If we're being honest with each other, I can't say I've enjoyed too many installments in the Avengers series since 2011's Captain America: The First Avenger. I mean, REALLY enjoyed them. I liked most of them, but not to the point of needing to rewatch them. The first Avengers film was very enjoyable. And so was last year's Ant-Man. But other than that, it's been growing a bit tiresome.
And within the first ten minutes of Captain America: Civil War, I thought it wasn't boding well for this one either. There was a random action scene, which felt more like action for action's sake. We weren't sure why things were happening. It was more self-aggrandizing than anything else.
But soon after, we realize it was supposed to be somewhat unimportant. Merely setting up the theme for the rest of the movie.
The Avengers are trying to stop some bad guys in Nigeria, but kill some civilians in the process.
Afterwards, the superhero team faces a lot of adversity across the entire world. The United Nations issues an act that will oversee and control the Avengers' missions. This divides everyone in the group. Some feel that not fighting every battle they hear of is a waste of their abilities, while others are affected more by the death toll of the innocent.
I wasn't expecting the "civil war" to be much more than a verbal conflict, but it escalates pretty badly. You know something really catastrophic is going to happen as a result of this.
Halfway through this movie, I've already realized that it's better than most that came before it.
Here's why I like it: More than almost any Avengers film, there's no convoluted premise or overuse of impenetrable fanboy references. Everything here is clearcut. There are no alien races trying to takeover the planet. Nothing here feels like it's beating a dead horse.
This film also contains the best cast yet. Chadwick Boseman ups the ante playing Black Panther, as his acting abilities almost seem too good for this franchise. We also get some great character surprises, as well as a few minutes of Marisa Tomei.
It's a refreshing mix of each character's personality and wit, without it sacrificing the film's intent or them stepping on each other's toes.
Like any of Marvel's Avengers movie, this one has tons of charisma. But it's different this time, because it isn't forced. It makes you think philosophically--and morally--even if you don't realize you are.
It becomes top tier in this glorified franchise, and moves into my top 3 favorite Marvel films since the series was launched in 2008--along with Iron Man and the aforementioned Captain America: The First Avenger.
It isn't perfect, but it's pretty close as far as superhero movies go.
It's also important to note that you should probably know some background on the whole Bucky-Captain America relationship or you might be a little lost. Also, for those of you who've never seen ANY Avengers film, this will probably all be lost on you.
Twizard Rating: 98
Walt Disney's Alice in Wonderland is in a category all of its own. Disney's spectacular vision and range is showcased in his 13th animated feature. With a little help from the Lewis Carroll series for which it was adapted from, this film's surrealism makes for a completely unique entry in the Disney pantheon. It's like the black sheep. To this day, they haven't made another one like it.
The story isn't one in the linear sense, but more of a compendium of unrelated series of events. But they all lead to a common goal.
Alice, herself, has some radical ideals when it comes to the world around her, and faces hostility from the adults in her life. But she learns her imagination is mild in comparison to the oddities of Wonderland. She ventures off to this magical world, only to discover she isn't very welcome. She has a terrible time and no one wants her to be there. And at moments, she finds herself questioning the silliness of the realm, appropriating her mindset to that of her closed-minded mother back home.
The depth of Alice is deeper than most realize. It's subtle, but her attitude is brilliant commentary on contrasting our own independent philosophies with those that we're raised on.
Surprisingly, the film is not as dated as you would think. Some of the humor holds up well compared to today's standards.
Considering the very short runtime, the songs are in abundance and create a high ratio to the non-singing scenes. And naturally, there are one or two weaker tunes, but most of them are ear-worm classics.
At 75 minutes, we spend enough time in Wonderland to warrant a complete story. Or collection of events. Alice in Wonderland is meant to be episodic. And it's very dark and deranged at times, too. While many people find that those things make the movie harder to warm up to, it's actually part of what makes it one of my favorite Disney films from the Walt era. An underrated piece of cinema.
Twizard Rating: 95
Read more at www.TheTwizard.com
The imagery of Wonderland is one that's notably psychedelic--almost notoriously--to the point where it's become a well-known pseudo-fact that author Lewis Carroll used drugs while penning his famous novel. This isn't true. But countless tellings of the story carry such traits.
