Alita: Battle Angel (2019) review

In the early 2000s, James Cameron acquired the film rights to the popular manga series Gunnm, also known as Battle Angel Alita. Created by artist Yukito Kishiro, it told the story of a young female cyborg named Alita who struggles to understand her past but then gradually learns that she comes from a line of powerful warriors with martial arts training. This nine-volume series ran from 1990 to 1995 and sold around 50 million copies during that time, later spawning several manga spin-offs and a two-part animated short film (or ‘original video animation’, as it’s referred to in Japan) in 1993 that was based on the manga’s first two volumes. And in 2005, it was announced that Cameron would be directing an adaptation of the manga alongside another project of his that was initially codenamed Project 880. Ultimately, though, the latter came first in 2009 and would go on to become the highest-grossing film of all-time, Avatar. And because of its success, Cameron decided to start developing sequels to his $2 billion-grossing blockbuster, resulting in Battle Angel being pushed back several times over the next few years. It wasn’t until 2016 when the project finally started to move into production, but by this point, Cameron was already well underway on directing the sequels to Avatar. Thus, a new director had to be found, and Cameron quickly found his choice in Robert Rodriguez, making this the biggest-budgeted film that the Texas-born director has ever made at around $200 million. But after nearly two whole decades of development, Alita: Battle Angel finally graces the big screen in a highly ambitious but still all-around engaging sci-fi adventure that is visually stunning.

The year is 2563. After a devastating war known as ‘The Fall’ left the planet in a state of total ruin, the people of Iron City struggle to survive in their harsh environment while floating paradises like Zalem loom large in the skies above. One day, while rummaging through the scrapyards full of Zalem’s trash, scientist Dr. Dyson Ido (Christoph Waltz) comes across the head and torso of a female cyborg whose cybernetic brain is surprisingly still intact. Ido then proceeds to give the cyborg a new body and calls her Alita (Rosa Salazar). Alita, however, finds herself in quite the predicament as she’s unable to remember anything from her past even when aided by Ido and a charismatic young man named Hugo (Keean Johnson) who shows her the ins and outs of Iron City. This begins to change, however, when Alita learns that Ido secretly moonlights as a member of Iron City’s elite faction of bounty hunters known as ‘hunter-warriors’. While helping him fend off a bunch of vicious cyborg assassins, Alita finally starts to remember that she comes from a line of cyborg warriors who were trained in the zero-gravity based martial art form known as Panzer Kurst on the planet Mars. This, along with the discovery of a more powerful cybernetic body that also originated from Mars, prompts Alita to become a Hunter-Warrior herself so that she can combat those who threaten the good people of Iron City. In doing so, she runs amok of Vector (Mahershala Ali), a businessman with ties to Zalem who promptly puts out a bounty on the girl who’s been putting a dent in his criminal operation.

James Cameron has noted that the film primarily serves as an adaptation of the manga’s first four volumes. As such, it’s safe to say that this film attempts to cover a lot of ground in its two-hour runtime and not every major plot-line or bit of character development that’s introduced here gets as much attention as they probably should. But aside from what the film does to set up future installments of this potential franchise, it does do its job when it comes to immersing you within this dystopian future. A lot of this comes from the overall handling of Alita’s origin story, which is arguably the best aspect of the plot as it does a nice job of showcasing her transition from innocent cyborg girl to confident warrior while also providing the film with some genuinely effective emotional depth. The biggest draw to the film, however, is its excellent visual effects. It’s been said that one of the reasons why the film took so long to get made was so that visual effects technology was advanced enough to properly tell this story, and it does indeed show in the final product. From the seamless integration of CG-based characters into a live-action setting to the truly visually stunning action sequences, this film boasts the amazing visual polish that one can expect from a James Cameron production. But, of course, it was Robert Rodriguez who was behind the camera for this one, not James Cameron, and while it’s quite arguably the most streamlined outing of his career, Rodriguez’s direction is still excellent, and he does provide the film with the same energy that’s defined many of his independently-produced directorial efforts.

