more difficult than most previous modern Zeldas, and there are moments in battle where it tries to prove the necessity of MotionPlus.  You might get frustrated, like I did, and waggle your way through these battles, which negates the supposed precision required to endure them.

And certain motion control choices never feel right or natural.  Shaking the Wii remote and nunchuck to perform a spin move eventually becomes second nature.  It’s quicker but less comfortable than simply holding down the attack button and letting go.  Performing a roll, which has always been a big part of modern Zeldas, now feels extremely awkward and unintuitive.  You have to hold down the sprint button and shake the nunchuck to roll, and it never feels right, to the point where I avoided performing the maneuver.  Bottom line: the motion controls work, and they inspired some interesting choices, but they’re not perfect and certainly not necessary.  The same exact game could have been released, relying exclusively on a standard controller, losing nothing in the process, and gaining fidelity and familiarity.

But despite my nitpicks and preference for a standard controller, motion controls never make or break the experience. You’ll get used to them, and they’ll fade into the background, allowing you to focus on the core game, where the biggest disappointment lies.  It’s ironic that a game supposedly reliant on innovative motion controls would often feel like it’s just going through the motions.

A lot of the Skyward Sword’s problems could be summed up by a quest that occurs late in the game.  You see, before you can enter the final temple, you’re forced to find three dragons who can teach you three parts of a song that open the temple.  One of the dragons wants you to prove your worthiness, so you must swim around an area you’ve explored many times already and collect musical notes.  Swimming around and searching for these notes is painfully tedious and feels like it was added just to extend the length of the game.  Something more compelling could have taken its place, such as another temple.  Or anything.  Too often it feels like Link is in a fetch quest inside of a fetch quest inside of a fetch quest.  You’re forced to wade through oceans of boring content to get to the fun stuff.

Half of the game is too slow and padded with too much filler. There are roughly four hours of story and tutorial before you’ll reach the first temple.  Remember Twilight Princess?  I loved it but never replayed it due to the dragged out beginning, and Skyward Sword has even longer start.  Unfortunately, it’s not even confined to the early moments.  I clocked almost seven hours of filler fetch quests between the third and fourth temple, and probably just as much time between the sixth and final temple.

Zelda feels like it has fallen into a creative rut, in which you must fetch a certain number of items before you can enter a temple.  In Skyward Sword, you do this with different “dowsing abilities,” in which you hold out your sword (Wii remote) in first person perspective and look around, essentially using it as a metal detector.  Collect the items, collect more items, and then go get some tears (similar to Twilight Princess) and finally you can enter the temple.

The tear fetch quests are more exciting than in Twilight Princess, because if an enemy so much as touches you, the tear collection is lost and you have to start over, so there is a constant sense of urgency to the Spirit Realm sections.  I appreciate earning the right to enter temples, but the journey could feature more interesting ways of doing so. There are a few moments later in the game where pointing your sword to find random pieces of junk gives way to more compelling fetch quests, such as sailing to find sea charts (in a segment that feels crafted for Wind Waker fans) and switching between the past and the present, altering entire areas and stretching mind-bending puzzles between time.

The dull, formulaic nature of the fetch quests is amplified by repetition.  There are only three main areas—forest, desert, and mountain—which are visited over and over.  To be fair, these areas sometimes change when you revisit them, but you’re still doing mundane tasks such as swimming for musical notes or escorting a robot carrying a basin of water all the way up a mountain you’ve already traversed before.  You’re also forced to fight the main villain in the game three times, which sucks because the battles with him rely on motion controls, and they are easily the worst boss fights in the game.  The other boss fights are epic and lots of fun, which makes fighting the main villain three times worse, because it feels like he’s taking away from potentially cooler battles.

All of this repetition and fetch questing is spread across a streamlined, barren overworld.  Floating in the sky above the main areas is a town and a bunch of rocks with nothing interesting on them.  Imagine Wind Waker shrunken down to a fraction of its size with absolutely nothing in it, and you’re on the right track.  If you long for the dense, populated world of Majora’s Mask, or the giant map of Link to the Past, play those games, because Skyward Sword lacks any of those things.  There are side quests (most of which I didn’t play), including a very clever, funny one about a girl and a monster early on, but they mostly seem to originate in the main town of Skyloft.  There are treasure chests scattered about the rocks in the sky, but they remain locked until you strike Goddess Cubes hidden throughout the main areas.  The best thing that can be said of Skyward Sword’s overworld is at least it doesn’t take long to travel between the main areas.

And yet, sprinkled within all these disappointments, there are reminders of why we love Zelda, including some of the best temples in the series.  Ancient Cistern is easily my favorite water temple.  Sandship, which takes place on an ancient pirate ship, is about as far as the series has ever strayed from a traditional temple while still retaining the basic elements of a Zelda temple.  Sandship’s boss battle isn’t confined to a single room but instead unfolds across the entire level as you rush to escape the sinking ship.  It’s reminiscent of the opening boss fight in God of War II.  And I won’t spoil the final temple, but it’s massive, filled with head-scratching moments, and utterly unique and ingenious.  Each of these temples stretches the idea of what a Zelda dungeon can be to its creative limits without abandoning the basic temple structure entirely.

