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
This film would never get made today. At least not with intents this transparent. It serves to glorify Elvis Presley and his embodiment. But back in 1964, these types of B-movies were just accepted. Nowadays teen cinema consists of a post-apocalyptic love triangle. Much more realistic. Not quite as blatant.
Elvis plays Lucky, a race car driver who's in Las Vegas to compete in the Vegas Grand Prix. He needs a new engine but is strapped for cash due to contrived reasons. He falls for Rusty (Ann-Margret) who seems to be abruptly against his racing ways.
This movie is all over the place. About halfway through it becomes disjointed, making it obvious what its purpose is. For a pointless, plotless story, it's way too convoluted.
For an 84 minute film, it takes its sweet time, attempting to thin itself out to cover the short runtime. But then, once it realizes it's home free, the story progresses ridiculously fast and things never get resolved.
Elvis and Ann-Margret have undeniable chemistry, but their depth is almost non-existent. Lucky's motivations are unclear, and Rusty goes from a likable, independent worker woman at the beginning of the film to an incompetent bimbo by the end.
The songs and dance numbers are impressively catchy, but that's all this movie is. The few glamorous Las Vegas shots are nice, but there aren't nearly enough in a movie with the city's name in the title. It almost seems like a blown opportunity to make a cool story about gambling or mobsters. Instead, it's about racing--something few of us think of when talking about Vegas.
It's a dated movie, but that's perhaps the best thing this film has to offer. There are some cool shots of the Vegas of yesteryear. There's one in particular showing the front of the Flamingo as it used to be--alone, with nothing on either side. Contrastingly, we get a shot of Fremont Street in all its garish glory--busy and crowded, sans the 1,500 foot canopy movie screen overhead. While watching this, my fiancée turns to me and says, "You used to be able to drive down Fremont Street???" My, how things have changed.
Twizard Rating: 57
Roland Emmerich has his hands all over this film--which isn't a bad thing. Up until July of 1996, the best special effects we'd seen were still from Jurassic Park. But Independence Day came out one year before Titanic, so it held the title that whole time.
And for good reason. It's so visually stunning that 20 years later, we're still in awe of what we're looking at. It sure helps make this film feel less dated.
Less dated. 20 years is long enough that we can say that, right?
Unfortunately, the schmaltzy dialogue doesn't help its case. It may seem that most of the cast can't act, but that's just a result of a marginal script (besides Vivica A. Fox, who, in fact, can't act).
Taking place around the fourth of July, a worldwide alien invasion is imminent, and the country is in a true panic. Amidst the many eventually-connecting subplots, the film concerns itself most with that of pilot Steve Hiller (Will Smith) and computer-wiz David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum). Both carry the film well and help provide levity to lighten an otherwise dry-by-today's-standards action movie.
Judd Hirsch plays Goldblum's father and has some truly brilliant scenes. Harry Connick Jr. and Randy Quaid give us a little something as well.
All of these attributes allow this film to hold up well. And it's even more impressive despite its several pitfalls. It's a true product of the '90s, and even where it seems dated, it's just enough to make us nostalgic.
Watching ID4 again reminds us how amazing Will Smith's whole underachiever schtick is, making us want it back again. Hopefully he'll step away from his Oscar-worthy performances and give us a well-deserved comedy one of these days.
Twizard Rating: 93
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
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
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
If a piece of art is highly influential, does it make that piece of art good? Yeah, probably--great, even. But it doesn't necessarily mean everyone has to like it.
Intermixing and connecting four stories, the film compares and contrasts all different types of low-level scums of the earth.
In Pulp Fiction, the dialogue is superb--near perfect. Quentin Tarantino's direction is that of ridiculously mind-numbing proportions. The cinematography is truly something else. Not to mention, groundbreaking on so many different levels--replicated infinitely.
But just because it's groundbreaking, doesn't mean it has to be my favorite film.
Perhaps this has something to do with all the hype I've been hearing my whole life about how it's the greatest film of our lifetime--of ALL time. But I wanted to love it. I expected to love it!
