The Italian Job (2003)

Review #2222: The Italian Job (2003)

Cast: 
Mark Wahlberg (Charlie Croker), Charlize Theron (Stella Bridger), Edward Norton (Steve Frazelli), Donald Sutherland (John Bridger), Jason Statham (Handsome Rob), Seth Green (Lyle), Mos Def (Gilligan "Left Ear"), Franky G (Wrench), Boris Lee Krutonog (Yevhen), and Aleksander Krupa (Mashkov) Directed by F. Gary Gray (#517 - Be Cool and #1806 - Friday)

Review: 

"The first line of my creative mission statement was the characters are first and everything else is second."

Nothing is immune to having a "remake" or re-whatever you want to call it. This is one that is apparently just "inspired" by it that naturally came out over three decades later. Well, if you can remake The Thomas Crown Affair (1968) and Ocean's 11 (1960- actually I take that back, that remake was better)...Apparently, the original writers brought up to try and do a script were Neal Purvis and Robert Wade (best known as the writers of the James Bond films from The World is Not Enough [1999] to No Time to Die [2021]). Apparently, it was a pretty faithful pitch to the original, but it was rejected. As such, Donna Powers and Wayne Powers (who had a bit of TV experience and also co-wrote the films Deep Blue Sea and Valentine to their, uh, credit) were then hired to come up with a script, which they did over the course of several drafts and exactly one viewing of the original film to get a sense of the tone. This was the fifth feature film for Gray, previously known for Friday (1995) and The Negotiator (1998). It is strange how worthy a movie can be in neat average qualities when having the weight of being called "The Italian Job" under it. It is a fairly made homage movie that strangely manages to reflect the defining qualities that defined the original in its own way: pretty sleek maneuvering for its climax (which it shares with the original), a distinct supporting cast, and a pretty standard lead presence. It takes a few elements of the original, namely in stealing some gold with Minis and having characters named "Croker" and "Bridger" and that's about it (well, there is a heist shown in the intro that takes place in Italy - Venice, to be exact).

It is a decent movie really, but you've probably seen plenty of these caper films to know where they are mostly going (, particularly since it ends up being longer than the original at 111 minutes. It has a collection of seasoned performances for an action film that plays by its rules of having its own mark as a film named "Italian Job" (as mostly set in Los Angeles) made in the era where one has fun trying to figure out what a special effect looks like (or stunt work, in other cases) rather than calling it blobby filler. At least Wahlberg has an equal when it comes to middling charisma in Norton, who nearly phones it in the whole way with the energy of someone literally forced to be cast in this film, although at least with Norton there is the idea of an adversarial weirdo. I wonder just how good Wahlberg was in Boogie Nights, because every other performance I've ever seen of him seems to remind me of an old B-movie (which, hey, those are respected, unless it is the Planet of the Apes remake). In other words: the people around Wahlberg are more interesting, whether that involves an old pro like Sutherland all the way down to comedy relief such as Green (as nicknamed "Napster", which by this time was already in the "revamp" stage of decayed names) or an effective Theron and Statham when it comes to credibility. The film is lightly funny, probably not as much as the original when it comes to that spry buildup, but it is solidly credible in every category anyway that it doesn't particularly matter. The eventual chase sequence is pretty well handled, all things considered, managing to utilize the city streets (to go with tunnels and a helicopter) to worthwhile execution that doesn't leave one with a sinking feeling of misplaced interest. In the end, being a notch below the original is a compliment here for a movie that is generally entertaining in the aspects that matter most when it comes to useful action and the charm to make it bounce for the right angle needed.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Frida.

Review #1822: Frida.

Cast: 

Salma Hayek (Frida Kahlo), Alfred Molina (Diego Rivera), Geoffrey Rush (Leon Trotsky), Mía Maestro (Cristina Kahlo), Ashley Judd (Tina Modotti), Antonio Banderas (David Alfaro Siqueiros), Edward Norton (Nelson Rockefeller), Diego Luna (Alejandro Gonzalez Arias), Margarita Sanz (Natalia Sedova), Patricia Reyes Spíndola (Matilde Kahlo), Roger Rees (Guillermo Kahlo), and Valeria Golino (Lupe Marín) Directed by Julie Taymor.

