Quick Movie Review: Daddy's Home (2015)

We all know Will Ferrell's comedy. It's irreverent, self-deprecating, and raunchy. But none of these belong in a film that wants to be sentimental. And it doesn't even reach the point of cloying until about 10 minutes left.

This is nothing against Ferrell or Mark Wahlberg's comedic skills or their chemistry with one another. I just think the filmmakers got excited about all the talent on board that they forgot that they had to make an actual movie.

In Daddy's Home, Ferrell plays Brad, the nebbish new husband of Sarah (Linda Cardellini), who tries to vie for the affection of his new stepchildren. Then, all of a sudden, Sarah's deadbeat ex-husband, Dusty (Wahlberg), comes to town to see his children. Dusty has no knowledge of Brad--an issue that never gets resolved--and does everything in his power to bully him and make him feel inferior while trying to win Sarah and his kids back.

The film has very few laughs, despite its talent, and feels obviously reliant on its credentialed leads. There is no real meat to the plot and never builds momentum. It just muddles along until about the last 15 minutes, when it actually attempts to go somewhere with its empty premise. It's literally an hour and a half of Dusty bullying Brad and everyone in the film laughing about it. It's relentless. And there's no back and forth either. All of the humility is on Ferrell's character.

Brad can't have children because of radiation exposure to his genitals, so Dusty belittles him by convincing him that Sarah wants more children and that he won't be able to provide for her. But it turns out that Sarah is the one with no scrotum, as she does nothing to stop Dusty's harassment, and even sides with him a few times. What an appealing movie.

We feel bad for Ferrell's character the whole time (or at least we should) that it makes none of this funny. But with Ferrell comes insensitivity. He almost begs us to be okay with him being put down. And although he provides almost all of the laughs in this film, it would have almost been better if he wasn't in it. Maybe then the writers would have been okay with giving the movie some real meaning.

The biggest problem is that Ferrell doesn't fit in this type of role. He's at his true best when he's the one playing the douchey guy (Anchorman, Talladega Nights). Then his foibles are exposed and it's pure ironic genius. Personally, I don't like seeing him in these types of roles.

I just couldn't help feeling the entire time that this was just a lazily put together product. In fact, at one point in the movie I believe the camera actually shakes as if it was bumped slightly.

The only saving grace is Thomas Hayden Church's character. He plays Brad's coworker at the smooth jazz radio station. He provides us with a few off-kilter quips of insight which are better bottled up and served separately from the rest of the film.

Unless you enjoy an entire movie where everyone worships the antagonist to the delight of the audience, you won't be pandered by this. The epicaricacy borders on sadistic. And when the redemption finally comes in the end, it doesn't make up for anything. The people who like this film must get their psyche fully evaluated.

Twizard Rating: 42

Quick Movie Review: Ted 2 (2015)

Ted 2 will satisfy most fans of the original. In great Seth MacFarlane fashion, the script is full of irreverence and a variety of joke types for every taste. We all know he is going to have inconsistency in his script--so that's expected. In fact, I feel like he does this consciously--as I've expressed in my past reviews.

The film is about Ted, the talking teddy bear, and his quest to become human in the eyes of the law so that he can get married and adopt a child.

While the first film has less of a plot, it's high-concept premise really drives the film as it acts as more of a hang-out movie. But in Ted 2, we have a plot that aims to clear up a lot of our curiosities about how the rest of the world views Ted's existence. Despite it's fuller story, we feel like the plot is being stretched thin much of the time--especially towards the beginning where we get an tiresome helping of Family Guy-esque interstitials to fill in space. In 2012's Ted, there is less of a story, so there isn't really any plot to stretch, and the concept is so new that we just want to see anything having to do with a talking teddy bear. But when we are already used to the ridiculousness and we have a premise that we want to see through to the end, it's more obvious when there are filler scenes.

Ted 2 is equally as funny as the first movie and has just about as much heart, but it is filled with quite a few more plot holes and often times sacrifices sensibilities for a cheap laugh. Nonetheless it's pretty enjoyable.

Twizard Rating: 77

Quick Movie Review: Boogie Nights (1997)

It's an authentic capturing of an era so much so that we forget that it was released in 1997. Boogie Nights is not for everybody, but avid cinephiles will be satisfied in knowing that it's a well-made film.

Telling the story of Dirk Diggler (Mark Wahlberg), a young man who enters into the world of pornography in the 1970s and garners instant popularity.

