I like it when every now and again there comes along a little comedy show with a catchy name that is balls-out hilarious or at least edgy in a good way. The Pranker is a small comedy prank show on BBC 3 that has been going for just about 2 months and is presented (and primarily acted in) by a previously not-very-well-known comedian called Ross Lee. Ross is the kind of comedian that I like to call a bloody madman, he performs pranks on people in The Pranker on people that just make you cringe with both embarrassment and laughter. It's good to see a new and hilarious face amongst British comedy what with all the unfunny ones (such as Lee Evans or Russel Brand) and the complete sell-outs (such as Michael Mcintyre or Robert Webb). This is also made all the sweeter by Mr Lee being an excellent actor which definitely goes towards helping him to make his sketches all the funnier.
I wouldn't call Ross Lee a comedian who can make people cringe and laugh so much as say Sasha Baron Cohen but he definitely has great talent and potential in the comedy world. The mix of sketches that Ross does are the usual mix; there are a few running characters such as a man who's a stud for old ladies, a hugely un-pc policeman and a man who breaks things in shops by over-testing them. And of course there are a few singular sketches in each episode that are simply mad as a hat of chickens (such as the sketch in the first episode that's about a satanic hippy).
I can't say much about this show other than it's very funny and the actors in it are very talented and on their ways to becoming great. But then again, you can't say much about a piece of medium (whether it be film, TV, radio or print) that is comedy or mostly comedy otherwise you'd be ruining the experience of it all for everyone else. Despite all that, I definitely suggest you try catching up on and watching this show because it's by far the funniest thing to hit British TV since Peep Show.
Tuesday 30 August 2011
Friday 26 August 2011
apology
hey guys. really sorry about not bringing a review out today but i was just too busy with preparing to go to Belgium. I'll be back on Monday.
Tuesday 23 August 2011
Game Review #5: Battlefield VS Call Of Duty
I thought it might be a good idea to do this for my first review back from my week of summer camp in Norwich mainly because I've always taken quite an interest in the differences and heated competition between these two legendarily popular 1st person shooter series'.
On paper, these two series' look very similar; they both have been going for between 10-15 years, have many of their games set in different eras and also put a lot of emphasis on their multipayer modes. On the whole these two series' are very similar but for the first half of its existence, the Battlefield series kept bringing out games that were getting worse such as Battlefield Vietnam and Battlefield 1942-Road to Rome. This began to change however, when out of nowhere rode a magnificent knight in polished black armour riding a magnificently white stallion...uh, sorry. What I meant to say was 'then out of nowhere came the gaming gem that was/is Battlefield 2142'. Unlike It's predecessors, Battlefield 2142 wasn't bland and samey but interesting and fun as hell. It introduced a new unlock function to the series whereby you could get funky weapons, gadgets and power ups for your different classes (recon, support, engineer and medic) and changed the setting from today or the second world war to a mad global conflict amidst a mostly frozen earth in the year 2142 where the powerful Pan Asian Coalition is on an unstoppable drive to conquer everything. Although it didn't have any good single-player, Battlefield 2142 was an intense and highly enjoyable game.
Whereas the first half of the Battlefield series may not have been so great, the first half of the Call Of Duty series was pretty alright. I say that it was only all right because as a whole the first half of the COD series was pretty samey, it was however full of fun titles (all set in WW2) where you were able to fight through various different famous campaigns in widely varying environments (such as a snowy airfield or a town in the middle off the sahara). After several years and quite a few titles, the people behind COD decided to take the series to a whole new level and transform the setting from WW2 to the modern day in the appropriately named Modern Warfare. This gave the series a new edge as the mad, runny-jumpy-stabby gameplay was combined with cool looking modern guns allowing the player to fight groups of enemies with a greater variety of weapons than any other before it in the series. The huge boost in the popularity of the series has lasted since then but has been marred by the utterly dreadful Call Of Duty-Black Ops.
Okay now that we've discussed the history of Battlefield and Call Of Duty a little bit, lets get into what's good and bad about their games. On the whole I personally prefer the Battlefield series mainly because with every new instalment they seem to look at what they did well or bad in the last game then bring in a new development that negates that problem. I do like the COD series as well though, in each campaign you fight alongside engaging characters and are able to perform some awesome tricks with a large variety of weapons. The most striking difference, I think, between the two series' is that whilst Battlefield games usually have better multiplayer and weak singleplayer, with the COD games it is the other way around. I can't think of a way to explain why this usually comes to be through the actions of the people who make the games but I can explain somewhat through the games themselves.
