by Philip Price
Having re-watched the first ‘Purge’ before going to see this quickly developed sequel I was reminded of what a good premise had been so messily squandered in execution. The idea of focusing in on one situation or opening up the world and giving a more well-rounded view is a difficult dilemma. Had the writer/director of both films, James DeMonaco, done with his premise the first time what he's done here he might have been criticized for trying to do too much. After having seen the sequel though it is clear that with such a layered and complicated world the possibilities might have been overwhelming to DeMonaco who chose to keep things simple the first time around. With the first film becoming a financial success though the studio was quick to greenlight and push into development a follow-up less than a year later which can, presumably, only boost a guys confidence. With that confidence DeMonaco has opened up his slightly futuristic world into what his one lawless night a year might be like not only for different individuals, but different classes of people according to society's structure. Given expectations weren't high for “The Purge: Anarchy” I'll try not to get too excited about how much better it is than the original while hopefully re-enforcing the fact it's still not a great or exceptional piece of cinema. Instead, this is a film that knows its end goal and accomplishes those goals well and does in fact deliver more on the promise of its interesting premise than its predecessor. From the advertising to the blatant acts of violence described as patriotism these films have always had a commentary in the back of their minds on the class systems of society and where our current situation may lead us. In this vein of thinking these films are more science fiction than horror in the way they preach nonviolence with violence and describe how escalating violence and economic issues brought the country to a breaking point that resulted in this annual event. These are naturally the more interesting aspects of the film and in Anarchy DeMonaco plays each of them up as he highlights the experiences of different groups of people from different ethnic and economic backgrounds creating a more captivating story and strong jeopardy we can all relate to.

Set one year after the events of the previous films purge we first meet Eva (Carmen Ejogo), a waitress at a diner, as she heads home from work a couple of hours before the purge is set to commence. Her strained home situation is brought to our attention due to her lack of income from the diner as she tries to support a daughter (Zoë Soul) and her sick father (John Beasley). We are then introduced to what appear to be a well-to-do couple in Shane (Zach Gilford) and Liz (Kiele Sanchez) who are going through a rough patch in their marriage. Besides the fact they probably shouldn't be driving the streets of the city so close to the beginning of the purge if they don't intend to participate they are also being followed by a group wearing masks and riding bikes led by Keith Stanfield who clearly plan to participate and subsequently become helpless after their car breaks down. Coincidence? Nope. Finally, there is the mysterious man simply known to us as Sergeant (Frank Grillo) who it's clear has a vendetta against a certain individual after something has happened to his son. You can speculate on what Sergeant's motivations are the entire film as it never comes out and says it until the final minutes, but from the hints dropped in his first scene you will no doubt be right on the major points. This isn't what is important though, what matters about Grillo's Sergeant is that despite his eagerness, his need to participate in the purge-his situation illustrates a major flaw in the idea of this "cleansing of the soul" actually becoming a tool to purify society. Whereas these thoughts of issues with the purge felt like unaccounted for caveats in the first film DeMonaco plays them to his advantage this time as his wider view of the event gives way to more avenues of exploring the various faults with the system. This group of characters who are brought together in convincing fashion and play well off one another fuel the themes at play as well and deliver an involving journey through the levels of how different classes approach their purging.

