Quick Movie Review: Critters (1986)

Critters is the type of film that makes you want to leave your critics notepad at the door. An easy watch and fun enough to keep our minds from wandering.

The film is set in a rural Kansas town that gets invaded by aliens in the form of small furry critters, known as Crites. The creatures have escaped an asteroid prison. Two intergalactic bounty hunters who shape shift into humans they see are in charge of capturing the Crites. The audience mainly follows the Brown family who spends all night protecting themselves and their household from everything that's going on.

The movie is funny, but not quite as much as you would hope. It's quirky for sure, and has some humorous details, but the acting is actually a little too good and the characters aren't stupid for a change, so we can't even laugh at how bad it is.

Director Stephen Herek usually does a great job with the fish-out-of-water style of comedy, occasionally displayed here. A couple years later he gets to do the same with Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.

Critters doesn't take itself too seriously, which almost makes up for how neat and tidy it is. The writing and dialogue is deceptively clever. The intergalactic bounty hunters even develop subtly as characters from beginning to end.

At certain parts, the audience gets a limited viewpoint, perhaps for budgetary reasons, leaving us wanting more. The critters grow bigger and bigger, but we never really fully see it, which is a shame. But at the same time helps prevent any datedness by not giving us the cheap special effects that it would have undoubtedly done.

Critters feels like a B-movie, but isn't really. The film is too good for what it was set up to be, almost hurting it in the end. Perhaps it would have been better if it starred less notable actors. But the few bright and memorable moments are what keep its audience growing all these years later.

Twizard Rating: 79

Quick Movie Review: Santa With Muscles (1996)

It's no surprise that Hulk Hogan's film career never really took off. The only lines he can deliver convincingly are the ones that don't require any eyebrow movement. Even Arnold Schwarzenegger was able to make good comedies.

But sad to say, I'm not sure Schwarzenegger could have saved this one either. Though, he would have made it a little bit more funny.

The film is doomed from the start. The script is awful. There are plot holes you can drive a train through, and the dialogue is cringy--containing unique lines such as, "See ya! Wouldn't wanna be ya!" and "'Never turn your back on someone in need.' A friend of mine once told me that." Also, it builds up speed slower than my '88 Volvo on the freeway. You start looking at your watch a mere 15 minutes into it. Luckily though, if you stick around long enough it gets slightly better I suppose.

The movie follows Blake (Hogan), a rich and selfish millionaire who gets hit on the head and wakes up thinking he's Santa Claus. He has a sudden urge to help out an orphanage in danger of being closed down illegally. 

It's a clever concept full of potential, and actually has some glimpses of brightness shining through. But it fumbles most opportunities it has to be better, often choosing silliness over quality. 

It's one of those films where they give the strong protagonist all kinds of unrealistic powers, like the ability to throw a grown man over a 7-foot fence. It's so ridiculous. I guess we have to remember it's a movie targeted at children.

But then, why are there cops shooting RPGs at a car during a high-speed chase? 

Also, what was the artistic decision to have it set in California rather than a snowy city? That simple change would have made it a lot more Christmasy. 

Still, it has a touch of unexpected science fiction and some interesting twists that have pretty much no business in a film this poor, making it end up being way better than it starts out. Unfortunately, before these things come into the story, most viewers will have likely stopped watching already.

Twizard Rating: 48

Quick Movie Review: Suicide Squad (2016)

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

Quick Movie Review: The BFG (2016)

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

Quick Movie Review: Swiss Army Man (2016)

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

Quick Movie Review: Viva Las Vegas (1964)

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

Quick Movie Review: Free State of Jones (2016)

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

Quick Movie Review: Finding Dory (2016)

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

Quick Movie Review: Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)

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

Quick Movie Review: Independence Day (1996)

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

Quick Movie Review: X-Men: Apocalypse (2016)

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

Quick Movie Review: Now You See Me 2 (2016)

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

Quick Movie Review: Now You See Me (2013)

Everyone loves magic tricks. The wonder has been ingrained in us since our childhood. And movies about magic are usually just as enjoyable. This one is no exception.

Four individual magicians--each with a different specialty--get summoned by some mysterious master magician to join together and perform "tricks" to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Meanwhile, a frustrated FBI agent, played by Mark Ruffalo, can't seem to figure out how it's all happening. He teams up with a female Interpol agent (Melanie Laurent) to put a stop to the madness.

The dynamics among the magicians are fun and kept very light. The tricks they perform are, at times, very fascinating to the point that we wish we could go to Vegas to watch their show. We become invested in the lives of these people because the writers let us. But then something happens--our focus is forcibly changed.

For the last 60-90 minutes we are pretty much solely focused on Ruffalo's character. We don't want to be, but we are. And as we travel deeper into the story, the befuddlement steadily increases. Luckily, the film makes itself fairly easy to focus on to somewhat help negate the convolution.

It helps to rewatch this movie. But then again, seeing behind the curtain--which is the ending--may cause you to feel like you've been manipulated. Realizing the filmmakers trick you into seeing what they want you to. And depending on how much you like magic tricks, you may or may not be happy about it.

