There are genius scripts, and then there are scripts that are obviously written by genius. Ex Machina is an example of the latter.
In this film, we get one of the most pensive takes on consciousness and science. Written and directed by Alex Garland, it takes a lot out of you, but it's worth it in the end.
Looking deeply into the reality of artificial intelligence, Ex Machina follows Caleb (Domhall Gleeson), a computer coder who wins a contest to live at his billionaire boss' estate for a week. When he gets there, his boss, Nathan (Oscar Isaac), informs him that he will be part of a project to test if an artificial intelligent being can form relationships with actual humans.
One thing that Isaac excels exceptionally well at is being mysterious. Right away, we're scared of him, but not sure why, or if we're even supposed to be. He balances this eeriness while having a charisma about him. Not like Gordon Gekko, but in a way that shows the vulnerability behind his eyes. As though Isaac, too, knows of his character's vices.
The artificial human we're given is Ava (Alicia Vikander), who, other than her looks, is a real human to us. Vikander's every move and vocal inflection convinces us that she is real. And if you haven't already seen The Man from U.N.C.L.E., you may actually think she is.
While many moments in this film will leave you thinking that it would be well suited as a '90s Sci-Fi Channel film, others will let you know that this film belongs in mainstream popular culture in every way.
The only downfall of this movie is that it's so dark it isolates itself from its audience. It hits home, but makes us want no part of it. It tells of too many potential truths. Too many horrors. It's one thing watching I, Robot, but it's another to make us believe that somewhere out there, someone is making an artificially intelligent being who may soon walk this earth. It's a fantastic watch, and a phenomenal movie, but not one I would soon repeat.
Twizard Rating: 100
The Revenant is truly something to behold. It's beautifully shot and maybe even more impressively directed. This could have easily gone awry in the wrong director's hands, but Alejandro Iñárritu makes it look too easy.
Leonardo DiCaprio plays a fur trapper in the American Northwest in 1823. He and his crew are on the run after escaping a Native American ambush. One day, after going off on his own, he is attacked and savagely injured by a grizzly bear in a scene that will stay with you for a very long time. It might be one of the most intense sequences in film history. Nearly dying, he is deemed, by Tom Hardy's character, as too risky to be carried along with them, so Hardy leaves DiCaprio to die.
The film is really long, but riveting. Not once does your mind wander to something else. Scene after scene is like nothing you've seen before.
This film is about revenge, but it's also about moral decisions. It's never preachy, but those who wish to get something out of it will. It's hard to watch, but completely rewarding in the end. And there may have never been such a dark film that is also this beautiful to look at.
Tom Hardy, while audibly incomprehensible at times, plays grimly sadistic to perfection. From the beginning, he walks around like nothing ever bad is going to happen to him. He's cocky, but there's something subtle in his tone that makes you believe that he's unsure of himself subconsciously--even though he thinks no one notices. Perhaps they don't.
It's a no brainer that DiCaprio has given the best performance of the year, even if just for his commitment to making his character real. The film is shot in actual freezing temperatures and throughout the entire thing you really do feel his pain--just from the piercing cold itself. He's in a league of his own with this one.
But if we're going to talk about commitment, we must also discuss Iñárritu's insistence that there will be no green screen used and everything that happens will be happening for real. Last year, Iñárritu's film Birdman won the Oscar for Best Picture. This is a step even above that. Birdman was filmed in a controlled setting. Watching The Revenant, you feel like everyone on set is playing with fire. The fact that they get a breathtaking film out of it is superbly impressive.
Twizard Rating: 100
This is an odd case, in my opinion. It's a simple story--a romantic drama to be exact--and it's nominated for an Academy Award for Best Picture. It's not the type of film you'd think would be nominated in this category. It's great, sure, but the Academy usually recognizes either groundbreaking films or controversial films--nowadays at least. This one is neither. But that should just show you how strong of a film it is.
Much like 2009's An Education, Brooklyn is very low concept. It's not controversial, it's not political, it's not even all that original. But it hits its audience in a sensitive place with its charm about a topic that we can all relate to--love.
Brooklyn, starring Saoirse Ronan and Emory Cohen, follows an Irish immigrant, Eilis (Ronan), as she comes to the United States seeking new opportunity. We see pretty early on that she is a selfless person--always doing community service and being involved in her church. Although she comes from a privileged background, Eilis doesn't look down on anyone. But she's very shy and doesn't know how to talk to new people. Men flirt with her, but she just turns the other way. That is, until, she meets Tony (Cohen), an uneducated Italian-American plumber, who develops an immediate attraction to her.
This is where the film really gets going, though it comes in a little later than we'd like. However, we don't terribly mind since we love getting the "immigrant trying to make it in America" portion of the story as well. It helps to round out the film. The filmmakers know that they can't just make a 2 hour love story without bordering on vanity, so they don't try to fool us and do it anyway.
Tony has a simple outlook on life. He's a dreamer, but lacks confidence. Even before he really knows why, he loves Eilis whole-heartedly. They bring the best out of each other. But what makes their relationship so real is how they better one another when they're apart. Although arguably less shy than Tony, Eilis now handles herself with more confidence and starts getting along with others even better.
I'm not sure I've seen on-screen chemistry like I have in this film. Ronan and Cohen are immaculate together. And that's a true attribution to their performances. The two of them have so much depth both together and apart. Cohen is convincing in showing us the non-stereotypical vulnerability of Tony. And with the help of Ronan's outstanding performance, you can see what's going on in Eilis' mind without her saying too much. It's her decisions that give her the most depth.
Brooklyn is relatable on so many levels. It's also about leaving home and that transition to recognizing home as somewhere new.
The city of Brooklyn is nice to look at in its own right in the early 1950s, but Ireland is even prettier. Luckily, the filmmakers recognize this and take us back there one last time.