Ultimately, though, one of the most talked about aspects of this film is how it brings the title character of Alita to life. Actress Rosa Salazar portrays the character via motion-capture and the film maintains a key artistical aspect of the manga by giving Alita large anime-style eyes. However, this decision was initially met with skepticism when the first trailer was released, with many pulling the ‘uncanny valley’ card when describing how it looked in a live-action context. And yet, as is the case with any film’s marketing campaign, this first trailer was clearly released before most of the visual effects were finished, and I can assure you that the larger eyes look far more natural in the final film than what they initially seemed. Simply put, Alita is another excellent addition to the growing cavalcade of mo-cap created characters, and Rosa Salazar shines in what will surely be her breakout role as the sympathetic, badass heroine. The other big standout of the cast is Christoph Waltz, who gets some solid character development as well through some gradual reveals regarding Ido’s past and how it connects him to Alita. Salazar also works well off Keean Johnson as Alita’s love interest Hugo, even if his character arc is sometimes waylaid by everything that the film tries to cover over the course of its run-time. Everyone else in the film admittedly plays more of a supporting role by comparison, though they’re all solid as well. This includes, but is not limited to, Ed Skrein as Zapan, an extremely cocky cyborg bounty hunter who’s a constant thorn in Alita’s side, and Jennifer Connelly as Dr. Chiren, a scientist who works for Vector but also has a deeply personal history with Ido.

As I’ve probably made it clear in the past, I don’t have a lot of history with manga and anime, meaning that I don’t have the same connection that others do with franchises like Dragon Ball or Ghost in the Shell. And this was certainly the case with Alita: Battle Angel, as I went into this film without any prior experience with its source material. Ultimately, though, this scenario didn’t have any sort of effect on what I found to be a solidly entertaining sci-fi adventure. Granted, I wouldn’t necessarily call it ‘perfect’ because it does feel like it’s trying to cover a lot of ground when it comes to setting up its world and characters despite it being only two hours long. In other words, the amount of story material that’s introduced here could practically be enough to fill at least two whole films. However, that doesn’t mean that what’s there doesn’t make for an engaging story that boasts some gorgeous visuals and excellent action sequences. And thanks to an excellent performance by Rosa Salazar in the title role of Alita, this lavish sci-fi action flick about a cyborg girl from Mars who was trained in martial arts does indeed have a genuine heart to it. Thus, while Alita: Battle Angel is perhaps a bit too ambitious for its own good, this Robert Rodriguez/James Cameron collaboration is a visual spectacle unlike any other. Obviously, I can’t say much about whether this film does complete justice to its source material but considering some of the most infamous live-action adaptations of popular manga and anime like Dragonball: Evolution, I think that this one will fare much better with fans of the medium.

                                                                    Rating: 4.5/5       

The Legend of Tarzan (2016) review

Prior to 2007, director David Yates was mostly known for his work in television, being behind the camera for various British shows and mini-series, including a 2001 adaptation of Anthony Trollope’s The Way We Live Now and 2003’s State of Play, which was later adapted into an Americanized film in 2009. But then in 2007, Yates got his big break in the film industry when he was hired to direct the fifth installment of the Harry Potter franchise; Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. As expected at that point, the film was another big hit for the franchise, grossing nearly a billion worldwide and regarded by some (including this reviewer) as the best film in the franchise. Because of this, Yates was then brought back to direct the final three installments of the franchise; 2009’s Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and the two-part adaptation of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, with Part 1 released in 2010 and the series finale, Part 2, released the next year in the summer of 2011. He is set to return to the Wizarding World this November with the J.K. Rowling-penned spin-off, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. But before that, he has a different project coming out that also happens to be based off of a popular literary character; Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Tarzan. The legendary jungle warrior who was raised by apes has seen numerous film adaptations over the years, the most recent ‘big one’ being Disney’s 1999 animated film of the same name. With Yates’ new film, The Legend of Tarzan, Alexander Skarsgard takes on the title role in a film that sees the character return home to the jungle to deal with a new threat. What follows is a story that’s generally old-fashioned in terms of its execution but still succeeds in being an entertaining adventure flick.

