My first thought when going to see this movie was, "It's not rated 'R'??" It's such a dark and macabre film. A superhero movie to change all the rules of superhero movies. And while it almost does, it's difficult to do so when you go for a PG-13 rating. Although, I understand why. Widening your audience means more butts in the seats. And those who would want it to be rated R will probably still think it's rated R.
After the death of Superman, US intelligence agent, Amanda Waller (Viola Davis), wants to put together a team of criminals to go on dangerous missions at no risk, since they're seen as expendable.
Of the ensemble cast, the bigger names consist of Will Smith as the hit man, Deadshot, Margot Robbie as The Joker's girlfriend, Harley Quinn, and Jared Leto as The Joker, himself.
I'd like to preface this all by saying I enjoyed the film. It's not terrible. I'd watch it again, and probably even buy it on DVD. It does a lot of things right, but it's not without its fair share of hiccups.
You can't help but notice that the DC cinematic universe is always playing catchup to the Marvel one. And it doesn't have to. This was its chance to do something totally different. And in some ways it does--or at least, sets itself up to in the future. But the random interjections of jokes amidst action scenes don't feel fluid, but forced. DC is supposed to be much darker and less tongue-in-cheek. Less quippy.
DC, in some sense, has far more interesting and unique characters--especially villains--than Marvel. They've grown to be more twisted over the years, and this film tries to use that to its advantage, but it just doesn't always work.
That's not to say it never does. This year's Batman v Superman film uses cheesy filters to make it feel dark. In Suicide Squad it's more convincing. It's dark. Really dark. But you can't help feel like the film is torn between sinister and cartoony. Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy succeeds at this perfectly. But Suicide Squad is trying to be both Dark Knight and Avengers at the same time. I'm not so sure that's possible.
It could have benefitted from being more serious. The film starts out comfortably fitting into its own universe, but the random bits of levity are often jarring, making it seem like the film is trying to be as appealing to its more popular contemporary. Yet, it never has to. The material is great on its own. And we won't blame writer-director David Ayer, because apparently, it was the studio who demanded there be more humor scattered throughout.
This is what Marvel does very well. In the Avengers films, entire scenes don't come to a grinding halt whenever Iron Man says something funny. The humor blends into the action. It doesn't combat it. Here, the action scenes were the only times the film was free of jokes.
And we don't mind levity. However, in this scenario, the jokes should have been darker--not cuter. But with Robbie delivering them, that's what you get.
They seem to want her to be the focal point of the laughs, but I just wanted her to stop. You don't always buy in to her jokes, and she just ends up getting annoying. Smith, however, is the unsung comedic talent of the film. His timing is as good as ever and it never feels forced--fitting into the Marvel vibe they're going for.
Leto as The Joker was perfect because he wasn't overexposed. Every time we see him, he's gone moments later, making us want more. Robbie is in almost the entire film. You're supposed to love her antihero, but you never really do. Not enough is given to us. We end up just feeling indifferent.
There's a scene towards the beginning of the film where Davis' character is sitting down at a table, explaining one-by-one the backstory of each character. it takes about 10 minutes and freezes any plot progression that's going on. The normal version of me would have hated this in any other situation, but it may be the best part of this movie. We're being introduced to these interesting, complex, deranged characters. We get get excited about what's to come. The filmmakers want us to fall in love with these antiheroes, but this is the only time it truly lets us.
Despite the lack of action sequences, the pacing's fairly good, and the film is entertaining everywhere else. However, it has a long way to go to be considered great.
I really want these new DC films to be of the best quality, but I fear that they can't. Not as long as they're too preoccupied with trying to be Marvel. Honestly, if I never saw another Marvel film again, I wouldn't be devastated. It's time for something new, and DC can give us that. They almost had it here.
Twizard Rating: 78
As a fan of Roald Dahl as a child, The BFG has always been one of the books I've most wanted to see adapted for the big screen.
Based on the children's novel of the same name, The BFG is about a giant (Big Friendly Giant) who takes a girl from her orphanage and brings her above the clouds to Giant Country, out of fear that she will tell people about him. Although he's "friendly," his larger contemporaries aren't. They bully him and feast on human beings.