You don't often see people fawning over a film that simply romanticize love, but it's the earnestness and simplicity of Brooklyn that tugs at our strings the most. Without ever feeling contrived, it restores confidence in something that we may often take for granted in this day and age.
Twizard Rating: 99
If you're itching to see a masterpiece in film, then go out and watch Room. It's the perfect example of filmmaking that doesn't dumb itself down for its audience. And at the same time, it isn't highbrow or overly complicated.
Room starts out in a padded room with a young boy, Jack (Jacob Tremblay), and his mother, Joy (Brie Larson), lying in a bed together. We're not sure why they're there at first. But eventually we figure things out. Joy was abducted 7 years prior and Jack is her son by her captor.
Joy is a normal mother. She loves her son. She get's annoyed by him from time to time, just as a normal mother would. Everything is not hunky-dory, but the two of them are content there with each other. Or at least Jack is. You can sense, in Joy's eyes, that she is hiding pain. Jack doesn't know of anything that's happened. He knows of no world beyond those walls.
It's not until about 25 minutes in where we realize what's going on. But we don't mind because the journey there is just as riveting. The plot is revealed very slowly, as the filmmakers let us figure things out on our own, and do well not to spell things out for us. They don't assume the audience is stupid--at least those who are willing to commit to the storytelling. Nothing is ever stated, but we have a grasp on background and character dynamics due to brilliant exposition.
Room is slow, I admit, but consistent. Director, Lenny Abrahamson knows what he's doing at all times. Besides getting fantastic performances from his leads, I'm thrilled with every choice he makes. From what he includes to what he omits, he understands what's necessary for us to get as organic of an experience possible. This movie could very well be depressing, but it intentionally never stays in one place long enough to do so.
Larson is something to behold in this film. She's pretty much gives as flawless of a performance that anyone possibly can. It's perhaps the best female performance I've ever seen. And Tremblay, for a child, is extremely believable the whole way through.
The film is ultimately about moving on. And that process can be long and drawn out and never-ending. There are times while watching this film when we ask ourselves how it will end. Not because we want it to, but because we're not even sure how any ending would be enough. But then we find out we're not looking for an ending at all, but a beginning.
Twizard Rating: 100
If ever there was a film that typifies the last 10 years, it's The Big Short. It's filmmaking in its quickest form. And much credit goes to director Adam McKay, who has made a film so rapid fire that it even makes Vince Vaughn stop to catch his breath. It mirrors what goes on in today's multi-tasking society. But also what Wall Street has been doing for decades.
Connecting three stories without much crossover, The Big Short deals with what led to the financial crash of 2008 and the radical few who had the wisdom and the gall to see it coming and act upon it.
It starts with Christian Bales' character, Dr. Michael Burry, a Silicon Valley hedge fund manager who spots an instability in the United States housing market, predicting that the market will collapse in a few years. Much to his investors' dismay, he goes out and bets against the housing market--something that apparently you just don't do--by purchasing $500 million in credit default swaps. Many others catch wind of this, but only several are keen enough to spot the method to Burry's madness.
The film tries and succeeds at making a dry topic appeal to the audience it wants. There's a lot of technical jargon, but McKay makes it easy for us to stay in the loop by doing unusual things like have "Margot Robbie in a bubble bath explain it to you". These celebrities explaining things happens a few times throughout the film for our enjoyment. McKay has such an unorthodox way of filmmaking, but it works here. Characters break the fourth wall about a dozen times, and he enjoys flooding the screen with intercut stills. It's actually very highbrow, but never makes us realize it.
It has a mockumentary feel to it at times, which explains why Steve Carell makes sense here. He plays Mark Baum, a Wall Street hedge fund manager who gets approached by Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling) to invest in this whole credit default swap thing.
A third story revolves around these two young investors who happen to get wind of Gosling's plan. They contact Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt), their financial advisor, who helps back the idea.
Each sub story is just as entertaining as the others, so you're never sitting there waiting for so-and-so to come back on screen. You never think about the fact that they're gone, but realize you missed them when they come back.
It's a powerful film, even though it might not seem like it is. It never strays from its point just to get a laugh. Each laugh feels deserved and the humor organic. And with a killer soundtrack (especially if you were a teenager during those years), it's definitely one of the best films of the year.
Twizard Rating: 98
Amy Poehler and Tina Fey have always had great chemistry. We know this. Put them in anything to make it work? They try this. It's usually hit or miss. I've always been on the fence about the two. And I was hesitant to see Sisters this soon out the gate, but I wanted to go to the movies tonight and it was the only thing playing.
The film follows two 40-something-year-old sisters (Fey and Poehler) on the brink of their parents selling their childhood home. With the sadness of losing all the memories they've compiled during their youth, the sisters plan to throw one last party at the house in spite of their parents. They invite all of their old high school classmates and the party turns into a wild rager as the two plan to get crazy.
I admit, however, it gets pretty funny. It's my type of humor. And after watching Daddy's Home, I needed a solid comedy. It doesn't pull any punches and takes plenty of risks. But it also feels like they display every single idea that was on the drawing board. Literally, this movie is jam packed with so many concepts. It has a very "trying stuff out" feel to it, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's just, at times it gets odd and tends to shift the tone around--another side effect from the full-drawing-board strategy. But in a nearly 2-hour comedy with a not-so-hefty premise, they have tons of room to trim the fat.
But perhaps the film's biggest pitfall is that Fey and Poehler always seem to keep almost laughing at themselves. Like they know the cameras are on. They're having too much fun just being together and joking around. Sure, comedy can be obviously unrealistic, but you still want the characters in the movie to believe what they're saying and doing. You want them to commit to their jokes as though THEY'RE being serious.
The premise is a little weak and the characters' motives are tenuous, but there's a certain '80s nostalgia that's underlying the whole deal. Not a whole lot happens, but it never loses momentum while keeping your attention throughout.