As I watched “The Purge: Anarchy” unfold I began asking myself several questions as to what the stance most individuals might take on this event would be were it to become a reality. One might consider the rest of the review a discussion in spoilers, so...Why, near the end of the film, are we treated to a ‘Hunger Games’-esque scenario in which the elite auction off the chance to kill in a safe environment? Would this government sanctioned "holiday" really become a spectator sport or would it not eventually get to the point where those with a need to kill canceled each other out? The point DeMonaco has seemed to hint at in both films is that the point of the purge is for no other reason than to rid the country of the poor and thus the worry of having to care about them. I considered as I tried to play out the reality of the situation in my head with how many people might simply choose to not participate, that when it came down to it, people wouldn't be able to kill in order to make themselves feel better. It occurred to me that of course, and depressingly, there are people who would find glee in such an opportunity and would take advantage of it to the point society would eventually be reduced to only those types of people and a mindset regressing more than it already has. To each of these considerations and thoughts DeMonaco gives us a surrogate by placing the concerns on the conscience of the characters. Grillo's Sergeant is the man seeking revenge which shines a light on what people might be like to one another the rest of the year so that retribution isn't found in them on purge night. Eva and her daughter are low-class targets the purge seeks to eradicate as seen by a SWAT team that infiltrates their apartment building with questionable motives and backing. Cali (Soul) finds truth in an underground movement led by Carmelo (Michael K. Williams) who pushes to answer violence with violence making those who support the right to own firearms a strong case while the inclusion of Shane and Liz gives a "caught in the crosshairs" perspective that even those uninterested in the event are pulled in due to the simple fact the violence is allowed. They are suspect to the thought that guns will make them safer, but in this world they pay the price for that line of thought giving the other side of the fence room in the conversation.

That a film like this, which might be considered little more than torture porn in more prestigious realms of writing, is thought-provoking enough to get me as involved as I felt seems an accomplishment in itself. That being said, this still very much has the hand of an amateur director at the helm with acting that is more reacting that actually invoking any kind of genuine emotion. We like the characters, especially Eva and Cali who have the most appeal, but we aren't necessarily shocked by one or more of their fates because of the nature of the film. Grillo is a more than capable actor with a presence that has been gaining more and more traction over the past few years and that presence is what solidifies his influence here. He is a hulking figure that places a shadow over the helpless few he decides to aid on a night where he his sole purpose has been derailed by his inability to detach himself from his conscience. While Shane and Liz are the least developed contributors to the story both Gilford and Sanchez are more than able to pull off a credible yet tumultuous relationship that doesn't have us snickering at the screen. More than any real qualms with the way the story is conveyed through the actors though it is the way in which DeMonaco, for example, captures his fight scenes with shaky cam that is substitute for any real aptitude of what it takes to evoke emotions through imagery rather than just plot points and people’s faces. Being his third directorial feature we might expect a little more from DeMonaco as a filmmaker at this point, but if things go his way it seems he will have plenty more opportunities to evolve this world and his skills. I said in my review of “The Purge” last year that while the Sandin's weren't generally people we could empathize with the homeless man (Edwin Hodge) allowed into their house who incited the incidents of that film also became the audiences point of entry into what the purge was really about. In giving us this insight it also helped us realize what a bad idea it is and how, on a bigger scale, its system will ultimately fail. It seems DeMonaco agreed with that line of thinking as he wedges into the expansive scope of ‘Anarchy’ the continued plight of this bloodied stranger towards what seems will become full-fledged revolution in “The Purge: Revolution” next summer.

by Philip Price
“St. Vincent” is formula, but it's damn affecting formula. As soon as we meet the titular curmudgeon followed by the set-up that requires him to watch over the new neighbor kid we know where things are going. This is a film though that epitomizes the saying, "it's not about where you're going, it's about how you get there." There is nothing new to find in the intentions of the story or even in the way it is executed. Everything you will take away from “St. Vincent” is because of the characters, their individual arcs and how it comes together to not necessarily paint a pretty picture, but a humbling one. We are in a day and age where this, in many ways, feels like the culmination of Bill Murray's master plan. He has so effortlessly (or it at least seems that way) become more of a figure, a myth than that of an actual being that we find real value in seeing him let loose as much as he does here. There have only been a few occasions over the last decade or so where the legendary actor and comic has allowed himself this much visibility and unlike 2012's odd “Hyde Park on Hudson” this sees him in a role that is able to be more widely appreciated. You will recognize the schtick Murray is playing because he's done it before, but that doesn't make it any less fun to watch or when his stage of life and career are taken into consideration, any less affecting. I say affecting again because despite the fact we know where the film is going and we know what it wants us to feel it is still able to achieve a genuine emotional reaction from the audience and for that alone, the film deserves credit. It is also to the film’s credit that it doesn't overstay its welcome and allows the actors to flourish in their roles bringing the intended ideas to the surface and moving the audience in just the right way to where we are fine with the manipulation it is pulling over on us. “St. Vincent” is a crowd-pleaser in the biggest and best sense of the word in that it is a film I realize could be taken as overly-sentimental or even hokey, but that I could watch over and over again and still find reasons to smile every time. Sometimes, you need a film like that and “St. Vincent” would make a wonderful default to turn to for, if nothing else, the showcase it allows Murray.
