Boss Level is a time loop of bad jokes, tedious action, and Mel Gibson villainy
Film Reviews Boss Level
Outside of The Grey and a suite of unrealized projects, the writer-director Joe Carnahan has seemed most at home in the world of live-action cartoons, in which Boss Level, his first directorial effort since Stretch, unquestionably belongs. Its operator-type stock action hero, Roy (Frank Grillo), is stuck in a Groundhog Day scenario, doomed to die over and over at the hands of an assortment of contract killers who’ve been sent after him for reasons unknown. There’s a swordswoman, a little guy with explosives, a grappling-hook-toting hillbilly with bad teeth, and so on. Whenever Roy bites it, gets minced, or finds himself minus a head (or torso, depending on one’s point of view), he wakes up back in bed just in time to dodge his first, machete-wielding assailant.
The flamboyant, consistently unfunny liquidators and trigger-people recall Carnahan’s post-Tarantino ensemble hazing ritual Smokin’ Aces; the rest is even more derivative. Boss Level is hardly the first movie to imply similarities between a time loop and the life-death cycle of a player character—Edge Of Tomorrow turned it into a redemption arc. However, it is the first to have the hero tell us, at the beginning, that “It’s like being stuck in a video game.” Ironically, this has the opposite effect: All one can see under the flashing faux 8-bit letters is how this isn’t like a fun video game. It’s true that many of the classic coin-operated beat-’em-ups mentioned briefly in the film are grinds with nonsensical plots. Few of them, however, are about learning to be a dad.
Will our escapist fare ever stop telling us to put away childish things? Can one really accept life lessons from a film with multiple Hitler jokes? While Carnahan’s sense of humor has always been juvenile, in Stretch it at least benefitted from a gonzo factor and the crucial quality of having funny parts. Boss Level, however, is clumsy from the jump, with lame gags and a ceaseless, obtrusive voice-over that is always telling us why the next part is funny or what’s happening on screen (in case the viewer is distracted by their phone). The macabre comedy potential of watching Roy bite the dust ad nauseam is, if anything, underexplored; Carnahan can’t seem to think of anything more darkly comic than a guy taking a bullet to the groin. (As in the kitchen, it’s really all about timing and proportion. A man getting shot in the balls once isn’t funny—but what if it was 10 times?)
Somewhere in there is a basic but poorly organized plot. There’s a MacGuffin called the Osiris Spindle that’s obviously related to Roy’s super-secret scientist ex, Jemma (Naomi Watts, in a nothing role), and her cigar-smoking, megalomaniacal boss, Colonel Ventor (Mel Gibson, not given enough scenery to chew). How does the Osiris Spindle work? This isn’t really a question that warrants answering, but some quantum-gobbledygook exposition would definitely be preferable to the film’s emotional B-plot, which concerns Roy and Jemma’s 11-year-old son, Joe (Grillo’s real-life kid Rio Grillo), who knows Roy only as his mom’s old friend, not that he’s his biological father. The reader can probably guess where this is going: Roy’s got to make up for all the time he lost as a commitment-phobic ex-Delta Force global ass-kicker. “There are some things you can’t redo,” he tells us. Sure, bud. Slap that on a photo of a sunset and ’gram it.
The sentimentality is as rote as the movie’s ’80s lunchbox nostalgia, which offers up a Wilhelm scream, some entry-level Raiders Of The Lost Ark trivia, and a trip to an arcade tournament without the grating nerdy investment of, say, Ernest Cline. The fact is, the sheer number of recent movies and series, both good and bad, that have put characters in Phil Connors-esque predicaments (Happy Death Day, Palm Springs, Russian Doll, The Map Of Tiny Perfect Things, Before I Fall, etc., etc.) so they can develop a deeper appreciation for the consequences of their actions, find romance, or improve their combat skills does suggest a shortage of new ideas. Maybe it really is the perfect metaphor for our time: We’ve seen this movie before.
88 Comments
“Rio Grillo”? I know it’s pronounced “Grill-o” and not “Gree-yo” but come on, don’t name your kid that!Also, stop giving Mel Gibson jobs. There are plenty of talented bankable actors who aren’t racist nutjobs.
Heck, even just stop reviewing Mel Gibson movies.
I was initially going to say, well, there’s other people involved here too, they don’t all get to pick and choose what projects they work on. If critics did start to refuse to review movies that employed well-known piles of shit like Gibson, the people most directly hurt by it wouldn’t be Gibson and the like, it’d be below-the-line talent.On the other hand, if they could weather that storm, there quickly wouldn’t be any movies starring Gibson, and things could get back to normal for the others (that is, they’d be able to work on movies that didn’t star piles of shit).