Twizard Rating: 73
Regardless of what you feel about Silver Linings Playbook, American Hustle, or The Fighter, you have to applaud David O. Russell's auteurism. He really knows how to put his stamp on a film. Much like Woody Allen or Quentin Tarantino, there's something to be said of a filmmaker who does it his own way no matter what.
Joy is an uplifting tale of the lady who invented the Miracle Mop. It's about the true struggle of the American dream. Jennifer Lawrence plays Joy, a single mother from a dysfunctional family. But that family of hers all lives under her roof. This includes her ex-husband, her divorced parents, her two children, and her grandmother. Joy has a lot of ideas, but doesn't live in a world where doing anything about them makes any sense. Nobody around her is successful. Even though setting is never really established (we never get the year or location), we can tell that it's a town where everyone just lives to survive. Until one day, when Joy's father starts dating a rich widow, who's acquiescently convinced to fund one of Joy's inventions.
The first act of this film is spent establishing the craziness of Joy's life. She doesn't truly present her product until about 45 minutes in. Before that, we spend time trying to get accustomed to the oddness of this movie, with Russell perhaps borrowing, in a way, from Wes Anderson, taking pages right out of his book.
Then the film really starts getting good when Joy makes a deal to sell her product on QVC. This is also when Bradley Cooper enters the film as Neil Walker, an executive at QVC. We get a behind the scenes look at something we never thought we'd get--a home shopping television channel. It's probably something we never even realized we wanted to get. But when it's there, we love it. It's, by far, one of the best things about this movie.
It's hard to believe that there was once a time when QVC was revolutionary. "People can actually shop from the comfort of their own home?!" And Joy sprinkles this detail in there as well.
If Russell can keep one thing constant throughout his films, it's the chaos he creates. This chaos comes from overlapping dialogue, intrusive camera angles, and a lot of yelling. Whether you see it as a good thing (Silver Linings Playbook and The Fighter) or unnecessary (American Hustle), his style is established.
In Joy, it works as both good and bad. The good is used when Russell juxtaposes Joy's chaotic home life with the magic of television. The bad is during the beginning when it's all we see and we need desperately to escape from it.
The whole film is very surrealistic. Joy's mother is seen watching soap operas intermittently throughout. But we are let in on the story. Russell hires actual soap opera stars, including Susan Lucci, to play the fictional soap opera characters. We are also inside Joy's heads a few times as she dreams of different things, including starring in the soap opera herself.
As a character, it's hard for us to put Joy's personality in a box. She doesn't smile much. Her demeanor is sometimes reserved, but explosive at other times. She is both strong and vulnerable, depending on the circumstance. You might say that this is attributed to the complexity of us as humans. Or you can just say that it has to do with the director's uncertainty of his character. Nonetheless, it's fun watching Lawrence perform a vast array of moods.
But I really like this film. A lot, actually. Joy's hunger to make it in this capitalist society is inspiring. Her story isn't necessarily a unique one, but her situation is. So many of us have ideas, but the fear of failing hinders us. This film shows all of that. It also shows how one might overcome it.
Twizard Rating: 91
We all know Will Ferrell's comedy. It's irreverent, self-deprecating, and raunchy. But none of these belong in a film that wants to be sentimental. And it doesn't even reach the point of cloying until about 10 minutes left.
This is nothing against Ferrell or Mark Wahlberg's comedic skills or their chemistry with one another. I just think the filmmakers got excited about all the talent on board that they forgot that they had to make an actual movie.
In Daddy's Home, Ferrell plays Brad, the nebbish new husband of Sarah (Linda Cardellini), who tries to vie for the affection of his new stepchildren. Then, all of a sudden, Sarah's deadbeat ex-husband, Dusty (Wahlberg), comes to town to see his children. Dusty has no knowledge of Brad--an issue that never gets resolved--and does everything in his power to bully him and make him feel inferior while trying to win Sarah and his kids back.
The film has very few laughs, despite its talent, and feels obviously reliant on its credentialed leads. There is no real meat to the plot and never builds momentum. It just muddles along until about the last 15 minutes, when it actually attempts to go somewhere with its empty premise. It's literally an hour and a half of Dusty bullying Brad and everyone in the film laughing about it. It's relentless. And there's no back and forth either. All of the humility is on Ferrell's character.
Brad can't have children because of radiation exposure to his genitals, so Dusty belittles him by convincing him that Sarah wants more children and that he won't be able to provide for her. But it turns out that Sarah is the one with no scrotum, as she does nothing to stop Dusty's harassment, and even sides with him a few times. What an appealing movie.
We feel bad for Ferrell's character the whole time (or at least we should) that it makes none of this funny. But with Ferrell comes insensitivity. He almost begs us to be okay with him being put down. And although he provides almost all of the laughs in this film, it would have almost been better if he wasn't in it. Maybe then the writers would have been okay with giving the movie some real meaning.
The biggest problem is that Ferrell doesn't fit in this type of role. He's at his true best when he's the one playing the douchey guy (Anchorman, Talladega Nights). Then his foibles are exposed and it's pure ironic genius. Personally, I don't like seeing him in these types of roles.
I just couldn't help feeling the entire time that this was just a lazily put together product. In fact, at one point in the movie I believe the camera actually shakes as if it was bumped slightly.
The only saving grace is Thomas Hayden Church's character. He plays Brad's coworker at the smooth jazz radio station. He provides us with a few off-kilter quips of insight which are better bottled up and served separately from the rest of the film.
Unless you enjoy an entire movie where everyone worships the antagonist to the delight of the audience, you won't be pandered by this. The epicaricacy borders on sadistic. And when the redemption finally comes in the end, it doesn't make up for anything. The people who like this film must get their psyche fully evaluated.
Twizard Rating: 42
Don't go into this Quentin Tarantino film and expect it not to be over-the-top bloody. In fact, after the first hour and a half, you think maybe it's not going to be. Guess again. Perhaps Tarantino does this to create suspense during a time in the movie where tension comes merely from his captivating dialogue.