The biggest reason why this is so is because whereas the layout and the including of many types of vehicles to drive in the Battlefield games emphasize that the series as a whole is aimed at a more varied sort of audience. The only way to go into battle in a COD game is to go in on foot by yourself with just your own weapons, this in itself contributes to the online mode of COD games being always repetitive and boring which is helped hardly at all by the lack of variety in the online maps for the COD games. I always think that a game should have not only a well balanced and enjoyable multiplayer but also a truly excellent singleplayer that you can use to just have fun on your own or practise certain tactics. Now despite the fact that most Battlefield games have poor singleplayer (bar Battlefield Bad Company 1) the multiplayer is so varied what with the staggering number of maps in each game, countless ways to approach an objective (be it by land, sea or even air) and balanced game types. As I already pointed out, the multiplayer in COD games is not so good due to a lack of considerable, overall variety. I could overlook this due to the campaigns always being filled with great characters and fun missions but the gameplay style of Call Of Duty is getting old fast and this was very glaring indeed in Black Ops.
I suppose, at the end of the day the reason why I seem to enjoy Battlefield games more is due to the fact that in both singleplayer and multiplayer you are forced to work with your allies as a group or you get your arse handed to you on a plate with coleslaw and chips. This gives the series a real sense of authenticity, sort of like as if you're in a real combat situation, therefore you get a much more intense and enjoyable experience. In the Call Of Duty games, working as a team gets boring after a while and although it does work you eventually just have to go out yourself. This showed me how samey the combat in COD games can get where 10 men can get easily done in by 1 man with a revolver.
So if you want my advice go for the Battlefield series for a fix of 1st person shooting. Because despite COD having good singleplayer and going well with chips and ketchup, you just can't beat the Battlefield experience of having made it through a blazing war-zone because you had your friends watching your back
On paper, these two series' look very similar; they both have been going for between 10-15 years, have many of their games set in different eras and also put a lot of emphasis on their multipayer modes. On the whole these two series' are very similar but for the first half of its existence, the Battlefield series kept bringing out games that were getting worse such as Battlefield Vietnam and Battlefield 1942-Road to Rome. This began to change however, when out of nowhere rode a magnificent knight in polished black armour riding a magnificently white stallion...uh, sorry. What I meant to say was 'then out of nowhere came the gaming gem that was/is Battlefield 2142'. Unlike It's predecessors, Battlefield 2142 wasn't bland and samey but interesting and fun as hell. It introduced a new unlock function to the series whereby you could get funky weapons, gadgets and power ups for your different classes (recon, support, engineer and medic) and changed the setting from today or the second world war to a mad global conflict amidst a mostly frozen earth in the year 2142 where the powerful Pan Asian Coalition is on an unstoppable drive to conquer everything. Although it didn't have any good single-player, Battlefield 2142 was an intense and highly enjoyable game.
Whereas the first half of the Battlefield series may not have been so great, the first half of the Call Of Duty series was pretty alright. I say that it was only all right because as a whole the first half of the COD series was pretty samey, it was however full of fun titles (all set in WW2) where you were able to fight through various different famous campaigns in widely varying environments (such as a snowy airfield or a town in the middle off the sahara). After several years and quite a few titles, the people behind COD decided to take the series to a whole new level and transform the setting from WW2 to the modern day in the appropriately named Modern Warfare. This gave the series a new edge as the mad, runny-jumpy-stabby gameplay was combined with cool looking modern guns allowing the player to fight groups of enemies with a greater variety of weapons than any other before it in the series. The huge boost in the popularity of the series has lasted since then but has been marred by the utterly dreadful Call Of Duty-Black Ops.
Okay now that we've discussed the history of Battlefield and Call Of Duty a little bit, lets get into what's good and bad about their games. On the whole I personally prefer the Battlefield series mainly because with every new instalment they seem to look at what they did well or bad in the last game then bring in a new development that negates that problem. I do like the COD series as well though, in each campaign you fight alongside engaging characters and are able to perform some awesome tricks with a large variety of weapons. The most striking difference, I think, between the two series' is that whilst Battlefield games usually have better multiplayer and weak singleplayer, with the COD games it is the other way around. I can't think of a way to explain why this usually comes to be through the actions of the people who make the games but I can explain somewhat through the games themselves.