And although I didn't love it necessarily. I liked it--a lot. Tarantino might just be my favorite director. I think he's the greatest auteur of our generation. Each film of his I've seen has inspired me even more in my own writing and artistry.
What I like about Inglorious Basterds, Django Unchained, and even Reservoir Dogs, is the sense of grandeur and importance. They all command your attention with mere dialogue in ways that most mainstream action blockbuster flicks never will.
And Pulp Fiction is engaging in that same way. But it differs from those other Tarantino films in one particular way: It's mostly much ado about nothing. I get that it's supposed to pose as commentary on the state of the film industry and mimic countless classics that have gone before it. But too often does Pulp Fiction take its sweet time getting to the point. That's Tarantino's style with his hard-hitting dialogue--which I find entertaining. But if there is no point (or no point of any substantial value) then all that dialogue gives us just that--entertainment.
Which I'm all for. Some of my favorite films are meaningless is the grand scheme of things. But in those films, I care deeply about the characters. I relate to them. I root for them. Here, I'm not sure who I root for, if anybody. But maybe that's the point, too.
The nonlinear story is cool, and is brought back to popularity with this movie, but definitely not the most interesting I've seen in cinema. On the other hand, watching the stories unfold is. Never knowing what's coming around the corner or which characters to trust or like. Tarantino gets the absolute best performances out of his talent--Samuel L. Jackson above all else.
The best scene is when John Travolta and Uma Thurman venture to a 1950s-themed diner. Every employee there is a caricature of some '50s icon. Which is a curious thing since this film pays homage to countless zeitgeists of yesteryear, but almost none of them are from the 1950s.
Perhaps its groundbreakingness is partially due to massively exposing the world to Tarantino and proving that he wasn't just a one-hit-wonder with Reservoir Dogs. That his style is here to stay.
The movie is exploitation that critics reaffirm as high-quality, while also changing the game for independent films, making it okay for A-listers to appear in these lower budget productions.
But like I said, I also have to credit it to its technical accomplishments. And the fact that it's thoroughly and consistently engaging.
Pulp Fiction is an amazing film. Perhaps Tarantino's greatest artistic accomplishment. But one that I could watch over and over? It's not even my favorite Tarantino film.
Twizard Rating: 97
There are a lot of experiences that young men should have growing up. Being exposed to the barbershop culture is one of them. I loved going to get my haircut when I was a teenager. Not just because I felt rejuvenated with my fresh cut, but because I enjoyed the banter, the stories, and even the superfluous arguments. It's something I still look forward to when I go get a trim. And it's captured perfectly in this 2002 Ice Cube comedy.
The story isn't anything too intricate. It surrounds Cube's character, Calvin, trying to decide whether or not he should sell the barbershop passed on to him by his late father. But most of the film is spent filling us in on the happenings of the employees and patrons of the shop, and their own stories. By far the most interesting part, we get a great sense of who these people are and what makes them tick. We feel like we're right there in the shop with them.
It has its fair share of broad comedy, but there aren't a lot of moments of subtle humor. Which is okay, since it does the former so well. While it's rarely hysterical, you can definitely appreciate the repartee. In fact, most of the highlights don't come from the barbershop at all, but from Anthony Anderson and Lahmard Tate's characters stealing and attempting to open an ATM machine. This subplot goes on throughout the entire film.
With an impressive cast and an even more impressive Ice Cube, the beauty of this film is in its characters. They're not all likable, but you get to know them well enough to understand them. It's deceptively deep.
Ultimately, Barbershop turns a very simple premise into something much bigger and more meaningful. And it does it without ever feeling like it's being stretched too thin.
Although it's not perfect, it's perhaps one of the most accurate portrayals of a culture so beloved by American males.
Twizard Rating: 84
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
For those of you who haven't seen Walt Disney's animated version of The Jungle Book--or haven't seen it in awhile, anyway--I'm sure you still know the famous songs, and perhaps even some classic scenes. But what you may not realize is that the version we're most familiar with does have some issues of its own.