Like a Steinbeck novel, taking several pages to paint the scene and get to know the situation in order to make it live in our heads, The Hateful Eight doesn't rush anything. Some may not like this approach, but it's done in order for us to live in the world that has been created.
The pacing starts off slower than usual, but builds at a consistent pace. Every word that is spoken is positioned very carefully. This is what Tarantino shines at. He doesn't make boring dialogue and he doesn't waste pages. If he makes a three hour movie, it's going to be for a reason.
The Hateful Eight is a western mystery in the style of Reservoir Dogs. Kurt Russell plays a bounty hunter who is bringing his prisoner, Daisy (Jennifer Jason Leigh), to the town of Red Rock for her to be hanged. Along the way, he picks up Marquis (Samuel L. Jackson), another bounty hunter who soon becomes the main protagonist of the film.
Jackson is always at his very best when teamed up with Tarantino--a fact that has been proven time and time again. His tumult matches up perfectly with the director's exploitation style of filmmaking.
Leigh's performance might be this year's best. She does an incredible job, and without saying much, controls the tone of the entire film with her insanely believable machination. You stop and ask yourself if they picked up the actress from the looney bin before filming.
Everything is perfect, from the camerawork to the set pieces to the enthralling musical score. I attended the 70mm Roadshow screening, which is a unique experience in itself, fully equipped with a large program and a 10-minute intermission.
If you like Tarantino, you will surely like this movie, but if you're not a fan of his gruesome flair, then be warned that this one is probably his most violent.
It doesn't have quite the same impact as, say, Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds or Django Unchained, but it's refreshing to see a neo-Western done so simply, yet not by-the-numbers. It might not be the story you were hoping for following his previous two, but as far as filmmaking goes, The Hateful Eight may be the year's most solid selection.
Twizard Rating: 100
Will Smith can carry a movie as well as anyone in Hollywood, and he's been doing it for about the last 20 years. In Concussion he plays Dr. Bennet Omalu, a Nigerian pathologist working in Pittsburgh, who notices something he's never seen before when conducting an autopsy on former NFL player Mike Webster. It turns out that it's a new brain condition that causes its victim to enter a deep depression. He names it chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE.
Smith does an amazing job as Omalu. He doesn't use his lilt robotically, but commits to every inflection along the way, providing a very natural delivery that makes us believe he is Nigerian.
The filmmakers may not take a lot of risks with Smith's character, pinning him as the interminable hero--which he undeniably is. But I think many people would have wanted to visit his weaknesses a little bit more, other than the first 15 minutes when it is merely stated that he has no human relationships. This gets taken care of fairly quickly with the introduction of Prema, played by Gugu Mbatha-Raw, a Kenyan nurse who needs a place to live and develops a relationship with Omalu.
Even though Smith's character doesn't face a whole lot of moral dilemma, he is so earnest that he becomes honorable--a personage to cherish in cinema. Smith brings his own personality to the film, and although he's fully committed, you are comforted knowing that it's him donning those grey sideburns.
There are a plethora of self-aware dialogue that may rub people the wrong way, but it's paced very very well so as to not discount the script. With all the science that the story surrounds, it never makes itself confusing or convoluted by over-explaining the details.
Not that I was already fond of the NFL organization, but watching this movie makes me dislike them even more. I know the film tries to be unbiased at times, but the facts are all there pointing the other way.
But Concussion is about more than just football. It's about the misconception of the American dream. The realization that that dream is rooted in monetary gain by any means necessary. And as Omalu discovers it, we do too. An organization that our society is loyally infatuated with isn't all that we romanticize it to be.
Driven by Peter Landesman's honest direction and a score composed by James Newton Howard, which helps drive the intensity of the film, Concussion is one of my favorite films of the year. It isn't perfect, but it's very good. And more than anything, it's powerful--which, in this case, may be the most important factor of all.
Twizard Rating: 94
The good news is you don't really need to watch the original Star Wars films in order to follow along with this film. But then honestly, why wouldn't you have seen the original Star Wars films?
Star Wars is really an amazing franchise, starting in 1977 with the very first film. Can you imagine watching that in its inception? All these years later, you're still in awe of the characters, the story, the effects, the set pieces--the whole universe. The sets don't even look that different in this one than the ones from the '70s. Yet, we're still in awe.
Without giving too much away, Star Wars: The Force Awakens revolves around the First Order (the dark side) trying to control the galaxy while racing against the Resistance (the light side) to find the disappeared Luke Skywalker. The film mixes old characters with a band of new characters--characters that you're going to love--and doesn't stray from what was so charismatic about the original movies.
The film truly has that classic feel to it--from the scene cuts to the camerawork to the dialogue. This isn't your Marvel movie, folks. In fact, it makes us rethink what exactly we love about those films to begin with. I mean, we have Star Wars back now. What more could we want?
But there is a different kind of levity brought here that we actually may be able to actually thank Marvel for. It's not too much, but the perfect amount. In the originals, they would have never dared make light of any scene involving Darth Vader, but here we are given one surprising, yet heedful laugh during a bit that involves the neo-Darth Vader, Kylo Ren--who is just as bit of creepy and sinister as Vader.
The newcomers, John Boyega as an ex-stormtrooper, Finn, and Daisy Ridley as a orphaned scavenger, Rey, will have no problems being the new faces of the franchise. Their characters have a lot of depth already, with much more yet to be explored.
Harrison Ford is back as Han Solo, and he's better than he's ever been. His performance is actually award-worthy. I mean, just give the guy an Oscar already (he's only had 1 nomination ever--seriously).
And what is Star Wars without a couple twists? The ones that we're given are great, and you know they're stringing you along for more. They don't answer every question in this film. They answer a lot, but still leave you talking afterwards and speculating. It teaches us to be patient and we're surprisingly okay with that. The film doesn't give in to the immediate gratification that the Avengers culture usually demands.