Paul Thomas Anderson does such a great job putting his imprint on everything he releases, and this is no exception. The details of the time period are so unerring.

Although it's not my cup of tea, that's about the only complaint I have. Everything from the acting to the energetic script to the brilliant characters make this film a technical masterpiece.

The whole piece is about change and finding yourself. And it's even present in the most self-assured characters.

One of the standouts in this film is Julianne Moore who plays Amber, a confused-on-the-inside motherly figure for Dirk. She exudes so much confidence to everyone she knows, meanwhile twinkling some of her own confusion out of the corners of her eyes for those that aren't so wrapped up in their own lives.

It praises hedonism, but at the same time carries a disdain for it. Almost like it believes that one must experience the good and the bad in order to make their own opinion. But is it correct? Or can we learn from the prime examples that are set by the characters in this film?

Twizard Rating: 84

Quick Movie Review: The Gambler (2014)

I can always use a good gambling movie. Unfortunately, this isn't a gambling movie. The title may throw you off, but Mark Wahlberg's character, Jim, even says so himself; "I'm not a gambler." As disappointing as that is, I have to look past it. I have to take this movie for what it is--a story about a cynical realist who has a gloomy outlook on humanity and is struggling to rediscover his purpose. But he's not actively looking for a reason to live, until a couple of them fall into his lap. He didn't think he wanted a reason, but realized that sometimes you don't have a choice. You can try to control every aspect of life, but you have no control over your heart.

And while the messages of The Gambler may be well intended, the execution is a different story. The dialogue, although smart and often funny, just sounds like every character is speaking directly from the writer's mouth so that all of them are having the same supercilious conversation with themselves. Each character seems like an arrogant, vulgar Woody Allen.

Under the direction of Rupert Wyatt, the drama and suspense work outside of the actual gambling itself is impressive. But together with the DP, Wyatt seems to not understand the world of blackjack or basketball enough as a spectator. I typically become resilient when watching basketball movies because I understand the game too much that the slightest error annoys me. It's laughable, but I let it slide a little here. But the movie is about gambling--blackjack to be specific--and the filmmakers continue to show us 1st person perspective while NOT giving us enough glimpses of the dealer's hands. How can we adequately feel the suspense if we can't see what Jim is seeing--or the rest of the table for that matter?

What works is Wahlberg's interpretation of Jim. You can see in his eyes that he understands him, and that he and Jim are one in the same. You're convinced.

The rest of the cast is great as well. Brie Larson, who always delivers her lines with such fluidity, and John Goodman, who is as intimidating as ever, are joys to watch on screen.

But regardless of how entertained you are, you might be disappointed, like me, that The Gambler isn't really about gambling at all.

I heard the 1974 original is better anyway.

Twizard Rating: 74

Quick Movie Review: Transformers: Age of Extinction OR TransFOURmers

I never understood why the first 3 Transformers films are hated as much as they are. Personally, I'm a big fan. I'm also a big fan of Shia LaBeouf--all controversy aside. People may not like the first three, but whether you realize it or not, Shia made them watchable. His relationship with Bumble Bee, his parents, and his girlfriend(s), his personal struggles, his unique comedic timing--but ultimately his vulnerability and charisma made it work. They weren't bad movies. People just like to be nitpicky about things that they grew up with I guess. But with the thought that this new trilogy was created by Michael Bay to "make everyone forget" about the first three films, I soon realized that if that was his intent, he failed miserably. Not only was this film not as good as the original trilogy, but it was just not a good film altogether. 

First of all, there were way too many antagonists and way too much going on. Add on the subplots about Mark Wahlberg's character's personal issues and you have yourself a cacophony of a script. There was a point towards the final battle scene where I literally asked myself "Why is all this happening again??" out of legitimate confusion. You know it's bad if the robots had more depth than the humans. The characters were thinner than the paper they were written on. I just found myself completely detached. The one story line that actually could have made you feel for Cade (the issue between him and his daughter) was instantly predictable--not to mention forced and unbelievable. The only characters that weren't completely annoying were Cade and Joshua (Stanley Tucci). For such an action packed movie it shouldn't have you looking down at your watch--save that for the art house films. 

It had its moments, but just not enough of them to warrant giving it a great rating. The only thing left that would have given this film bonus points for coolness would have been if it made a good connection to the first trilogy--or at least gave us some easter eggs! But with a runtime of over 2 and a half hours, it should have everyone realizing that Shia wasn't all that bad after all.

Twizard Rating: 64