Monday, August 1, 2011

Iti Mrinalini (2011)-Bengali Movie Review

Iti Mrinalini (2011)-Bengali Movie ReviewIt is a bit tough to write a review of a film that has already been written about extensively much before its Indian release. But that is routine for any film directed by Aparna Sen. Iti Mrinalini is no different. The difference lies in the storyline created by Sen jointly with Ranjan Ghosh. For the first time, she deals with the glamorous world of a top film star of Bengali cinema in the 1970s. This is rather fragile territory for a director who has herself reigned supreme in Bengali mainstream cinema for two decades or more because autobiographical references could get out of control. But Sen being Sen, instead of turning the film into a self-reflexive film-within-a-film, which would have been predictable, she makes it an introspective journey into the past by a fictional actress who decides to end her life.

The film is structured through a suicide note the mellow and ageing Mrinalini (Aparna Sen) begins to write because, “Timing is the first lesson an actress learns in cinema. I had no control over my entry into this world. But I can decide on my exit,” she writes. She picks out pieces of memorabilia from a box to tear and throw them away in the waste bin by her table. Each memorabilia – a faded photograph, posters of old films, broken bangles brings back memories of a life lived in the world of glamour and fame and the power that comes of it, with the pain of betrayal, death of loved ones, and loneliness simmering underneath. Sometimes, she stops from tearing off a photograph. More often, she crumples the paper she has written on and throws it away only to begin on a fresh white sheet and crumple it up and throw it away again. The past telescopes into these sessions of her nostalgic journey through time and space, as we see the young Mrinalini (Konkona Sen Sharma) growing up through college, through a sweet relationship with Abhijeet (Shaheb Bhattacharya), a Naxalite who is shot by the police while trying to escape.

Just before she begins penning this note, we find Mrinalini resuming her career after a 15-year gap as Kunti in an English-language film Born of the Sun, persuaded by the US-trained Indian director Imtiaz Chowdhury (Priyangshu Chatterjee) who also steps into the role of Karna in the film. The two have an affair and Imtiaz promises to cast her once again as the young Nandini in Tagore’s philosophical play Rakta Karabi (Red Oleanders). On the night of the premiere, she is shocked to find Imtiaz cuddling up to a young and up-coming starlet (Ananya Chatterjee) who, the producer announces, will be Nandini. This final culmination of a life filled with lost love, betrayal, grief over her child’s death in an air crash, and the pain born of constant loneliness, invasion into privacy leads to the suicide note.

Sen makes no attempt to rationalize Mrinalini’s adulterous, long-term relationship with Siddhartha Sarkar (Rajat Kapoor) who gave her her first break and also sired her only child. He is a happily married man with two kids, yet keeps up the relationship with false promises of a subsequent marriage. He even goes through the charade of a ‘temple wedding.’ Why it takes an intelligent girl like Mrinalini to wizen up to his double life and that too, by her uneducated dresser Kamala-di underscores not her stupidity but her vulnerability and her longing for love.

What comes across is the top star’s desperate desire to belong, to have a family, to love and be loved though she has left her old mother behind in their old dilapidated rented place in North Calcutta. Her closest bonding based on purely platonic love is with the writer Chintan Nair (Koushik Sen), a South Indian who has studied in Santi Niketan short listed for the Booker for his book Red Earth. He teaches her three most important lessons in love – that love comes in different forms, that not all love need end in marriage and that ideal love is the one that sets you free. He goes back to his crippled wife Meera to Pondicherry but keeps in constant touch through texts and calls on her cell.

Ironically, the most immediate and long-lasting bonding the lonely Mrinalini develops is with her dresser Kamala-di, Moti, the maid and her German Retriever Begum she has taken on probably after her daughter’s death. The film moves smoothly between the past and the present sometimes marking the dividing line with a question, sometimes with uncertainty but almost seamless, thanks to Rabi Ranjan Maitra’s wonderful editorial flourishes. The late Somak Mukherjee’s camera moves across time, space and people with the fluid strokes of an accomplished painter who knows his colour, light and form as well as he knows his subject., Mrinalini, captured mainly in half-light while penning the letter, her pained face held in close-up at different angles expanding to capture the wideness of the beaches and the waves of the sea.