There are some points in the film where you aren't quite sure how the story is progressing. It meanders a bit during the 2nd act and the pacing can get pretty slow, but it's not so much of a bother since there is so much to enjoy visually and the scenes are so dense.
While not quite as dark as the book, the imagery still translates well. The CGI isn't just there. Rather, it's as much a part of the film as the story itself. If the visuals were less impressive, the movie just wouldn't have worked as well.
Part of what makes the film so enjoyable is the charisma of its two leads. Mark Rylance plays the title character, and newcomer, Ruby Barnhill, reminiscent of Drew Barrymore in E.T., plays the little girl, Sophie.
The BFG's job in life is to collect dreams and give them to people. The events in this film feel like a dream from a child's perspective. Having nobody in life and turning to a seemingly-imaginary character for friendship.
Luckily, the last third of the film elevates in a wondrous way. Things begin to happen and the story becomes full and complete. Director, Steven Spielberg, has a way of wrapping things up like no other. While the brief hiccup halfway through the film--though not really his fault--is uncharacteristic of his films, the ending reminds us why he's the best.
The vision of The BFG is magical. There's no other way to put it. It doesn't just offer some fairytale story masking, for children, the harsh realities of the world. Instead, it shows them that there's hope--no matter how impossible it may seem.
Twizard Rating: 98
If you watched the trailer for this film, you're probably aware that it's going to be pretty weird. Though you never expect it to be this weird.
The uniquely and refreshingly strange tone is established right away. Paul Dano plays Hank, a young man who is stuck on an island about to commit suicide when he sees a dead body (Daniel Radcliffe) washed up on shore. Long story short, he discovers that this corpse has special abilities. It can satiate his thirst, chop wood in half, spit bullets out of its mouth, among other things. Soon, the body starts to talk.
For almost the entirety of the movie we're trying to figure out if Dano is simply hallucinating or if the corpse really is coming to life. Many details are left for the imagination. But they don't even really matter.
Much of the film is spent with Dano teaching Radcliffe about the world and how amazing it is. Yet Dano becomes conflicted as this is the same world he was trying to leave. Radcliffe has already left and wants to be back in it. They're passing each other going in opposite directions.
The filmmakers never have an issue keeping the surreal tone of the movie. The only problem comes in the end where it seems as though, unsure of where to wrap things up, it strays a little and becomes slightly disjointed.
Even if you think you know where the story is going, you never do. That's what makes it so great. It gives you what you could never ever expect. There are times it gets almost too weird--even for this film--but then again, there's nothing like it, so what do we really compare it to?
It's never the weirdness that makes you not like the film. If anything, it could be the fact that it never truly says what it means to--or wants to. But in a universe so loose and free, you sort of have to be able to read between the lines.
Twizard Rating: 95
It's an interesting film to come out during the month of June. On the surface, it appears to be Oscar bait. But it has its fair share of issues. However, they shouldn't be enough to hinder any enjoyment of the film.
Amidst the impressive set pieces and Confederate South backdrop, Free State of Jones follows Newton Knight, played by Matthew McConaughey, a deserted soldier who starts an uprising against his former Confederate army. He leads a group of escaped slaves and runaway farm workers under the credo that no man shall be owned, and poor men should not be losing their lives so the rich can get richer.
It's a truly powerful film about freedom and an earnest man who believes in equality--even on a subconscious level. Yet, it's interesting to note that everything between Knight and his comrades is all good. There is a minor spat between him and four of his men, but it lasts all of about ten minutes of screen time. Other than that, there isn't much conflict within his rule.
There is, however, much outside hostility. That's the whole point of the movie. The action scenes are both eye-opening and jaw dropping. About as real as any Civil War film can be. And there are several scenes that are so lifelike that even the snootiest critic must acknowledge its integrity.
The script isn't perfect. Some potential nuances are left on the table. Certain inner struggles that Knight faces are sped through, when they would have significantly benefitted the character's development. We don't catch enough inward glimpses. At times, the circumstances seem overcome too easily. And it's not McConaughey's fault. I'm not sure if I can imagine anyone else playing the part.