The level design truly soars to new heights within these three amazing temples, and it’s aided by deviously clever, fresh new puzzles and items along the way.  You will rarely push a block and never light a torch.  There are also a couple new items, my favorite being a flying beetle that allows you to scout areas, hit far away switches, pick up items, and drop bombs.  The best part about the items in general—and this is one of the best things about the game—is that they aren’t used in one temple or area and then discarded.  You have to consistently keep all of them in mind and ponder which one to use in each new room.  If anything from Skyward Sword sticks and becomes a franchise staple, I hope it’s this design choice that always keeps all items relevant.

It’s odd that a new yet unnecessary control input forced Nintendo to look at Zelda items and puzzles in a fresh light, but the result proves Zelda doesn’t have to be in a creative rut.  The well isn’t dry, and Zelda hasn’t painted itself into a corner; if anything, as much as Skyward Sword often sticks to a well-tread formula, it also promises that the future is bright and potentially full of surprises and tricks up its sleeve.

Minor tweaks, such as a stamina meter and light RPG elements, are less compelling but also welcomed.  If you hold down the ‘A’ button, Link runs, and the stamina meter quickly depletes.  Allow it to drain completely, and Link is slow and useless until it refills.  Running is great for quick escapes during battle, and the stamina meter adds a platforming element to running up hills or through quicksand.  There is also a shop in Skyloft where you can upgrade shields and items if you find the right hidden collectibles scattered throughout the game.  Even smaller, nearly inconsequential changes include shields breaking over time and compasses being consolidated into dungeon maps.  I’d like to see the stamina bar return, and if the series wants to stay fresh and exciting, I’d love to see it fully embrace its RPG side with a deeper leveling and upgrade system.  That would result in the series maturing and spreading its wings on a fundamental level more than motion controls ever could.

Of course, it goes without saying that the visuals and music are outstanding.  The art style falls somewhere between the cartoony look of Wind Waker and somewhat more realistic style of Twilight Princess and most other 3D Zeldas.  I’d actually prefer if it looked more like Wind Waker than a washed out, impressionistic pastel compromise.  The music is as beautiful as ever, if not always as memorable.  And would it surprise you at all if I told you there still isn’t voice acting?  Of course not.  You knew that going in.

Because for all the bold, daring, ingenious changes and improvements and superior level design, the bulk of Skyward Sword is dull, deliberate, and frankly, boring.  Too much of it is comprised of filler content and safe choices.  I had more fun with nearly every previous Zelda, especially entries such as A Link to the Past, Majora’s Mask, and Wind Waker.  And like nearly every Zelda game, it has been praised by critics and fans as the second coming.  That kind of fanboyism encourages Nintendo to avoid taking big risks and truly shaking up the franchise.  If anything Zelda is praised without question, Skyward Sword is the best we’ll ever get going forward.

But who am I kidding?  Nintendo doesn’t listen.  The company marches to the beat of its own drummer.  Always has and probably always will.  This independent, pioneering spirit birthed the Gameboy, Super Nintendo, and the Nintendo 64, as well as my favorite, most underrated console, the Gamecube.  It also brought us the Super Scope and Virtual Boy.  It provided Nintendo’s greatest paradoxical success in the Wii, a system that broke sales records and kept the company alive but also ended up being the company’s worst system from a software, longevity, and fan support standpoint.  Nintendo seems to operate in a vacuum that simultaneously inspires bold creativity, bad choices, and adherence to the past.  In that sense, Skyward Sword is a fitting epitaph for the Wii, but hopefully not for Nintendo.

 

PROS:

+ Three amazing temples

+ More difficult than most Zelda games

+ Fresh puzzles and items

+ Utilizes all items consistently throughout

+ Stamina bar and RPG elements

+ Story is deeper and more cinematic than most Zelda games

 

CONS:

- Filler, fetch quests, and repetitive design (including lack of boss variety)

- Bland, barren, streamlined overworld

- No standard controller option

 

RATING: 3 out 5 stars

0

Film Review: “The Thing”

By
Jeff Derrickson
– October 24, 2011Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

Nearly everything you need to know about “The Thing” is right there in the title.  The film is technically a prequel that leads directly up to the events in John Carpenter’s 1982 version of “The Thing,” but it feels more like a mediocre, creatively bankrupt remake.  They couldn’t even think of a new title.  And like the creature of the title, it poorly imitates its source material before falling apart into an ugly mess.

In this premake, we get to find out what happened to the other group of scientists who originally discovered the alien in John Carpenter’s “The Thing.”  After a group of Norwegian scientists finds both the alien and its spaceship buried in Antartica, Dr. Sander Halvorson (Ulrich Thomsen) recruits paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) all the way from America to provide her expertise.  The only help she provides before trouble starts is telling them it should take about half a day to cut the alien out of the ice, something they could have figured out by, I don’t know, cutting the alien out of the ice.  And that’s just the first in a long series of plot holes, half baked ideas, and other stuff that doesn’t make much sense.

For instance, at one point the thing gets on a helicopter ride back to civilization but for some reason decides to expose itself while the helicopter is still taking off.  If it’s smart enough to pilot a spaceship, why would it do that?  Come to think of it, since the spaceship is (spoilers!) still functional, why doesn’t it just try to escape Earth as soon as it thaws?  In another scene ripped from John Carpenter’s superior film, they attempt to do a blood test, but the thing burns down the lab.  So in this version they replace the blood test with Kate pointing a flashlight into other scientists’ mouths looking for fillings, because the thing can’t imitate inorganic matter.  Not only is the test flawed enough that the movie points it out, but the newly introduced theory makes me wonder how its imitations wear the victims’ clothes.  Part of the problem is that the thing’s intelligence and abilities are poorly defined in both films.