Debajyoti Mishra’s music comprises of three songs, one a Tagore song, amaar mukti aloye aloye sung partly as a duet by the young Mrinalini and her daughter along the beaches of a sea, a Sunil Gangopadhyay poem set to music, and one fast number that forms the title song of Bish Kanya, a mainstream film she has starred in that scans the young star’s coping with the accessories that come with stardom – drinks, cigarettes, joints, etc. It is a brilliantly positioned and picturised sequence. The film captures the ‘look’ of the 1970s Kolkata covering Presidency College when many brilliant students surrendered to the Naxalite movement, scanning over the city as it grew along with Mrinalini, and turns glamorous as she does. This perhaps, is Sen’s most lavishly mounted film till date.

The art direction (not mentioned in the credits) carry the signature marks of an actress’ home – with a sketch of Charlie Chaplin, a huge poster of the Beatles and a much bigger poster of Marlyn Monroe. When she becomes a star, the spaces between these posters are filled with black-and-white photographs of Mrinalini, the star. The premiere show of Born of the Sun has the typical touch of a star-studded do filled with the bright red poster of the film and the razzmatazz of starry presence. The location shooting on the beaches where Siddharth teaches his daughter to shout ‘Cut’ is touching.

Like all Aparna Sen films, Iti Mrinalini is filled with silent images that speak out a thousand words filled with poignant meaning. Siddhartha, who never displayed much interest in Shona, his daughter born of his relationship with Mrinalini, opens his wallet once. In front, we see a picture of his two sons. He digs into the back pocket to bring out another jaded Black-and-White photograph of the little Shona lying in his chest. Mrinalini, about to tear off a picture of Siddhartha and Shona, stops suddenly and keeps it aside. A framed portrait of Chintan rests on the elderly Mrinalini’s writing desk. She picks it up as if to console herself. She clicks on her cell to message Chintan, or to read a message from him.

The scene where the young Mrinalini breaks down on Chintan’s wife Mira’s lap, collapsing into tears spells out the tragedy of her life within those brief moments, the soundtrack filled with her heart-rending sobs. One recalls the scene from Mehboob’s Mother India where Nargis was caught in the studio fire and rescued by Sunil Dutt who played her son in the film. There is a similar scene where the studio fire gets out of control and Imtiaz rescues an unconcsious Mrinalini. Her first word after regaining consciousness is “Kamala-di” and the message is clear – Kamala-di has been engulfed in the flames. The next shot shows Mrinalini coiled up in a narrow, single bed. Later, we notice a slightly faded Black-and-White photograph of Kamala-di hanging on one wall.

The small cameos are wonderfully fleshed out and enacted. Dulal Lahiri as Prasad Sen, the producer who replaces her suddenly and then comes back to her when she is famous, Gargi Roy Chowdhury as Sumitra Devi, a famous star who engineers the replacement, Rita Koiral as Moti, the sensitive maid, Suzanne Bernert as Julia, Mrinalini’s sister-in-law and Locket Chatterjee as Siddharth’s wife Maithili are lovely cameos. The little girl who plays Shona with her heavily accented Bengali is fresh, spontaneous and lovely. Srijit Mukherjee as Ronojoy Mitra is stiff, self-conscious and expression-less. His is perhaps the only mole on a beautiful face.

Among the major performers, the icing and the cake go directly to Konkona Sen Sharma who as the younger Mrinalini, is mind-blowing in a layered performance that maps her slow growth from a naïve, fresh college girl with big dreams to a hesitant newcomer to Tollygunge to a successful star with the airs of stardom she carries with élan, to the love-struck woman longing for a husband and kids, to a slightly wizened young woman educated anew by Chintan. This is another award-worthy performance by Konkona.

Aparna Sen rightly looks a jaded beauty proud of her star status used mainly to hide her pain but her performance is touched with a bit too much of self-pity and a martyrdom one does not expect from her films. Priyangshu is self-conscious at times but perhaps that is how the character is designed. Rajat Kapoor is his suave, sophisticated, arrogant self as Siddhartha enriched by the voice of Anjan Dutt who dubbed his lines. Shaheb as Abhijeet is candid and fresh in a brief cameo and looks the part. Koushik Sen with stubble and an unusual hairstyle, lines spoken with a distinct Southern accent, comes right after Konkona in a controlled performance held completely in reign in every single scene from his entry to his exit.