You have a point re: below-the-line talent; those folks are usually working gig-to-gig and are in less of a position to say “fuck Mel Gibson; I’ll just wait until the next opportunity comes around.” I’m sure some of those folks were hired before him. Heck, now I’m thinking of craft services companies, who probably don’t even bother with the particulars of what production they’re stocking (though I’d argue that serves your second paragraph; those people are going to work as long as there are productions to work, not whether Boss Level breaks even or not).But I’d also argue most people who’ll see this movie probably a) already know they’re going to see it b) probably aren’t going to be swayed by this review. The AVClub could spend this space and Ignatiy’s time reviewing something more worthwhile, something which is flying under our radars. Then again, they wouldn’t have lured us into the comments like this for a review of Bacarau or Nomadland.
Little loss to filmmaking or criticism if the A.V. Club were to refuse to review a movie because it stars a shitbag. I guess that’s a form of deplatforming? They’re under no obligation to review anything, and while they generally cast a wide net (some of which is a legit desire for critical breadth, and some of which is “what will get page views?”), certainly they have limits: they wouldn’t review a snuff film, for example. (At least, I hope not.)
On the other hand, isn’t there some value in exposing bullshit to sunlight? If movies are casting Gibson, would it make sense for the A.V. Club to post an article saying “This movie came out, we’re not reviewing it because Gibson is a piece of shit and we don’t want to encourage filmmakers to hire him. In the comments, feel free to discuss why Gibson sucks.”? I don’t know if that’s better or worse than simply pretending the movie doesn’t exist.
Mel Gibson has to work too.
I honestly would not be surprised in the least if the AV Club enacted a “no reviews of films containing problematic actors” policy. It’s actually right up their alley these days.
Why would the below-the-line people get hurt by it? They’ve already been paid, and it’s not like they have points in the movie.
I meant that the number of films going into production would drop by a noticeable chunk if all critical outlets announced they weren’t going to review or promote movies starring shitty people, and the people who would suffer would be BTL who would have fewer jobs available to get hired on. At least in the short term, while studios scrambled to recast those movies, or just deal with the limited promotion they’d be able to get.
On the other hand, if the announcement was “we’ll grandfather in any movie already in production, but starting in 90 days, any movie that goes into production with a known shithead is going to get totally ignored by us” then not much would change because filmmakers would simply exclude shitheads from the casting process. (And I suppose non-actors would be involved too, e.g. all the above-the-line talent would be subject to “we’re not going to review/promote your movie if there are shitty people ATL”.)
“the people most directly hurt by it wouldn’t be Gibson and the like, it’d be below-the-line talent.”a) Those people aren’t getting variable pay based on the success of any specific movie.b) If the financiers find that casting piles-of-shit class stars affects their return on investment they’re not going to make fewer movies, they’re going to insist on not casting piles-of-shit class stars and then the below-the-line talent works in *those*movies.
I already addressed these points in other comments.
mel should make video game movies co-starring nic cage and directed by michael bay……and you get kidney failure from looking at it.
“Sure, I’m on dialysis now, but did you see those explosions?!?!”
Gibson was ALWAYS as Jew-hating, homophobic, misogynist, and racist as he is now. Yet in the 80s and 90s everyone was fawning over him. “The Critic” had a character loosely based on him. Are people just not as good at overlooking things? I guess when you have Bill Cosby and Woody Allen to consider, yes…
Were Gibson’s beliefs public knowledge in the 80s and 90s? I thought it was all pretty much under wraps until the incident with the cops.
Hey, are y’all aware you don’t have to give legitimacy to movies written/directed/starring abusive pieces of trash? Nothing would of been missed if you hadn’t reviewed this movie.Get better journalistic (or just humanistic) standards.
Fun Facts: There’s a Smokin’ Aces 2, it’s a prequel somehow, it stars Ernie Hudson, and I haven’t seen it because the first one was only okay.
I did watch it, because it was 2010, Blockbuster rentals were still a thing, and nobody invented good movies yet. It also had Michael Parks and Vinnie Jones, so I couldn’t pass that up. It’s just not a fun movie overall.
It’s a shame it wasn’t starring Hudson, Clayne Crawford is a walking mediocrity.
I actually really liked Smokin’ Aces so I was foolish enough to rent the sequel. It was terrible, and if I remember correctly Ernie Hudson only shows up in the last 5 minutes to literally explain the plot of the entire movie. Carnahan did not write or direct the sequel and it showed.
I saw it when it was available as a free on-demand movie, and I remember it being weird because it’s a prequel, even though the only returning characters were people who survived the first movie (if I’m remembering correctly), so why couldn’t it be a sequel? Also, it was not good.
What?? First one was awesome. Stellar cast, original plot and some killer action. Plus a ninja wanna-be kid with an eye patch. What more do you want?