Review: 

If one wants to hear about an entertainer director that made marks in both film and stage, Julie Taymor would be a useful start. Born in Massachusetts, Taymor developed an interest in theatre from a young age, complete with study with L'École Internationale de Théâtre Jacques Lecoq before moving onto Oberlin College (where she studied mythology and folklore). She honed her interests through masks and dance while first serving as director in New York theatres in 1974. She would make a variety of plays such as Shakespeare productions before having her prime moment with her production of The Lion King on Broadway, which was one of the most popular productions of its day in 1997, complete with Tony Awards for Taymor. Meanwhile, Taymor also did ventures into filmmaking, having her first directorial effort with an American Playhouse-produced film with "Fool's Fire" (which both premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and aired on PBS). Her feature debut was Titus (1999), which received fair marks (particularly with costume design). In her film career, she has made five films in over two decades of work. You might be surprised to hear that this film went through a lengthy development hell, with a plethora of considerations considered that involved Madonna, Jennifer Lopez, and Robert De Niro at different points. Hayek (who had slowly built a presence in Hollywood in the mid-1990s) had been interested in doing the role for a number of years, and by that time the works of Kahlo was attracting further interest from art folks, but it only came around in 2001 with Miramax alongside a variety of producers (seven credited) and four credited screenwriters (Clancy Sigal, Diane Lake, Gregory Nava, Anna Thomas) that listed Hayden Herrera's Frida: A Biography of Frida Kahlo as adaptation material, as championed by book editor/literary agent-turned-executive Nancy Hardin.

Admittedly, I had considered watching this film for a number of years, if only because one is always curious about art (no matter how "mediocre" or bad one is at it, as I can attest to). I think most of us at least know about the works of Frida Kahlo (born of German and Mexican heritage), if only because of how striking her art is. With a runtime of 123 minutes, I think the movie does a spectacular job in capturing the artist with enough strokes in style and engagement to make a solid biopic, one that runs through a number of interesting events in the life of Kahlo (and Rivera) with useful patience that never seems to collapse into easy generalizations. It captures the essence of someone with growing pain and talent for a fitting capture of an artist with such a vibrant personality that honors the art without falling into hagiography. With a useful ensemble like this, it should only make sense that Hayek (who received a plethora of award nominations for her role) leads the way with suitable timing, having a burning sense of self that lives through two great accidents (a trolly and Diego Rivera) with honesty. The chemistry between her and Molina sears through with confounding energy, one that endures with the quality of a bird and an elephant that is endearingly watchable, and Molina makes a good showman to pair with Hayek. The rest of the group come and go with varying strokes that hone interest for what is needed when looking upon history with general interest, with Rush and Norton probably being the most notable of the historical presences that compare interestingly when played against Hayek (of course, Golino is quietly effective in small moments spent with Hayek too). The clash of visions (ideological or not) collides for an engaging movie that elevates its subject (complications and all) for a curious biography worth watching from a director engaged with making entertaining projects with style to accompany it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: To end our month of Women Directors...we end with Marie Antoinette (2006).

Isle of Dogs.

Review #1582: Isle of Dogs.

Cast:

Bryan Cranston (Chief), Koyu Rankin (Atari Kobayashi), Edward Norton (Rex), Liev Schreiber (Spots), Bill Murray (Boss), Bob Balaban (King), Jeff Goldblum (Duke), Scarlett Johansson (Nutmeg), Kunichi Nomura (Mayor Kenji Kobayashi), Tilda Swinton (Oracle), Ken Watanabe (Head Surgeon), Akira Ito (Professor Watanabe), Greta Gerwig (Tracy Walker), Akira Takayama (Major Domo), Frances McDormand (Interpreter Nelson), F. Murray Abraham (Jupiter), Courtney B. Vance (The Narrator), Yojiro Noda (News Anchor), Fisher Stevens (Scrap), Mari Natsuki (Auntie), Nijiro Murakami (Editor Hiroshi), Yoko Ono (Assistant Scientist Yoko Ono), Harvey Keitel (Gondo), and Frank Wood (Simul-Translate Machine) Directed by Wes Anderson (#1553 - Fantastic Mr. Fox)

Review:

"Jason, Roman, and I started this project with wanting to do a movie about some dogs abandoned on a garbage dump, a pack of dogs who live on garbage. But we had also been talking about wanting to do something in Japan, about Japan, something related to our shared love of Japanese cinema, especially Kurosawa. The story could have taken place anywhere, but it came together when we realized it should take place in a fantasy version of Japan.”