Then again, John Carpenter’s “The Thing” isn’t revered for brilliant plotting.  The film is about paranoia and amazing gross-out effects, and it’s here where fans will be most disappointed.  The tension created by characters who can’t trust each other because any of them could be the thing is equaled in this premake, but an opportunity to up the ante is missed, especially considering there is a language barrier between them.  The film could have capitalized on half of the scientists speaking Norwegian and the other half speaking English; instead, we’re left with a dimwitted scene where Kate searches for fillings in her peers’ teeth.  And, of course, the biggest sin is committed in the effects department.

Most people I know prefer practical special effects over the CGI of today.  The combined artistry of makeup, puppets, and buckets of blood tends to be more convincing and textured than the most advanced effects computers can currently produce, despite Hollywood’s insistence on the latter.  Nowhere is the reliance on CGI more offensive than in “The Thing,” even though it feels like director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. wanted to honor the classic.  There are practical effects, but they are nowhere near as abundant as the serviceable CGI.  This should come as no surprise considering current trends in film, but it’s more egregious here because John Carpenter’s “The Thing” is remembered for its amazing special effects.  Bottom line, there is no excuse for the effects in this version of “The Thing” to look worse than its inspiration, which is nearly 30 years old.

So what’s the point?  The film is watchable, but so are most films, and that doesn’t mean they’re worth watching.  Since so much of the film is an inferior retread of the 1982 classic masquerading as a prequel, you’re better off watching John Carpenter’s version.  With a creature as flexible as the thing, there was an opportunity to go wild with the franchise, but the film lacks any new ideas and instead sticks too closely to the original while simultaneously discarding what made it great.  Again, what’s the point?

 

2 out of 5 stars

3

El Jeffe’s Lounge: Back to Blockbuster

By
Jeff Derrickson
– October 15, 2011Posted in: Blogs

Netflix is free to do whatever it wants, but when the company announced a 60% price increase starting last month, it left a sour taste in my mouth.  At the time, I had just dropped down to the one DVD at a time plus streaming plan in order to save money.  My $10 subscription jumped back up to $16, and I was getting less out of the service.  Netflix offered nothing in return.  I hoped for a promise of earlier DVD releases and streaming content, but instead Netflix assumed it had my money because it was the only player in the game.  Long story short: Netflix was partially correct.  It still gets my money every month, but not as much as before, because Netflix isn’t the only player in the game, just the biggest.  And biggest isn’t always best.

Long before I was a Netflix subscriber, I was a regular Blockbuster customer.  Heading to the video store and renting some movies was a big part of my youth and often a highlight of my day.  New release Tuesday was my church Sunday.  And it wasn’t just Blockbuster; I used to have better options, but Blockbuster slowly wiped out the independent stores.  Prices rose, but I stuck with Blockbuster because I didn’t have any other options.  Even at nearly $5 a rental, it was still cheaper than buying a movie.

Then Netflix arrived, and it offered a better, cheaper, more convenient DVD rental service.  For $5 a month, I could rent one DVD at a time (as many as I’d like!), and it mailed the discs directly to my house.  Netflix kept getting better and better, eventually adding streaming service, so I could now watch thousands of movies any time by streaming through my consoles.  You know the story.  Blockbuster did nothing to respond.  It continued to charge the same prices and act as if Netflix (and other options) didn’t exist, or at the very least, that it wasn’t a competitor, until it was too late.  You should see a pattern forming here.

There is an amusing story my regional director, a former Blockbuster manager, likes to tell, and I’m not sure if it’s true, but I tend to believe it.  He claims this little startup company came to Blockbuster with this crazy idea: rental kiosks.  These guys wanted to sell Blockbuster the idea, or partner with them in some way.  Blockbuster laughed in their faces.  They became Redbox and helped to bring down Blockbuster.  At its height, Blockbuster had more than 1,700 stores and 60,000 employees.  In 2010, Blockbuster filed for bankruptcy.  The company is now owned by Dish Network, and a remaining 600 stores are on life support.

Most of the Blockbusters by me closed down this spring, but a few remain.  In the midst of the Netflix price hike, I received some junk mail.  Normally, I just toss the ads in the trash, but one stuck out somehow.  It was a small ad from Blockbuster with the slogan: “Netflix is raising prices by 60%.  Goodbye Netflix, Hello Blockbuster.”  Something like that.  It contained a promo code for a free month Blockbuster Total Access.  I figured I’d try it out.  The basic plan was only $10 a month, which is exactly what I was now paying for the DVD portion of Netflix.  I signed up for the free month and went straight to Twitter to ask questions about how it worked.  Many of my friends had been telling me about Blockbuster Total Access for awhile, but I hadn’t listened, mostly because they hadn’t been emphatic enough.  You have to hit me over the head to get me to change my ways.

My free month ends on Oct. 16, but I’m going to stick with Blockbuster Total Access for $10 a month.  I’ve dropped my Netflix DVD subscription completely, but I’ve kept Netflix streaming for $8 a month.  When you add it up, I’m paying $2 more per month for my combined Blockbuster Total Access and Netflix streaming package, but I’m getting more out of it, specifically on the DVD end.  If DVDs are all you use Netflix for, switching to Blockbuster Total Access is a no brainer.  Blockbuster gets many new releases almost a full month before Netflix, and you can do this magical thing called in-store exchanges, something Netflix can’t offer.  Yet.