​
Vincent MacKenna (Murray) is a grumpy and usually drunk old man that escapes to the drink for the seeming world of unfortunate wallows that surround him otherwise. He spends most of his days at the race track, his nights at the bar and his Tuesdays with Daka (Naomi Watts) a Russian stripper/prostitute with a heart of gold. I know, just reading that description makes you want to question how contrived and maybe even ridiculous this thing gets, but trust me when I say the character and Watts' rare grating performance are the only wedge driven between what makes the film feel less like good-hearted sentimentality and more like a mawkish exercise at times. Bottom line is, with Daka being his only real human interaction, Vince wants little to do with other people. So, when Maggie (Melissa McCarthy) moves in next door after leaving her cheating husband and taking a job as a tech at the local hospital Vince is eager to stay away. As these things go though, Maggie's hours force her to look for an after school babysitter for her son Oliver (Jaeden Lieberher). Twelve year-old Oliver is a scrawny kid forced into an unfamiliar Brooklyn environment where he finds it difficult to fend for himself and in need of a male role model in his life. As Maggie doesn't have much time on her hands with her new job the babysitting (for lack of a better word) duties fall into the lap of Vince who isn't totally opposed as long as Maggie is willing to pay. This doesn't seem like a bad idea at first given that despite his lack of warm and cuddly vibes, Vincent overall seems harmless. The good news is that this remains true throughout despite the basic descriptions of what Vincent allows his young counterpart to experience sounding pretty bad. They go to the horse races together where Vincent teaches Oliver what a trifecta is and how to play the odds while fending off his own bookie issues in Terrence Howard. There is also the time Vincent shows Oliver how to break a bully's nose and the one where he teaches him how a real man orders a drink at the bar. All good, right?

All of the things Vincent exposes his "11 dollars an hour" to sound bad, but in the way the film unspools they are as harmless as the movie itself and leave us with a sense of appreciation in that these characters have found something to inspire them at a time in their lives where they couldn't feel less inspired. Both of these guys are not only dealing with the trials and tribulations of their own lives, but more they are just as affected in their daily routine by the trials and tribulations of those around them. It is in these excursions that the film is really able to transcend it's standard operating procedure and dig into something more relevant and impactful. As much as Vincent is perceived to be a grouch or a spiteful old man picking on people and unsuspecting victims because he cares only about himself and putting himself ahead as much as he can, there is of course more to him than this. Vincent is more than misunderstood, he is a multi-faceted person as we all are and Murray is able to bring that to light through not only his performance but his interaction with the young Oliver. This isn't simply a movie where the two leads learn from one another and find value again in appreciating life for what it is, but rather they are kept to the role of the teacher and the student. Vincent is who he is and as much as he dislikes hearing it, his life is what it is and though he'd no doubt like for it to improve financially, he has no desire to make any strides to change his situation. In being able to present this layered character though, Murray makes the transition from a curmudgeon of routine to one with more of a pep in his step with the opportunity of getting to "school" someone from the younger generation. Oliver is essentially taken through Vincent's day to day with him and while this allows the film to peel back the layers of Murray's character it also gives Murray a reason to clearly feel more proud in representing who he is to this young onlooker. We feel the electricity in Vincent's actions go from moderate to substantial and through that he not only inadvertently teaches Oliver valuable life lessons, but he teaches us as an audience how easy it is to take something and judge it only for what we see on the surface.
