Holy crap this movie sucks - Employee of the Month (2006) Discussion

[–] starstealinggirl 20 years ago

I totally agree. This move couldn't decide what genre it was trying to be. I think it thought it was a dark comedy, but I didn't even smile once watching it, much less laughed. (And I love dark comedies.) And oh my God, Matt Dillon CANNOT act. This movie was just painful. I left during the cliched strip club scenes.

reply

[–] MNPhatz 20 years ago

I agree. Come support me in the "I just rented it last night. I thought it was great! - - SPOILER!!!" forum.

reply

[–] nerosviolin369 20 years ago

I loved this movie!!!!A philosophy of human behavior, well played out!

How can anyone think this is anything but a dark comedy (especially since it is marked on the DVD case), since it stars, Steve Zahn, (95% of what he is in, he plays it funny!), Christina Applegate(obvious comedy), Andrea Bendewalds( One Night at McCools and Suddenly Susan, Picture Perfect), Dave Foley (Kids in The Hall,Just Shoot Me) Matt Dillon,(There's something About Mary, etc...)

It was more like a comedic version of "Bound" and "The Rich Mans' Wife"!
All the way to the resolve and ending credit sequences, I found it fun to watch and enter into this surreal world of illusions. Matt Dillon's delivery was intentional as to raie the suspicion of the watcher to question whether or not he was being for eal and we learn true to our suspicions that what we have suspected all along is not only validated,but true of others as well.

The song playing at the end says it all saying" I am an illusion...

reply

[–] slinger1999 20 years ago

I admit that I like movies with twist endings, but this one was just too stupid. Oooh, SPOILERS ahead!

The only redeeming quality of this movie is Steve Zahn, whose character as a person is a jerk. I really hope the writers and Dillon didn't intend on making the audience like Dillon's character, and then be shocked by the revelation that he is a dick, because if they did, then they didn't do a very good job.

You say that this is a philosophy of human behavior. The characters in this movie aren't the least bit human. Let's see. . . I'm Christina Applegate and I am going to use my parents to help me break up with my fiance who is cheating on me with my maid of honor (which I set up) which really didn't need to happen in the first place because he had obviously been planning on this bank robbery business anyway and the doublecross could have gone as planned and he would have been killed without that whole cheating business. Whoops, now I'm dead.

or

I'm Matt Dillon and I have these burn scars that my jerk friend gave to me. I hate my job, so I am going to rob it with a bunch of my friends. Hey jerk friend, want to help me rob this place? thanks! Now your dead because I resent these scars. Whoops, now I'm dead.

These are horrible people, and I hated these characters, except for Zahn, who was just a jerk.

reply

[–] filmconnoisseur77 20 years ago

awful movie...awful acting...awful story...bad music...awful direction(tried way to hard with those dumb sped up shots)

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eddiero 20 years ago

Strange how everything you critique in the movie is what makes the movie what it is. Could you dislike it because it went right by you? Or is it that "These are horrible people, and I hated these characters, except for Zahn, who was just a jerk."...so why do you like Steve Zahn's charater? You make little sense at best and asking people to come help you out bashing someone else'e posting is pathetic. Maybe you should stick to obvious films and maybe you'll be more on target.

reply

[–] hyygokacqwznpt 20 years ago

i'm not trying to say they're all likeable or they even need to be but you completely missed the movie from what you said.

<quote>I'm Christina Applegate and I am going to use my parents to help me break up with my fiance who is cheating on me with my maid of honor (which I set up) which really didn't need to happen in the first place because he had obviously been planning on this bank robbery business anyway and the doublecross could have gone as planned and he would have been killed without that whole cheating business. Whoops, now I'm dead.
</quote>
not sure what that is even supposed to mean it doesn't make any sense paste the first 20 or so words. Why would she 'use her parents' to break up with her fiancé. It's very obvious her parents weren't even in on the plan. She simply got the panties from her lover and used them to get her parents on her side.