Not to say that Disney's 1967 adaptation is anything to scoff at. It will definitely slap a smile on your face. But with a runtime that could have used a few more minutes, there's always been some things missing.
Definitely an improvement on the original, 2016's The Jungle Book fills out the classic story in a much more complete way.
With this one, we get answers to a lot of characters' motives, as well as more realistic responses to drastic life changes.
There's backstory provided for why Shere Khan wants to kill Mowgli, along with a more heartfelt goodbye as Mowgli leaves his wolf pack at the beginning of the film.
Neel Sethi, who plays Mowgli, passes the cute test. Almost so cute and precocious that he fails to give us the realistic performance we desire. Instead, it's more of what you would see in a Disney Channel show. He's oozing with "my parents made me audition for this." Granted, he does alright considering he's essentially acting with no other humans. And while director Jon Favreau gets the best performance out of him, he's just a little too much Disney and not enough realistic. Which isn't far off from original voice actor in 1967, who lacks the same kind of conviction. Compared to him, Sethi is an improvement.
But the narrative is really what drives this movie the hardest. It's captivating even before the comic relief of Baloo (Bill Murray) shows up. And it has the added benefit of not being too long.
The jungle world created by the filmmakers paints a dark and sinister universe, just as mysterious as the jungle itself. There's nothing peaceful here as long as Shere Khan is around.
King Louie, voiced by Christopher Walken, is just as wicked. He hearkens back to a Marlon Brando Godfather, living in the shadows and attempting to exploit the quid pro quo. This is also where "man's red flower" becomes more of a prominent feature in this version.
The visual effects are an accomplishment alone. Every hair, every movement, without using any live animals. I've never seen anything like it. Truly amazing.
If you romanticize the 1967 original, then you may have a problem accepting this one for all its greatness. But this one is the actuality of what we've been romanticizing. And besides the acting, it's near perfect. It's darker and even more twisted, transcending Rudyard Kipling's original source material to the maximum. It replicates the tone--but better. It's everything good from the original--but better. And even brings back the beloved songs for good measure.
Twizard Rating: 99
Most people are probably thinking, "If they pull this off, it could really be great!" And they're right. The unfortunate part is that it's fairly difficult.
My only true frame of reference is the 2005 film version of the Jane Austen classic. And while it's not my favorite film of all time, I can't deny its technical achievements.
This one has completely different achievements. If you're talking about special effects and makeup, then Pride and Prejudice and Zombies is accomplished, sure. But the problems lie in the story itself.
The film starts out as a true black comedy. Taking place in the early 1800s, you see quaint young English women preparing their weapons for battling the undead. But first they must brush each other's hair. It's that sort of humor that runs rampant throughout much of the first act of this film. And it's much appreciated. It's not two stories at once, but the classic Austen story featuring a zombie subtext.
Though, the irony is only entertaining for so long. Then it reaches a point where everything seems forced, and then the dialogue becomes rushed. It just goes through the motions in order to execute both ideas. The long runtime works for the 2005 version, but this one just tries to cover way too much ground in about 30 minutes less.
And it's as though the filmmakers realize that too. So they change it up a bit. 45 minutes into the film we finally get more of the zombie action that we've been wanting. It starts getting good, but then the whole love story suffers because of it. If you can look past the massively uneven tone, you'll tend to enjoy what makes this story unique.
The casting here is pretty good. The chemistry between all the lovers isn't quite there, but Lily James is more than acceptable as Elizabeth Bennet. Although, it's almost humorous to believe that she's supposed to be the less beautiful daughter between herself and Jane.
If you've never been exposed to the original Jane Austen story before, then you may not even get the humor or, better yet, the story in this one. However, the adjustments made to the classic tale in order to fit into this zombie adaptation actually cause parts of the story to make more sense.
