Horrible Bosses 2 (2014) ***

 

I resisted watching this sequel when it came out, because, really? “Horrible Bosses” was a delightfully funny movie, but it did not seem to demand a sequel. I figured “Horrible Bosses 2” was a blatant cash grab that was bound to suck. It turns out I was both right and wrong. This sequel is totally gratuitous, but it is more fun than a barrel full of monkeys!

Nick (Jason Bateman), Kurt (Jason Sudeikis), and Dale (Charlie Day), the would-be criminals who tried to kill their horrible bosses in the first film, are trying to become bosses themselves. With an invention called the Shower Buddy, the trio go into business with investors Bert and Rex Hanson (Christoph Waltz and Chris Pine). This father/son duo wind up screwing the boys over, and to get revenge, they decide to leap back into the world of crime by kidnapping Rex for ransom.

Objectively, “Horrible Bosses 2” is not a good movie. It doesn't even have an interesting title. It was a pretty typical studio cash-grab, shamelessly meant to capitalize on the success of the first movie. “Horrible Bosses” director Seth Gordon did not wind up returning for the sequel. He was replaced by Sean Anders, who has a couple of reasonably-respectable writing credits (“We're the Millers” and “Hot Tub Time Machine”), but whose directing filmography includes features like “Daddy's Home” and “Daddy's Home 2”. The original screenwriters were also replaced by Anders and his writing partner John Morris.

The thing is, none of that seems to matter. The first movie was a machine-gun barrage of hit-or-miss jokes. Unbound by any requirements of taste or logic, it was free to just be funny, and it was dumb but highly-entertaining. It's the same with the sequel. I wasn't proud to be laughing out loud at these nitwits, but there I was. It helps that they got the whole gang back together, including Jennifer Aniston, Kevin Spacey, and Jamie Foxx, and Chris Pine is a great new addition. Many critics wrote this off as a massive waste of an A-list cast, but for my money it's an example of a skimpily-written film succeeding on the charms of a talented ensemble.

There is no “Horrible Bosses 3”, and thank goodness. It's hard to imagine this franchise holding up for a third outing. It was hard to imagine it holding up for this sequel, but in its own, sophomoric way, it does. If you want a story with heart and intelligent humor, this is not it. If you just want to giggle yourself silly, “Horrible Bosses 2” may be your jam.

3 stars out of 5

Waterworld (1995) ***

 

There's a collection of movies out there that are known for being bad. This is strange, when you think about it, because, really, there are a LOT of bad movies. Most of them are bad. Most of those simply fade away into obscurity, while a handful are “so bad they are good” and achieve cult status. Another handful get written into history as famously bad films, and 1995's”Waterworld” is one of those.

On a future Earth covered in water due to global warming, Kevin Costner plays a loner, the Mariner, wandering the endless ocean on his sailboat, growing limes in a potted tree, recycling his own urine, and eking out an existence on a planet that is no longer designed for humans. There are other lone wolves out there, and then there are people banded together pathetically on small, floating islands. There are also pirates called Smokers, led by the sadistic Deacon (Dennis Hopper), who have access to gasoline and zip around on motorboats and jet skis, preying on the weak.

The one dream shared by all of these miserable humans is the dream of dry land. The story converges around a young girl (Tina Majorino) whose tattoo may be the key to finding dry land in the vast ocean. Everyone wants the girl, including the Smokers, and the Mariner gets roped into helping her and her adopted mom (Jeanne Tripplehorn).

There is nothing wrong with the story setup or the cast. “Waterworld”'s problems largely center on execution. Costner has been accused of wooden acting, but in fairness, he is playing the Mariner as a loner, isolated from other humans. His reticence makes sense, but it does keep us at arms length from our hero. No one else in the cast is given enough to do to let us live the story through them, so it winds up being hard to get really invested in the story. The film also feels oddly claustrophobic, given that it takes place on an open ocean that covers the entire globe. It's weird that with all that open water, these characters keep running into each other. It's also a LONG movie at 2 hours 15 minutes, and even with all the swashbuckling, it feels long.

Still, “Waterworld” is not without charm. Dennis Hopper chews scenery delightfully as the main villain, and there's plenty of action. This is reasonably-diverting entertainment, better than a lot of action movies. I agree with reviewers who have said that the film deserves to be reassessed. It is not so much legendarily bad, as it was disappointing in its time. “Waterworld”'s bad reputation stems from a combination of a massive budget along with the attendant hype that created expectations that this film simply could not meet.

3 stars out of 5