It is not often that a director known for live-action work makes a bon-a-fide classic on their first venture into animation, particularly with stop motion, so undeniably there was anticipation to cover another Wes Anderson film, with this serving as his second in stop motion. For all the information one could say about him or his films, it was certainly still interesting to hear him once state his top three filmmaker influences as Francois Truffaut, Orson Welles, and Bill Melendez. Oh sure, there are likely others that Anderson has also stated an influence, but it is the fact that he wanted to make a self-contained world like those Peanuts specials (stating this once during an interview about Rushmore) that Melendez (who in addition to directing was also a producer/voice actor and animator for over 60 years) helped to make over numerous decades that will undeniably stick with how one could see Anderson's films as a whole. He is an eccentric director with his own visual and narrative style that balance comedy and drama in their own distinct way.

The film was written by Anderson, Roman Coppola, Jason Schwartzman and Kunichi Nomura. It takes inspiration from the films of Akira Kurosawa and Hayao Miyazaki, as well as the stop-motion animated holiday specials made by Rankin/Bass Productions, with the fur here being made from alpaca wool (there were other inspirations in terms of dog-centric films like 101 Dalmatians and The Plague Dogs). There will be quite a few references to look upon in interest, such as name-drop references to Seven Samurai (1954) alongside a selection of music that mixes songs from Japanese cinema alongside work from Alexandre Desplat as composer. Is it as great as his previous animated work? Not quite, but it sure is a welcome treat regardless, one that proves interesting as a standout piece for its decade. There is quite a fascination to be had with a film that makes an interesting atmosphere come across with flourish and respect for establishing what needs to come across with a dystopian setting of a futuristic Japan. It relies on deadpan humor that makes for clever moments without needing a heavy nudge, relying on casual conversation between its group of main voices / supporting voices that show up, while the nature of language also helps in some interesting subversion (having both English and Japanese with certain moments of translation) that makes a useful 111 minute adventure. There is quite a diverse amount of voices to hear sprinkled through the film, ranging from Anderson regulars like Murray, Goldblum, Norton, and Swinton to go alongside new ones like Cranston and Gerwig. Cranston (familiar for his roles on television such as starring on Breaking Bad) proves quite well here, engaging with careful tenor that leads the way in gruff charm. Rankin does fine with a performance (primarily in Japanese) with wistful curiosity for what is needed here (mainly acting alongside a voice pack of dogs). Schreiber is warm in parts in terms of snappy devotion. The meat of the film is split between them alongside the group of Norton, Murray, Balaban, Goldblum, who make for an interesting group to exchange a few amusing lines together in casual warm conversation. Johansson shows up for basically three scenes and does alright with use towards small cute moments with Cranston. Nomura proves a worthy focus on the mainland storyline, while Gerwig (actress-turned-director) shows some pep to go against that. Others have brief lines in highlights, such as with Abraham, Swinton, Ito, or translators with McDormand and Vance (alongside ones to listen closely to hear, like with musician Ono, Stevens, or Keitel). As a whole, I found it to be mostly successful in maintaining balance of charm and humor with a mostly-put together story that will at the very least make a viewer go home happy by its ending without decrying artificiality. Whether a dog-lover or not, it will prove a useful experience for its variable amount of audience reach, working just as well for children or adults without seeming too much in its visual and story language.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Birdman.

Review #1570: Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance).

Cast:

Michael Keaton (Riggan Thomson), Zach Galifianakis (Jake), Edward Norton (Mike Shiner), Andrea Riseborough (Laura Alburn), Amy Ryan (Sylvia), Emma Stone (Sam Thomson), Naomi Watts (Lesley Truman), Lindsay Duncan (Tabitha Dickinson), Merritt Wever (Annie), Jeremy Shamos (Ralph), and Benjamin Kanes (Young Riggan / Birdman) Directed by Alejandro G. Iñárritu.

Review:

"I have always said that innocence is much more powerful than experience. And, in some cases, people who suddenly fall into circumstances can unexpectedly bring some virtue to them—that’s kind of the case with this character."

"It’s rare that you get to be part of some amazing experiment like this. The movie gets dark and gets weird, and it gets funny. So you’re constantly on this surfboard, kind of feeling it out. I like that. I just like seeing if I can do it.”

