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
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
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
If you're one of the people who thought there needed to be a sequel to a film that was already adding nothing really new to the lore of Snow White, then at least you saw the first film. If you didn't see the first film, then you're in luck because you don't have to in order to watch this one. This prequel/sequel is only cosmetically related to 2012's Snow White and the Huntsman.
I mean that in both a good way and a bad way. The two films share some of the same cast--Chris Hemsworth, Charlize Theron, Nick Frost--but feels weighed down by the fact that its predecessor wasn't at all as amazing as its trailer lead us to believe.
But let's, for a moment, judge this movie solely on its own being, and not based on how necessary it is or the demerits of its predecessor.
The first installment ends the same way all Snow White adaptations end, except for there being an ambiguous endearment between Snow White and Eric the Huntsman (Hemsworth).
Snow White isn't in this movie. She's mentioned and silhouetted, but basically omitted. Which is fine. She was probably the worst part of the first one anyway.
Even better, we get a couple of cool additions to the cast in Emily Blunt and Jessica Chastain--both of whom do a superb job in their respective roles of the Snow Queen and Sara, the huntsman's wife.
When I say this installment acts as a prequel AND a sequel, it means that it shows the origins of how Eric becomes the huntsman and how he meets Sara, but then flashes forward 7 years after she dies (we know this from the first film).
The sequel portion of the story has the huntsman setting out on a journey to find the magic mirror, which Snow White sends away after it starts making her go crazy and homicidal. This is where the plot gets hairy. It's never clear why the mirror is making her mad, nor how she has the consciousness to send it away, nor why the huntsman needs to retrieve it even though Snow White wants it gone to begin with.
The magic mirror is a MacGuffin in the worst sense. Not only do we not need it as a plot device, but we're not even really sure why it's a plot device. There could've been a more sensible reason why Eric and the dwarves set out on their quest.
The action sequences are, at times, ridiculous and silly--over-saturated with shaky cam so you just accept what's happening. But the thing is, we would've been just as fine without the nausea.
There's plenty of levity from the dwarves, played by Frost and Rob Brydon. The jokes are a fairly even mixture of both hits and misses. But it's okay, at least it keeps the movie fun and not too self-aggrandizing. That is, until it wants to be self-aggrandizing. Jarring tonal shifts and an overly jokey Hemsworth all of a sudden make us confused about what feel we're supposed to be getting.
Truth is, I can't think of a good enough reason not to like this movie. I find it entertaining. There's a lot of meandering somewhere in the middle of the story. The journey to the mirror isn't half as exciting as it should be. Nonetheless, The Huntsman tops its predecessor, not on essentiality, but on a unique premise.
Twizard Rating: 79
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
To provide a totally new point of view for an extremely well known story is not only unique, but incredibly welcomed. It sure serves this Biblical-themed film well, as we get an entirely different perspective of the resurrection of Christ.
Pontius Pilate's right hand man, Clavius (Joseph Fiennes), must oversee the death of Jesus (Cliff Curtis) on the cross, as well as his rumored rising from the dead. The latter of which is insisted upon out of fear from the Jewish high priest.
In most Christian-influenced films, these antagonists-turned-protagonists already have a good-guy demeanor about them from the very start. You know he's going to have a change of heart, and it's just not believable that he would be that bad of a person. Fiennes totally bashes all of those stereotypes. His adamance is true in the beginning, and so is his conversion.
If you haven't seen the movie yet, or are really bad at figuring out what's going to happen, then stop reading. But what Risen does best is not making everything so black and white. Clavius isn't 100% gung-ho with this whole discipleship by the end. He's heading that direction, but he's still processing things. He just saw a guy come back from the dead, for Heaven's sake! (Pun intended).
While most faith-based films are very serious--often times taking themselves a little too serious--Risen has a bit more levity. Not too much as to alienate its truest followers, but just enough to grab the attention of the more indifferent. And the jokes aren't corny at all. In fact, they're always very much deserved each time.
If you think this film will be boring, you are mistaken. It's spiritual with good moral direction, but also comes fully equipped with chase scenes and gumshoe tropes. After all, Clavius is doing all that he can find a dead body that's gone missing.
Risen hearkens back to the classic Biblical epics of Hollywood's golden age--in a positive way only--without ever losing its fresh sensibilities. But unlike those old movies, this film knows what it's doing at all times--even when it comes down to the race of each character. It doesn't just throw a bunch of stereotypes at you. Everything is happening for a purpose.
The filmmakers know that most of its audience isn't going to be so credulous--and don't want them to be--so what we get is a brilliant reification of historical events to the point that even the most doubtful viewer may stop and reconsider.
Twizard Rating: 97
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