Pride and Prejudice and Zombies isn't a bad movie. It's actually quite entertaining at times. And It's not that they failed in what they set out to do, I just simply think it's not possible to accomplish the daunting task of combining the two stories. Perhaps it merely has too much to handle in order to have the freedom to be its own movie.
Twizard Rating: 72
Pee-Wee's Big Adventure is one of my all-time favorites, so I've been looking forward to this one for awhile.
From the very opening of the film, we already get a sense that this will take place in a similar realm of surrealism that was used in the 1985 classic. It's a different film universe from Big Adventure, but it gives us the same tone. From Pee-Wee's love for Rube Goldberg-style housing, to the utopian town that he lives in--Fairville--which is populated by less than 1000 residents. It all hearkens back to Tim Burton's vision from the original. But the comparisons don't end in Fairville. The whole film tries to mimic what worked so well in the first movie--which is a good thing.
Pee-Wee has never left Fairville before. In fact, I'm not sure anyone really has. So, much like Big Adventure, Pee-Wee sets out on a cross-country road trip with inspiration from Joe Manganiello--playing a fictionalized version of himself who just so happens to be the cool-guy version of Pee-Wee. You wish for more scenes with the two of them because they oddly have great chemistry with each other.
There may not be as many iconic scenes as there are in Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, but the ride is just as entertaining. The silliness is still there, even if the lines aren't quite as memorable. But that's what Pee-Wee's all about. His world is meant for us to lose ourselves in. To find that place of innocence and imagination that many of us left with our childhood.
In 2016, Paul Reubens' vision for Pee-Wee still holds up. Not much has changed. There are points in the film where you forget that this is a new project.
This is truly amazing day for Pee-Wee fans. Hopefully this won't be the last we see of him for another 25 years. He was a big part of my childhood and it's great to see a new generation getting to know the world's most beloved man-child.
Twizard Rating: 96
If you've never seen a Steve McQueen movie before, this is a good one to start with. It was my first, and the only one I needed in order for me to be hooked. You somehow know it's going to be alright when he's on screen. Always ahead of his time with his colloquial demeanor, McQueen helps bridge the gap between old and new Hollywood, making the classics more accessible to younger audiences.
But The Great Escape is entertaining even when McQueen isn't present. The 1963 classic mixes suspense and levity brilliantly as it follows a group of allied prisoners in a German camp attempting their biggest escape yet during World War II.
The Great Escape is plot buildup at its finest. Writer-director, John Sturges, has an impeccable sense of narrative. From start to finish its tone never wavers. And even with its juggernaut of a runtime clocking in at nearly 3 hours, you're never checking your watch.
Although in this day and age it helps to know the history--seeing as World War II was still fairly fresh in everyone's minds back in 1963. But setting aside, you can still appreciate the general storyline. Even a younger audience should be able to follow along easily and still enjoy this movie's timely humor.
Elmer Bernstein's score helps to drive this film with strong motifs. It echoes The Bridge on the River Kwai, but has a feel all of its own.
The Great Escape is a phenomenal film. It's consistent and thoroughly engaging, and the type of movie that just puts a smile on your face. With a little help from McQueen, it holds up very well. He's at his best here, like always. And the rest of the cast is so strong that this film is great even when he's absent--he's just the cherry on top.
Twizard Rating: 100
What most people don't realize is that Rocky isn't so much of a boxing movie as it is a love story. Well, that's what I got from it, anyway. The boxing is a big part of it, but we don't even get to the real meat of that story until about an hour in. And without even realizing it, we're getting a whole lot of character depth during the first half of the film.
Forget the creepy way that Rocky forces Adrian to give him that first kiss. The story as a whole is sweet. She's a true diamond in the rough. It's almost not even believable at first, but the two have so much chemistry that it works.
But like most of the movie, their relationship is without much conflict. Rocky doesn't overcome any crazy obstacles. He's a lazy boxer who hasn't made anything of his life, and when some freak opportunity presents itself, he finally works hard and gets what he wants. There isn't anything really standing in his way. Perhaps if they threw some conflict in there it may come off as contrived, but how it is now, it seems too easy. Maybe that's the point. I don't know.