The film takes place many years after a young John Clayton III, stranded in the African Congo with his parents, was orphaned and then subsequently raised by a family of Apes, becoming the legendary jungle warrior known as Tarzan. Since then, ‘Tarzan’ (Alexander Skarsgard) has returned home to England as heir to the Greystroke name while also marrying Jane Porter (Margot Robbie), whom he first met while living in the jungle. Meanwhile, control over the Congo has mostly been held by the government of Belgium though they are on the verge of bankruptcy due to their various ventures in the area. As a result, King Leopold II sends his trusty envoy, Captain Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz), to collect the treasured diamonds of the lost city of Opar. His expedition soon leads to him coming face to face with the local tribe defending the area, led by Chief Mbonga (Djimon Hounsou), who offers Rom the diamonds in exchange for bringing Tarzan to him, as Mbonga seeks revenge against Tarzan for the death of his son. And so, Rom and King Leopold ‘invite’ John to the area under the guise of having him check out the area and report on their proceedings. John ultimately decides to go, joined by Jane and American envoy George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson), with the latter looking to investigate into the rumored enslavement of the natives. However, as soon as they get there, they are ambushed by Rom and his men, who proceed to capture Jane, leading John and George into having to trek through the dangerous jungle in order to rescue her.

In terms of execution, this is a fairly old-fashioned adventure flick that certainly harkens back to the Tarzan films of old. As such, this certainly isn’t going to win any awards for its plot. It’s basically just a straight-forward chase through the jungle and not much else. However, even with that said, the film very much succeeds in being just that; an old-fashioned adventure flick. Yates’ direction is solid and as partially exemplified by the Harry Potter films, he does a good job when it comes to directing period pieces. And for the record no, the Potter films aren’t primarily ‘period pieces’ (though Fantastic Beasts will be one as it is set in the 1920’s) but they do sometimes have the look and feel of one. Overall, the film maintains a solid light-hearted tone throughout with a few humorous moments peppered in here and there to lighten up the mood, which mostly come courtesy of Samuel L. Jackson’s character. At the same time, there actually does manage to be quite a few moments of effective emotional gravitas, namely in regards to the overall conflict between Tarzan and Chief Mbonga and why Tarzan killed Mbonga’s son. And because the film takes place after the character’s origin story, that backstory is represented in this film via flashbacks that effectively further develop Tarzan as a character. The action is a little hit-and-miss due to the occasional use of fast cuts but it still delivers on exactly what you’d expect from a Tarzan film in terms of the character swinging through the jungle and what not. Visually the film does a similar practice that The Jungle Book did by having the animals created via CGI and overall the CG is pretty solid.

Alexander Skarsgard does a pretty good job in the role of Tarzan. He certainly brings the right physique to the part while also working well in terms of conveying Tarzan’s jungle expertise. He has solid camaraderie with Samuel L. Jackson’s George Washington Williams as well as a very nice romantic chemistry with Margot Robbie’s Jane. As for Jane, this film does maintain the usual plot-point of having Jane be a ‘damsel in distress’ as she spends a good chunk of the film as Rom’s prisoner. However, like the Jane of Disney’s 1999 Tarzan, this actually isn’t a bad thing as Robbie gives the character a fun assertive and spunky attitude, especially in the scenes where she interacts with Rom. Plus, because the film takes place after Tarzan had met Jane and they have already married, she has the same level of experience living in the jungle as her husband. All of this does keep in line with how the character has evolved over the years. As for Christoph Waltz as the film’s main villain Leon Rom, he’s about as good as you’d usually expect from Waltz whenever he plays a villain; diabolical but also charismatic. However, arguably the real standout of the cast is actually Samuel L. Jackson as George Washington Williams. Based off of an actual person, Jackson, as noted earlier, has a solid camaraderie with Skarsgard and provides some of the film’s more humorous moments as a result of their interactions with each other.  