It is somewhat difficult to describe exactly what it is about the relationship between Oliver and Vincent that makes this experience all the more effective given that it does indeed prove to be predictable in an ending only a movie could have, but at the same time it makes sense for all the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph. The way in which Oliver slowly picks up on the complete picture of who Vincent is and what has made him this man is the most insightful idea the film has to offer and writer/director Theodore Melfi at least knows where he holds the power. Melfi remains focused throughout on the core relationship only allowing all of their extraneous issues to better shape who Vincent is and the arc he helps take Oliver on. As Oliver, Lieberher is perfectly capable of pulling off the slightly advanced kid actor persona that comes along with so many movie children these days. What is nice about the portrayal though is that Oliver is never too smart for his own good, but more than anything it can simply be chalked up to Oliver having a well-rounded and understanding personality. He is never the kid so far removed from the "in crowd" we take his transformation as implausible, but rather we buy the fact all he needed was a little push and maybe some politically incorrect guidance to get him to a place he felt good and comfortable with-to round out that well-rounded personality. It was also truly great to be able to see Melissa McCarthy do something different here. Her Maggie is a real change of pace for the actor as she isn't forced to play a character, but rather find a home in the humanity of a struggling single mom. This affords McCarthy the actor, not McCarthy the comic, to come away with a solid performance in what is really a limited amount of screen time. The aforementioned Watts is really the only element that doesn't mesh well with the rest of the palette making it feel cheaper than it actually is. This is Murray's show though and he completely owns it giving this man we think we know right off the bat more depth and more than enough reason for us to give him second and third chances; probably even fourth and fifth ones.

by Philip Price
What do you get when you take an outlandish premise that every middle class American can relate to, mix it with a cast chock full of more diverse talent than any other comedy in recent memory and let them both free to wander where the wind takes them? That would be the original “Horrible Bosses” which, back in 2011, stuck out to me as one of my favorite comedies so far that year. It was just effortless. And that is saying a lot in a summer that also counted “Bridesmaids” among its hits. The film was immediately funny and fast paced with a cleverly written script that gave the summer season a feeling the raunchy R-rated comedy was here to stay. Naturally, after this type of high came the downslide with the less broad, but not as bad as everyone says “Bad Teacher” and the truly terrible “Change-Up” in which Jason Bateman also starred. Every year we get this slew of raunchy summer comedies intended for the masses that studios have thought we craved since “Wedding Crashers” truly revitalized their appeal, but only a couple, if any, ever break out to become genuinely funny over time or command real staying power. I liked “Horrible Bosses” the first time I saw it and probably watched it two or three more times once I bought it on blu-ray, but did it have the staying power of such recent classics that have also commanded sequels such as “21 Jump Street” or “Ted”? Maybe not, but much like with the fellas from the ‘Hangover’ series I simply like having the opportunity to hang out with these characters so a sequel seeing Kurt (Jason Sudeikis), Nick (Bateman) and Dale (Charlie Day) get into more mischief was completely acceptable and more than justified if not really necessary. At all.