Undefeated heavyweight champion, Apollo Creed (Carl Weathers) needs a new opponent for the title fight after his current one drops out. But he wants this new competitor to be a no name amateur, so that the public will get into the underdog story.
And it's a good underdog story at that. You root for Rocky undeniably. But there could just be a little more in terms of a struggle. The biggest risk he takes is handed to him. And what does he have to lose, anyway?
Much of the film is dated with the fake punches and the already antiquated dialogue. There are points where the patter is so rhythmic that it sounds like it's from the '40s or '50s. It's a slow moving film, and some scenes just drag on for way too long. It helps add to the character development, but it does a number on our attention span.
Then there's predictability. The end result is telegraphed from a mile away. We can guess what's going to happen for most of the film. And we are usually proven right--another side effect of there not being any unexpected drama.
Nowadays, we have a quixotical view of Rocky, the all-American hero. Even the Academy was lost in its gaze with this film winning Best Picture back in 1977. But sadly, it's not as good as we want it to be. But that's not to say it's not good. It's still a cool underdog story, albeit not paying off as well as its predictability wants it to. However, corniness aside, this film set the pace for countless stories that came after it. And most of all, it has a lot of heart. You can't knock it for that.
Twizard Rating: 74
I'm not sure I've seen a military comedy since Sgt. Bilko. Or maybe it was Operation Dumbo Drop. Nonetheless, this is a post-9/11 world. We just don't have the same levity with war like we used to. Especially when it comes to the war in Afghanistan. It's just something we don't do. But maybe it's time. Apparently it's time.
And who better for the role than Tina Fey? She plays Kim Baker, an American war correspondent who is sent to Afghanistan for a few months. A few months turn into a few years and she becomes an expert on everything Middle East. But as her life back in the states fades further into the past, she's realizing that Afghanistan is now her new home. We see her make this transition. It's one that's subtle, but felt by the end.
Fey is perfect for the lead. I honestly can't imagine anyone else who can just be as funny without being over-the-top and unrealistic. She gives us her same quirky and witty humor, but the film carries a much darker David Fincher-type of tone.
The jokes are never rapid fire, but always well-deserved. It makes the film more real. And that realistic tone places us in the mindset of the characters a bit easier.
Not too much about this film is cliche. Predictable, maybe, but not really cliche. Perhaps you can credit the source material which it's adapted from--an autobiographical novel entitled The Taliban Shuffle.
What I'm most impressed with is the balance of genre. Although it's a military comedy, it never feels like the film is pushing or pulling for one or the other. It's symbiotically both.
There's nothing obviously wrong with this film, in my opinion. I guess it may have failed to solve that "so what?" question for me, but it's still an entertaining watch. Maybe not one I would want to necessarily own on DVD. But that's not to say I wouldn't watch it again.
Twizard Rating: 84
Who says family films only have children to preach to? Well, actually I'm not entirely sure if anyone's ever said that, but it sure sounds like they would though, huh? That debate aside, Disney gets it with its newest installment. Without sounding cliche and trite, Zootopia is literally fun for the whole family.
It takes place in a world where animals, both predator and prey, live together in harmony--except not really. Although things have seemed to change, all the animals still have their reservations and fears about one another. Obviously mirroring a place where our own society is right now, as far as race and religion.
The whole movie features various species facing intolerance, while digging into and showcasing possible responses to the prejudices against them--perhaps containing the true depth within this film. The themes are obvious to the adults, but subliminal to the kids. Which is a good thing. It deals with a dark subject matter, and the filmmakers aren't afraid to give us that respective tone either.
The main character is Officer Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin), a bunny rabbit who is finally living her dream of being a police officer in the big city. But she faces adversity since the job is usually held by rhinos or elephants. She's given a case where she has to find an otter who's gone missing--a mystery that adds another fun feature to an already interesting concept. However, it doesn't come until about 35 minutes in--right when you're starting to wonder to yourself what the setup is for.