I recall hearing some reports a few months ago that David Yates had apparently abandoned the film while in post-production, mainly to go work on Fantastic Beasts. How true this is I’m not entirely sure but if it is, it could mean that perhaps Warner Bros. was a little hesitant about the film, especially after the commercial failure of their other recent big ‘famous literary’ adaptation, last year’s Pan. However, this film actually isn’t as bad as its low rating on RT may suggest. If anything, the fact that it’s actually been doing pretty decently at the box-office (I’ll admit I thought this would be one of the big ‘box-office bombs’ of the summer but it’s actually doing pretty fine) shows that it’s succeeding at being a solid crowd pleaser and I can see why. Sure at the end of the day the film is fairly simple in terms of its plot and overall execution but sometimes that’s actually a good thing. Yates certainly does a good job direction-wise and the cast is solid as well from top to bottom. Tarzan has certainly had plenty of film adaptations over the years, good and bad. As for this film, I think it definitely stands amongst the former. In short, the film succeeds at what it attempts to be; a light-hearted, old-fashioned jungle adventure. At the very least, I’m glad that this hasn’t been a ‘total disaster’ for Yates as a director, who I’m sure will have a solid critical/commercial success on his hands with Fantastic Beasts when it’s released later this year. But as for Tarzan, if you’re looking for a good, old-fashioned popcorn flick, you’ll probably really enjoy this one.

Rating: 4/5

Spectre (2015) review

It was just over a decade ago when Daniel Craig became the sixth actor to take on the role of James Bond for Eon Productions. But, just like with pretty much any actor or actress who takes on a major role in a comic book film, Craig’s casting led to a ton of backlash by fans of the franchise. Simply put, many believed that the 5’10’’ blond-haired Englishman did not fit the ‘tall, dark’ description of the character both described in Ian Fleming’s original novels and portrayed by Craig’s predecessors in the role. But, thankfully, Craig managed to prove his biggest critics wrong with his first film, 2006’s ‘Casino Royale’, which served as a reboot of the franchise after the critically bashed ‘Die Another Day’. Instead of the campy gadget-filled escapades of the franchise’s older days, ‘Casino Royale’ took on a much edgier and grounded route while Craig portrayed Bond as an emotionally driven and more vulnerable character, again compared to his predecessors. The end result was simply perfection as far as the franchise was concerned… and then his second Bond film, 2008’s ‘Quantum of Solace’, ending up being a major disappointment. It may have had something to do with the Writer’s Strike that was going on at the time but even then the film was extremely bland as far as Bond films went. Thankfully, Craig’s run as Bond rebounded with 2012’s ‘Skyfall’. Under the excellent and classy direction of Oscar-winning director Sam Mendes, the film served as both a fitting commemoration of the franchise as it celebrated its 50^th anniversary and another ‘re-invention’ of the franchise in this modern technological world.

Three years later, Craig, Mendes, and the new cast of primary Bond allies that were introduced in ‘Skyfall’, are back for the franchise’s 24^th installment, and Craig’s fourth official Bond film, ‘Spectre’. As the title suggests, this film re-introduces the franchise’s classic criminal organization of the same name; ‘Special Executive for Counter-Intelligence, Terrorism, Revenge, and Extortion’ (disclaimer: this acronym is not used in the film). SPECTRE played a major part in the Sean Connery/George Lazenby era of the franchise but had been absent from the franchise since its last appearance in 1971’s ‘Diamonds are Forever’. This was mainly due to copyright issues that had initially spawned from legal disputes between Ian Fleming and ‘Thunderball’ co-writer Kevin McClory, which subsequently affected Eon Productions for more than four decades. MGM finally managed to get the rights back to SPECTRE in 2013 and immediately implemented the organization into ‘Bond 24’. But now the question is how Mendes’ second Bond film turned out. Well, despite what the rather low 62% rating on RT may suggest, ‘Spectre’ is another rock solid entry of this long-running franchise. Now while I don’t want to make any major comparisons to ‘Skyfall’, I will admit that this film can be rather predictable in terms of the writing. But even with that said, this is still very much a Sam Mendes directed Bond film that manages to be a well-crafted and classy spy thriller in almost every way.