The biggest reason why this is so is because whereas the layout and the including of many types of vehicles to drive in the Battlefield games emphasize that the series as a whole is aimed at a more varied sort of audience. The only way to go into battle in a COD game is to go in on foot by yourself with just your own weapons, this in itself contributes to the online mode of COD games being always repetitive and boring which is helped hardly at all by the lack of variety in the online maps for the COD games. I always think that a game should have not only a well balanced and enjoyable multiplayer but also a truly excellent singleplayer that you can use to just have fun on your own or practise certain tactics. Now despite the fact that most Battlefield games have poor singleplayer (bar Battlefield Bad Company 1) the multiplayer is so varied what with the staggering number of maps in each game, countless ways to approach an objective (be it by land, sea or even air) and balanced game types. As I already pointed out, the multiplayer in COD games is not so good due to a lack of considerable, overall variety. I could overlook this due to the campaigns always being filled with great characters and fun missions but the gameplay style of Call Of Duty is getting old fast and this was very glaring indeed in Black Ops.
I suppose, at the end of the day the reason why I seem to enjoy Battlefield games more is due to the fact that in both singleplayer and multiplayer you are forced to work with your allies as a group or you get your arse handed to you on a plate with coleslaw and chips. This gives the series a real sense of authenticity, sort of like as if you're in a real combat situation, therefore you get a much more intense and enjoyable experience. In the Call Of Duty games, working as a team gets boring after a while and although it does work you eventually just have to go out yourself. This showed me how samey the combat in COD games can get where 10 men can get easily done in by 1 man with a revolver.
So if you want my advice go for the Battlefield series for a fix of 1st person shooting. Because despite COD having good singleplayer and going well with chips and ketchup, you just can't beat the Battlefield experience of having made it through a blazing war-zone because you had your friends watching your back
Sunday 14 August 2011
A Little Heads Up
Hey everyone, I just thought I'd let you know in advance that there won't be any reviews this Friday and Tuesday as I am going on a residential week with 'X-UK' to a place near Norwich for the week. I will however, be arriving back in London this Saturday coming so don't fret, I'll be back soon. Now just before I go I'd like to ask all of you if you could suggest something to me to review when I get back. I just thought it might be nice to do that. Anyhoo, I'm gonna take my leave now and wish you all a great week.
Friday 12 August 2011
Old Film Review 4: IP man (released in 2009)
There are a lot of films out there that are meaningful, some are not. There are lots of films that revise a certain subject or simply highlight it, sometimes to the point of glorifying that particular subject. IP man is one kind of film I like, it explores the beginning of the journey of the legendary Chinese kung-fu master named IP-man (known more widely in his home country as master IP) towards fame and immortality in the martial arts world. Oddly enough, the most interesting thing about this film (the fact that it is about the beginning of the journey of the man who trained the legendary Bruce Lee) is only told to us at (literally) at the very end of the movie.
Just before he became famous in China and then the world, IP man was a respected and highly-skilled practitioner of a highly-disciplined form of kung-fu in his home town of Fo Shuan, a town that housed many schools for different forms of kung-fu. Although he was almost unmatched in kung-fu, greatly-liked by the townsfolk and well-off, IP man was a particularly inept (yet very caring) father.
There really isn't much to say about IP man in terms of storyline, I mean it's a true story about a man following his chosen path and overcoming personal problems along the way. The best thing about the film is (of course) the kung-fiu bouts and battles throughout the movie especially when Ip himself challanges 10 Japanese soldiers to a bout in a hall and brutally beats them all single-handed. As with most action or fighting movies however, the best fight scene is the last one. In this movie it's an intense scene where Ip famously spared with (and killed) a martial arts-practising Japanese general, an event that resulted in the uniting of the Chinese people during the Japanese occupation.
The other main aspect about this film that's definitely worth noting is how patriotic the film is. This is though, very well founded patriotism on the film's part on account of the scenes of Japanese atrocities during the 1930s being very accurate. The film shows (to an almost rage or tear-inducing effect) the pains and depravities put upon the Chinese by the Japanese army during the 1930s and it uses that to set up a good basis for Ip man going on a fearsome revenge-rampage in the second half of the film.
This is one good kung-fu movie about a man who (indirectly) contributed a great amount to the world of action-cinema and inspired an entire country. Even if all that doesn't interest you then the awesome fight scenes still should.
Just before he became famous in China and then the world, IP man was a respected and highly-skilled practitioner of a highly-disciplined form of kung-fu in his home town of Fo Shuan, a town that housed many schools for different forms of kung-fu. Although he was almost unmatched in kung-fu, greatly-liked by the townsfolk and well-off, IP man was a particularly inept (yet very caring) father.