In a refreshing fashion, the writers aren't talking down to their younger audience. It's funny without being over-the-top and irreverent. When the jokes don't work as well, it's never in an embarrassing way. In fact, there may even be more jokes for the adults in this one. However, there are plenty of aesthetic visuals to keep the children entertained for the full runtime
Animation alone, Zootopia is beautifully detailed. There's so much of it that it's not even possible to see it all in one sitting. And while you're watching it, you wish there were a place just like it where you could visit as soon as the movie finishes.
Twizard Rating: 99
We all know Matt Damon can act. But if someone were to disagree, you'd have to show them this film. His, along with every single performance in The Talented Mr. Ripley, is top notch. Everything he does is so subtle, yet so calculated, that you believe it all. Or you're not sure what to believe. You see the brood amidst the confidence.
Here, he plays Tom Ripley, a brilliant sociopath who uses his deception skills to fake his wealth. But the thing is, we the audience see every move he makes. It's the other characters who are being tricked.
In fact, Damon is so convincing that it's not until after the film is over when you realize there's nothing to like about his character at all.
Beautifully shot with authentic set design, The Talented Mr. Ripley leads us in the direction of a truly Hitchcockian feature in every way--the experimentation of narrative, the pseudo-protagonist, and even the signature blonde.
You have to applaud this film for keeping the audience on their toes. The story is constantly changing. Resetting its goals. Much like when our brains shift a bit when Janet Leigh dies half way through Psycho. We feel like it should end there. Wouldn't most movies?
Leaving us sitting up in our chairs, it becomes reminiscent of The Master of Suspense, himself. But then, all of a sudden, things change, and it no longer seems that way at all. You realize it keeps avoiding some sort of conclusion. Dancing around it, actually. And usually when films continue on like this, you expect a redeeming ending. However, without giving anything away, we don't get one.
When the movie is constantly showing us its hand, we are left wondering why. Maybe something bigger and better is around the corner. Maybe they're saving the real twist for the very end. The story has so many chances to give us something grand, but they all fall by the wayside.
Director, Anthony Minghella, definitely has the creepy and suspenseful tone down. And he pulls the best performances from his actors. He does a very good job, given the source material. But his the biggest impression he's left here may be how he gets us to look at Damon in a much different way.
Twizard Rating: 84
Before about 15 years ago, it was hard to accept any sequel as serious--give or take a select few. And I'm sure there were many who didn't take the Ghostbusters sequel too seriously either. But who could blame them back in 1989.
Sure it has its issues. The villain's modus operandi has devastating effects, but his method of using a baby's body as a vessel to come back from the dead is played off as silly. Although it doesn't intend to be, it can't help it. The levity of the film is that strong.
In this one, all the guys are back and they have to stop the evil Vigo the Carpathian--who is trapped in a painting--from coming back from the dead and ruling the earth. Weird things start happening all over town, as the ghostbusters discover that all of New York City's negative energy has been compiled into slime in the sewer system and is acting as a portal to bring back evil spirits.
It isn't easy for them, as they are faced with adversity that doesn't make much sense. They go from being the popular saviors of the city, to all of a sudden no one believing in ghosts anymore.
Ultimately, the film lacks any real depth. Character issues are heavily introduced but never resolved in the end. It gets a little lost in that department, sure.
But there is a charm that carries over from the original. In fact, I find this one just as funny. The talents are far better utilized here, other than Bill Murray, who is just as good as he is in the last. Peter MacNicol is an especially great addition as the oft-confused foreigner, Dr. Janosz Poha, who curates the art museum where the evil painting is being kept.
The first Ghostbusters movie is fantastic. It's legendary. But it shows its age quite a bit. Ghostbusters II may not be as iconic, but it holds up a little better. And although we don't feel as threatened by our villain, the threat is still very much there.
Twizard Rating: 87