After a unauthorized mission in Mexico City ordered by the previous M before her death (Judi Dench makes a brief video message cameo) in which he kills an assassin by the name of Marco Sciarra (Alessandro Cremona), MI6 Agent 007 James Bond (Daniel Craig) is taken off field duty by his boss, the new M (Ralph Fiennes), who is in the middle of dealing with the recent merger between MI5 and MI6 headed by Max Denbigh (Andrew Scott) that could end up resulting in the shuttering of the ‘00’ section. Meanwhile, against orders, Bond begins an investigation into the mysterious organization known as Spectre that Sciarra was a member of. His probing soon leads to him crossing paths once again with an old foe, Mr. White (Jesper Christensen), as Bond learns that White, whose organization Quantum is revealed to have been a subsidiary of Spectre, has a daughter named Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux) who, like him, is being pursued by the organization. Bond finds Madeleine and the two, with the help of Bond’s MI6 allies Q (Ben Whishaw) and Moneypenny (Naomie Harris), venture off in order to uncover the mysterious plans of Spectre. This ultimately leads Bond into having to deal with a ‘ghost from his past’ in the form of Spectre’s mysterious leader, Franz Oberhauser (Christoph Waltz), who as it turns out has a very special connection with Bond.

As far as the plot is concerned, ‘Spectre’ is admittedly much more predictable than its immediate predecessor. A certain reveal about the main villain is pretty darn obvious given both the history of the franchise and the fact that pretty much everyone on the internet predicted it just like they did with Khan in ‘Star Trek Into Darkness’. Not only that, but one of the main plot-points in the film about a new intelligence system reminded me of, of all things, ‘Captain America: The Winter Soldier’. In other words, this film is a much more straight-forward entry in the franchise compared to ‘Skyfall’. But at the end of the day, I’m totally fine with that. Even with some of the story’s shortcomings, Sam Mendes’ direction is just as excellent as it was in his previous Bond film. The action sequences are once again superb, from the film’s terrific pre-credits sequence that takes place in Mexico City during the ‘Day of the Dead’ festivities to the intense hand-to-hand fight scene on a train between Bond and Spectre operative Mr. Hinx (Dave Bautista in a short but definitely memorable henchman role). Sadly Roger Deakins didn’t return to do the cinematography this time but ‘Interstellar’s Hoyte van Hoytema is a more-than-suitable replacement. And despite what I said before about the writing’s predictability, one thing that I did really love about this film’s story was how it managed to connect certain events and characters from all of Craig’s previous Bond films and tie them all to Spectre. And just like how ‘Skyfall’ focused on Judi Dench’s M dealing with a ghost from her past, this film’s plot sees Bond’s past coming back to haunt him.

Four films in, what more can be said about Daniel Craig as Bond? He’s just as excellent as he’s been in his last three Bond films. But with that said, one of the best things about Craig’s performances in the Mendes-directed films in particular is that he’s been able to have the chance to bring back the character’s sense of wit that was rather absent from his first two Bond films. And believe me when I say that this film definitely delivers in terms of its witty dialogue; after all, no Bond film is complete is without a few highly quotable lines. As the main villain, Christoph Waltz admittedly isn’t in the film that much to be as memorable as Javier Bardem was as Silva in ‘Skyfall’ but does manage to bring the right amount of diabolical charm and intimidation required for the role whenever he does appear onscreen. And without giving anything away, Waltz was a perfect choice for this role. As far as the film’s ‘Bond Girls’ are concerned, Monica Bellucci, who plays Lucia, the widow of the assassin that Bond killed in the opening, really only has a ‘cameo role’ in the film as she appears in only two scenes near the beginning. But as for the film’s main leading lady, Lea Seydoux is arguably the film’s biggest standout. Dare I say she even outshines Craig? Madeleine Swann might not be a vengeful spy like Bond but she’s still a very strong-willed woman reminiscent of classic Bond girls like Natalya Simonova and Tracy Bond. And of course, all of the returning regulars from ‘Skyfall’ are great as well, from Q (Ben Whishaw continues to be a worthy successor to the great Desmond Lleweyn) to Moneypenny (Naomie Harris continues to have solid flirtatious chemistry with Craig).