It runs at 135 minutes, but feels no longer than 100. The pacing is basically near-perfect, which attributes to it's deceptive length.
I truly didn't want it to end. It's the year's best film and perhaps the best one I've seen in at least 5 years. It gave me the happy chills about eleven different times. I can't even begin to explain how good it is. I guess you're just going to have to see it for yourself. Who am I kidding? Everyone's about to watch this movie. But that's Star Wars for ya.
Twizard Rating: 100
Journalism can be a hard topic to cover in film without adding a bunch of unnecessary drama to make it interesting. But Spotlight has the benefit of a great script with very natural dialogue. Nothing here feels forced of feigned. It immersively chronicles the Boston Globe's long-time investigation into the Catholic Church sex-abuse scandal.
As a guy who grew up in the Catholic Church, it isn't easy watching this film and knowing that it's the Catholic Church who is to blame. But like any place where you have people in a position of power, you're going to have those who abuse that power. The Church is no different. And just like not every cop is racist and not every black person plays basketball, not every priest is a child molester. Although I was an alter server as a child and luckily never experienced or heard of anyone personally who suffered through this tragedy, I do shake my head at those who tried to cover it up.
Although the sex-abuse issues were nationwide, the film focuses mostly on the staggering numbers in the Boston Archdiocese. Catholicism in Boston has been known to be more of a culture in that city than most other places in the country. Their dependence and wholehearted belief in the Church made for a much easier target for predators. It's one thing to idolize God and hold true to your religious beliefs, but it's another to idolize other human beings. To idolize is to believe that one is not capable of fault. Well, the people of Boston held true, more than anyone, that these priests were godlike figures who could do no wrong. It was a sentiment that exuded from everywhere in that city. In California, where I live, I've never experienced anything quite like that in the 26 years I've spent as a practicing member of the Catholic faith. Not to say that these priests aren't expected to lead a holier life than most of our own, but then we look back to that whole abuse of power thing.
As for the movie, it's very well done. The acting is superb. Director, Tom McCarthy, gets the very best performance out of each of his actors. Especially Liev Schreiber, who does his best Steven Wright impression, always remaining soft spoken, yet intimidating. He never overplays his character, which isn't necessarily easy for an actor to do.
Mark Ruffalo is perhaps the biggest standout. He's an absolute phenomenon here. He commits so much to every one of his character's idiosyncrasies that it's truly hypnotizing.
The script is also great, doing well to explain and give background on a lot of the more convoluted details of the story. It can, however, be hard to follow all the names that are being spewed at you, remembering who everyone is. The story moves along briskly with only a slight thinning out for about 10 minutes towards the end.
But the one thing that Spotlight does pretty poorly at is depth, almost as if it's deliberately trying not to have any. It's anything but a character study. There's a lot of implied background for the characters, but you can't help but want a little more. Even in the macro sense, it has several perfect opportunities to explore the psychology behind these child molesters, but the film never really takes advantage of them, thus leaving a few scenes feeling unnecessary.
Despite making unbiased claims, the film does have a bit of an agenda of its own. It tells of certain characters' stated struggles with their faith, although they had already admitted to being lapsed. While it never shows how the Church's scandal would affect actual churchgoers.
Although I'm not commending any of it, I know why Cardinal Law chose to cover up all of those scandals. When you have a society that is full of ignorant people who constantly generalize everything, then you are going to have other people who try and cover up these instances in fear that the general public will, indeed, generalize. And so it happened anyway. Those who aren't Catholic go into this movie and may look at the Church in a negative light. But like I said, people love to think in absolutes. I, myself, don't idolize anyone, but can totally recognize that these are definitely horrible tragedies to be ashamed of.
Twizard Rating: 94
Dalton Trumbo, known for penning such classic films as Roman Holiday and Spartacus, had a knack for drama--in both writing it and living it. He was a quirky character who always spoke his mind in spontaneous phrases--a feature that is satirized a few times in this film.
Trumbo stars Bryan Cranston in the title role and details his career starting in 1947 as a successful screenwriter, and then subsequently a blacklisted one for his support of the Communist party.
This film comes from all sides of the situation. It shows how Trumbo has it easy compared to his actor counterparts, as they can't hide under another name like he can. It also doesn't directly blame any anti-communist believers' fears, since they're just a product of American propaganda, but it does show them as being porous in logic.
It also shows the struggle Trumbo begins having with his own ego and how his political stances get fewer and far between. His family life with his wife and kids takes a toll as well. But the film reveals an amazing glimpse of a great man who means well, but simply loses his way and his intent due to his attempt at proving himself to the ignorance that surrounds him--an understandable evolution. Cranston details this development seamlessly throughout the film in a way that makes you not realize it happens after the fact.
For the most part, the pacing is pretty consistent. It starts quickly and doesn't waste much time with setup. Throughout we get so many scenes that it almost feels rushed, but retains its sanity enough so that it only comes off as paralleling the turbulence of the era. Every scene jumps to the next so briskly. However, there is one point in the film, about 3/4 of the way through, where Trumbo develops a relationship with director Otto Preminger. Not that this portion of Trumbo's life isn't important, but most other scenarios are shown to us as if through a slide projector, while this particular instance is given so much screen time that it becomes a distraction. It slows down the film so much for such a minimally significant part in the story. But once again, it's only noticeable because of the juxtaposition of it to every other portion of the film. Just a minor hiccup.
Diane Lane plays Dalton's wife, Cleo, the rock that Trumbo leans against for support and who makes him see his actions. Louis C.K. does a great job as the fictional character Arlen, Trumbo's contemporary, who is also blacklisted and imprisoned for his beliefs. He provides a great straight man to Trumbo's eccentricity, making the audience realize his actions. Actor Edward G. Robinson is played by Michael Stuhlbarg, who works well physically, but lacks every bit of Robinson's timbre and trademark voice inflections.