I wonder if you have the chronology on this movie right. There was no indication he was killed for cheating. He was killed for the same reason Chicken was killed. "part of the plan"

<quote>I'm Matt Dillon and I have these burn scars that my jerk friend gave to me. I hate my job, so I am going to rob it with a bunch of my friends. Hey jerk friend, want to help me rob this place? thanks! Now your dead because I resent these scars. Whoops, now I'm dead.
</quote>
the bank robbery was the whole purpose in getting the job. He didn't hate the job then decide to rob it. He decided to rob it then get the job.

reply

[–] CynthAriel 19 years ago

I think some of the most telling (in hindsight) moments of this film, and some of which many of you missed, are those moments of hesitation. David (Matt Dillon) hesitates because he is struggling with an inner-turmoil. He has a plan, a destiny, if you will, to rob the bank. However, on some level he wants to be the guy on the straight-and-narrow, in the suit, with the great job and Employee of the Month. And he does feel love for Sara, which only exacerbates his turmoil.

One telling moment is the nudie-bar bathroom scene, when David tells Jack he thinks he loves Sara. Jack slaps him and says this isn't who he is. He points to David's scars in the mirror to show that David is not one of them -- the bank people -- he is who he is, which is a criminal.

A very key moment of hesitation is shortly after David is fired, when he deliberates over what to tell Sara. He picks up the phone and just sits there. He knows what the plan is: that, on the day he gets fired, he would call her and trigger the events that would lead to their break up. But he doesn't want to end the relationship, because he feels love. But he does it anyway; he's in too deep and his co-conspirators have pressured him too much. Wendy is watching him. So he tells Sara to get the keys from his jacket pocket, which is where she will and does find the panties, which HE planted. The parents were just an unexpected added touch. (As far as Sara's role, she just became an opportunist and took advantage of the plan that had already been plotted.)

Another such hesitation is an earlier scene when David leaves his house to go to work. He stands and looks at Sara sleeping. He knows that this is his review day and hence the day he will be fired, but he hesitates, because he doesn't want to leave, and he even says that. The "people depending on him" are his co-conspirators who depend on him to carry out the heist.

I thought the movie was clever. It is a film that requires the viewer to think, which I like. I agree it was sick and twisted, but those parts with the dead bodies were there for character-building, to show you how deviant, and nuts, Jack really is. Yet on some level you find that Jack is not even the craziest of all; the big guy who's the real coroner (and, ironically, played by one of the screen writers) is even more nuts.

That's my two cents. Sometimes when you don't like a film, it's not because it "sucks"; it's merely because it's just not your type of film.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JPatric 20 years ago

I too feel that the movie sucks. I'll just go ahead with my main reason, that is there are too many unecessary scenes. (1)like when his "buddy" went to his home entered through the back, drunk, and pissed in the fountain or something,their conversation did not tell us anything about the robbery. (2)their meeting at the sauna and the "dentist" gave him some advise, and his buddy gave him a watch, there wasn't mention that the 3 of them worked together planning on that robbery. So why didn't they talk about the robbery?

So why don't they have some conversation about their plot? There are two possible reasons. One is that what we saw in the movie, was what the director wanted us to see without even giving a hint that this movie is one of those movie with surprising twists. Perhaps the director thought that such plot twist would definitely surprise us, yes it did but not in the good way. The second reason was that it is possible that the director/writer ran out of ideas on how to actually end the story, so hey why not a big twist, and the end product looks like the beginning of Script A and the end of Script B patched together.

reply

[–] captainlou 20 years ago

!!Major Spoilers!!

I just watched this movie last night and I will have to disagree with the title of this thread and all the naysayers.

This movie was one of the better movies I have seen. For all the genres it touches upon. It was always tongue in cheek, from start to finish. If anyone was looking for a serious movie, this wasn't it.

And reading all the replies about how it didn't make any sense, did everyone that said these things actually watch the entire movie and pay attention?

The clues were all laid out from the get go. Especially the bus scene, but most people picked up on that. But the beauty of that idea was that by the time of the payoff, we had gotten so caught up on the twists, we almost forget about the bus. If we stopped the credits, we would have definitely missed the payoff. I thought the unraveling in the credits was a great idea, rather than filling us in thru out the movie. Something different, not something over looked on the director's part.