When I finish watching a DVD I receive in the mail, I bring it back to a physical brick and mortar Blockbuster store, and exchange it for any other movie, new release or classic, DVD or Blu-ray.  (Blu-rays plans still cost more with Netflix.)  I can even rent video games if I want.  When I’m done with that rental, I bring it back to Blockbuster, and it sends me the next movie in my queue through the mail.  It’s essentially like having two DVDs at a time (with the option of Blu-ray) for only $10.  The only hassle is having to bring the in-store exchange back to the store instead of drunkenly stumbling to my closest mailbox at 4 a.m.  Well, there’s that, and being hassled by Blockbuster employees to sign up for a more expensive in-store plan.  If retailers had any idea how badly they’ve driven smart consumers to the Internet, they might rethink how they conduct business.  With so many options out there, many of them more convenient than a brick and mortar, the focus should be almost solely squared on providing exceptional customer service, not pushing loyalty plans down customers’ throats.  But I digress.

It would be easy to accuse Netflix of suffering from the same big kid on the block syndrome that brought Blockbuster to its knees, but that’s only part of the problem.  Blockbuster did whatever it wanted and failed to adapt to a changing world until it was too late.  Netflix is doing whatever it wants, but it’s almost too forward thinking with recent changes.  As recently as last month, CEO Reed Hastings announced via Netflix’ blog, that it would become streaming only and separate its DVD rental service into an independent subsidiary named Qwikster.  I’m sure the thinking was that streaming is the future, so let’s cut off the malignant half of the business and let it die.  Netflix was trying to adapt to the future before it arrived; it was trying to see where the puck was going.

Netflix didn’t anticipate the backlash.  Like me, others abandoned Netflix in droves, and the stock dropped by multiple percentage points day after day.  You know what’s better than having to log into two separate sites for DVD and streaming services?  That’s right, having them combined into one site like it was before.  This month, Netflix announced that it was scrapping its Qwikster plan.  Netflix listened, and that’s even more important than adapting or staying ahead of the curve.

However, Netflix still has its DVD and streaming options separated into two separate packages for an overall price hike.  The Qwikster plans of adding video game rentals have not been addressed.  All around, the company looks like it’s scrambling to recover from a harsh blow to the ego, and I think that’s a good thing.  If you think you’re infallible for too long, you start to do stupid things.  If you’re desperate, you try to win people back, like Blockbuster is doing.  Hopefully, you learn from your mistakes.

For now, I’m sticking with Blockbuster Total Access for DVDs.  I never realized how much I missed going to the video store.  Sometimes, it’s good to get out of the house, if only for a brief moment, before I go back home and watch movies.

1

Film Review: “Drive”

By
Jeff Derrickson
– October 2, 2011Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

“Drive” has been marketed as a gritty action flick, and more specifically a car chase film, and because of that it is bound to disappoint people expecting dumb fun akin to a “Fast and the Furious” movie.  The trailers misleadingly emphasize the action elements of what is essentially an art house crime thriller that slowly builds toward shocking violence.

Ryan Gosling stars as the nameless Driver, a Hollywood stunt driver who moonlights as a heist wheelman.  Throughout, he remains a mysterious loner who doesn’t say much.  We’re given just enough to suspect that he could be mentally unstable and capable of violence.  After he moves into a new apartment, he begins to form an unhealthy relationship with a neighbor down the hall, Irene (Carey Mulligan), and her son, Benicio (Kaden Leos).  He latches onto them to give his life meaning and makes their problems his own.  Both the plot and main character feel heavily inspired by “Taxi Driver,” with the exception that Driver has skills that propel him toward his fate, instead of mere loneliness and creeping madness.

Much of the first half of the film focuses on a budding-but-doomed romance between Driver and Irene, and it is this section in particular that will turn off hardcore action fans.  Even fans of love stories might start checking their watches.  Their romance isn’t developed with cute humor or dialogue, but desperate sideways glances and gestures of kindness, and it doesn’t safely and predictably build toward the guy getting the girl.  Instead, when Irene’s husband, Standard (Oscar Isaac), is freed from prison, Driver decides to protect the family by helping him do one more job to get him out of the game.

It is at this point that things begin to fall apart in thrilling fashion.  There is a car chase or two (three in total in the film, one at the opening), and people start to drop like flies.  If you’re not on the edge of your seat in the second half of “Drive,” you either don’t have a pulse or fell asleep in the first half, in which case you don’t deserve the stylish, character driven thrills the film offers.  The audience I saw it with was surely prepared for the chases, but they seemed caught off guard by the sudden, shocking, gory violence, which uses practical effects and along with the film as a whole acts as homage to the 80s.  Fans of 80s horror will be pleased to know that “Drive” features the best (only?) exploding head of the year.  The gore came as a surprise to me, too, but I gratefully embraced it.

When the gory action begins, for me it wasn’t payoff for sitting through a boring, deliberately paced romance.  It was an immensely satisfying part of a great whole.  There are long sequences devoted to Driver and Irene merely looking at each, Driver smiling at Benicio, and Driver taking them for a ride, and I was engrossed throughout.  Even when little was happening, my eyes were glued to the screen thanks to the artistry and craftsmanship on display.