The film isn't ridiculously long, but rightfully feels like it is. You don't feel like anything is left out of the story, but also don't feel as though you are told too much.
Trumbo does well to shine a refreshingly positive light on communism at its purist form, educating a brand new audience, making them think about its ideals in reference to our world today.
Twizard Rating: 97
You can't blame Pixar for anything really. It's tough to find things, but honestly they're there. I think with The Good Dinosaur, the studio's biggest pitfalls are what have made them become the powerhouse that they are today.
The film follows Arlo--the runt of the litter of talking dinosaurs--as he tries to discover what his true mark on this earth is. After a series of events finds him extremely far from home, he must figure out his way back with the unbidden assistance of a feral child, Spot, who is actually inadvertently responsible for a few tragedies in Arlo's life already.
With that said, The Good Dinosaur is the most Pixar-iest Pixar movie thus far. So much so that it's becoming increasingly more obvious what they're doing and why they're doing it with each film that comes along. And more than any, this one follows all of Pixar's signature moves: the long journey home, the unlikeliest of friends, the seldom-present antagonist. And then they include their signature Dumbo effect, where they just hand you a character who is so cute that you can't help but love them--and, in turn, the movie.
This one's a "journey home film" in the strictest way possible--not really playing around with that concept a whole lot like they do with Toy Story or Wall-E. Of the 16 films made by Pixar over the last 20 years, I'd say all but three of them are about the characters finding his or her way back home. And I understand why, because it's easier to find conflict. Throughout the film, there is mishap after mishap, without much room to breathe or develop it's own organic voice. I wouldn't say it's predictable, but it does have a tendency to be by-the-numbers a bit.
It also may be the weirdest Pixar movie to date. In one scene, we see Spot literally rip the head off of a live bug that's the same size as he is.
But it's not to say that I didn't like this movie, because it's actually very pleasant. I mean, he humor is just middle of the road--I probably laughed the least amount out of any Pixar film. But I was also smiling throughout a lot of it. Also, the visuals are spectacular--a triumph in its own right.
The depth of the characters are another highlight, as they are relatable to both children and adults. Arlo is likable, but not Disney perfect. He shows hints of selfishness and stubbornness, which round him out well.
You'll hear pleasant echoes of City Slickers, which is perhaps the movie's most unique quality. It's not as tight nit as you would expect. It starts off painfully slow, but mostly picks up after about 30 minutes. Also, there is not a lot of tonal balance found. It makes jarring leaps between comedy and sheer terror in a few instances.
We see your road movie, Pixar. We're just curious if you're using it as a fallback now. Try moving away from it more often. 2012's Brave was awesome. It felt like one of the most unique films to come out of that studio.
While The Good Dinosaur is actually a really good movie, and I like it way better than Inside Out (yeah, for real), I still think that Pixar can do a whole lot better. At least with this film I can watch it multiple times and not get frustrated doing so.
In staying the same, it's safe to say that Pixar has devolved a little bit with The Good Dinosaur, but nonetheless, it's still way better off than what most other studios serve up as their animated offerings.
Twizard Rating: 91
Maybe not exactly the way you'd like to top off the Hunger Game series, but in a franchise where only 50% of the movies were great, does it really matter? The sad part is this didn't have to be the case. If Mockingjay hadn't been spliced into two separate chapters, we would have looked at this series with only one below par entry. But now there are two.
Obviously Mockingjay Part 2 is better than Part 1 in every way possible, except for being a good substitute for sleeping pills. But this film is the ending, which we'd like to see be a little bit better.
At least if it's been a year since you've watched the last Hunger Games, there isn't much that you have to remember because nothing really happened. Basically, Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) goes crazy and strangles Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence). And in this film, Katniss et al are on a mission to attack the capital and kill Snow (Donald Sutherland). Snow expects all this, so he sets up some traps for them along the way--the highlight of the film.
Perhaps the most obvious pitfall in this movie is the tortured Katniss. Now, it isn't Lawrence's fault. She plays the part convincingly, but so much so that it almost hinders the film altogether. She comes off as lackadaisical and it really slows down the movie. It's a shame though. All that depth they spent time heavily building in the previous films is wasted away in this one. She acts like a zombie the entire time--save for one powerful moment about ten minutes in when she's intensely talking to a man who's pointing a gun at her head. After that she's all but absent.
What made the first two Hunger Games so good is that it separated the series from the rest of the YA genre. It was unique to itself. But a third of the way through this film, beginning with Katniss and her friends' journey to the capital, it turns into every other dystopian teen movie--mutant creatures and all. There's nothing original about it. There's no moral struggle. There's nothing making us feel like anything is at stake. And there's really no point.
At this movie's best, it still knows how to build tension and suspense with its action scenes--a trait last seen long ago somewhere in the 2nd film. The effects and visuals are great like always, and I appreciate the "game board" aspect being brought back too. I just wanted the film to be a better conclusion to the series.
But there is still an unresolved love triangle coming into this film. Will Katniss end up with Peeta or Gale (Liam Hemsworth)? I know this is necessary in many films directed towards teenagers, but here it's not only unnecessary, but it gives the series less credibility--especially considering the forced nature of the conflict. There's never anything really separating the two guys. She has no real reason to choose one over the other, which then forces a decision to come down to mere physical preference--a trait that openly welcomes a younger, more naive demographic--the demographic that will rid this movie of all credibility. In most love triangles, the two lovers are opposing archetypes--Han Solo and Luke Skywalker in Star Wars, Brad Pitt and Edward Norton's characters in Fight Club, and even Edward and Jacob in Twilight--but here, the two men are basically just the same nice guy. We never feel like she can realistically make a decision. We can't either. And I think the filmmakers knew this, which is why they abruptly give us a reason not to like one of them with about 10 minutes left in the entire series. It's really the first sign of differentiation between the two male leads. And so it goes, the decision is pretty much made for Katniss. But it has to be, seeing as they're the same person, which makes everything that happened in the previous four films feel like a total waste of time.
