Mother's Day

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Garry Marshall/Starring: Jennifer Aniston, Julia Roberts, Kate Hudson, Jason Sudeikis, Timothy Olyphant, Britt Robertson, Hector Elizondo, Margo Martindale, Robert Pine, Aasif Mandvi and Ella Anderson

I know what you're probably thinking; why the hell see any Garry Marshall movie when his last two holiday movies; New Year's Eve and Valentine's Day sucked tragically? Truth be known, I've seen everything else at the theaters and I needed one last posting for the month. Better movies await me in May but since I spilled clams for this nonsense, I may as well say something about it. But what can one express about any Garry Marshall movie, particularly Mother's Day, except to say it belongs on cable TV, a trans-oceanic flight or someplace where it can help an insomniac or anesthetize a PTSD person?
At the screening I attended, a passel of geriatrics showed up; probably hoping to see something inoffensive, mildly amusing and profanity-free. The film meets most of those criteria (only a few swear words) but what I found really surprising is that Marshall's so-called comedy couldn't even make the old folks laugh (well, maybe they chuckled once).

Like the aforementioned movies in this trilogy (geez, I hope it's only a trilogy), Marshall crowds his story with multiple characters and multiple narrative threads though even a spider monkey in a coma could plot out every story-line knowing little about the characters. Plot-twists and unexpected story developments aren't Marshall's forte.

The characters are as follows:

Sandy (Jennifer Aniston) and Henry (Timothy Olyphant-wasted badly here) are an attractive forty-something couple in the throes of divorce. Sandy hopes of reconciliation are dashed when Henry surprises her with news of his elopement to a young, sexy twenty-something. The conflict here is Sandy's insecurity about becoming marginalized as her two sons find living with their dad and his new wife irresistible. Of course Henry's attractive new wife is another source of anxiety for her, as is being single.

Jesse (Kate Hudson) is married to an Indian/American named Russell (Aasif Mandvi); a fact her semi-estranged and slightly bigoted parents; Flo (Margo Martindale) and Earl (Robert Pine) are unaware of. Complicating the matter are Jesse and Russell's two children and her sister/next door neighbor Gabi (Sarah Chalke); who is hiding a secret of her own; namely her marriage to a woman. The fact that Flo and Earl have surprised Jesse, Russell and Gabi with a visit should be fertile territory for some laughs and comic situations. Never happens. Flo and Earl are one-dimensional, lazily-drawn southern stereotypes whose bigotry should be cause for drama rather than laughs.

Miranda (Julia Roberts) is the hostess of her own successful home-shopping channel. Single and childless, her connection to another character is revealed later in the film. There is very little else one need know about her.

Bradley (Jason Sudeikis; frittering time away here) is a widower whose late wife Dana (cameo by Jennifer Garner) died while serving as a Marine in Afghanistan (the fact that she was a soldier is a shameless ploy to tug on our heartstrings). His conflict is being a single parent and a father to two daughters; one of whom is a teenager who shows a burgeoning interest in boys, which brings Bradley untold anxiety.

Kristin (Britt Robertson) and Zack (Jake Whitehall); are a young, twenty-something couple with a kid. Though Kristin is happy with Zack, she has yet to commit to marriage, which he is only too happy to consummate. Zack, meanwhile, pursues a career as a stand-up comic (his stage routine is bland) when he isn't tending bar. The movie seems to forget at times these two characters exist; abandoning them for long stretches, only to return to them when we're long past caring about them. It is also revealed that Kristin was adopted and has an opportunity to meet her biological mother. The identity of said mother is withheld until later, which is supposed to be a shocking revelation.

Of course the various characters tend to intermingle at times; Sandy socializes with Kristin and Jesse at the park while the children frolic. Bradley runs into Sandy at a supermarket when a cashier runs a price-check on his daughter's tampons (this gag is old; it was funnier in Mr. Mom years ago, when it was original), which gives them the opportunity to meet-cute.

Having a crude understanding of the characters shouldn't keep you from knowing where the paved narrative trails will lead. For instance, which two single people will most likely end up together? Match a single mom with a motherless young woman. Which characters might they be? Will the bigoted hicks from the south become enlightened and accept their in-laws? If you don't where the movie will go, you've dozed off or just don't care enough to pay attention, or both.

Being a Garry Marshall film, one knows the story will have all the edges of a cotton ball. Marshall ensures no one will be offended or upset or have to think much. I guess we're supposed to just enjoy watching a parade of stars try to turn lint into gold thread. If the situations can't be original or inspired, why can't the humor be humorous?

No one seems to be able to rise above the mundane material. Hector Elizondo can be very amusing if given something good to work with but here he can only make do with crusts of bread. Timothy Olyphant seems all wrong for this kind of movie; he needs something darker and more dramatic to be truly affective. Though some cast members deserve better; others, like femme-hacks Kate Hudson, Jennifer Aniston and Julia Roberts, seem like ideal choices for this unfunny, crushingly dull, tenaciously empty-headed comedy/drama.