Filmmakers have had a variety of experiences that shape who they are that can go beyond just being shaped by cinema. For one, they can be shaped by their life experiences, as is the case for Alejandro G. Iñárritu. Born in Mexico City as the youngest of seven siblings, he was shaped by his travels made on cargo boats as a teenager (having struggled with studies in high school), which took abroad across America and Europe. He returned back to his country to study communications at Universidad Iberoamericana. He got himself into working for radio at WFM as a rock music radio host, which led to making promos and eventually transitioning into work with his own production company in Z Films, which dealt with shorts and advertisements. Iñárritu made his feature debut with Amores perros (2000), which served as the first film of a trilogy involving death and multiple storylines that would have writing from him and Guillermo Arriaga. This was his fifth feature film. It started as making a comedy in a single shot in a theatre (that developed over the span of a couple of years), done not only because of a desire to do a comedy over another drama but also because of his belief in that one lives their life with no editing, where one could be taken in by "an inescapable reality" just like the protagonist (there had been quite a few movies that were meant to play out in real time, most notably with Rope in 1948). Iñárritu, in addition to direction also co-produced the film and co-wrote it with Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Jr, and Armando Bó, who wrote the film for a period of nearly two years while working together through Skype and e-mails. Each of them, along with cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, would win Academy Awards for their work with this film, which seems aptly appropriate.

What, a gimmick utilized to tell an interesting story that garnered attention in 2014? Anything is possible when you start with a man levitating while in his underwear. Ultimately, the enjoyment of the film relies on how much one absorbs themselves into a film that might resemble in some ways Don Quixote in its disparity between expectation and reality when it comes to who we think we are as a person, particularly in ego. When it comes to acting, that is never more true, since they are having to be someone different from themselves in a desire to be approved and so on and so forth with insecurities to list. One will either be swept away by how entertaining it proves in its execution to go alongside its elements of black comedy and drama or they will find a curiously strange experiment that lives and dies on its level of satire and fateful ending. For me, I found it to be an intriguing two hour experience, one that is a clear achievement for Iñárritu and Lubezki that moves with seamless ambition and wry enjoyment that benefits from a worthwhile cast to serve as a worthwhile film to encapsulate capable filmmaking for the 2010s. Keaton, picked by Iñárritu after he had finished the script for his ability to bring "meta-dialogue between the film and the reality", is exquisite. He manages to do so well in capturing a man wrapped in crisis over what it means to live a life wrapped in either past glories or current pursuits to find meaning within ignorance - in other words, it is one of Keaton's best performances, crafted well in anxiety that grabs one early and never loses footing in competence because we never think it is just self-aggrandizing. The rest of the group do quite well in going along with the show in terms of well-placed charm or timing, as is the case with Galifianakis or Norton, who both are quite funny in what the film requires in either wry sensitivity or self-important confidence, respectively. Riseborough and Ryan also prove useful in lending layers to outside the theater, while Stone serves as a useful bridge between a testy act with Keaton alongside her own testy grasp of her struggles. Watts and Duncan round out the cast handily for a film that builds itself up on sharp little moments between each other without being fitted into any tight cliché square or all-the-way wrapped up narratives. On the whole, I found it to be an enjoyable and curious film, balancing its act of magic realism with efficiency that tells a worthwhile feature of ego and virtue with maturity that will lend itself well to more than one viewing (particularly with its ending) to appreciate the detail that goes into a worthwhile feature of excellence and curiosity.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Fight Club.

Review #1284: Fight Club.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (Tyler Durden), Edward Norton (The Narrator), Helena Bonham Carter (Marla Singer), Meat Loaf (Robert Paulson), Jared Leto (Angel Face), Zach Grenier (Richard Chesler), and Thom Gossom Jr. (Detective Stern) Directed by David Fincher (#586 - Alien 3 and #705 - The Social Network)

Review: 
Two decades after its release, what can one say about a film like this? The polarizing adaptation of novel of the same name from Chuck Palahniuk certainly has quite a following in the time following a mild run in its initial box office run. One wonders what sort of expectation is to be expected for something like this, a dark satire that happens to have a few fights and a compact cast that make for a fine movie. Sometimes you do need a film that will make you squirm a bit, and this film sure does fine with making some useful points through a run of 139 minutes that runs the gamut without hesitation, never seeming to stumble in trying to deliver a quirky story that hits more often than not. One can appreciate the effort made to deliver something that resembles The Graduate and Rebel Without a Cause, with a conflict involving a generation of all-singing, all-dancing stuff of the world and themselves, where beating people to oblivion seems like a good release. That, or causing mayhem, but that's neither here or there.