In Harry Potter, the series never focuses too heavily on the romance between the characters. While Mockingjay Part 2 is still deeper than most other YA films, the love triangle distracts from the overall point of the series, which is the last thing you want as the franchise wraps itself up. It was just too strong in this one.
As the film ends, it never really climaxes--it just tapers off. Oh yeah, we get a betrayal from a character which no one cares about since the character just got introduced to us in the last movie and we got no time to get to know them. There's no sense of shock or betrayal that a good twist would have given us.
It seems like I hate this installment, although it's actually entertaining--much unlike Part 1. But overall, the film is way too into itself, presumably due to the hype that it's gained since its inception back in 2012. As a standalone movie, Part 2 has all the thrills you would need, but in the context of this series it makes us realize that we would have been fine wrapping it up after the 2nd film.
Hey, at least I wasn't falling asleep.
Twizard Rating: 67
The Night Before is as flippant and goofy as any Seth Rogen helping, but just like every Christmas movie, it's deeper than meets the eye. It's about something more than Christmas. Christmas is just the nucleus that helps give significance to a story about self-discovery. And even Rogen's irreverent humor can't change that.
The film follows three best friends, Ethan (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), Chris (Anthony Mackie), and Isaac (Rogen), who get together every year on Christmas Eve to raise a little hell. The tradition started years earlier following the death of Ethan's parents. This being the last year of feral fun for the guys, seeing as they are grown-ups now with increasing responsibilities, they try to make it the best one ever.
There's not much to the plot other than a very generic concept, but that's not why our butts are in the seats. We really just want to see Rogen and company's antics as they run uninhibitedly throughout Manhattan.
While it seems at times like this movie serves as just another excuse for three actors to mess around while making a movie for us to sit and watch for 101 minutes, that's what these romps are all about. We like watching them simply have a good time. We want a night like this where crazy things happen and we can talk about for the rest of our lives. These films serve as vessels for us to live vicariously through. And we're okay with that. It's an added bonus that it happens to have the backdrop of everyone's favorite time of year; a time of year that we romanticize more and more as we grow older--mostly because we long for that childlike innocence and simplicity of our youth. And it's interesting to witness amidst the crudity of a Seth Rogen film.
If nothing else, this film proves once again that Rogen can make anyone funny. His humor is contagious and motivates others to match his wit. On an unrelated note, Michael Shannon nearly steals the show as the spectral Mr. Green. He's mysterious and totally believable as the older scraggly pot dealer who keeps these guys continually paranoid throughout the film.
The film isn't perfect. It has its slower moments, but those also happen to be when the narrative picks up and we aren't as concerned about sustaining our laughter. Some plot devices show up merely for comedic effect and don't contribute much to the movie, but that's okay because it's that kind of comedy. And although this one doesn't get a pass to break all the rules, the filmmakers have crafted that type of movie.
There's a final realization copout that's forgiven with the satisfactory ending that follows, but the beauty of this movie is the chemistry of the core cast, which occurs through the empty script and heightened improvisation.
It's a good Christmas movie. It's not for the whole family, but it's a more unique addition to the genre. One that's definitely worth multiple viewings.
Twizard Rating: 84
A lot of times this happens in a film series. The film following the standout best usually faces the most quibbles. But in a franchise that boasts 24 installments, the juxtaposition of any previous entry should hardly make a difference.
9 years ago, Daniel Craig and the James Bond "estate" embarked on a renaissance of the franchise. It got revitalized and was able to sustain 2 of the best Bond films to date (Skyfall and Casino Royale). But Skyfall is such a good overall film that I think many casual fans forget what a Bond film used to be. And the few that don't like Skyfall complain that it doesn't have a Bond feel to it. However, Spectre, which is beat-by-beat as much of a James Bond film as Thunderball, gets criticized for doing just that.
In Spectre, Bond (Craig) tries to uncover a secret organization after receiving strange hints of its existence. He travels to different locations, off the books at the disobedience of his boss, trying to solve this mystery.
Let's start off with the criticisms here. Exploiting a plot twist isn't much of an art--although sometimes films overshoot the importance of the twist. But other times the twist is so enormous that it isn't exploited enough. This is one of those times. Possibly the best twist you can get in a blockbuster action film is merely played off nonchalantly to the audience. We're into it more than the filmmakers are, and that's an anticlimactic feeling.
Spectre also lacks the individual tone specific to the film that Skyfall and Casino Royale have. We like to be able to identify each Bond film with its own characteristics, but outside of the underlying theme, there really isn't one.
That underlying theme I speak of is the social commentary on "big brother". While it's ever so relevant to this day and age, it's also all but overplayed in films. But perhaps the most overlooked topic in this movie is the subliminal allusions of gun violence. The filmmakers are constantly, albeit subtly, pointing out ironic contradictions involving this topic.
I really like what they're doing here with the macro storyline of the revamped Bond series. It's moving along nice and slow and unforced--as opposed to the unmemorable and perfunctory subplots of the Avengers series. Gone are the days where we can just watch whatever Bond film in any order we want. Now we have to keep tabs and remember what took place in the previous installments. But these Bond films do it in a way where you don't have to keep track of too many details and can just relax for the most part.
Spectre may be by-the-numbers as far as Bond films go, but it's perhaps just what we need following the plot-heavy Skyfall.
Twizard Rating: 92
Vin Diesel's charisma may not be enough to save a movie that is this pedestrian. A rough script is one thing--I men, Diesel has been known to take a couple--but at it's best it's just a stylistic exposition with too many rules built into the film universe.
Full of plot holes and convoluted details is The Last Witch Hunter, a tale about a man (Diesel) cursed with immortality by a witch in the middle ages, only to ward off the same evil 800 years later in New York City.