But the main story is told the right way. It serves its purpose as we come closer to understanding the struggle of the slaves and impoverished farmers. It's not just a fight for freedom, but for equality--which this movie proves may not always be the same thing.
At 139 minutes, it never feels long. By the end, you still feel like there should have been more.
Twizard Rating: 91
Boy, Pixar sure needed this one. After mostly marginal efforts since 2010's Toy Story 3, they had to deliver something to raise our expectations back up. Something undeniable.
This sequel to 2003's Finding Nemo acts as an origins story for everyone's favorite absent-minded fish, Dory. It shows her as a cute little baby, stumbling over her words and innocently gazing into her parents' eyes. Then, one day, her short-term memory loss gets the best of her and she loses her family, unable to remember how.
While most animated films abandon the cute, young version of the main character early on in the film, Finding Dory finds a way to utilize it throughout the whole thing, in the form of of Dory's flashbacks.
It's not necessarily as phenomenal as its predecessor, but Finding Dory is definitely a fantastic movie! We get some new characters who are just as hilarious as the ones from the last--including two British sea lions who won't allow Gerald to sit on their rock.
It's the funniest Pixar film since Toy Story 3. Some jokes had me laughing long after the credits rolled.
The one and only things that really bothers me are the one or two contrived plot devices. In a deus ex machina fashion, the film takes minor liberties with echolocation and features a ridiculous scene where an octopus drives a truck. But I guess, in Pixar's world, where even toys can talk, anything is possible. But the studio has always been good about walking the line between realistic and impossible--even amidst their own well-crafted impossible universes. But the octopus car sequence throws all that out the window. And it's kinda silly. Your kids will get a kick out of it though.
Still, Finding Dory is something to behold. It's so enjoyable and packed with unforced emotion and unique outlooks on mental handicaps, that we can shrug off even the largest of its minor pitfalls. You can only quibble so much before you realize that the pros far outweigh the cons. To the point where you just can't deny how good it is. it's undeniable.
Twizard Rating: 98
In 1996, we didn't have a whole lot of alien invasion movies. In fact, Independence Day was, by far, the biggest one ever in existence. It prided itself on it. And you could say it started an avalanche of similar genre films in the 20 years since its release. So, naturally, the sequel needed to be much much bigger. Luckily, it delivers.
The new alien ship spans an entire continent, and Earth's existence is much more threatened this time around. It turns out that the same aliens from the last movie are back to annihilate our planet.
Like the first film, there are a handful of story lines. Many people banning together for a common cause. While not helping fix the depth issue of these movies, that's how we would need to do it in real life. Especially for an attack of this magnitude.
But what helps continue the original realism from the first film is slightly negated by the futuristic feel from the get-go. Drones hover around an ultramodern Washington D.C. and there is an entire group of military personnel living on the Moon. While 1996 felt like 1996, 2016 is more along the lines of Back to the Future Part 2.
While the action is big, the CGI feels very unoriginal and uninspired.
But that's all forgivable. What's not is the convoluted premise. It may not seem to matter. We get, more or less, that there's a big alien trying to wipe out our race, but we're unsure why it's happening, how it's different from the first film, and why anyone in the movie knows what they know.
Oh, and the acting is horrendous. Will Smith's stepson, Dylan, from the original is all grown up now, following in Smith's footsteps as a military pilot, and someone must've informed him to utilize his entire face when delivering each line. He gives his own version of the Bill Pullman speech from 1996. It's awful. He's not the actor who played the role in the original. But at this point, they might as well have just hired the same guy. This current actor has no obvious benefit over the first. Maybe it's because he's good-looking? Yeah, that's important.
The rest of his cohorts are almost just as bad. They're obviously hired for their appearances, rather than their acting abilities. And the dialogue is already dumbed-down way before they get their fidgety little hands on it. The depth created for these characters is contrived just to reel in the kids. But the acting is just unacceptable--even for such a large scale movie.
Will Smith isn't in this one. Don't even bother expecting him to make a surprise appearance. You may think, "He's too integral to the enjoyment of the first film not to be in this one." And you'd be right. It's like Chris Tucker not being in Next Friday.