It's impossible to say anything good about the film, or at least something that isn't snarky so I'll leave it alone and let my mind purge the movie from my memory, which should take only...let's see...another second...there. Done.

Cake

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Daniel Barnz/Starring: Jennifer Aniston, Adriana Barraza, Anna Kendrick, Sam Worthington, Mamie Gummer, Felicity Huffman and William H. Macy

It's easy to understand why many film-goers and critics felt Jennifer Aniston was cheated out of an Oscar nomination for her performance in director Daniel Barnz's Cake. Her role is a refreshing departure from the junk in which she is usually cast and she ensures the opportunity isn't wasted.

Whether the rest of the film holds up to Aniston's ambitious performance is for every moviegoer to decide. For me, it was a stimulating experience if not a riveting one. The film begins well and sustains its darkly comic tone before stumbling a bit in the third act.

Aniston plays Claire Bennett, a lawyer who has taken leave from her profession to recover from a horrific accident that left her son dead and her face and body with a disturbing array of surgical scars. When we first see her, she is in group therapy for pain management and judging from her peevishness, the meeting holds little therapeutic value to her. Conducting the session is Annette (Felicity Huffman, in a marginal, caricatured role), who has asked everyone to address a photograph of a former group member named Nina Collins (Anna Kendrick), who has recently committed suicide and left the group with more emotional pain to shoulder. When Annette asks that each member tell Nina how her suicide has affected them, Claire's sarcastic response eventually leads to her dismissal from the therapy group.

Though Claire makes a mockery of the therapy session, she is haunted by the death of her fellow support group member and friend.

When not in therapy, Claire spends her days in agonizing pain, which necessitates the use of copious pharmaceuticals; some which she hides from the prying eyes of her housekeeper/assistant; Silvana (Adriana Barraza). As Claire suffers from her injury and the loss of her son, she becomes mildly obsessed with Nina's death; going so far as to visit the precise location of her friend's suicide; which occurred on an L.A. overpass.

Jennifer Aniston shows a surprising aptitude for playing a darker character than she is accustomed. And to give such a character credibility, she suppresses her movie-star comeliness; her signature, silky locks are denied their glamorous luster and her face bears scant make-up.

As Claire's nightmares of Nina occur with disturbing frequency, she decides to visit her friend's former home by pretending to be a former occupant. Nina's husband Roy (Sam Worthington) sees through the deception but allows Claire to roam the house anyway. He confronts her afterward and though he seems a little perturbed by her ruse, he offers her a friendly handshake. In the coming days, a friendly, sympathetic bond forms between them.

Whether Claire will ever fully recover from the accident becomes a plot point, as her medication provides only temporary relief and her physical therapy sessions prove to be little more than exercises in hostility, which she venomously directs at her therapist.

Other obstacles to her mental and physical recovery present themselves: Claire's contentious relationship with her former husband and a visit from the man responsible for her accident (William H. Macy), who shows up at her door one day, full of contrition and guilt. Claire's violent response to his presence is one of the more poignant moments in the film.

Barnz keeps the story from wallowing in too much darkness and Claire from becoming a tedious, insufferable victim. A glimmer of hope arrives late in the film to alleviate the gloom but the story resists a neat, life-affirming resolution.

One of the film's flaws is providing the audience plausible motivation for Claire making Nina the object of so much guilt and grief, though her own existential crises might adequately serve as motivation enough. Another flaw is the film's ill-advised turn in the third act when Claire comes into contact with a runaway--an unconvincing plot grafting that does little for the narrative.

Aniston's performance is terrific. One can only hope she builds on this career opportunity rather than doing more time in dreary, witless comedies. Other than Silvana (deftly played by Adriana Barraza), other characters are more broadly drawn. Some actors' roles, like Macy's, are only cameos. I wish the screenwriter had given Sam Worthington's Roy more substance; he clearly lacks Claire's psychological layers.

Nevertheless, Aniston's performance is reason enough to see the film. If I could, I would gladly give her Felicity Jones' undeserving Oscar nomination for The Theory of Everything. But make no mistake, this is a performance film rather than a well-rounded drama.

I don't know that I'll remember the film for being something other than Aniston's breakthrough role, which is too bad. If the story runs out of gas, it still manages to engage. That's more than I can say for most Jennifer Aniston films. Let's hope this marks some kind of turning point in her career.

Horrible Bosses 2

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Sean Anders/Starring: Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikas, Charlie Day, Jennifer Aniston, Christoph Waltz, Chris Pine, Jamie Foxx and Kevin Spacey

Yeah, accent on horrible.

You might wince in puzzlement after reading the post heading. Yes, why would I bother with excrement like Horrible Bosses 2 when it seemed like I had nothing but platinum-plated films to review in November? Shouldn't this movie have been assigned a January release? You know what the first month of the year means in American movie industry terms. It is that woeful time in the movie calendar when Hollywood has its own version of a tag-sale; when all the rubbish is discarded; hoping suckers (like me) will shell out green to see flicks better streamed than screened. More on that kind of cinema in January.