Director Nicholas Winding Refn breathes confident style into a sparse script, and he is aided by a stellar cast.  Not only does Gosling nail his role as a dangerous, mysterious loner, but he is supported by an incredible roster of players.  Bryan Cranston plays his boss and manager, and he doesn’t get to show off all of his chops like he does on “Breaking Bad,” but he creates a pathetic character who always seems to get himself in trouble, despite his good heart.  Christina Hendricks from “Mad Men” has a brief but memorable role.  Ron Perlman and, in particular, Albert Brooks stand out as vicious small-time organized crime bosses.  Brooks shows off a dark side I never knew he had, and I felt uncomfortable every time he was on screen.

The soundtrack deserves special mention, because it contributes greatly to the film and its 80s vibe.  Like the film, the songs aren’t from the 80s, but they feel inspired by the decade, and they’re incredibly fun and catchy.  Give “A Real Hero” by College featuring Electric Youth or “Nightcall” by Kavinsky, which plays over the opening credits, a listen and see if they don’t stick in your head and evoke a specific mood.  It’s the second time this fall, after “Contagion,” that I’ve fallen in love with a score or soundtrack due to its provocation of 80s nostalgia.

“Drive’ is a film destined to split audiences, a feat I’m convinced means it’s required viewing.  Fans of film as an art form instead of mere entertainment will probably get more mileage out of it.  There is so much to admire, even if you don’t love it as much as I did.  Reactions wildly varied at my screening.  Someone loudly booed at the screen as the credits rolled.  I heard another viewer complain to a theater employee that it was too slow and not as advertised.  On the way to the parking lot, I heard a middle aged man tell his wife that he loved the film, and it kept him on the edge of his seat throughout.  I’m in his camp.  It’s one of my favorite films of the year, and even if it doesn’t eventually make your top ten list, you have to see it.

5 out of 5 stars

“Drive” will be reviewed on the next episode of Movie Dudes. 

2

Film Review: “Super”

By
Jeff Derrickson
– August 21, 2011Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

Anything is possible, but it would be a quite a feat for a film to be successfully funny, dramatic, and idiotic.  Sure, you can do dramedy or goofball humor, but even that is quite a challenge in itself.  Combining all three seems like a recipe that invites disaster.  “Super” tries, and it fails.  It’s just stupid.

Written and directed by James Gunn (“Slither”), “Super” tells the story of Frank D’Arbo (Rainn Wilson), a short order cook who decides to become a superhero after his wife (Liv Tyler) leaves him for a drug dealer (Kevin Bacon).  Whereas most people would get over losing a junkie whore wife and conclude she was a waste of time to begin with, Frank is so lonely, pathetic, and delusional that he believes she has been kidnapped and must be saved.  He also prays regularly and has visions he believes are God speaking to him, so he becomes convinced he must fight evil.  So he makes a red superhero costume, names his alter ego The Crimson Bolt, and goes around looking for crime with a pipe wrench as his weapon.  Unfortunately, Frank is an idiot who can’t differentiate between evil and minor annoyances, so at one point he bashes a guy’s head in for cutting in line at a theater.  Funny stuff, right?     

 

Not only does it ask you to find something funny about a dangerously idiotic religious nut, but it also wants you to find him sympathetic and heroic.  It’s a fundamental flaw at the core of the film.  It wants you to laugh at its main character and then in the next breath feel sorry for him and cheer him on.  Sometimes, it happens in the same exact moment.  Frank gives a speech near the end about crime that the film knows is stupid, but it simultaneously wants you to find it poignant and moving.  And ultimately, Frank D’Arbo isn’t funny or sympathetic, just dangerous and disturbing.  The religious overtones are impossible to miss, and I found them extremely off-putting.  Worse, I sometimes feared the film believes in them.

For a supposed comedy, the violence is shockingly gory and over the top.  Heads get shot off and bashed in, and people get blown up as well as in any action or horror film.  The violence is actually entertaining and well done; sadly, it’s the best part, and it feels like it belongs in a different film. 

Nobody in the talented cast gives a great performance.  Rainn Wilson comes close in a role perfectly suited for him, but he overacts in his dramatic moments, and does the best he can with the lame humor.  Ellen Page is wasted as a comic book store clerk who catches on to Frank and wants to be his sidekick.  Kevin Bacon hams it up, having a good time as a scumbag drug dealer.  Liv Tyler gives a convincing performance because all she is asked to do is look stoned and nod out.  Overall, the performances are serviceable to disappointing, but in their defense, the actors aren’t given much to work with.

 

Parts of “Super” occasionally (rarely) work individually, but they never even approach coming together.  The film is tonally all over the place, and not in a way that feels clever and irreverent, but in a way that feels flailing and tossing everything against the wall to see what sticks.  The film’s biggest sin is it just isn’t funny, and the serious moments don’t work because they appear randomly out of nowhere, without being earned.  I suppose there are worse films out there; “Super” isn’t entirely unwatchable, but that’s hardly an endorsement.  It’s anything but super.

1 ½ out of 5 stars

1

Why You Should Be Watching “Breaking Bad”

By
Jeff Derrickson
– August 13, 2011Posted in: Blogs, TV Shows

 

“Breaking Bad” is the best drama currently playing out on television.  “The Shield” is (and likely always will be) my favorite show of all time, but “Breaking Bad” has filled the Shield-sized hole in my heart.  It was first recommended to me by a friend, after the first two seasons had already aired.  After watching the pilot, which immediately drew me in, I burned through those seasons, and now I wait with desperate anticipation for each new episode of the show, currently in its fourth season.  In a word, like “The Shield,” “Breaking Bad” can best be described as intense.