The few loopholes this critic feels like questioning are – unlike Aparna Sen’s optimistic approach, this one ends on a very pessimistic note. Mrinalini is fleshed out more as a victim and a martyr than as a strong woman who knows her mind. Nothing wrong in that but Sen does it differently every time. Secondly, the closure is a bit melodramatic for the Sen directorial signature to fit into. Thirdly, one wonders when and where Mrinalini had the time and the opportunity to read up so much on W.B. Yeats, Tagore and Chitan’s Booker Prize novel to be able to quote them from memory since we know nothing about her academic background. Only once we see her asleep on the back seat of her car with an open book lying on her chest other than the book-lined walls of her study which is mandatory in every star’s home mostly as part of the décor.
Read Full Entry

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Movie Review: Singham

Movie Review: SinghamIn an action scene from SINGHAM, Bajirao Singham (Ajay Devgn) jumps and hits a baddie on his forehead with his palm. The guy spins, falls on the ground face first, bounces up a few feet in the air like a ball, and again falls on his back. With scenes like these, SINGHAM is so bad that it's almost good.

The Tamil SINGHAM starring Suriya was a huge hit down South. But the adaptation for the Hindi audience, despite have its share of masala, isn't up to the mark.

Bajirao Singham plays an honest cop from a small village named Shivgad on the Maharashtra-Goa border. Using his own principles, he makes sure that the village remains peaceful and free of any unscrupulous activities. He resolves petite quarrels and doesn't even mind lending his own money to a villager in need.

Things take a horrid turn when he meets a wily criminal and politician Jaykant Shikre (Prakash Raj), who is required to be present in Shivgad for a case. Through his political connections, Jaykant gets Singham transferred to his own backyard, Goa and tries to make his life a living hell. Can he silence the lion Singham and his roar?

Director Rohit Shetty has come up with an insipid film, which fails to deliver on all fronts. It starts as an action drama, takes a romantic interlude and again returns to maar-dhad. Not to mention Rohit's trademark GOLMAAL type humour in many occasions. At one point, when Singham and Jaykant verbally try to outdo each other in terms of the people they can arrange to fight for them, it seems like a fight between two local gangs.

There's hardly any movement in the first half in terms of the story, while the second half has countless unintentionally funny scenes. To be fair, Singham and Jaykant do have some ceete-maar dialogues. However, there are several puerile dialogues mouthed by the various characters on the top of their voices. The action sequences are good, but they get very repetitive and exhausting. You only have blown up cars (Rohit Shetty's favourite) and Singham beating the hell out of the gundas. It's marred by an atrociously slow pace, which is a complete no-no for an action film.

Dudley's cinematography is fine. Ajay and Atul Gogavale's music is totally uninspiring, with Saathiya being the only decent number. Steven H. Bernard's editing is tacky, with many continuity lapses.

Ajay Devgn, who is seen in a complete action film after a long time, looks really fit and acts wonderfully. But there's nothing much he can do beyond that to compensate for the weak script. Prakash Raj (a big name in South) looks promising initially, but his character loses steam and becomes like a joker as the film progresses. Perhaps his character is diluted to enhance Ajay Devgn's role. Kajal Aggarwal, who plays Singham's love interest Kavya, looks pretty. However, she does overact. Sonali Kulkarni is all right. The rest of the characters are strictly okay.

With a lot of noise (read loud) and no substance, SINGHAM brings no khushi and only gham.
Read Full Entry

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Movie review: ‘Horrible Bosses'

Movie review: ‘Horrible Bosses'Summer in the multiplexes used to be the exclusive domain of kid- and family-friendly G, PG and PG-13 rated movies. That is, until “Wedding Crashers” scored such a surprise hit in the heat of 2005 and pioneered the way for a rash of R-rated counterprogramming in summers since.

Already this summer, moviegoers with a taste for adult-oriented raunchiness or without youngsters to placate have found their guilty R-pleasures in “The Hangover Part II,” “Bridesmaids” and “Bad Teacher.” Now the ante is upped with the zestfully rude and offbeat “Horrible Bosses,” a nutty, naughty “Nine to Five” for working guys who fantasize about taking deadly revenge on abusive employers.

Deftly directed by Seth Gordon (best known for the hilarious cult video-game documentary “The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters”), the movie brings together a top-shelf cast with a wildly zany but tightly written script to create a darkly queasy comedy that'll likely make you cringe as often as it makes you laugh.
The far-fetched premise is this: Three drinking buddies — Nick, Kurt and Dale (Jason Bateman, Jason Sudeikis and Charlie Day) — like their jobs but hate their horrible bosses.