I applaud the film for a couple of clever plot twists that keep the audience involved and attentive, but I constantly feel like I'm playing catchup with everything else. It will give us a motif or a totem to remember early on and then refer to it much later, after not mentioning it in between, assuming that we remember its significance. More or less, the plot is simple enough to follow. But the confusing details surrounding the events feel included to stretch out the premise.
The Last Witch Hunter is attractive stylistically as it utilizes some cool props and spells, but the use of CGI--albeit few and far between--reminds us that we're watching a movie.
The film tries creating depth for our lead character by showing us flashbacks of his wife and child. But the only thing is they serve no purpose to the story--literally. It's forced and keeps the movie untrue to itself, reminding us even more how little depth he has. We really just want to see Diesel go around hunting witches--as the title describes.
Another sign of forced-depth is the use of trite dialogue that merely sounds good in the moment, while having no real meaning or relevance to the premise.
The Last Witch Hunter isn't a boring movie at all--perhaps is strongest trait--but after it's finished we long for a better understanding of what we just watched.
Twizard Rating: 69
Growing up on Charles Schulz' Peanuts gang gave me somewhat high expectations for the new movie. Fans of the Peanuts have always loved the relatable characters and the warmth of the themes that resonate throughout each image. So if you're like me, I can guarantee that you won't be disappointed.
It's been 35 years since the last theatrical Peanuts film, Bon Voyage, Charlie Brown (and Don't Come Back) hit theaters, and the first since Schultz' death back in 2000. But written by Schultz' son and grandson, it's easy to see that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. It keeps with the spirit of the original works while bringing a modern animation style. And thankfully, that's about the only contemporary feature that this film has. They do a great job of not modernizing the content too much. It doesn't succumb to fart jokes or modern frivolities. There are no cheap gimmicks to get laughter. It's just a classy adaptation of the classy source material we grew up loving--even featuring echoes of Vince Guaraldi's trademark compositions.
The Peanuts Movie revolves around everyone's favorite underdog, Charlie Brown, and his quest to get the new girl to think of him as more than a klutz. He wants her to see him as cool and popular. All the old characters are present here. There's a subplot that is shown interstitially throughout the film featuring Snoopy imagining that he's flying his plane, trying to rescue his love, Fifi, from the Red Baron.
It's a simple love story, but that's what Peanuts does so well. They provide us with grandeur lessons through straightforward means. In this case Charlie Brown learns about confidence, being true to himself, and perseverance--lessons that can have just as much impact on the adults watching as it does on their children.
What the movie does best is provide so much depth to Charlie Brown's character without straying away from the already established depth that we've known him to have throughout the years. It doesn't try to reinvent the characters for a modern world--it appropriately fits this storyarc into the Peanuts canon without disrupting it.
The only time the film slows down is when the Snoopy storyline comes to a close and finishes with a somewhat lengthy finale. The subplot is actually a fun addition to the movie, since each segment only lasts about 45 seconds, but the climax of it all runs for about 4 minutes and slightly takes away from the momentum of the film. However, this is only a minor hiccup in an otherwise fantastic film.
The Peanuts Movie truly has an old soul as far as movies go--especially of the family variety. It proves, once again, the timelessness of Schultz' beloved characters.
Twizard Rating: 95
What's Spielberg without war? He continues pushing out film after film involving some war story and somehow we can never get tired of it. We never feel like he's beating a dead horse. It's because the man encapsulates the classic ideals of cinema, and one of the last of his kind to do so.
Spielberg's way of directing is the kind that invites you to come aboard, but never forces you to. He doesn't beg for your attention--you just can't help but give it to him--sometimes without even realizing.
Bridge of Spies is a story about espionage, human rights, societal opinion, understanding your enemy, and American pride all wrapped up into one. It's at its very best when themes conflict and contradict with one another--which happens all throughout.
Taking place in New York in the 1950s during the Cold War, it stars Tom Hanks as James B. Donovan, an insurance lawyer chosen to represent captured Soviet spy Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance). Obviously, Donovan becomes one of America's most hated men, meanwhile developing a friendship with Abel and truly understanding his life and choices. Then tables are turned as now the Soviets have captured one of our own spies and Donovan must use Abel as leverage to trade back what is ours.
Bridge of Spies constantly reminds us that at our worst we are still better than the Soviet Union. It acts as a good reminder of our humanity, even during the times that are most bereft of it. Perhaps it even satirizes our willingness to change our minds. While our viewpoints may be skewed at times by the media or even the government, it reminds us that we never quite know the whole story--although we're wholly convinced that we do at times.
The first third takes place in America--presumably on purpose. It's a little darker than many other period pieces may depict it as--say even this year's The Man from U.N.C.L.E.--obviously a very specific perspective of the era. Then the last chunk of the film features the most depraved East Berlin. But the thing is, here we don't see it as any exaggeration. It's exactly how we've always envisioned it during that time. That's how it was--glum and depressing--another reminder.
Spielberg uses juxtaposition to its finest potential, transitioning between scenes of Americans and Soviets--an American spy going to sleep in his cell after being tortured by Soviet soldiers cuts to Abel, the most hated man in America, being woken up respectfully by American prison guards.
I will say, however, that there is something missing with the absence of a John Williams score in the film, but Thomas Newman's style fits nicely with the project adding the right amounts of emotion.
The film adequately captures the misinformed fears of the early Cold War and uses them to get its points across. It's last reminder, and perhaps its strongest, is that you never know the whole story. When you stop thinking independently you begin allowing others to control you--much like the Soviets tried doing. It's crazy. Our fear was inadvertently becoming what it so desperately tried to avoid.
How can you not love Spielberg? He brings magic back into the movies when we feel, at times, it may be gone forever. Bridge of Spies is superb--one of the year's best. This is why I go to the movies.
Twizard Rating: 100