So what is my excuse for bothering you all with this nonsense? Well, it does boast a pretty decent cast; Christoph Waltz, Jason Bateman and Jamie Foxx, to name a few and it isn't so bad to see Jennifer Aniston in lingerie and acting randy but other reasons for seeing this film are meager or non-existent. Whew, what a waste of time!
If you didn't suffer the misfortune of seeing the first movie, I won't fritter your precious time with a recap. Suffice it to say Nick Hendricks (Jason Bateman), Kurt Buckman (Jason Sudeikis) and Dale Arbus (Charlie Day) are back from plotting the murder of their terrible bosses and are now poised to make it big with a new invention called Shower Buddy; a device that attaches to a shower head which dispenses shampoo that lathers immediately upon contact. The three men try to promote the product on Good Morning L.A. but Dale gets a bad case of camera fright and the name of their company, which is the trio's first names strung together; sounds vaguely like a racial slur, which doesn't sit right with the African-American co-host.

When the three men demonstrate their invention on camera, a raunchy and mildly amusing shower-scene follows where an unfortunate T.V. camera shot makes it appear Dale is stimulating Kurt with his hand and mouth.

The three hope to find investors for their invention and manage to attract the attention of a father and son who run a successful catalog business. The son, Rex Hanson (Chris Pine) and his father, Bert Hanson (Christoph Waltz), place an order for 100,000 units to market in their catalog. Or so the men think. When they next meet Rex and Bert, the father announces they have cancelled their order and have designed their own version of the device, called the Shower Pal. Devastated and angry, the three men hatch a drastic plan to save their company. Kurt and Dale favor kidnapping Rex and holding him for a $500,000 ransom, which will keep their company solvent. The kidnapping plot involves a lot of noisy, idiotic chatter between Kurt and Dale, who can't seem to filter any numbskull idea that comes to mind. In fact, most of the movie seemed to consist of discordant, ear-lashing, volleys of inane comments between the two. It isn't exaggeration to say I came close several times to plugging my ears. If the noise was unbearable, the fact that it wasn't funny made it more insufferable.

Nick, ever the voice of reason and sense (and lower volume!), struggles to prevent Kurt and Dale's ill-conceived and ill-advised scheme from finding expression but ultimately fails. Part of their plan involves stealing nitrous oxide from Dr. Julia Harris (Jennifer Aniston); Nick's would-be lover from the first film who runs a support group for sex addicts. It is during one of her meetings when the three men sneak into her office.

In another scene that falls flat, Nick is inadvertently drawn into the meeting; believing it to be a gathering of recovering alcoholics. When asked to share an experience, he relates a heavy-drinking episode that just happens to carry homoerotic innuendo.
Why a dentist would conduct such a meeting inside her place of practice seems bizarre but it must have seemed like a good idea to the film's legion of screenwriters. It must have also been a way to have Dr. Harris be involved in a story that has little use for her except to fulfill a male-fantasy role.

When more of Kurt and Dale's lame-brained kidnapping ideas lead the three men to Rex's home, they accidentally inhale nitrous gas and fall asleep inside a closet. The next day they discover Rex inside their trunk, gagged. When they speculate as to how he got there, Rex leaps from the trunk and informs the men he did it himself. They learn soon after that Rex intends to be part of the kidnapping scheme, which the men have little choice but to consent to, given their dire financial situation. Rex asks the men to demand a 5 million dollar ransom, for which they will receive a substantial cut. Of course it seems ridiculous that anyone would agree to such a deal, given their betrayal by the Hansons', but aside from Nick, who voices his reservations, the other two foolishly agree to Rex's scheme.

The plotting and the actual execution of the plan round out the rest of the movie and, as one might anticipate, a double cross and car chase (one of very few inspired moments in the movie) and some more foolishness with Dr. Harris ensue but without much amusement, excitement or raunchy fun. What director Sean Anders' film is is a lot of noise, mostly generated by Kurt and Dale as their stream-of-consciousness yakking vies for ear-time.

The burning question that never yields a satisfactory answer is: why can't multiple screenwriters manage to write a funny script? The bigger, more pertinent question might be: why make a sequel to a movie that, in spite of its $100+ million gross, was painfully dim-witted and forgettable? I think I answered my own question. A healthy bottom line justifies everything I guess; even more sludge.

I think the UN should bestow on anyone who saves people from spending money on junky movies a special, humanitarian award. My few and dear readers, I would like to claim that accolade for myself. I want UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon to recognize Al's Omniflick for its tireless efforts in discouraging movie-goers from sending their hard-earned currency to die in movie house cash registers. Yeah...my blog might one day share the esteem of such notable humanitarian organizations like Amnesty International, Doctors Without Borders and The International Red Cross.

...ZZZZZZZZ--huh? What? Wait a minute; was I dreaming?

Oh well.