Mel Gibson? Wasn’t he “CANCELLED”? Cancelled by “Culture”? Denied the God given right of every American to star in movies and sent to the Cancellation Concentration Thought Police Camp? Did Hollywood not get the memo?
Frank Grillo was clearly born with stubble that would make Sonny Crockett proud.
I’m fairly certain his face breaks razors.
A Grillo Pad, if you will.
The “’80s lunchbox nostalgia” sounds lame but credit where it is due, “Colonel Ventor” is a superb 80s villain name. I’m thinking Brian Dennehy, no beard but full mustache.
“Colonel Ventor” sounds like a character in a Monopoly-branded Clue game, or a space in a Clue-branded Monopoly game.
It was Colonel Ventor, in the Waterworks, with the Iron! He’s the one who killed Marvin Gardens!
The 80s recognised a universal truth: if your name begins with a V, you are evil.
You can never go wrong thinking about Brian Dennehy.
Unless you’re singing about Brian Boitano.
Colonel Ventor is who Colonel Sanders became after Mega Maid blew up.
Mel Gibson’s late career emergence as a scenery chewing character actor would be a lot more fun to watch if it was anyone else but Mel Gibson.
I wonder if the next iteration of the “It’s Groundhog Dog, but” genre is a movie where the main character has to learn to be a total asshole to break the loop. Nice guy, salt of the Earth, friend to all living things, keeps going through the same day where he’s repeatedly stepped on and beaten down by life, and the only way out is to become a terrible villain who solves his problems with violence.I mean, that sounds awful, but it can’t be any worse than some of the other versions of the idea we’ve seen recently.
Mel Gibson should steal this idea and claim it’s a documentary about his life.
You know what you said is now a show, right? Netflix has bots that just scrape comments for those gems.
Yeah, we are overdue for a Falling Down remake.
but with a woman…..can’t lie; if it starred viola davis, i’d watch the crap out of it.
Falling Down is one of those great films where the majority of its fans completely missed the point.
Great idea. Who would be the lead?
The great thing about Falling Down is that it can work with literally anybody. You can play to type or against type and still have everything work out.That being said: Haley Joel Osment.
Obviously its got to be Bill Murray or Tom Hanks.If we go younger Micheal Cera?I mean who wouldn’t want to see Micheal Cera get the crap beaten out of him over and over again for laughs? Even better have Jim Carrey be the guy teaching him how to be a Villain.
Charlie Day
I think that’s a good percentage of “realistic” war movies.
I mean, that sounds awfulI don’t know, I think that sounds like it could be an interesting character study if handled correctly. Breaking Bad sounds similarly awful on paper.
Breaking Bad was pitched on paper. Clearly it didn’t sound that bad to certain networks…
Not a time loop story, but otherwise that’s the plot of Blackadder’s Christmas Carol.
Those future outfits! Phew!
All these movies use the time loop device as a metaphor for the protagonist’s arrested development. Palm Springs was funny enough, but when it became clear to me they were just going to recycle that same character arc I lost interest.
I mean, there’s reasonable fuel there for a compelling story that examines the difference between being nice and being kind. It sounds like it would at least be a few thousand times more interesting than Boss Level.
“It’s Groundhog Day, but with a literal groundhog.”
How about someone who has to go through a continuous Giggle Loop. A poor schmuck who has to relieve a social faux-pas at a funeral again and again.
…to be honest I’m imagining this as a John Wick type deal, and I *love* it.
I’m surprised to see this because, outside of Mel Gibson, this movie is a hell of a lot of dumb fun and a way better story than a movie like this deserves. B- for me, dawgs
Don’t know that I can buy Mel Gibson as a bad guy.
It wasn’t C- bad. I actually made it through this on my couch in a single sitting – and I can’t do that with most tv shows. It has some really fun Groundhog Day delights, some pretty neat gore, and it’s nice to see Senor Chang in anything.It’s better than the Tom Cruise version in lots of ways, but the dad-kid part drags it down.
Also, is Naomi Watts has some kind of Catherine Deneuve devil deal going on because she stopped aging.
Yup. I watched it over the weekend and had the same thoughts. They could have cut 20 min from this and it would have been a ton better. The first scene with him and his ex wife dragged, along with the kid part too. Also, some of the characters could have been a little better (Guan Yin could have been way funnier), but overall it was pretty damn fun. I was really surprised by it.
Agree, I found it perfectly enjoyable and have even recommended it. Its totally on par with something like Happy Death Day, just kind of a B-level exercise n the time-loop sandbox.
Death Day is better than this.
I thought the dad/kid part was sweet. In a better edited film it’d have worked much better.
You can see Senor Chang in anything. Guy’s in every second movie that comes out.