There really isn't much to say about IP man in terms of storyline, I mean it's a true story about a man following his chosen path and overcoming personal problems along the way. The best thing about the film is (of course) the kung-fiu bouts and battles throughout the movie especially when Ip himself challanges 10 Japanese soldiers to a bout in a hall and brutally beats them all single-handed. As with most action or fighting movies however, the best fight scene is the last one. In this movie it's an intense scene where Ip famously spared with (and killed) a martial arts-practising Japanese general, an event that resulted in the uniting of the Chinese people during the Japanese occupation.
The other main aspect about this film that's definitely worth noting is how patriotic the film is. This is though, very well founded patriotism on the film's part on account of the scenes of Japanese atrocities during the 1930s being very accurate. The film shows (to an almost rage or tear-inducing effect) the pains and depravities put upon the Chinese by the Japanese army during the 1930s and it uses that to set up a good basis for Ip man going on a fearsome revenge-rampage in the second half of the film.
This is one good kung-fu movie about a man who (indirectly) contributed a great amount to the world of action-cinema and inspired an entire country. Even if all that doesn't interest you then the awesome fight scenes still should.
Tuesday 9 August 2011
Monthly News Review #1: The London Riots
Y'know this is what we all need. Especially with all the worlds economies facing trouble and the presence of long-slogging wars in the middle-east oh and don't forget all those disasters in Japan and Australasia at the beginning of the year. Mind you this country is under a conservative government at the moment, a government led by a man who I can only describe as "a snooty total wanker".
What really grinds my gears about these riots (which have now spread to Manchester, for f***s sake) is that they were all kicked off by one event that had/has nothing to do with the rioteers' current motives. A short while ago a man was shot and killed in London and for a couple of days and nights people angrily took to the streets about it. At this moment in time however, the motives of the rioters seems to just be; smash, burn and loot. A set of motives that I can definitely say, belongs to a bunch of idiots.
But there is another side to this intense story. If you look at the movements, motives and general beings of those involved in the riots you can clearly see that many are unemployed. A problem that only arises under a government that can't provide enough jobs for the people it watches and presides over (hint hint). What I'm trying to say is not that if the government under David Cameron had provided more jobs then the riots would've been avoided. But rather if David and his cronies had done so then the riots perhaps wouldn't be so severe.
This all is made worse by the reducing of police numbers since "mister wanker" came to office which in itself is made all the worse by the British public being highly devoid of trust in the British police. What is really stupid is that when there aren't enough police the British public ask for more to be trained but when numbers are at a high level then the public accuse the British coppers of "heavy handedness". Now this may be true that the British police are considerably heavy-handed at times (especially at the memorable G20 protests) but being so bloody indecisive about such a matter isn't going to help anyone whatsoever.
The last thing I want to highlight is the lives ruined by the rioters. In this mad orgy of destruction and burning that has been spreading across the country there have been many shops that have been destroyed. All of these shops of course are the main source of income for many people and families. Some shops have been lightly damaged but this only consists of a handful of the shops that have been attacked. Many shops (especially corner shops owned by not particularly rich families) have been burnt to ash and cinder or assaulted and smashed to beyond recognition. Many family shops that have been around for years such as a boutique in Peckam have been annihilated which has resulted in not only the ruining of lives but also the tremendous breaking of hearts.
People, I ask you three things. 1-support the people who have been affected negatively by these riots and don't join the rioters. 2-keep in contact with those you hold dear. And finally, 3-under NO circumstances AT ALL must you go out for the next 2 or 3 (possibly more) nights, I just don't want any more people to get hurt.
What really grinds my gears about these riots (which have now spread to Manchester, for f***s sake) is that they were all kicked off by one event that had/has nothing to do with the rioteers' current motives. A short while ago a man was shot and killed in London and for a couple of days and nights people angrily took to the streets about it. At this moment in time however, the motives of the rioters seems to just be; smash, burn and loot. A set of motives that I can definitely say, belongs to a bunch of idiots.
But there is another side to this intense story. If you look at the movements, motives and general beings of those involved in the riots you can clearly see that many are unemployed. A problem that only arises under a government that can't provide enough jobs for the people it watches and presides over (hint hint). What I'm trying to say is not that if the government under David Cameron had provided more jobs then the riots would've been avoided. But rather if David and his cronies had done so then the riots perhaps wouldn't be so severe.