Tim Burton's is no different. Although, while being adamant about his version of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory not straying away from the original source material, his take on Wonderland differs quite a bit. But not in a bad way. In fact, this version is a refreshing new take on the classic story we all know. It would have been so easy to merely duplicate it, but Burton had something else in mind.
Unlike the other adaptations, especially including the 1951 Disney version, Burton tries to create an emotional connection between Alice and the characters she encounters. Instead of Alice going through Wonderland and experiencing a sequence of disjointed events, her journey is all connected, giving the film an actual sense of cohesion.
Starting off in the real world, 19-year-old Alice is on the verge of being forced into marrying some guy she doesn't love. The people around her parallel traits of the characters we already know from Wonderland, foreshadowing what's about to happen--in a sort of Wizard of Oz type of way.
Then, right when it's convenient, she follows an anthropomorphic white rabbit down a hole into Wonderland. Did I say Wonderland? I mean "Underland". "Wonderland" is the name she gives it when she's a little girl. Apparently this isn't Alice's first time here. But now that she's older, she insists it's always just been a dream. In fact, she says this about 10 times, and never seems to accept the reality of it all.
But the characters all seem to know her, insisting that she is prophesied to defeat the Red Queen's Jabberwocky.
The film takes awhile to get anywhere, and the dialogue does a lot of rambling. However, we still seem to enjoy Alice's adventures as though we are unfamiliar with the story ourselves.
Because, in a way, we are. But it's Burton's auteurism that draws us in the most. His actualized vision is what draws us in and gives this film its unique thumbprint.
Indeed dreamlike, Underland is a world all of its own. It's much like Wonderland, except many of the bright colors are gone. This is a "Wonderland" that doesn't juxtapose brightness with dystopian imagination. Because it's completely dark and dystopian in almost every way--which isn't necessarily a bad thing. Although, it may disappoint those hoping for a quintessential live-action adaptation.
What prevents this film from being great is its tendency to meander. Seeming to be more focused on its impenetrable lexicon and non-sequiturs, it feels, at times, like the filmmakers don't want us to know what's going on. And feeling like an outsider when a movie should be enveloping you in its highly intricate world can be a frustrating experience.
Filled with made-up words that even the most insane context clues won't help us with, it never lets up. As though it's proud of being cryptic. Or perhaps you can just credit it for its consistency. Whatever it is, at least it brings us closer to the title character in her own bemusement.
All is forgiven during the last 25 minutes when everything finally makes sense and we realize that the film actually does have some great ideas. But, it turns out, all it had to do was simply explain what itself.
The cast is all very good in their respective roles. Helena Bonham Carter is a marvel as the Red Queen, who acts as a spoiled child trapped in an insecure and manipulative dictator. Her head is oddly shaped, so her minions wear prosthetic noses and ears to make her feel more comfortable with her own distortions.
I'm glad there's a sequel about to come out, because I've always felt this film was more of a setup movie. And a good one, at that--just getting us accustomed to the world that's been created. A world that feels very real.
The film's occasional off-kilter humor is noticed and appreciated. It adds to the oddness of it all--much in line with the spirit of Lewis Carroll and his sober-self.
Twizard Rating: 77
If you've ever wished there were a movie filled with songs by both George Michael and Future, then this is the one for you.
Keanu is engaging right from the opening scene, where two shadowy figures craftily shoot up an entire drug operation inside of an old church.
And so it begins. After wrapping up their eponymous sketch comedy show, Keegan-MIchael Key and Jordan Peele embark on their first film together. Written by Peele and starring both of them, Keanu follows Rell (Peele), who has just suffered a major breakup. And on the verge of of a downward spiral, he discovers a kitten on his doorstep. This kitten is Keanu. Immediately falling in love--like anyone would with a kitten--it fills the void that his ex-girlfriend left. This is pretty much the first and last time his breakup is mentioned in the whole movie.
Within days, Keanu is stolen. And Rell, along with his cousin, Clarence (Key), ventures into the depths of an underground drug circle, infiltrating a gang called the Blips (a combination of the Bloods and the Crips). They pretend to be drug lords as well, forcing them to talk more aggressively and "gangster", fearing their "white-washed personas" will get them caught immediately.