​
So, the problem is how do you make a sequel to a movie that so clearly captured a one-time event in the lives of our three protagonists? Well, with writer/director Sean Anders taking over for Seth Gordon he has put the boys in the position of attempting to be their own bosses. With this set-up we are given The Shower Buddy, a car wash-like shower head that is pretty much dead on arrival thanks to a company name that wasn't thought through and cause for concern once said aloud. The guys are feeling down on their luck until they get a call from Rex Hanson (Chris Pine) who, along with his father Burt (Christoph Waltz), run a very successful business in which they take ownership of products by paying the inventors one lump sum, export the manufacturing of that product to China and pulling in all the profits. Nick isn't too keen on the thought of handing over their brainchild and while Rex is ready to let them go, Burt admires their commitment to making the products themselves and so he promises he will invest if the boys can churn out 100,000 units within a certain amount of time. With that, the dimwitted duo of Kurt and Dale along with reluctant leader Nick get a business loan and go through the motions of leasing a warehouse, hiring employees and building their stock to meet Burt's request. Naturally, as the boys are feeling good and run to celebrate with Burt as they've finished his order early he backs out of the deal claiming he never signed an agreement thus leaving Nick, Kurt and Dale with an outstanding loan and a business in foreclosure where Burt will be able to scoop up their inventory and sell them making more of a profit than he ever would have been able to being in business with the three of them. After a stunt like this there is only one thing the guys can think of to do and that's go to Dean Motherf*#$&r" Jones (Jamie Foxx) to get advice on how to exact revenge.

What makes these films work so seamlessly is the way in which each of our leads work for and against one another. Bateman is so clearly the outsider of the group as Day and Sudeikis have seemingly dumbed-down their characters from the first film. It may be for lack of not seeing the original in over three years or so, but in the first both Kurt and Dale still seemed to be competent adults prone to certain qualities more than others setting them apart as comically inclined. Here though, Sudeikis goes for an all-out idiot who's vulgar brain constantly reverts things to their most sexual and will spell out idiotic conclusions to questions posed by either the tired Nick or the energetic and inquisitive Rex. Day's Dale on the other hand is the only one of our trio to now have a wife and family (which was something I enjoyed about the first film as it never allowed domestic issues to become entangled in the plot) which puts him in some awkward positions, but doesn't add or take away from the fact that he contributes nothing of value to the prime directive. Christoph Waltz is surprisingly given very little to do here, which is a real shame, while major contributions by Pine and Jennifer Aniston only add to the festivities. Foxx also gets a little more to do this time around which is fun given his inherent charisma and the precise perks of the character, but after seeing Pine in “Stretch: earlier this year his comedic talent is something to be appreciated and not overlooked in the future. As Rex, his spoiled rich kid routine only hits home the small social commentary the film contains concerning the one percent and him taking advantage of the little people. As for Aniston, she continues to go all out in this against type role that is shocking not only for the person speaking, but for the depths of the issues brewing within this character who concerns herself little with thinking of them as issues.      

The bottom line is, I laughed and I laughed a good amount at what could have essentially been a rehashing of the original.  Instead, Anders chooses to take these characters and give them something only slightly similar to do so as to keep in line with the theme of the series, but even the previous style in which the first film was approached has changed due to the nature of the story. Instead of going for something as boldly as Gordon did Anders keeps it more conventional, but he also makes it feel more free-flowing and loose. The maturity level has dropped and the frequency of the laughs is only affected positively. Anders knows that the dysfunction is clearly the charm of this gang and that the three leads are so willing to go after every joke that presents itself pushes the main intent of the film to its comfortable landing. The film never feels very stout or profound, but of course it's not meant to. This, again, is a flighty 100-minute R-rated comedy that flies by the seat of its pants and allows the actors improvisations to guide its comedy as much as the written script. Though it never felt like a sequel to “Horrible Bosses” was necessary we can at least look at this as a good excuse to do what so many people enjoy about going to the movies and that is the nearly two hours of hilarious escapism. It's true, there is nothing revelatory about the film as Bateman still delivers those simple lines with dryness as he spins them into comedic timing gold and Sudeikis is still the attractive one who could, but it is too dumb and inappropriate to land a chick while Day's shrill-voiced, spastic antics again steal a fair amount of the thunder. Best enjoyed with a big crowd, I didn't want to stop hanging out with these guys and as one of the strongest weapons in a comedy director’s arsenal: to have characters you want to hang out with and see succeed “Horrible Bosses 2” accomplishes that, once again, to the fullest.