Luckily, Judd Hirsch and Jeff Goldblum reprise their roles.
Hirsch brings some much needed life to this film. His storyline is the least important, but the most engaging out of the whole thing.
The film's faults fortunately give it a really corny '90s feel, which, at the very least, makes this film fun. And the momentum builds well, so we can actually enjoy ourselves.
The individual pieces in this film shouldn't make up an impressive project. But somehow, the small instances of light shine through and are just good enough to make this movie watchable. But ultimately, this film shouldn't depend on a few scenes by two actors to make it so.
Twizard Rating: 74
X-Men story lines all pretty much revolve around the same theme: Humans fearing mutants and acting upon it irrationally, causing bad mutants to revolt and good mutants to attempt peace.
We start off in 3600 B.C., with set pieces that showcase ancient Egypt as good as any we've seen since maybe The Mummy in 1999. Here, the first mutant known to man, En Sabah Nur aka Apocalypse (though his name doesn't seem to really be important), gets betrayed and trapped underground for centuries. This dude would've given me nightmares if I saw him as a child.
Then we wind up in the 1980s, with some cool zeitgeists of the era. But not too much so that it becomes a nostalgia flick--though that wouldn't be too bad either. We catch up with our X-Men stars ten years after the events in X-Men First Class. We're introduced to a few new mutants and get most of our favorites back. Apocalypse gets awoken from his long sleep and decides to assemble a team to kill off humans--along with any mutant who stands in his way.
The film does a great job of balancing a cornucopia of character's story lines. Everyone is accounted for, but wisely, most of the villains aren't touched upon that much--including Apocalypse. Some may argue that he lacks a unique incentive, but when you're the most powerful mutant ever and thirst for omnipotence, what other incentive do you need? But it does go beyond that. His philosophy is Hitler-esque in that he wants to destroy who he believes to be inferior beings. And he's given a sort of false-charisma that makes the fact that he has followers believable.
The only other villain for which we get sufficient depth established is Magneto--perhaps the most compelling story in the whole X-Men saga--with only Wolverine's giving it a run for its money. Magneto walks the line between good and evil at times in the series, with his fantastic dynamic/friendship with Professor Xavier furthered upon even more in this film.
The action doesn't feel empty and neither does the plot. The characters are enjoyable and we don't feel cheated out of anyone's backstory. But we don't feel forced into one either. The good thing about having multiple movies and prequels is that we trust that, in time, we will know each character's origin.
X-Men: Apocalypse may not have the most radical of premises within the X-Men universe, but its a subject that is still treated with much realism and ongoingness--something other franchises don't do quite as well. The civil war battle thing has been a common theme among superhero movies this year, and X-Men does it best. Something of the grandest proportions is actually at stake. Heroes and civilization as a whole may actually be destroyed.
It all makes this a solid installment in the series and maybe the best superhero movie this year (so far). Plus, its plethora of characters and a creepy antagonist make the movie engaging and not feel quite as long as it is. We needed some redemption after the slap-in-the-face time travel entry, Days of Future Past, nullified the stories in a franchise we've grown to appreciate. That was more of a cool idea in the moment, while this movie is an important idea.
Oh, and we also get an esoteric post-credits scene, whose meaning will most likely be forgotten by the time the next film comes out anyway.
Twizard Rating: 94
So it turns out, the things critics complained about in 2013's Now You See Me would've been better off untouched. While not producing a perfect movie in the first installment, the opposite ends up happening here.
On the other hand, much like the first one, Now You See Me 2 has the mind-bending entertainment taken care of. It holds the same charm that was present in its predecessor--perhaps even more. However, there are just a few things that are problematic.
For one, the audience constantly feels like they're missing something--like they're always behind in what's going on. And not because of natural occurrences in the narrative, but because the filmmakers simply want us to be. Which is odd, seeing that this time we're actually in on most of the tricks.
In Now You See Me, we're given the story through the FBI agent's point of view--always on the other side of the magic. In the sequel, we're mostly given the point of view of the four magicians, so we're deeply involved behind the scenes. The former situation was a major complaint of the first film, but now that I'm seeing the alternative, I think I would rather things be back to normal. And even though it's worth it in the end, the whole time prior you just sit there, frustrated, not wanting to be in on the trick, trying to mentally disassemble all the rigmarole in the meantime.