Kurt's boss, Dave Harkin (Kevin Spacey), is a cruel corporate shark with a murderous streak; Kurt's boss, Bobby Pellitt (Colin Farrell), is a pretentious tool determined to run the family business into the ground, and Dale's boss, Dr. Julia Harris, D.D.S. (Jennifer Aniston), is a sexual predator keen on luring naive Dale into the sack. Through a series of unlikely comic turns, the working-stiff pals become so harassed and desperate that they enlist the aid of a weirdly tattooed barroom hustler named Mother(bleep!) Jones (Jamie Foxx) and hatch a crazy, “Strangers on a Train” scheme to murder their three horrible bosses.

With chaotic nods to “Ruthless People” and “Throw Momma From the Train,” the convoluted plot spins wildly out of control and leaves our three anti-heroes (who increasingly come to resemble the Three Stooges) frantically struggling to extricate themselves from the bloody mess that ensues.

Despite the story's macabre context (murder for laughs), the male leads score with their mile-a-minute buddy patter and amusing frat-boy chemistry. The writing here is quick, cutting and witty. Day (“It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia”) and Sudeikis (“Saturday Night Live”) carry most of the doofus comic freight, while the likable Bateman (“Arrested Development”) acts as befuddled straight man.

But the real comic firepower comes from the high-profile supporting players: a dark-wigged Aniston playing deviously and seductively against type; a conniving Spacey echoing the cold menace of his “Glengarry Glen Ross” gamesmanship, and Foxx bringing hilarious street-hustler jive to the dicey shenanigans. However, the showstopper performance comes from Farrell, who with pot belly and comb-over seems to be channeling “King of Kong's” real-life Donkey Kong maestro Billy Mitchell in his most vainglorious antics.

As “Horrible Bosses” can attest, while there's nothing funny about workplace harassment, a richly satisfying comic catharsis can arise from fantasizing about our most dire and dastardly revenge on bad bossy bosses.
Read Full Entry

Thursday, June 30, 2011

REVIEW: Transformers: Dark of the Moon

REVIEW: Transformers: Dark of the MoonMovie critics love bad movies, and don't let any one of us tell you differently. Oh sure, no one likes to have to sit through a bad movie, but being able to rip it a new one in a public forum results in a certain cathartic satisfaction.

So you can imagine my giddy anticipation when it came to seeing the assuredly awful "Transformers: Dark of the Moon." I like to think it's a lot like Albert Pujols must feel when some hapless pitcher hangs a curveball over the middle of the plate. So you can see how let down I was when I discovered I was enjoying myself for sizeable stretches of the movie.

Seeing how this is the third "Transformers" movie you can see how my expectations would be pretty well set in stone. I actually enjoyed the first film for the mindless fun that it was because it put me in the same mind-space of being 12 years old and throwing a lit roll of Black Cats behind my little sister's chair. The second "Transformers" movie was so incomprehensibly terrible that it was impossible to enjoy on even the most basic levels.

This time around the third "Transformers" does get back to basics in a sense, but don't let me mislead you into thinking that this film — as a movie — isn't a complete and total failure, because it is. As pure spectacle, however it is a stunning visual achievement that will blow away even the most jaded of cinematic thrill-seekers.

I am going to follow director Michael Bay's lead and not bother you with the plot. Just know that there are good and bad alien robots that disguise themselves as vehicles and they fight. That's about it.
Among the movie's flaws is that it is overlong by roughly one hour, clocking in at 153 minutes. When you consider it took Terrence Malick roughly the same amount of time to encapsulate the creation of the entire universe in "Tree of Life," you'd think we could get alien robots to resolve their differences in about an hour and a half.

Returning is Shia LaBeouf as the moderately obnoxious Sam Witwicky, pal to the good-guy Autobots. Gone is Megan Fox; as it turns out, she wasn't as beautiful and unique a snowflake as she thought. She is easily replaced by Victoria's Secret model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley as Sam's impossibly-hot girlfriend. I guess being obscenely attractive and being filmed while running in slow-motion doesn't require a highly-specialized skill set.

There are some strange turns by reasonably respected actors like John Malkovich, Frances McDormand and Patrick Dempsey. John Turturro also returns as the unhinged agent Simmons. I like to think the "Transformers" trilogy exists for the sole purpose of landing the under-appreciated Turturro a huge payday. In a strange way, that helps me sleep a little better at night.

When humans are on the screen, the movie is bizarrely uninteresting and it feels like each actor is playing a character from a completely different, unrelated movie. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that the cast showed up totally hammered every day of production.