 

The basic premise is compelling, but you have no idea how much so when it’s brought to life by sharp writing, acting, and direction.  Walter White (Bryan Cranston) is a high school chemistry who is diagnosed with terminal cancer and decides to cook meth to leave his family money when he dies.  He recruits one of his former students, high school dropout Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul) as a partner, because as he says in the pilot, “I know the chemistry, and you know the business.”  Little does he know the trouble that decision will inspire down the road.

 

It’s a show for those who love nail-biting suspense, but that suspense is made palpable by great characters worth caring about bolstered by award-winning performances.  Walter White’s transformation from mild-mannered high school teacher to calculating criminal sociopath (complete with an alter ego named “Heisenberg”) is devilishly fun.  Cranston sheds whatever image he created on “Malcolm in the Middle” and quickly embodies a total badass, who still wears glasses and khakis and whose old identity still shines through with stiff, dorky mannerisms; he won three Emmys in a row for the role, and deservedly so.  Underrated in comparison but equally as skilled, and perhaps more subtly nuanced, is Paul’s performance as Jesse Pinkman.  He is a young drug addict, but he has a good heart, and he isn’t suited for the line of work they embark on together.  The show never has to tell you this information with an expository speech from Jesse; Paul conveys it with his face and behaviors.  The surrogate father-and-son dynamic between Walt and Jesse forms the heart of the show.  Jesse knows there is no turning back from the choices he makes, and Walt feels guilty and responsible for putting him in that position, all while never losing focus on the business.

 

The supporting cast is equally as strong and often as fun to watch.  The weakest links are probably Walt’s family and Jesse’s friends, who start off as underdeveloped and evolve into background noise or mildly annoying background noise.  Jesse’s friends are caricatures and probably my least favorite part of the show, but they can sometimes provide comic relief or source of tension.  Walt’s wife and physically disabled son are mostly there to provide a reason for his actions, but his wife, Skyler (Anna Gunn), has slowly grown on me, despite her driving most fans nuts.

The best part of the supporting cast is the colorful criminals they run into in the business.  Giancarlo Esposito plays Gus, probably the smoothest criminal to grace any screen, large or small, a kingpin who launders his money through a fast food franchise.  Gus’ muscle, Mike, is played by Jonathan Banks, in a performance so natural I wouldn’t be surprised if he was an ex-convict in real life.  He is absolutely convincing as a stone-cold killer. 

And no discussion of the supporting cast (or the show in general) would be complete without discussing Walt’s sister-in-law, Marie (Betsy Brandt), a nosey kleptomaniac, and her husband Hank (Dean Norris), a D.E.A. agent who will surely catch on to Walt’s criminal enterprise in the end.  They represent an immediate danger constantly lurking in the background.  Hank starts out as a thinly sketched meathead and slowly grows in a fully realized, extremely likable character.  He is so likable that I almost want him to succeed, even if that means taking out (or at least arresting) the show’s main characters.      

 

“Breaking Bad” certainly has its own style, which sets it apart from peers and makes each episode feel like a mini-movie.  Its heavily stylized presentation could be called Southwestern with an emphasis on Western.  The show always features a strong color palette and minimalist music score that imbues the show with a sense of foreboding.  A lingering suspense permeates the entire show, even during the quiet moments, but especially the beginning and end of episodes, each of which rarely end on nothing short of a cliffhanger.  And while the show is positively serious drama in nature, it marinates in a dark sense of humor.  The opening scene of the pilot features Walter running from the cops in his underwear, but that is definitely on the light-hearted end of the spectrum. The show’s perverse sense of humor is established not long after in a scene involving acid, a tub, and a corpse. 

Without spoiling anything too much, creator Vince Gilligan has stated from the beginning that he intends “Breaking Bad” to have a narrative arc similar to “Scarface,” or in other words, most GTA games, where a nobody becomes a criminal and rises through the ranks to kingpin.  In its fourth season, the show is still only approaching the peak of that arc.  I can’t wait for the downfall.  If you haven’t jumped on the roller coaster of a show yet, consider this your ticket to ride.

 

0

Film Review: “Trust”

By
Jeff Derrickson
– August 5, 2011Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

If “Hard Candy” is the peak of the online sexual predator thriller subgenre, “Trust” is its dramatic equivalent.  It imagines how sexual assault might affect a minor (and her family) in the real world, with a real teenage girl who isn’t a vigilante.  By doing so, director David Schwimmer has not only delivered one of the best films of the year, but also one of the most challenging.  It’s honest almost to a fault.

 

Annie (Liana Liberato) is a bright girl who feels ostracized from the exclusive cliques of cool kids in school.  Like many teens (and now adults), an unhealthy portion of her social life is conducted online.  She could be waiting to get picked up from school, and instead of interacting with her peers, she fills moments of loneliness by chatting with virtual strangers on her iPhone.  She meets a boy named Charlie who shares her interest in volleyball, and she fills the voids in her day by talking with him during every idle moment, even at the dinner table.  Despite hints of dishonesty from his end, their bond grows stronger, and when they eventually meet he is not who he says he is.  He is a middle-aged sexual predator who has been grooming her for abuse.  She succumbs to his trap, but the fallout is almost worse than the act itself.  It’s almost a cliché at this point that people are dishonest online in films, but sadly, I believe it also happens frequently in real life.