Two years following the events of the first film, the Four Horsemen (played by Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Dave Franco, and Lizzy Caplan) must remain in hiding for fear of the FBI. But they're growing impatient waiting for further instructions. Caplan replaces Isla Fisher as the female in the group. She's very unfunny--even when she so desperately tries to be--making us wish Fisher was back.
The clan ends up in China where they are forced into working for a rich businessman (Daniel Radcliffe) who faked his own death and is supposed to be dead to the rest of the world. Radcliffe's brilliantly evil persona is far from the paladin, Harry Potter, as this may be his most mainstream role since.
Morgan Freeman also returns with his character still in prison, because, for some reason, he can't seem to prove his innocence yet. Freeman is a key cog because he's what connects Ruffalo's character to his father's death as a child.
Also differing from the first film, the first two acts are the weakest part. Waiting for things to get better towards the end, we sit through a magic trick-less setup that's more confusing than interesting. We do, however, get "treated" to an unnecessary card-flinging scene that just ends up being silly and five minutes too long.
Does a good ending make up for a meandering 90 minutes? I guess it might if those 90 minutes are pertinent to the climax. And in this case, they are. But things may be a little too intricate to be cherished in the long run (something untrue for the first film). Maybe it deserves another watch. Maybe then will things be more clear. Because even after it's all explained to us, things wind up being overly complicated, but I guess you just have to trust that it all makes sense. If you're okay living like that.
Twizard Rating: 73
Surprisingly content with its 2014 predecessor, I was looking forward to this movie. The first wasn't even near perfect, but it had a kind of nostalgic charm to it and reminded me of something I would've been totally into when I was a kid. I mean, that's what we're looking for here, right?
In this one, our heroes catch news of Shredder escaping from prison with the help of mad scientist, Baxter Stockman, to utilize a technology that will help them stop the turtles and take over the world.
Luckily the filmmakers brought back the writers from the first to keep the dialogue consistent. The repartee is still just as cartoony and the acting is marginal, which give this movie its '90s feel.
But much like the first in this rebooted series, this film is far from perfect. While it keeps the premise contained and doesn't try to over-complicate things, unfortunately, it sort of does anyway. The main plot isn't all that original, and then when it really gets the ball rolling, it becomes a bit convoluted when it shouldn't need to be. In fact, the film's at its strongest and most enjoyable during the first two acts.
The final action sequences are confusing and chaotic. I almost would've preferred to see it done more realistically without the shaky cam. Or maybe even chopsocky style!
The saddest thing is we are more invested in our CGI leads than their human counterparts--who are stiff and seem to be given the absolute bottom-of-the-barrel dialogue. But since the film is about the ninja turtles, I guess it does its job.
We get introduced to Casey Jones--a mainstay amongst earlier adaptations--who continues the trend of forced character development. In an attempt to evoke sympathy for our character, he is heard explaining, in total seriousness, to two different people that it's his childhood dream to be a detective. But then that's it. That's all we get.
Regardless of all the pitfalls, this new series has been enjoyable because it has remained inspired. It's obviously written by folks who are passionate about the source material.
Fairly consistent with, if not better than the first, Out of the Shadows keeps those into the series still invested. And 10-year-old me is enjoying a movie like a little kid again.
Twizard Rating: 76
You'd think the mockumentary genre was played out by now. If you asked me before I watched this movie, I'd probably think so too. But the humor that the boys of the Lonely Island have concocted is not only completely fresh and well thought-out, but will prove to be ahead of its time some day.
One-third of the comedy team, Andy Samberg, stars as Connor4Real--a Justin Bieber-esque pop icon--who's former hip-hop group broke up when he decided to start his solo career. Experiencing the downward slope of his fame and his slow decline to "has-been" status, his ego is too big to realize or admit it.
Along the way, we get documentary-style interviews from real-life "contemporaries"--such as Usher and Mariah Carey--who give commentary on Connor's career.
The movie is filled with at least a half-dozen songs, which are all catchy enough to be on the radio. But upon further attentiveness to the lyrics, they're laden with totally crude and offensive--yet hilarious--content.