The whole story was about the robbery.

If those of us that paid attention to the hooker scene (played wonderfully by Jenna Fischer from the new "The Office" show), much is revealed, w/o revealing it all. He mentions how he faked his way into the bank 2 years ago, with a false resume. Then later on after the robbery he is talking to Wyatt (Zahn) about how he planned this robbery for 2 years. So he was only at the bank for 2 yrs to plot. Yes, he wanted to 'be that guy' with the fancy suit, but not in a legit way. He had Wendy intentionally give him a bad review so that he would get fired to set up the fake disgruntled employee scene. This makes sense since Wendy is in on it. You have to watch carefully at the signature on the review slip, it is not the bank owners son-in-law, it is Wendy's. When David asks who could have signed off on him and Wendy says the son-in-law, it is front of other employees to add credibility to the disgruntled scene. And when the robbery occurs, the only person killed is the son-in-law, because whichever robber killed him (my guess is it was Wyatt) knew how much David really hated him.

We are well aware that David and Wendy are having an affair, that part is obvious. The hooker scene also reveals that he does have feelings for his fiance, the closet to love he can muster, so that is why her rant w/ her parents plays off so well.

He was never planning on killing himself. He went to the hotel because he was fooled by the fiance and her lover, but he was still planning on going thru with the robbery. He had the gun for the ranting employee scene, to make it look like he was a hero. The fantasy in the bank shows him as the hero and he gets the girl (as was the plan in his head, right?).

Steve Zahn was NOT a crooked coroner. He wore a fake coroner's outfit and paid of the real coroner to steal from the deceased. Remember, he had the radio to ambulance chase to the scenes and collect after the coroner's truck was already there?!?

Everybody was playing everybody the entire movie. Just because we weren't privy to all the playing, does not make it a bad movie. Matt Dillon's character carried a 12+ year grudge against his friend for the burn. Applegate had nothing against Dillon, but had to appear that way to him (hence the dumping w/parents scene) in order for the lesbian double cross to work. Panties were never in his coat, she claimed they were for the setup.

My idea on how the plot developed -
Dillon and Zahn plan a bank robbery 2 yrs prior to start of movie. The whole time, Dillon is planning on killing Zahn (for the burn scars) and taking his share of the loot.

Once in the bank, Dillon looks for another employee to assist with plan, finds Wendy and starts affair with her. Wendy goes along and eventually brings in her girlfriend to double cross Dillon. After short while, Dillon starts to truly care about Applegate character, but not enough to break it off with Wendy.

Somwhere in there, they bring in the two guys from the strip club as accomplices, never intending to share. They bring in the dentist for the dental records cover up. These type of guys never get their share, so that makes sense.

All along, Dillon is unaware of Wendy/Applegate connection. He is always planning on killing Zahn and taking his share. Wendy is planning on killing Dillon and taking his share after he kills Zahn. Wendy and Applegate are always planning on taking all the shares and living a 'happily ever after' lesbian lifestyle, until the illusion is laid out fully......

Lastly, this movie had some killer lines!

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] teenagezombie13 20 years ago

I thought it was a good movie and I think Steve Zahn was a great supporting actor. It was very funny, and even though the ending could have been a bit more effective it still was original. And anyone who says they didnt like it cause it didn't conform to a specific genre is an idiot. Thats a really lame reason to talk sh!t about a movie.

"who will save the sane?"

reply

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] matthewlwolff 20 years ago

This movie was probably the worst I've seen in recent memory, which surprised me because I liked "Strangers With Candy" and thought "Without A Paddle" was, i guess, tolerable.

But this movie....man, it was just stupid. All the characters were unlikable. Steve Zauns character was supposed to be the comic relief, but the only people who would find him funny would be KKK hipsters, and I'm pretty sure they don't exist.

The jokes all have been done before, the plot was old and tired, the characters were shallow and stupid and the directing style was overly forced...not to mention the choice of music would sooner grace a Limp Bizkit: True Life of Fred Durst than the soundtrack of a quality movie.