But see, putting together a movie is different than live magic tricks. Filmmakers can make up their own rules, using cuts and edits to change your perspective--not slight-of-hand--making much of it feel contrived. Personally, I wouldn't say that it bothers me. It just feels too easy here.

We do get a good bang four our buck with plenty of subplots. There is one about Morgan Freeman who plays a magic debunker smugly trying to crack these elaborate tricks. He has a rivalry with Michael Caine, who acts as a financier for the magicians' performances. Caine exits about an hour in, but Freeman has much left to accomplish. And amidst all the action, there is an obvious romance building between Ruffalo and Laurent.

But all of the story-building amongst the characters only helps to thin them all out in the process. There is little depth. And the depth that's established feels forced.

Mind you, none of this changes the fact that this film is wildly entertaining. How can you call it anything but? It's gripping from beginning to end, and the way it's set up, you will probably end up wanting more. Give it huge points for that. Beyond that, though, I can see why people feel slighted.

Twizard Rating: 84

Quick Movie Review: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows (2016)

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

Quick Movie Review: Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping (2016)

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

Quick Movie Review: Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016)

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

Quick Movie Review: Barbershop 2 (2004)

2002's Barbershop didn't necessarily reinvent the wheel of comedy, but it's something quite unique. Hearkening back to Ice Cube's 1995 hit, Friday, the film tries to make use of the non-story. Instead, thriving on its characters and slow plot exposition.

In Barbershop 2, they try to duplicate the first one, but doesn't quite work as well--albeit almost. Whereas the writers, in the first Barbershop, seem to be on their own level, making their own rules, Barbershop 2 seems to channel a little too much Tyler Perry. It's a slightly more predictable and silly and transparent, and tries to please the audience too much.

An exception is the return of Cedric the Entertainer as the old man barber, Eddie, who never cuts hair, but will tell you every last thing that's on his mind. He's still got the edgy dialogue that would make today's PC crowd shiver in their organic Uggs.

In Barbershop 2, Calvin (Ice Cube) learns of a Supercuts-esque barbershop opening up across the street. The word around town is buzzing because this place is supposed to be like the country club of barbershops. Eventually, he finds out that the whole community is getting a facelift, which forces out all of the businesses who have worked hard establishing themselves as mainstays for the neighborhood.

The pacing is about the same, but feels much slower--mostly due to the reduction of sub-stories and B-plots. There are so many different characters, but each one's significance is lessened in order to better focus on the premise.

Both films are about integrity and doing the right thing, but this one just says it a bit differently.

It's funny, because as the film tries so hard to be deeper, the characters become less so. They're all just as likable, but the dynamics just aren't as strong.

As a stand alone film, Barbershop 2 isn't bad at all. In fact, it's quite enjoyable. The jokes won't really leave you rolling in the aisles, but there is plenty of smile-worthy dialogue. The content means well and provides us with the similar warmth that the first one gives us. A little less cool, Barbershop 2 can pride itself on at least giving us another taste of what made the first one so special without tarnishing anything.

Twizard Rating: 74

Quick Movie Review: Rocky II (1979)

I didn't hide the fact that I was a bit disappointed with the first Rocky film. It won Best Picture, but I wasn't terribly impressed. I wanted goosebumps, but didn't really get any as the film climaxed. So needless to say, I was far from thrilled about facing SIX MORE installments of this thing. But I figured, datedness--which plagued the introductory chapter so much--will eventually stop being a factor as the movies become newer.

And rightly so, Rocky II is better than Rocky I. There's conflict. There's struggle. There's adversity. And everything that happens--every plot point--is well-deserved this time.

However, Rocky II isn't a perfect movie by any means. Much of the first act is disjointed, but sets up everything that follows well. Picking up right where we leave off in the first film, Rocky is fresh off his fight with Apollo Creed. And although Apollo technically won by decision, the champ is facing scrutiny from the public saying the fight was rigged or that he shouldn't have won.

Rocky, on the other hand, has moved on. Or at least it seems that way. He and Adrian get married and start their lives together. But Creed is taunting Rocky to get back into the ring again for a rematch.

Not that Rocky wasn't already an affable character, but here, we learn more about him, which makes him even more likable.

In this one, the themes are also much more interesting. Much of this film is about Rocky becoming famous and recognizable--automatically bringing more meaning to the first film--but then also shows how easily the public forgets about him and what he accomplished.

One of the great scenes is when he tries to read the lines for a commercial he's doing, but can't get any of them correct. Stallone just plays dumb so well.

Unlike the first, Rocky actually has his back up against the wall. He's being laughed at by his peers, and his relationship with Adrian actually has some issues. It's nowhere near as easy this time around for Rocky. And by now, we know the characters well enough to appreciate it all. After watching this one, I finally got goosebumps--along with a few tears.


Twizard Rating: 92

Quick Movie Review: Money Monster (2016)

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

Quick Movie Review: The Nice Guys (2016)

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