I don’t want this to seem like I’m pointing any fingers at anybody but I have the feeling that the rather low RT score for this film was partially due to certain critics negatively comparing this film to ‘Skyfall’, which in my opinion is a rather unfair thing to do. I don’t believe that Bond films should be compared to each other as if they were just sequels, save for the franchise’s only true sequel to date, ‘Quantum of Solace’, because they are all their own separate stories that just so happen to be a part of the same franchise. And even though ‘Skyfall’ has ended up becoming my favorite Bond film to date, I didn’t go into this film expecting it to be ‘better’ than its predecessor. And ultimately while I do feel that ‘Skyfall’ is still the better film, I don’t hold that against ‘Spectre’. It’s rumored that this may be Daniel Craig’s last Bond film and if that ends up being the case, then he does manage to end his tenure as Bond on a much better note than some of his predecessors like Pierce Brosnan or Roger Moore. Sure, ‘Spectre’ can be rather predictable in terms of its plot, namely a reveal that the internet figured out months beforehand, but that doesn’t mean it is, to quote a review by someone who won’t be named, ‘the worst Bond film in 30 years’. Whereas ‘Skyfall’ was a reawakening for the Bond franchise in which Bond dealt with the possibility of being obsolete in this modern world, ‘Spectre’ is very much a tribute to the classic Bond films of yesteryear.

Rating: 4.5/5

Horrible Bosses 2 (2014) review

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again; 2011, while not really the best year when it came to movies, did have both some surprises and some surprise hits. One that fell into the latter group was the comedy ‘Horrible Bosses’, in which Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis, and Charlie Day starred as a trio of friends who conspired to kill their titular ‘Horrible Bosses’ when they found that they were unsatisfied with their current job statuses. I didn’t see it when it first came out but I did end up getting it on Blu-Ray and I watched it before seeing the sequel. Overall I can’t say that it’s one of my all-time favorite comedies but it did have quite a good amount of laughs, which mostly stemmed from the fact that the three main characters were, to put it bluntly, a bunch of idiots. Korey Coleman from DoubleToasted.com (formerly Spill.com) said it best when he noted that this is pretty much the closest that we might ever get to a modern-day Three Stooges movie and sure enough that’s exactly what the first ‘Horrible Bosses’ was. So now we have ‘Horrible Bosses 2’, with the majority of the main cast from the first movie (save for one, whose identity I won’t spoil for those who haven’t seen the first film) returning albeit now under a different director, with Sean Anders taking over for Seth Gordon. And overall, while I can’t say that ‘Horrible Bosses 2’ is the absolute best comedy of this year, or that it’s even better than the first film, I will say that it does have a decent amount of laughs primarily thanks to the camaraderie of its cast.

After spending most of their careers working for terrible bosses, best friends Nick Hendricks (Jason Bateman), Dale Arbus (Charlie Day), and Kurt Buckman (Jason Sudekis) decide to start up their own business so that they can be their own bosses. They come up with an idea for a car wash inspired shower product which they call the ‘Shower Buddy’ and they agree to a manufacturing deal with investor Burt Hanson (Christoph Waltz). However, after the trio take out a business loan in order to produce the 500,000 units that were asked for in the deal, Burt suddenly backs out of their deal as he plans to take all of their inventory and sell it himself. Now facing a huge debt as a result of their loan, the trio look to find a way to save their company. After what they went through in the first movie trying to kill their old bosses, they decide to resort to kidnapping as they plan to kidnap Burt’s son Rex (Chris Pine) and hold him hostage for ransom. But after their first kidnap attempt, they suddenly find that Rex is very eager to help them get revenge on his dad because of the strained relationship they’ve currently been having. Though hesitant at first, they accept his help as they all plan to get back at Burt but as in the last movie, things really don’t end up going as well as they plan.