Then the ending, oy the ending. It had about 50 twists in the last 2 minutes. By the end, I was just wondering what the *beep* went on. He went over the edge, I didn't care anymore. I stopped being surprised halfway through and became sad at the sorry state of cinema in this country.

The only, and I say only, quality part of this movie is that David Foley had a tiny, tiny, tiny role as a dentist. He stole the 2 scenes he was in (somehow, him being in 2 scenes made him a main character and a mover-and-shaker in the movie, don't know how that happened).

So, only rent this movie if you're either A) A third grader planning to shoot up his school who needs some 'get angry' music or B) Some film snob who loves Quintin Tarrentino, but finds his movies too intelligent and well done.

reply

[–] rogerbosch2003 19 years ago

I agree. I watched a lot of movies lately, since my provider lets me access a movie channel and I have a lot of free time. Among them were excellent films, medium quality ones and not so good ones. But Employee of the Month is really at the bottom of the list now.

reply

[–] Six-Shooter 15 years ago

Exactly what I'd call it. A Tarantino or Coen film without the wit or intelligence.

reply

[–] joeking1 19 years ago

the only time we met the dentist was in the sauna so you wind up completely forgetting him by the time the movie ends that's what was good about it you forgot something that was right there in front of you

reply

[–] OrangeKush 15 years ago

"I too feel that the movie sucks. I'll just go ahead with my main reason, that is there are too many unecessary scenes. (1)like when his "buddy" went to his home entered through the back, drunk, and pissed in the fountain or something,their conversation did not tell us anything about the robbery. (2)their meeting at the sauna and the "dentist" gave him some advise, and his buddy gave him a watch, there wasn't mention that the 3 of them worked together planning on that robbery. So why didn't they talk about the robbery? So why don't they have some conversation about their plot?"

I thought the scene at the sauna was one of the times in the movie they did actually talk about their plot directly, compared to other times when they are deliberately fooling either each other or bystanders. They establish the dentist is shady, they talk about the state of his teeth for falsifying dental records, and how they are going to change his dental records after the fact.

reply

[–] Flungo 19 years ago

If you only watch this movie once, you think they just pulled a fast one on you. But when you watch it again, the movie plays true to its surprise ending. In the beginning, Matt Dillon asks the maid of honor if she's nervous. She says "why should i be nervous, I'm not the one taking a bullet." Matt Dillon took that bullet for effect in the robbery. In the sauna, Matt Dillon tells Matt Foley that his last day is tomorrow and he replies "That's not a whole lot of notice." He's talking about the plan to knock the bank off. And how could somebody not crack a smile at this movie? Steve Zahn says some of the craziest stuff in that movie. And I don't even like punk music, but that soundtrack fit perfectly for that movie. It's a great movie and its very entertaining.

reply

[–] hugh-hot-pants 19 years ago

''...Steve Zahn says some of the craziest stuff in that movie. And I don't even like punk music, but that soundtrack fit perfectly for that movie. It's a great movie and its very entertaining. ''

totally agree, man :)

reply

[–] sean-496 19 years ago

"And I don't even like punk music, but that soundtrack fit perfectly for that movie."

Hehehe, that's NOT punk music in the sound track.

This movie was pretty good, and definitely had me laughing. But like some other posters said, the directing style was definitely overly-forced. I don't like the recent trend with films that causes them to be laden with "style" (fast cuts, speed-ups, slow-downs, etc.) Unless it serves a specific purpose, it definitely detracts from the viewing experience overall.

reply

[–] JamieTheMovieCritic 19 years ago

if you think this movie sucks to bad, why would you come on the site representing it? i mean, did you think you should start sh!t or what? if you dont have something nice to say, dont say it at all. this movie is not for those individuals who think inside the box. you are obviously one of them.. you watch reality tv and shop at hot topic. have respect for the movie itself and keep your mouth shut

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] meliciousintnt 19 years ago

Actually, if you really pay attention to the movie, nothing comes without some kind of hint. Someone before posted a few examples and I just found another one. The beginning at the bank before David's review he seems to be "joking" with Wendy.