This all is made worse by the reducing of police numbers since "mister wanker" came to office which in itself is made all the worse by the British public being highly devoid of trust in the British police. What is really stupid is that when there aren't enough police the British public ask for more to be trained but when numbers are at a high level then the public accuse the British coppers of "heavy handedness". Now this may be true that the British police are considerably heavy-handed at times (especially at the memorable G20 protests) but being so bloody indecisive about such a matter isn't going to help anyone whatsoever.
The last thing I want to highlight is the lives ruined by the rioters. In this mad orgy of destruction and burning that has been spreading across the country there have been many shops that have been destroyed. All of these shops of course are the main source of income for many people and families. Some shops have been lightly damaged but this only consists of a handful of the shops that have been attacked. Many shops (especially corner shops owned by not particularly rich families) have been burnt to ash and cinder or assaulted and smashed to beyond recognition. Many family shops that have been around for years such as a boutique in Peckam have been annihilated which has resulted in not only the ruining of lives but also the tremendous breaking of hearts.
People, I ask you three things. 1-support the people who have been affected negatively by these riots and don't join the rioters. 2-keep in contact with those you hold dear. And finally, 3-under NO circumstances AT ALL must you go out for the next 2 or 3 (possibly more) nights, I just don't want any more people to get hurt.
Friday 5 August 2011
Game Review #4: Serious Sam-The second encounter
Sometimes when you're at home you may get angry at someone or something and just want to take your anger out on a bunch of jackasses. Of course this would get your ass arrested really quick if you did it to real people in the street so I suggest playing Serious Sam-The Second Encounter. The reason why I say that about the game is that it is not only fun, funny and offering many ways to explore but it chucks you into so many huge battles with enemies that outnumber you many times over that you can't help but be relaxed by the carnage you can create.
Unlike with the plots of all the games and films I've reviewed so far, I can't really say much about the plot of this game. It's hinted at quite a few times, explained somewhat in the beginning video and hinted at some more through the enemies you face. But the plot isn't important in this game. What's really important is getting your weapons, walking out into rolling fields and then facing off against regiments of enemies all at once in a mad display of carnage and pure fun. The extent of the plot that I did understand was that Serious Sam is humanity's finest soldier and he is being sent through different time periods to do something to some guy who is mentioned through out the game like 2 or 3 times. The main bad guy has no option than to send wave after wave of demons, headless assault troops, biological walkers with fish-looking heads, chain-gun wielding giant scorpions and leaping bull-like skeleton creatures to grind Sam into meaty dust.
Overall there are only 6 settings over the course of the 4 time periods in the campaign: ancient Egypt, ancient Babylonia, medieval Poland, an underground lava cavern, abandoned ancient cities in the Amazon and snowy mountain towns. Despite there only being so few environments you always feel like you've stepped into a totally different world each time you complete a handful of levels and that's really the way the setting in a 1st person shooter should be. One slightly annoying thing about the settings in this game however is that no matter which time period or location you are in, the enemies are always the same, "sigh". But I am however prepared to overlook that because like I said: the environments are nicely balanced and the enemies and bosses are as fun as a bag of drunk parrots.
The weapons in the game are somewhat similar to what you'd find in any other adventure/1st person shooting game but the variety of weaponry you get is fun nonetheless. All in all you get; dual revolvers, a combat knife, a pump shotgun, a double-barrelled shotgun, a sub-machine gun, a mini gun, a chainsaw, a laser chain-gun, a sniper rifle, a flame-thrower, a rocket launcher, a grenade launcher, a ridiculously over-powered cannon that fires rolling cannon balls and of course, a hand-bomb that if you detonate it kills EVERY enemy in the room. These weapons don't have a massive deal of variety between them and the enemies always come at you in big waves and ambushes but the enemies are varied and the weapons fun enough so that this problem is pretty easy to overlook.
Like with the legions of grunts and such that you face in big battles, the bosses that regularly pop up are also uber-enjoyable. They can range from 65-foot tall demons that unleash volleys of miniature suns to experimental bio-titans that dwell in dungeons and have laser beams blasting from their shoulders. With some bosses you can only use certain weapons, for example: with the Mayan wind god that you face off against at the end of the south american time period you can only use explosives which forces you to really conserve your ammunition.
And that's all I can and will say about Serious Sam-The Second Encounter. Partly because I want you all to see for yourselves how good it is and also because it is such a simple game. It's just you (a wise-cracking muscle-head in a white T-shirt and jeans) with a hoard of weapons facing against legions of varying enemies. definitely get this game people because by the laws of gaming I have found that it is bad-ass.