Now ‘Horrible Bosses 2’ does commit the same mistake that most comedy sequels do; instead of trying something different, it’s mostly just the same general beats from the first movie (what I’m guessing studios like to call what they think is a ‘tried and tested’ formula). There are some very, very minor differences like how in this one the trio is doing a kidnapping instead of murdering their adversaries and how one of their adversaries ends up helping them, but for the most part the film maintains a fairly similar structure to the first film in terms of its plot. Still, despite that, the film still has a fairly decent amount of laughs. I didn’t really think there was any major laugh-out-loud moment like there was in the first film (like when Dale tries to save one of the trio’s bosses when he is affected by a peanut allergy) but overall this sequel still had its fair share of laughs. Like the first film, it is due to the pure stupidity of the main characters of Nick, Kurt, and Dale. I mean when you really get down to it, these three just have no idea what they’re doing. And that’s really what makes these films so funny is how we see them constantly screw up in their plans, from forgetting to do something because they get distracted to revealing something that they didn’t want anyone else to know. As noted earlier, they’re the modern-day ‘Three Stooges’.

Once again, this film primarily succeeds thanks to the great camaraderie between the three leads; Bateman, Day, and Sudekis. They do work off each other incredibly well even if when these three characters are together you know they’re going to do a lot of really, really dumb things and also sometimes they ramble over each other to the point where sometimes you have no idea what they’re saying. Jennifer Aniston and Kevin Spacey also reprise their roles as Dale and Nick’s former bosses Dr. Julia Harris and Dave Harken, respectively, as does Jamie Foxx as Motherf***er Jones and they all have their own memorable moments in their fairly brief bits of screen-time. Of the new cast additions, the biggest standout is easily Chris Pine. Pine showcases some excellent comedic chops (which I do think we saw bits and pieces of from his work in the recent ‘Star Trek’ films) and he also works well off of the three leads just as much as they do with each other. Still, some of the new additions to the cast unfortunately are wasted in this, namely Christoph Waltz and Jonathan Banks (AKA Breaking Bad’s Mike Ehrmantraut), the latter of whom plays the detective working the ‘case’ of Rex’s kidnapping. That’s basically due to the fact that because the film focuses so much on the lead trio and Pine, Waltz and Banks don’t get much to work with here.

Like with many comedy sequels, ‘Horrible Bosses 2’ doesn’t really do much new when compared to the first film. It’s basically the same plot just with a slight few differences. Still, as far as the comedy sequels that do copy the same plot of their predecessors go, this is one of the better ones of that group even if it isn’t self-aware of this fact like ‘22 Jump Street’ was earlier this year. No, it’s not the funniest film of the year and I can’t even say it’s better than the first film. Still, it does manage to get by thanks to the whole scenario of the stupid actions committed by the three lead characters and the excellent camaraderie amongst the three main leads in Jason Bateman, Jason Sudekis, and Charlie Day. Ultimately, I feel that whether or not you do like this movie may depend on what you thought of the first film, seeing how this is basically the same general movie. It was a solid hit commercially but I am aware of some criticizing it for some mean-spirited (racist, homophobic, etc.) jokes and yeah there are definitely some jokes of that nature in both of these movies. Despite this, I did like the first ‘Horrible Bosses’ and ultimately I did like ‘Horrible Bosses 2’ even if this film does rehash a lot of bits from the first film. So if you did like the first film, I bet you’ll like this one too.

Rating: 3.5/5