So many jokes are completely off-kilter and have no ounce of necessity, but we're glad they happen. The humor, both subtle and broad, showcases the comedy trio's range. They use the Seth MacFarlane rapid-fire approach, but in a way where the jokes are much more uniform and cohesive. And if one doesn't work--or merely goes over the audience's head--there's another right around the corner to make us laugh and forget about it.
It finds a nice balance between antics and story. But the Lonely Island have made their brand by successfully fusing political incorrectness, awkwardness and silliness. And the trio has taken it to the next level here. They have such a tight grasp on not only what's funny, but what's topical and realistic--making everything that happens in this movie feel like it could actually happen--or is actually happening. It's a great feeling to completely trust your filmmakers.
The movie is directed by, and featuring, the other two members of the Lonely Island, Akiva Schaffer and Jorma Taccone. Together, with Samberg, the three of them have established such perfect chemistry over the years, that they probably don't care if you're not laughing at all because it's obvious they believe in their work and make themselves laugh, all while having a great time doing so.
The humor may seem very easy to think up, but is in fact, pretty inventive. Some jokes may prove to be a bit more esoteric for those not in the industry, but there are plenty that aren't.
Usually a lack of laughter comes from something not being funny. But there's an ode of confidence exuding from this film that you feel like, if you're not laughing, you just don't get the joke.
Ever so slyly, the movie's main theme is a mockery of the self-absorption and self-aggrandizing of today's media and society--especially within the millennial generation. But it's never preachy. In fact, for those most caught up with what's hip, the jokes may not come of as jokes at all.
Samberg has so much conviction in his role. It seems as if he truly believes every naive thing that he says and does. His character is so over-the-top, but Samberg makes him so real that it's never over-exaggerated.
While a tad predictable, that's not the point. Popstar never tries to be any other film. So many times have we seen American comedies give their best shot at shamefully replicating--or reinventing--a Judd Apatow/Adam McKay/Todd Phillips/Seth Rogen style of comedy, and lose their own vision. But these guys take their own vision and have their way with it. Samberg and the Lonely Island have influenced comedy a lot in the past decade or so. And now they're changing the rules all over again.
Twizard Rating: 93
Despite what many may think about this film, I loved it. It's far better than its more meandering predecessor--which wasn't terrible, either.
No longer in the auteuristic grasp of Tim Burton, but just within reach, is a movie which isn't so concerned about contriving a certain tone that it loses what makes it organically appealing. This one is way more fun because we're actually on an adventure, rather than simply sitting through a series of disjointed events. Here, things actually happen.
Alice is summoned back to Underland because the Mad Hatter is dying. He is losing the will to live. He believes his family is still alive, yet everyone is telling him that they've died. After holding on a little longer for Alice to come to his rescue, she also admits that she also believes him to be wrong. The White Queen convinces Alice that there is one way to bring his family back--to go back in time.
Aside from a few minor time travel plot holes, the only big problem, if any, is the abundance underutilized characters. We literally get nothing from the Cheshire Cat, the White Rabbit, Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, among others. They are there so we can say they are. But besides the occasional lark, they serve almost no purpose.
We are, however, introduced to a new character, Time, played by Sacha Baron Cohen. He's the gatekeeper of the past, present, and future, and possesses a device that Alice must steal so she can go back in time. With a Schwarzeneggering accent, Cohen provides us with most of the levity throughout the film. He's not over-the-top and he doesn't overstay his welcome.
Helena Bonham Carter nearly eclipses her performance from the first movie, convincing as the heartless, yet insecure tyrant, even long before revealing further depth in her character.
With dialogue much more fit for following along, Alice Through the Looking Glass is easier to understand than the first film--which is odd since this is the one that features the main protagonist traveling every which way throughout the time circuits. Usually a film with this much time travel would get confusing, but the filmmakers avoid ever making it convoluted.
Even though everything in this movie looks amazingly attractive to the eye, every beat is necessary. Every beat feels necessary. Every time travel. Every place Alice goes and does. There aren't any filler scenes.