Undeniably, the highlight of the film is its main trio of castmates, who are interesting to watch. Norton plays his part with sardonic relish, where his narration carries the story quite well, making for some satirical bite that makes him quite involving to be around, an everyman who happens to visit support groups just to feel something and go to sleep (better than crying or substances, I suppose). It's not hard to recognize something from this character in oneself or others (such as buying things to fill something within themselves is one example I could posit). Pitt is enjoyable, wild as a stick of dynamite that is relentlessly entertaining each time he shows up on screen, filled with marked charisma that does tend to blend well in roughness with Norton, as if it was a coin that always seems ready to land on its side more than anything (which is less of a metaphor than the fighting is, I admit). Carter does fine with the crude side of this triad; she doesn't have as much time on screen as the other two, but she proves worthwhile with dark charm that is somewhat amusing. I'll give credit to anyone who takes a role where you need to wear a bulky harness, especially if one is singer-turned-actor Meat Loaf, who does garner a laugh or two without seeming like a distraction (one of course could insert a reference about other harness performances here, obviously). It sure is striking to see Leto for the brief moments he is on screen in the film's second half. The visual look sure works itself out well, with plenty of unflinching violence alongside other moments. The film was written by Jim Uhls, with several un-credited contributors, including director Fincher and and the movie's co-stars Pitt and Norton. Palahniuk approved of the final product, which he felt kept intact most of the "convoluted plot" of the novel (for which the climax is significantly different) while liking the main three actors when it came to stepping into these characters alongside Fincher's directorial efforts. I can't disagree with that assessment, since the film is well-done in entertainment value while making a concentrated effort to have some sort of meaning beyond fighting or mayhem, where responsibility is the key path instead of some sort of self-serving freedom or something more toxic in its brand. The film is not a perfect one by any means, but I do find it to be an interesting one, holding itself quite well for its start while making its conclusions one to to think about after it ends over a round of discussion with others.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Incredible Hulk.

Review #1211: The Incredible Hulk.

Cast: 
Edward Norton (Bruce Banner), Liv Tyler (Betty Ross), Tim Roth (Emil Blonsky), William Hurt (General 'Thunderbolt' Ross), Tim Blake Nelson (Samuel Sterns), Ty Burrell (Leonard), Christina Cabot (Major Kathleen Sparr), Peter Mensah (General Joe Greller), and Lou Ferrigno (Voice of The Incredible Hulk) Directed by Louis Leterrier.

Review:
It feels strange to finally cover this film. In light of Avengers: Endgame serving as the culmination of over a decade of Marvel films - 22 in all, it only makes sense to review the only other film I haven't done. In any case, I hope you enjoy.

In a way, the true tragedy of this film is not so much the nature of Bruce Banner and the beast that lurks inside him when prone to anger. Really, it is the fact that this film seems to stick out as some sort of oddball (near black sheep) film within the Marvel Studios run of films. Oh sure, the Hulk has made further appearances in other Marvel movies in the years since (without Norton), but it seems striking to how a sequel did not manage to transpire for this feature while other heroes managed to inspire future solo adventures (this can be attributed in part due to the rights that Universal Studios has with Hulk in regards to distribution for standalone features). In effect, the film does seem to stick out like a sore thumb from the others in some of its approaches with its narrative that makes for a decent but not particularly standout movie. It was released a month after Iron Man while being five years after Hulk (2003). I'm not too particularly familiar with that film, nor the previous 1970s television series with Bruce Bixby and Lou Ferrigno, but I do have a basic understanding of the Hulk, and at least it can be said that one doesn't really need to worry about not knowing every little thing about a hero. The script (originally done by Zak Penn while having re-writes from Norton) certainly seems a bit jammed in exactly what it want to be - verging between a thriller/monster movie and typical comic action flair. It does okay with both tones, but it could be seen as forgettable for others with less patience. Leterrier, commenting on the film years later in an interview, stated that a movie is "...a sum of compromises until you grow into your own independence. I always try to bring the character and the actor forward. It’s very obvious in The Incredible Hulk. The first half of the movie is really mine and the second half is the studio’s expected Hulk movie — two giants kicking each other’s ass.” Make of that what you will.