 

The film is honest, daring, and challenging in the manner it approaches its subject matter.  It will make some viewers extremely uncomfortable, and some would say it almost makes light of the situation to the point where it almost sympathizes with the predator, but I believe it empathizes with the victim.  Annie is obviously emotionally and psychologically damaged from the experience, but she deals with it by wondering what the big deal is, and she insists that he loves and understands her, even though he is twice her age and disappears after the encounter.  After the F.B.I. and her parents find out about the incident, she blames it on them.  She still wants to see him again, and she believes he wants to see her but can’t because of the law.

 

Her parents are played by veteran actors Clive Owen and Catherine Keener, and they are affected by their daughter’s rape almost more so than her.  Keener is devastated and wants to support her daughter in any way possible.  Owen is devastated and wants to find the predator and kill him.  Jason Clarke (“The Chicago Code”) plays the F.B.I. agent trying to crack the case.  Much of the latter half of the film is dedicated to Owen’s response to his daughter’s rape and how it affects his personal and professional life, without losing focus of Annie’s plight.  Owen is particularly suited for the role, because he can play an everyman afflicted with fits of rage as well as anybody.  Keener naturally emanates authenticity, as usual.  Liberato more than holds her ground as Annie.  All around, the acting is incredible.  The film verges on melodrama at points, but it’s a melodramatic situation, and the actors deliver without going over the top, as does the film in general.

 

Besides the performances and handling of subject matter, the film’s other greatest strength is how well it understands the Internet.  Text conversations play out on screen while Annie is doing other things, such as eating dinner, complete with shorthand Internet speak.  Schwimmer took great care in presenting how people communicate online, and as result, the film comes off as an accurate snapshot of this generation.  Like “Catfish,” it has more to say about the Internet than “The Social Network,” but unlike many films that understand the Internet, it isn’t about the Internet.  It acts as if every film should understand, and it doesn’t show off.  It’s just a part of the story, which is about characters, not technology.

 

Owen’s career also plays an interesting role in the film, as he works for an advertising agency whose biggest client sexualizes teenagers similarly to Abercrombie and Fitch, and it takes a clever toll on his character.  How can he continue to sell clothes using teenagers and sex when he can’t stop thinking about his daughter being raped?

 

“Trust” isn’t for everybody.  It doesn’t explode into violence but instead ends on a heartbreaking monologue.  It deals with uncomfortable subject matter, and instead of simplifying, it challenges the audience, and it casually, expertly features social commentary on a new social medium.  The performances and subject matter will keep you engaged throughout.  Stick around for the beginning of the credits to find out where the film (and its antagonist) really stands.

 

5 out of 5 stars

0

El Jeffe’s Lounge: Publishers Just Don’t Understand

By
Jeff Derrickson
– August 3, 2011Posted in: Blogs

 

 

Publishers still don’t get it.  On Aug. 2, Warner Bros. announced the release date for Lord of the Rings: War in the North: Nov. 1.  You know, the same day that Uncharted 3 and Sonic Generations release, and the same month that promises huge titles like Assassin’s Creed Revelations, Saints Row The Third, Halo CE Anniversary Edition, Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim, and a little indie game titled Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3.  What the hell was Warner Bros. thinking when they decided to make Nov. 1 the release date?  Come to think of it, why are all those games releasing in the same month for to begin with?

Normally, I like to write thoughtful editorials and reviews and save my ranting for YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook, but I feel these words must be committed to something more substantial. Again.  My very first blog post—ever—argued that publishers should do a better job of spreading out releases of big titles throughout the entire year.  After all, gamers play games all year, and they have grown up, so they don’t have to rely on Santa for all their games.  Plus, it’s just common sense.  I understand that time of year yields the most sales, so everyone wants a piece of that pie, but logic says the more slices of pie, the smaller the slices get.  Maybe a small slice of November pie is still bigger than half of a July pie, but for smaller games, the November pie can ensure certain failure.  You’re better off getting a bigger slice of a smaller pie.  Small games drown in the sea of blockbuster titles like Call of Duty.  It seems so obvious—to everybody—that we shouldn’t have to still be talking about game releases being concentrated in the fall.  But here we are, with Warner Bros. deciding it’s a good idea to sentence War in the North to certain death.

To be fair, publishers have shown some progress on this issue since I first wrote about it in 2008, and since gamers in general have been lamenting the lack of a year-round release schedule since the dawn of the medium.  There is now a healthy amount of big, quality titles released between January and the end of May.  This year, gamers got to enjoy LittleBigPlanet 2, Dead Space 2, Killzone 3, Bulletstorm, Portal 2, L.A. Noire, and more during those months.  Mass Effect has found its niche in this period; Mass Effect 2 released in Jan. 2010, and the third entry in the series will release next March.  Rockstar, in particular, has planted a flag in spring and exploited it to its advantage, releasing titles like Grand Theft Auto IV, Red Dead Redemption, and L.A. Noire to huge success.  All of these titles are Game of the Year contenders in any month of their respective release years, but despite the proven track record of the Grand Theft Auto franchise, Rockstar was smart enough not to pit it against the likes of Call of Duty.  The quality of Rockstar’s games can’t be denied, but their brand of daring, narrative-driven, mature period pieces has slightly more limited appeal than a brainless shooter.  So they release their titles during spring, in which they make a big splash and continue to sell throughout the year.  And their titles are still on shelves in November, and they still get a piece of that pie, long after they’re already certified successes. 