To truly appreciate this film, you must first appreciate the relationship between Alice and the Mad Hatter carried over from the first movie--otherwise you may not care all that much.
There is a great vision for this film, and an even better execution. I loved it. Don't let the reviews fool you--it's enjoyable. One of my favorites of this year.
Twizard Rating: 97
It's a common theme in films that Wall Street is largely corrupt. We've seen it played out countless times. Especially lately. And many of these films mesh together to become indistinguishable from each other. Money Monster may feel different. But is it maybe due to the ridiculously large ad campaign or because it says things that the others don't?
The former is most likely true, but it doesn't mean this film should be tossed aside. There's a lot to like about it.
George Clooney plays Lee Gates, the host of a stock market show where he advises people on what to stocks to buy and sell. In one situation, he advises everyone to buy shares of a specific company, saying it's a surefire bet. So many viewers do, but when the company's stock plummets, costing investors $800 million, everyone wants answers.
Most specifically, a young man named Kyle (Jack O'Connell), who sneaks onto the show's set and threatens everyone. Flailing a gun around and strapping a bomb around Gates' chest, he goes into a rant about losing his entire $60,000 life savings on the company because of Gates' advice.
Kyle and the script have a lot to say, but never quite hit the nail on the head in a grand way. It's well thought out, but doesn't play as so, instead giving us popcorn thrills and adrenaline rushes. Which, by no means, is a bad thing.
Bordering on transparent and cheesy a few times, its wittiness jumps back out of it quickly--and fortunately.
At a little over 90 minutes, the film is paced well. It keeps us awake on the edge of our seats pretty much the whole time, which is interesting considering almost the whole thing takes place on a television set with just a couple of people.
This may have to do with the fact that the point of view is all over the place--an odd decision for a thriller. We see what the filmmakers conveniently need us to see--not always what makes sense for us to.
Though not as big or impactful as it wants to be, it stands as a microcosm of the financial stresses most of the country is constantly going through. It's an important movie, but there are others that are slightly more important. Although, it doesn't hurt to watch this one and be thoroughly entertained in the process.
Twizard Rating: 85
So, I guess I've found my favorite movie of the year--so far, at least. The Nice Guys did so many things right and so little wrong, it's a shame its release will not garner the recognition it should.
Russell Crowe plays an underground enforcer who's helping out a young girl, Amelia, trying to shake the private investigator, Ryan Gosling, who keeps following her. Crowe beats up Gosling, but soon realizes Amelia may be in danger of getting killed, and Gosling might be the man needed to assist him in protecting her. Little do they know, they're about to get involved in a large-scale conspiracy and a string of connected murders.
The Nice Guys commits to its quirkiness and loves taking advantage of its irony. Gosling's character won't drive after he's been drinking, so he makes his 13-year-old daughter drive him around instead so he won't get in trouble.
It's really hilarious. Not in an over-the-top Will Ferrell sense of the word, but in a very clever and cool Oceans Eleven-y type of way--with a little goofball thrown in, too. Each joke is ingeniously thought-out, but still feels very organic. While credit partially goes to director and co-writer Shane Black, we also have to praise the two leads for their brilliant delivery and conviction.
Gosling is on another level and proves he deserves to be considered a comedic actor with the best of them. Crowe, who may not get to say most of the jokes, is just as important in playing Gosling's straight man--maybe the coolest and most realistic one we've seen in awhile. Their chemistry is undeniable.
Amidst all the humor is a really brilliant script in its own right. We get an enthralling mystery that unfolds perfectly as the film does. There's a lot going on, but it's never confusing or overelaborate. It's old school, but new school just the same.
The only thing you might say, is that there's some underutilized depth. But then again, not really. Both main characters are deep and complicated and interesting in their own ways. There's more than meets the eye and not a lot is laid out for us that easily.
Black likes to make us figure things out on our own, but doesn't ever totally abandon us. Instead of flat out stating what year it is, he drops hints, forcing us to pay attention.
Another marvel is the young actress, Angourie Rice, who plays Gosling's daughter. She has the talent of someone twice her age, while still maintaining a healthy amount of precocity.