David Walsh: I just hope that my review shows that I've been slacking off, and this way I should be fired. That way, when I snap and threaten to kill the old *beep* I'll have a good reason. I'm just kidding.

It seems like a joke the first time you watch the movie, but that's exactly what happens, and what had been planned for 2 years.

reply

[–] mrhanky911 19 years ago

people are just weird... some cannot enjoy a good flick without paris hilton in it...if anything is breaking out of the cliche barrier, they wont like it...

i enjoyed this movie because nothing was forced. Yes, maybe Matt Dillon isnt the best of actors, but you know what, i wouldnt want anyone else in it. This film was to show how *beep* up everyone is, and well...

SPOILER!!!!

at the end, you find out that everyone is indeed *beep* up.

"revenge is a dish best served cold."

reply

[–] cavnative 15 years ago

Bubblegum

reply

[–] rogerbosch2003 19 years ago

I don't agree that only the ones who like the movie should come here and post... it's all about discussing it isn't it... otherwise the thread would look like this:

A. I totally love this movie
B. I agree, me too
C. this movie was far out!
A. you just proved my point
D. I especially like that scene where he says the crazy thing
A. I like that scene too
C. Yeah... I agree with A, B and D.
etc.

Don't be a tourist, just live like one

reply

[–] michaeldangero 19 years ago

Wow, let's see here...everybody's an f'n film critic. I can't wAIT too see all of your finished feature films. You can't wait for it it finish fast enough, turn it off, a-hole! Or does that require too much thought and too much effort? I've seen EVERY film, good or bad, criticized and dissed on this site, often with erroneous and/or misunderstood information. Idiots, You don't like a movie? Fine, that doesn't make you an idiot. You're an idiot because when you post your negative opinions on here, you reveal yourself as one. Don't like it? leave the theater and demand your money back. Press the STOP button on the VCR, DCD player or its remote. Change the channel. Or better yet, turn the TV off and go read a book, or the nutritional information on the side of a cereal box. In other words, go learn something. Personally, I tend not to form any opinion on a movie after seeing it only once...

"For me it's a full time job" GetCarter
"Oy you fahkin wally shut - " "Fahkoff tosser" S&N

reply

[–] Camden003 19 years ago

"You're an idiot because when you post your negative opinions on here, you reveal yourself as one. Don't like it? leave the theater and demand your money back"

I completely agree with you michael. People shouldn't post negative opinions of a movie that they don't have enough info about. It just makes them look like an idiot.

reply

[–] hah-17 19 years ago

It seems for michael that forming an actual opinion requires too much thought and effort, which is why he says that he doesn't form any on a movie. And is also why his post doesn't really say anything at all, just look at it--there's no opinion there, just a futile and non-topical rant. Well, guess what, people have a right to post their opinions on any matter or movie whether they may be negative or positive, and I applaud them for that--that's why we have forum boards. Maybe it should be you going outside and actually learning something, since apparently you've seen EVERY film's posts on this site that could only mean that you have no life outside of reading posts on imdb. As far as this particular movie, I've already stated my opinion before under another alias, but I'll say it again: this movie sucks. It tries too hard to appeal to a certain audience (perhaps the MTV crowd) with all the poorly timed techno/rock music and overly-stylized camera shots. The characters were not funny, not dramatic, not engaging in anyway, they just fell flat for me. This is what really tore the movie down, and I didn't even mention all the retarded plot twists... Also, I like what someone said earlier about drinking a sprite after the robbery, I'm just laughing at that one :)

reply

[–] brodie__bruce 19 years ago

"Don't like it? leave the theater and demand your money back."

as a veteran of the theatre industry...that is a bunch of garbage. a movie theatre doesn't guarantee the story, or that you will like the story, or understand it. the theatre guarantees the presentation...for example, the picture will be in focus, the sound will be high quality, the show will be uninterrupted, etc.

people need to educate themselves on what they are going to spend their money on.

i actually had people cussing at me when i wouldn't give them their money back after they watched all of "forces of nature," because affleck and bullock didn't end up together. they yelled about how all the commercials made it look like they would end up in love...my response? "write a letter to dreamworks. i didn't make the movie, nor did i promote it."

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]