But let's be honest, we're not here for the people, we're here for the fighting robots! "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" is the first movie since "Avatar" that I can in good conscious recommend paying the extra money to see in 3D. Bay makes impressive use of a technology Hollywood has pretty much squandered up to this point.

I would also like to point out that this is certainly the most violent of the three movies and parents would be wise to pay heed to the "PG-13" rating unless you want to deal with a lot of killer-robot nightmares.
The last hour of the movie, which features the systematic destruction of Chicago, is an unrelenting succession of astounding action set-pieces. A couple of times I actually felt the sensation of being on a roller coaster.

Perhaps that's the best description of "Transformers: Dark of the Moon:" a sensory-assaulting amusement-park ride, devoid of story or emotion that leaves your pulse racing, your stomach queasy and your head light enough to think it would be a good idea to get in line again. "Transformers: Dark of the Moon" is rated PG-13 for intense prolonged sequences of sci-fi action violence, mayhem and destruction, and for language, some sexuality and innuendo.
Read Full Entry

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Movie Review: Cars 2

I love Pixar movies. I think "Wall-E" is one of the best animated movies of all time. In a column I wrote in early December last year, I named "Toy Story 3" the best film of the year. I also heaped praise on "Up" when it came out in 2009. So compared to those topnotch films, "Cars 2" falls well short of what viewers have come to expect from Pixar. Lightning McQueen (voiced by Owen Wilson) is back as a main character, competing in a worldwide Grand Prix that sends him to Japan, Italy and England.

In a curious - and ultimately wrong - decision, Pixar storytellers bumped the silly tow truck character Mater (voiced by Larry the Cable Guy) into a lead role position. Mater was wisely used in the 2006 original film as sporadic comic relief. Here, his role is as large, if not larger, than Lightning McQueen's story, and that ultimately led to this film being so uneven.

While McQueen is competing in the Grand Prix races, Mater gets mixed up in espionage, after an undercover U.S. agent slips him a disc of valuable information. This could have worked out as a fun "James Bond" or "Mission: Impossible" story. However, the silliness of Mater's storyline feels instead made it like Steve Carrell's "Get Smart" or Mike Myers' "Austin Powers" or the cartoon "Inspector Gadget," as Mater continuously, and unintentionally, succeeds at being a spy. Mater's character becomes so silly and absurd, it will make the most patient of parents watching this film with their children roll their eyes. Children will enjoy the silliness much more than adults, which is so unusual for a Pixar film.

Also a major plot point is that all the ‘lemon cars' from over the years of bad automotive mistakes are out to get revenge on all the high-performance cars in the world. I thought some of this was poorly explained and too confusing, and I'm sure much of it went over the heads of the children in the audience.

The highlight of the film, as expected, is the wonderful Pixar graphics. Japan, Italy, Paris and England are spectacular and vivid. The race sequences through the streets of these historic locales are fun and energized.

Some people might complain that the film has too much of a political message, about the need to use green fuels, but I didn't have a problem with the similar themes in "Wall-E," so I have no qualms about the underlying messages here.

"Cars 2" earned $68 million domestically and a total of $110 million worldwide in its debut weekend, and even with mediocre-at-best reviews, it is likely going to gross $500 million worldwide. Critics at Rottentomatoes.com gave it a dismal 33 percent approval rating. Viewers liked the film a lot more than critics nationwide, with 50 percent giving it an ‘A' grade, while another 18 percent gave it a ‘B' grade, at Boxofficemojo.com. However, a full 19 percent gave it an ‘F' grade, a sign that many adults were disappointed. If I could summarize this films problem in one sentence it would be ‘Too much Mater, not enough McQueen.' I think parents will agree.
Read Full Entry

Monday, June 27, 2011

Movie Review - Tree of Life

Movie Review - Tree of LifeAnswering the question “where is God?” with “everywhere and nowhere” is usually a bit of a let-down, so it’s a sign of just how skilled a film-maker Terrance Malick (The Thin Red Line, Badlands) is that he doesn’t just get away with it in Tree of Life, he makes it seem truly profound. It helps that he crafts some of the more beautiful images seen in film today – there’s a reason why at least one of the posters is comprised of nothing but still images from the film – and, more importantly, it feels like a question he’s actually interested in answering. A lot of arthouse films down the deeper end of the pool dabble in the metaphysical but only succeed in making the meaning of life feel like a hipster pose: Malick has made a film that feels like a man trying to explain what he feels rather than one trying to impress you with how deep he thinks.