Based on the trailer, I knew I was going to really like this movie, save for a possible overwrought premise. But I was surprised even beyond those expectations. This is truly one of my favorite comedies in a long time. Definitely my favorite, so far, for 2016.
Twizard Rating: 97
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
It's a movie about a father trying to save his son with super powers. Sounds pretty cool, right?
Yeah, I thought so, too. It's not that this movie is complete garbage, because it isn't. It's just misguided. And slow. Really really slow.
In the beginning we see a boy, Alton, who has been kidnapped--or so we are lead to believe. We soon figure out that he's been taken by his biological father (Michael Shannon), away from a Branch Davidian-type cult that's exploiting Alton for his powers.
This is, by far, the best point in the film. We're excited to see what's about to happen. Somebody's got a secret. There's going to be a cool twist somewhere! …Don't hold your breath.
Certain things always remain unclear. At times this feels intentional. Not using contrived means of letting us in on what's happening--instead, revealing it to us slowly throughout the movie. But what seems artistic at first, soon makes you realize that maybe it's just done as a means to fill up its runtime.
The acting is very impressive. Everyone is perfectly believable in their own respective roles. But unfortunately, that technique--the ambiguous exposition one--also contributes to us feeling like we don't really know our characters very well. It's hard to get attached. It's even harder to care.
We're also never really sure what Alton's super powers consist of. He can control electricity and stuff, but what's with his laser eyes?
There's a lot wrong with Midnight Special. And honestly, I can live with those reasonably minor pitfalls. The main problem? This film should be way more fun than it is. It's nowhere near as cool as the concept leads us to believe. The most interesting part is the end, which is all too brief.
The issue is this film commits way too much to the "realism" aspect of its "magic realism" label. We don't get enough of what sets it apart from other movies with similar story lines.
We get mystery, but much of it goes unsolved. Even after the movie ends.
But like I said, this film isn't a total wash. As slow as it is, the dialogue is engaging. And it keeps us in our seats waiting to see what happens. But then, at a particular point in the movie--I can't remember exactly when--we realize it's not going to resolve at all how we want it to. That's when we feel cheated.
I'm still not quite sure why they decided to name it "Midnight Special". It makes me think of some sort of neo-western. But it's not. It's about a boy with unclear super powers.
Twizard Rating: 68
They're all older, yet they're all pretty much the same. Maybe that's another Greek stereotype I'm unaware of. But in this sitcomy world that Nia Vardalos has created for us, it makes sense anyway.
From the very first moments, My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2 comes off as more of a cast reunion or a "Where Are They Now?" special than anything else.
By nature, the title already limits what this film can be about. And it shows. Obvious with every forced plot point, it tries to cover too much ground, but then still finds a way to sneak a wedding into it all.
Amidst trying to be the mediator for her whole family, Toula (Vardalos) must deal with her daughter possibly leaving home for college. She also must try to handle her own suffering relationship with her neglected husband (John Corbett), while trying to plan a wedding for her parents who recently find out that their 50-year marriage was never official.
At one point there are about 3 major story lines competing for the title of "main". Plus several others intermixed. As a result, we get scenes that serve no purpose and film with no direction.
The dialogue is just as sloppy--going for that quirky awkwardness that worked so well in the 2002 original. But here, it plays as unnatural and stiff.
Maybe the cast has lost its chemistry with one another. Or maybe it's missing a little of what made the first one work. That first film was completely organic. The sequel is the exact opposite.
Everything is forced. From the dialogue to the character depth. Trying to squeeze every last bit of emotion out of its audience every chance it gets.
Not to say it doesn't have its moments. I didn't hate it. It just isn't all that good. Certain performances outdo others. Michael Constantine is just as good as Toula's father. But director Kirk Jones just can't extract the same results out of most of the rest of the cast.
It's all just really discombobulated. Directionless. It tries to prove points, but then counters them with opposing points--ultimately saying nothing. Or worse: not knowing what it's saying.
Many jokes fall flat. Luckily the head count is so high that eventually there are a few you end up laughing at.
But as a whole, My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2 is a mess. It means well. Really, it does. It'll even make you smile a few times. But after 14 years, you'd at least hope for a better story.
Twizard Rating: 59