It isn't exactly a crowd-pleaser type of movie (minus the big action spectacle at the end, of course), but at least it doesn't try to spend too much time on the origin story, going from Banner to Hulk in the span of 25 minutes. It certainly tries to make sure you won't be waiting for the Hulk to show up with too much impatience. The run-time served as a conflict between Leterrier, Norton, and the producers, with the former preferring a run-time of 135 while the latter and their argument won out with their time of 112 minutes (one notable omission involved an alternate opening in the Arctic, for example). Norton makes a fine Banner for the most part, but the film seems a bit lost in making him seem like an actual hero. Something just seems missing between him being the Hulk when he's angry to being someone you could see doing things as part of a bigger thing. The chemistry between him and Tyler (in a fairly subdued performance doesn't really click all together either, seeming a bit too subdued to make any real lasting drama. It is nice to see Roth, but he can't really make this adversary feel particularly threatening. The stakes just seem a bit too low even with two big beasts hammering each other, really. It didn't need earth-shaking stakes to drive up suspense, but something that inspires us to care a bit more than just the standard "gee, I sure hope the big guy doesn't lose to the other big guy". It is nice to see Ferrigno voice the Hulk, at least. Hurt is gruff for the course, which isn't exactly an insult. Nelson shows up for a limited amount of time, showing brief spurts of energy despite really being there just to further the plot a bit and not much else. It is a movie that has decent effects, and the character design on the Hulk looks right for the time. The climax (done in the night, naturally) seems a bit tacked on with its battle (owing to the small stakes), but at least it left the door open for future possibilities involving this character without feeling like an insult - which is for the best. It doesn't really compare too well to the first batch of comic book movies in Marvel Studios' run, but it has its own merits and reasons to give it a shot, edging itself into curiosity with some fair touches of drama and action to headline an imperfect but adequate movie.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Sausage Party.

Review #830: Sausage Party.

Cast
Seth Rogen (Frank), Kristen Wiig (Brenda Bunson), Jonah Hill (Carl), Bill Hader (Firewater), Michael Cera (Barry), James Franco (the Druggie), Danny McBride (Honey Mustard), Craig Robinson (Mr. Grits), Paul Rudd (Darren), Nick Kroll (Douche), David Krumholtz (Kareem Abdul Lavash), Edward Norton (Sammy Bagel Jr), and Salma Hayek (Teresa del Taco) Directed by Greg Tiernan and Conrad Vernon (#162 - Shrek 2 and #651 - Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted)

Review
Not to understate this too much, but this isn't a movie for everyone (hence the R rating, a first for a CGI animated film - by the MPAA, anyway), especially not for kids, obviously. It's definitely a different kind of animated movie, and I'm sure there's even plans (or new inspiration) to do more of these kind of films. As ridiculous as this movie was, it at least was an adequate in terms of quality and length (88 minutes). There is a semblance of plot in this movie, with regards to the food and a "Great Beyond" outside the store, amidst a bunch of easy jokes that are either funny for some, or just stupid. For me, it was a bit of both, but it works on such an absurd level of ridiculousness that fit fine enough. The opening minutes feature a song, no less, with about as much absurdities as one would expect (let's not forget about the song by a meat loaf). Here's how I would put this movie: I laughed numerous times, with barely an ounce of shame to that laugh.

The ending to the movie is certainly a strange one, and to explain it would sound downright weird. But it works on an absurd level of lunacy for me, even if it's not really exceptional at animation, but it certainly works better that if it had been in live action. Rogen is a well enough lead, and anybody who's seen him in a film before will know what they think about the movie. Wiig is also decent, and the supporting cast is pretty quirky enough, with Krumholtz and Norton having some interesting chemistry with each other, and Kroll being a fair enough villain. Hader is also a fine highlight. Animated movies are somewhat thought of as a kid's market, so the idea of one for adults isn't too terrible, considering the amount of ones made for the lowest common denominator. They both pander, but this one has some sort of goal in its potty mouth. It has its moments of entertainment, It's exactly what you expect, so take it for what it's worth. It also might be better with a friend or two, so you can comprehend the weird crudeness for yourself. I can't recommend it for everyone, but anybody looking for a quick time of something a bit different might like it. They might also look at their food a bit differently afterwards, however.
Okay, if you scroll over this text, here's the climax: The food murder people in the store and have sex.
Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.