Tuesday 2 August 2011
New Film Review #3: Horrible Bosses
Eh. Yes just eh. That is literally the extent of what I feel towards this film. It didn't need to be made or conceived and the actors in it could've used their time doing better stuff. But that in itself is sad you see, mainly because I think that all the individual roles are done quite well; the acting isn't half bad, the camera work is good and the atmosphere building is actually really quite good. To be very honest, the main thing that lets this film down is its plot and how it progresses.
The plot at first sounds good but it's hard to like it mainly because most of the problems faced by the main (and unlikeable) characters (Dale (Charlie Day), Nick (Jason Bateman) and Kurt (Jason Sudeikis)) are resolved slightly all-too-conveniently. In fact that's actually quite weird, the main characters are unlikeable but their bosses who they are trying to murder are all endearing (despite all being horrible and crazy). Anyhoo, as the film begins we are introduced to each character in turn and each of these three plucky fellows then explains why they hate their bosses. The one exception to this is Kurt who is best buds with his boss until his boss dies early in the film and is replaced by his coke-snorting wanker of a son. As their jobs get more and more un-enjoyable as the film goes on, the three friends decide to hatch a daring plan to kill each other's bosses. But of course things happen that complicates their plans blah blah blah. Y'know, even though the plot sounds good, when you get into watching the film it really is kind of boring and slightly formula.
Now the 'Horrible Bosses' are by far the jewels in the otherwise slightly rusty crown that is this film. Dale's boss (played by a sexy Jennifer Aniston) is a raving, blackmailing and downright slutty dentist who constantly badgers Dale for sex whilst threatening to ruin his upcoming marriage. Nick's boss (a mad Kevin Spacey) is a slave-driving madman who frames Nick for being an alcoholic and insults his family all whilst stealing important titles in the company. And finally comes Kurt's boss (played by a sleazy Colin Farrel), the son of Kurt's deceased and former boss who constantly is horrible to everyone, snorts drugs, gang-bangs prostitutes and desecrates his dead dad's beloved business. There are a few other enjoyable characters in the form of a few cameos, especially the solidly weird cameo by a mysterious Ioan Gruffud (you'll see what I mean when you see it).
And that's about it. Apart from a not very good set of main good guys and plot, a set of hilarious bad guys, some fun cameos, and a fun chase scene halfway through the film there is nothing much to say about Horrible Bosses. And as I said earlier, this is a sad thing for me because all the individual parts of this film are quite good/well done. It's just a pitty that the film is generally unfunny, uninteresting and has a slightly pants ending.
The plot at first sounds good but it's hard to like it mainly because most of the problems faced by the main (and unlikeable) characters (Dale (Charlie Day), Nick (Jason Bateman) and Kurt (Jason Sudeikis)) are resolved slightly all-too-conveniently. In fact that's actually quite weird, the main characters are unlikeable but their bosses who they are trying to murder are all endearing (despite all being horrible and crazy). Anyhoo, as the film begins we are introduced to each character in turn and each of these three plucky fellows then explains why they hate their bosses. The one exception to this is Kurt who is best buds with his boss until his boss dies early in the film and is replaced by his coke-snorting wanker of a son. As their jobs get more and more un-enjoyable as the film goes on, the three friends decide to hatch a daring plan to kill each other's bosses. But of course things happen that complicates their plans blah blah blah. Y'know, even though the plot sounds good, when you get into watching the film it really is kind of boring and slightly formula.
Now the 'Horrible Bosses' are by far the jewels in the otherwise slightly rusty crown that is this film. Dale's boss (played by a sexy Jennifer Aniston) is a raving, blackmailing and downright slutty dentist who constantly badgers Dale for sex whilst threatening to ruin his upcoming marriage. Nick's boss (a mad Kevin Spacey) is a slave-driving madman who frames Nick for being an alcoholic and insults his family all whilst stealing important titles in the company. And finally comes Kurt's boss (played by a sleazy Colin Farrel), the son of Kurt's deceased and former boss who constantly is horrible to everyone, snorts drugs, gang-bangs prostitutes and desecrates his dead dad's beloved business. There are a few other enjoyable characters in the form of a few cameos, especially the solidly weird cameo by a mysterious Ioan Gruffud (you'll see what I mean when you see it).
And that's about it. Apart from a not very good set of main good guys and plot, a set of hilarious bad guys, some fun cameos, and a fun chase scene halfway through the film there is nothing much to say about Horrible Bosses. And as I said earlier, this is a sad thing for me because all the individual parts of this film are quite good/well done. It's just a pitty that the film is generally unfunny, uninteresting and has a slightly pants ending.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)