It was mostly very entertaining – and it made me laugh plenty
More than I expected
THis was a very joyless review
The movie succeeds on its own terms – more than most can say
Glenn Kenny nails it for me
https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/boss-level-movie-review-2021
That headline could also describe being married to Mel Gibson.
I just want to add to the first paragraph that I recommend Carnahan’s underrated Narc with Ray Liotta and Jason Patric.
wasn’t (or isn’t) Naomi Watts a reputable actor? She must have really needed a paycheck. I applaud her for landing a gig as a 52 year old woman where she is the ostensible love interest. This is not meant as an insult, she still has it going on, but I keep thinking about Amy Schumer’s “last fuckable day” skit.
i’ve always believed she has been wasted in nearly all her projects.
I might as well recommend the WTF interview from a few weeks back with Jodie Foster. It’s a very entertaining talk and she’s delightful. Maron and she get to talking about Gibson and she tells him what she told her kids: just because a good friend or loved one robs the local 7/11, you’ll still go see them in prison. And, right, you will: friends predate the bad things they can say or do. I wouldn’t want to be friends with Gibson (what he said to Winona Ryder at a party once is vile), but I wouldn’t blame or judge Foster for sticking with her good friend. I’m also sick of actors being asked by reporters how they feel about a person they worked with in the past who’s gotten in trouble. It’s cheap, gotcha, headline-bait journalism.
Nah. Assholes like Gibson count on that mentality to stay profitable. There are plenty of talented actors who aren’t pieces of shit that could be getting these gigs.
I can tell IV hasn’t kept up with gaming because there are SO MANY “learn to be a dad” games now, God of War being the best known.
As seemingly one of the few people who liked Smokin’ Aces (would you like to subscribe to my newsletter about how its a post-9/11 allegory for intelligence failures and miscommunications and government agencies creating or propping up their own boogeymen?), its disappointing to read how crappy this movie apparently is. On the other hand, I don’t really want to watch anything with Mel Gibson in a major role so maybe that’s a good thing. What the hell is Naomi Watts doing in this though? Sure she was in the astonishingly ill-conceived Book of Henry a few years ago, but that was at least a major role in a movie from a “hot” up and coming director, this sounds like a nothing role in a movie from a director whose career has long since cooled to room temperature.
I’d give this a B-. You have to rate this on the appropriate scale. It was most definitely a terrible movie. But it was pretty good terrible movie.
This movie would sound a lot more appealing if it were Mel Gibson being killed over and over again.
The B-Plot sounds like a rip off of American Dad’s “Yule. Tide. Repeat.”. It sounds like that episode has better death in it too. So I guess what I’m saying is watch that episode instead.
Sexist, racist and homophobic… was he, by any chance, brought up in Australia?Edit: you know who I mean. I thought I was replying to one of the Mel’s hell comments.
Sorry this is a solid B action movie ,and with movies the way they are right now, with a clean field for it its at least a A.Fun good action and Grillo shows he can ACT ! Gibson shows he can still deliver ,…he was real good as the villian .My only qualm was the end felt,…lacking ,I expected a Gibson last minute show up { Bullet proof vest} and a more definitive end.Overall Good fun ! and we need some !
Grillo can mug, but so much of this movie was VO it’s hard to tell if he can actually carry a scene.
I honestly got it into my head that this was the Ryan Reynolds “I’m stuck in a video game” movie Free Guy so I was disappointed to see the pan (and that Gibson was involved), but I guess I’m safe for now! The C- review for that film will have to wait a few months.
Hopefully your next hot take can “wait a few months” 🙄
“Rio Grillo” sounds like a made-up name for a movie.
All names are made up… sometimes they aren’t even for “the movie”
You just blew my mind.
It was supposed to be “Macho Grande”, but the casting agents couldn’t get over that name.
Having watched this movie, I feel like Carnahan originally turned in a much different film about Roy Pulver and Hulu or whoever was like “No no, dumb it down!”Because the voiceover absolutely feels like a post-hoc addition. Like in the beginning I could easily see that whole sequence with no VO, with the death being what introduces us to the loops.Or even more likely, the film opened with him visiting Watts and then they cut the first loop and typcial montage sequence in favor of this weird flashback narrative style.Also, there was NO reason Mel Gibson had to be in this. That could have been anyone.
The fact that Mel Gibson has a role in this is an automatic F for me.
I must say, I sincerely hope to never reach the lamentable stage where I find myself bemoaning the delightful escapism and sheer enjoyment of fun movies, reducing them to a tedious treatise on my purported affinity solely for art-house masterpieces. It would be a woeful day indeed if my ability to appreciate entertainment in its purest form were to be overshadowed by an insufferable air of snobbery and an incessant need to flaunt my supposedly superior taste in cinema.