There are some very funny bits in this movie. Sure, many jokes go on for too long, while others awkwardly flop, but with Key and Peele, it's the awkwardness that makes them funny.
Even when the two of them aren't making you laugh, you can't stop watching them try to be funny. You might even catch yourself smiling at it a few times.
Some details about the plot are unclear, but nothing too frustrating. From the earliest scenes, there are a handful of holes in the logic of this film. A main one being: how would any experienced gangster not be able to snuff out two obvious phonies? But it's a comedy that prides itself on silliness, so we shouldn't care too much.
Like any good comedy, there are more hits than misses. It narrowly undershoots the mark of being the next 21 Jump Street. It's consistent, but it's never groundbreaking. With less formulaic beats, maybe it could've been just that. Though I'm convinced formula is what they are going for, taking references from old buddy action films of yesteryear.
Plus, there's a subtle Bill & Ted reference, giving it extra points from me.
For those of you who are fans of Key & Peele's show, you'll enjoy the humor. But not to fear, it's not just one long drawn-out sketch. It's a solid action-comedy, but with a familiar brand of humor. As for others, you may be slightly caught off guard. You might leave the theater feeling like you've accidentally stumbled into an arcane universe that somehow you never knew existed until now. But the movie's feel is familiar enough that you'll still enjoy yourself. I guess their plan worked.
Twizard Rating: 84
If you're one of the people who thought there needed to be a sequel to a film that was already adding nothing really new to the lore of Snow White, then at least you saw the first film. If you didn't see the first film, then you're in luck because you don't have to in order to watch this one. This prequel/sequel is only cosmetically related to 2012's Snow White and the Huntsman.
I mean that in both a good way and a bad way. The two films share some of the same cast--Chris Hemsworth, Charlize Theron, Nick Frost--but feels weighed down by the fact that its predecessor wasn't at all as amazing as its trailer lead us to believe.
But let's, for a moment, judge this movie solely on its own being, and not based on how necessary it is or the demerits of its predecessor.
The first installment ends the same way all Snow White adaptations end, except for there being an ambiguous endearment between Snow White and Eric the Huntsman (Hemsworth).
Snow White isn't in this movie. She's mentioned and silhouetted, but basically omitted. Which is fine. She was probably the worst part of the first one anyway.
Even better, we get a couple of cool additions to the cast in Emily Blunt and Jessica Chastain--both of whom do a superb job in their respective roles of the Snow Queen and Sara, the huntsman's wife.
When I say this installment acts as a prequel AND a sequel, it means that it shows the origins of how Eric becomes the huntsman and how he meets Sara, but then flashes forward 7 years after she dies (we know this from the first film).
The sequel portion of the story has the huntsman setting out on a journey to find the magic mirror, which Snow White sends away after it starts making her go crazy and homicidal. This is where the plot gets hairy. It's never clear why the mirror is making her mad, nor how she has the consciousness to send it away, nor why the huntsman needs to retrieve it even though Snow White wants it gone to begin with.
The magic mirror is a MacGuffin in the worst sense. Not only do we not need it as a plot device, but we're not even really sure why it's a plot device. There could've been a more sensible reason why Eric and the dwarves set out on their quest.
The action sequences are, at times, ridiculous and silly--over-saturated with shaky cam so you just accept what's happening. But the thing is, we would've been just as fine without the nausea.
There's plenty of levity from the dwarves, played by Frost and Rob Brydon. The jokes are a fairly even mixture of both hits and misses. But it's okay, at least it keeps the movie fun and not too self-aggrandizing. That is, until it wants to be self-aggrandizing. Jarring tonal shifts and an overly jokey Hemsworth all of a sudden make us confused about what feel we're supposed to be getting.
Truth is, I can't think of a good enough reason not to like this movie. I find it entertaining. There's a lot of meandering somewhere in the middle of the story. The journey to the mirror isn't half as exciting as it should be. Nonetheless, The Huntsman tops its predecessor, not on essentiality, but on a unique premise.
Twizard Rating: 79
If a piece of art is highly influential, does it make that piece of art good? Yeah, probably--great, even. But it doesn't necessarily mean everyone has to like it.
Intermixing and connecting four stories, the film compares and contrasts all different types of low-level scums of the earth.