That’s not to say he’s not afraid to get heavy: the film opens with a fuzzy shot of glowing light against darkness while a whispered voiceover – and Malick loves his whispered voice-overs, with pretty much everyone getting their chance to muse about the nature of existence and their place in it in hushed tones – asks “Brother. Mother. What are we to you?” It’s the type of ponderous pondering Malick loves, but it’s not just idle speculation: the story proper begins with the delivery of a telegram (it’s the mid 20th century in small town America) announcing the death of one of the sons of Mr O’Brien (Brad Pitt) and his wife (Jessica Chastain).

Wracked with grief, the mother walks the streets. Her son is dead: where is God? The film answers with an extended wordless sequence basically detailing the history of the universe, Earth, and life upon it. Yes, that includes dinosaurs. It’s awe-inspiring in scope, if a little straightforward in subject: Malick doesn’t have a whole lot to say about the development of life on Earth past marvelling at it, but here at least that’s enough.

Eventually we return to small town America, which we eventually figure out is Waco, Texas. It’s a decade or so before the death at the film’s beginning, and the focus is the pre-teen Jack (Hunter McCracken), eldest son of the O’Brien’s. He and his two younger brothers play and explore their world under the guidance of their parents, who’re gradually revealed (Malick doesn’t do anything in a hurry) to have very different takes on the world.

For their mother (and, you might suspect, for Malick), the world is a wondrous, holy place, filled with grace and kindness. For their father, it’s a hard world where everyone will screw you over if they can and weakness is fatal. We see her literally dancing on air; he teaches the boys to fight by ordering them to hit him in the face.

This is the real meat of the film, which comes as a bit of a surprise considering an hour ago we were watching dinosaurs in a river. Half of this film exists in the reality of the past, where life is hard-edged and Jack is increasingly angry for reasons he can’t explain. Then there’s the half that drifts through time and across the surface of the Earth, with a grown up Jack (Sean Penn) wandering through a metaphorical landscape and passing through an empty doorframe to a vision of everyone he’s ever known.

In a lesser director’s hands it’d be all but impossible to reconcile the two, but Malick makes it work. If grace or God or nature or whatever you want to call it is everywhere, then everybody’s story is a story about grace. Despite some excellent performances, Tree of Life is perhaps a little too reserved to be truly moving; it’s a hard to really feel deeply for individual characters when you’re suddenly swept away to witness the end of life on Earth. But it is a beautiful, intelligent film, sharp and insightful about the bond between father and son, thoughtful and amazed at the world that created them.
Read Full Entry

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Movie Review: Bad Teacher

Movie Review: Bad TeacherAfter a highly effective smutty wink of an ad campaign, one could be forgiven for thinking that the “bad” in “Bad Teacher” refers to a public school educator who fools around with her students. A lot of adolescent males may turn out opening weekend in the hopes of seeing Cameron Diaz stoke their hot-for-teacher fantasies, but that’s not what the movie’s about.

Make no mistake: Diaz’s character, Elizabeth Halsey, is bad, a coarsely self-centered and manipulative gold-digger. The only reason she’s a teacher at John Adams Middle School is that her goal in life is to land $10,000 for breast-enhancement surgery. The basic joke of “Bad Teacher,” which director Jake Kasdan hits the audience with over and over again, is that Elizabeth is the most dislikable character of the year.

Diaz, in smeary make-up, certainly makes ill-tempered shrillness convincing, but there isn’t much spark to her performance, and there’s so little bounce or real shock to the movie’s overly controlled “look how rude we’re being!” black comedy that the audience is left stranded.

Viewers won’t find themselves on Elizabeth’s side or anyone else’s, really. This is a film that tries to pass off misanthropic blunt-wittedness as “edge. Justin Timberlake, as a sexy-nerd substitute, has enough campy sincerity to make viewers wish he’d been allowed an additional note, and Jason Segel, as a romantic phys-ed teacher, lays on the puppy-dog sweetness.

The best actor of the bunch, though, may be Lucy Punch as Elizabeth’s nice-teacher enemy. Looking like an angelic Lady Gaga, she turns this goody two shoes into the world’s most self-actualized valley girl. Even when Lucy Punch’s character is insufferable, audiences will like her — a trick that “Bad Teacher” could have used more of.
Read Full Entry