But there is still that dead spot—that drought—that starts in early June and completely dries up in July.  EA’s NCAA Football remains the largest oasis in that desert.  A few small titles fill the drought and—surprise, surprise—find success beyond their publishers’ wildest dreams.  Niche title Catherine released only a week or two ago, and it’s already Atlus’ biggest success ever.  Gamers are thirsty for a game in July, and they’ll take a chance on anything.  Kids are out of school, and trust me, they’re not all playing baseball and swimming and riding their bikes.  They have more free time than ever, and they want to play games.  So they trade in games and buy COD map packs or used copies of big games that released earlier in the year.  And when they buy those used copies of older titles, you know how much of the pie publishers get?  That’s right, nothing.  Summer is still a huge, gaping opportunity for publishers, and they’ve yet to fill that big, hungry hole.

Which brings me back to Lord of the Rings: War in the North.  As far as I know, the release date was never officially announced, but major retailers had it listed for Aug. 23, a much better time frame than November.  It didn’t look too hot, but I was excited for the game, not because I’m a Lord of the Rings fan, but because it’s being developed by Snowblind Studios (Champions of Norrath), and it looked like a fun mix of dungeon crawler and the hack-n-slash LOTR games from last generation.  My love of dungeon crawlers is well-documented, and while it’s not a pure dungeon crawler because it doesn’t have that top-down perspective, it seems to have retained the basics of the genre—loot, leveling, and co-op.  I had it preordered and paid off; I was just counting the days until Aug. 23.  Now, I’m not so sure. 

You see, while I love the genre, there are simply way too many sexier games releasing in November, not to mention October.  I just won’t have the time and money for it, not when I’m investing hundreds of hours and dollars in games like Saints Row and Skyrim.  Yes, I already have it paid off, but I can put that money toward Sonic Generations, and still have some left over to help pay off Skyrim.  Others will do the same, because smart consumers know War in the North will fail hard in November.  It was only going to appeal to a niche audience to begin with, people who like Lord of the Rings and dungeon crawlers, and those people will probably still prefer Skyrim (or something) in November more than either of those enticing factors.  Even if not, they know their money is better spent on the big titles, because War in the North will fail, and it will be selling for $40 or less by the time New Years rolls around.  And hey, at the point, there will be used copies floating around.  At that point, the publishers can suck it, instead of asking me to munch on their pie.       

 

0

Film Review: “Horrible Bosses”

By
Jeff Derrickson
– July 17, 2011Posted in: Movie Reviews, Reviews

 

I’m tempted to call “Horrible Bosses” a dark comedy, but it’s just too silly to be anything but a goofball comedy.  It has a sharp, dark edge, but its main characters are likable idiots, and except for one scene of violence, it tries to make you laugh in nearly every shot.  Even when it reaches the somewhat shocking violence, I think it wants you to laugh at the situation and how the characters arrived there.

 

Directed by Seth Gordon (“The King of Kong”), the film has been called a bit of a mess, but the plot follows a simple premise that serves as catalyst for populist catharsis and a series of gags featuring comedic talents having a blast.  Three friends try to kill their horrible bosses, because they fear quitting and looking for another job during the recession, apparently, more than they fear getting charged with murder.  It’s not believable, but who hasn’t wished a horrible boss would just go away?  Nick Hendricks (Jason Bateman) works a miserable office job, and his boss is a sadistic jerk played by Kevin Spacey.  Kurt Buckman (Jason Sudeikis) has to deal with a cokehead maniac, played by Colin Ferrell, who inherits a chemical plant after his father (Donald Sutherland) dies of a heart attack.  Dale Arbus (Charlie Day) is a dental assistant who has to constantly dodge sexual assaults from his boss, played by Jennifer Aniston, who looks better than ever here.  Needless to say, Arbus gets the least amount of sympathy from his friends, but together they clumsily hatch a plan to kill each other’s bosses, aided by an assumed veteran criminal named Mr. Jones (Jamie Foxx). 

 

While the film mostly feels like an aimless excuse for a series of gags, the plot sort of comes together in a sort of clever way near the end, in the aforementioned violent scene.  The reason to see the film, though, is the comedic chemistry between Day, Bateman, and Sudeikis.  They are all consistently funny in their own individual ways, and their personalities are so mismatched that they make for an awkward, satisfying blend.  Charlie Day (“It’s Always Sunny inPhiladelphia”), in particular, not only goes toe-to-toe with his more experienced co-stars, but he often upstages them.  The supporting cast is just as strong.  It doesn’t hurt that Spacey, Aniston, and Ferrell can all be very funny when they want to, and they get to go wild here.  They all seem to have fun and relish their roles, and that fun is infectious.

 Probably my biggest complaint is out of the three main characters, none of them work a retail job, and that is a missed opportunity.  If you think an office job can be bad, you have no idea.  It’s a sector that could have provided even more laughs, and one with which a majority of the audience could have identified. 

Making a comedy about murder is nearly as tricky as murder itself, but “Horrible Bosses” hits the sweet spot and understands how to approach the material.  If you want to see a great comedy with heart, coherence, and length, see “Bridesmaids,” which is probably still playing in theaters, months after its release.  “Horrible Bosses,” on the other hand, is a breezy 100 minutes in comparison, and it just wants to make you laugh.  It probably has more laughs and cable replay value than “Bridesmaids,” too.  The title cards describing the bosses alone are funnier than the biggest laughs in many comedies, and the subject matter and sloppy nature of the film can’t negate that.  The cast elevates everything and makes the film worth the price of admission.  A great cast can’t save a bad script or director, but it can do magic with the average.

 

4 out of 5

 

“Horrible Bosses” was reviewed on the latest episode of Movie Dudes.

« Older Entries