In Pulp Fiction, the dialogue is superb--near perfect. Quentin Tarantino's direction is that of ridiculously mind-numbing proportions. The cinematography is truly something else. Not to mention, groundbreaking on so many different levels--replicated infinitely.
But just because it's groundbreaking, doesn't mean it has to be my favorite film.
Perhaps this has something to do with all the hype I've been hearing my whole life about how it's the greatest film of our lifetime--of ALL time. But I wanted to love it. I expected to love it!
And although I didn't love it necessarily. I liked it--a lot. Tarantino might just be my favorite director. I think he's the greatest auteur of our generation. Each film of his I've seen has inspired me even more in my own writing and artistry.
What I like about Inglorious Basterds, Django Unchained, and even Reservoir Dogs, is the sense of grandeur and importance. They all command your attention with mere dialogue in ways that most mainstream action blockbuster flicks never will.
And Pulp Fiction is engaging in that same way. But it differs from those other Tarantino films in one particular way: It's mostly much ado about nothing. I get that it's supposed to pose as commentary on the state of the film industry and mimic countless classics that have gone before it. But too often does Pulp Fiction take its sweet time getting to the point. That's Tarantino's style with his hard-hitting dialogue--which I find entertaining. But if there is no point (or no point of any substantial value) then all that dialogue gives us just that--entertainment.
Which I'm all for. Some of my favorite films are meaningless is the grand scheme of things. But in those films, I care deeply about the characters. I relate to them. I root for them. Here, I'm not sure who I root for, if anybody. But maybe that's the point, too.
The nonlinear story is cool, and is brought back to popularity with this movie, but definitely not the most interesting I've seen in cinema. On the other hand, watching the stories unfold is. Never knowing what's coming around the corner or which characters to trust or like. Tarantino gets the absolute best performances out of his talent--Samuel L. Jackson above all else.
The best scene is when John Travolta and Uma Thurman venture to a 1950s-themed diner. Every employee there is a caricature of some '50s icon. Which is a curious thing since this film pays homage to countless zeitgeists of yesteryear, but almost none of them are from the 1950s.
Perhaps its groundbreakingness is partially due to massively exposing the world to Tarantino and proving that he wasn't just a one-hit-wonder with Reservoir Dogs. That his style is here to stay.
The movie is exploitation that critics reaffirm as high-quality, while also changing the game for independent films, making it okay for A-listers to appear in these lower budget productions.
But like I said, I also have to credit it to its technical accomplishments. And the fact that it's thoroughly and consistently engaging.
Pulp Fiction is an amazing film. Perhaps Tarantino's greatest artistic accomplishment. But one that I could watch over and over? It's not even my favorite Tarantino film.
Twizard Rating: 97
There are a lot of experiences that young men should have growing up. Being exposed to the barbershop culture is one of them. I loved going to get my haircut when I was a teenager. Not just because I felt rejuvenated with my fresh cut, but because I enjoyed the banter, the stories, and even the superfluous arguments. It's something I still look forward to when I go get a trim. And it's captured perfectly in this 2002 Ice Cube comedy.
The story isn't anything too intricate. It surrounds Cube's character, Calvin, trying to decide whether or not he should sell the barbershop passed on to him by his late father. But most of the film is spent filling us in on the happenings of the employees and patrons of the shop, and their own stories. By far the most interesting part, we get a great sense of who these people are and what makes them tick. We feel like we're right there in the shop with them.
It has its fair share of broad comedy, but there aren't a lot of moments of subtle humor. Which is okay, since it does the former so well. While it's rarely hysterical, you can definitely appreciate the repartee. In fact, most of the highlights don't come from the barbershop at all, but from Anthony Anderson and Lahmard Tate's characters stealing and attempting to open an ATM machine. This subplot goes on throughout the entire film.
With an impressive cast and an even more impressive Ice Cube, the beauty of this film is in its characters. They're not all likable, but you get to know them well enough to understand them. It's deceptively deep.
Ultimately, Barbershop turns a very simple premise into something much bigger and more meaningful. And it does it without ever feeling like it's being stretched too thin.
Although it's not perfect, it's perhaps one of the most accurate portrayals of a culture so beloved by American males.
Twizard Rating: 84
