Quick Movie Review: The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005)

The 40-Year-Old Virgin can be looked to as perhaps the breakthrough film that started this new era of comedy. It's Judd Apatow's directorial debut, and with this film, he took the teen comedy format to a whole different level, proving that the movies can be more entertaining and more lucrative if aimed towards an older audience.

Although we've seen over the years smaller examples of this method, Apatow finally proved to the world that comedies could be blockbusters too. To the extent that nearly 15 years later, a film in the genre could potentially be in a box office war with a big budget action flick.

And it's led by a not-yet-well-known Steve Carell, who plays Andy, a 40-year-old nerd who's never been with a girl before. He doesn't really have any friends, so when his four coworkers discover his purity, they vow to "help him out".

His colleagues weren't necessarily friends with Andy before, but throughout this journey, they come to be very close.

The movie's not all pro-sex. In fact, the movie takes a refreshing turn towards the end of the 2nd act. Not only is the movie very funny, but we get a great story out of the characters' varying agendas.

The film also took comedy completely off-script in a way that hadn't been done before. It felt really loose and open-ended. Comedians were able to riff for as long as they wanted to without being confined to what's on the page. And this not only enhanced the intimacy of the viewing experience, but upped the ante for comedies in the future. If a comedy wanted to compete with the likeness of Apatow and Company, it would require some people who were actually funny.

But there's a downfall to all this too. Comedies eventually tended to get way too long, and directors weren't able to tell if a scene dragged on for too long. But the best from the bunch always stood tall.

Carell's supporting cast consists of also-not-yet-well-known Seth Rogen, Paul Rudd, and Jane Lynch. Even a young Jonah Hill gets a couple scenes.

Considering all this, it's a surprise that Romany Malco, who plays one of Carell's three work buddies, carries his own extremely well amongst soon-to-be comedy legends. He gets some great lines and executes them as well as anyone could have.

Most people who hear the title of the movie will either want to see it or not want to see it. But the latter may be pleasantly surprised. Whether or not this film is for you, one can't deny how it changed the comedy landscape forever--for better or worse.

Twizard Rating: 92

Quick Movie Review: Avenger: Infinity War (2018)

When you have a movie where all the good guys fight against each other, like in 2016's Captain America: Civil War, you know nobody is going to lose. No hero is going to kill another hero. It's just silly and fan-indulgent. But when you have all of those same heroes fighting against someone who can literally control reality, time, and everything else, you wonder how it's even possible for them all not to die.

Don't get me wrong, Avengers Infinity War is extremely self-indulgent, too. It's one half of a culmination of ten years and nearly twenty movies of arc, throwing it all into two giant movies. If you're a Marvel super-fan, that sounds great, right?

Well, this first half is a little overkill. As much as they really do try to make it work, half of the characters are completely unnecessary. There for the sole purpose of seeing their faces and/or fulfilling a contract. And even the few who were necessary to the story have an underwhelming and boring presence.

The best scenes are those where the Guardians of the Galaxy cross over with the Avengers. They are the most satisfying moments and give us the most fulfilling humor while being the least bit in vain.

Here, the heroes are up against Thanos, an intergalactic guy who is on a mission to find the six infinity stones. Each stone allows him to control a different aspect of existence (reality, time, etc.). His ultimate goal is to get rid of half of the universe's population in order to prevent overpopulation, which had destroyed his home planet some years ago.

Infinity War might be the least comedic of all the movies, but it's mostly because it has the least amount of downtime. Somehow we don't miss it. The cutesy inside jokes aren't relied on as much, so we actually get a deeper story.

At least from the villain's perspective. Thanos becomes the star of the film. He is given a clear, yet not sympathized-with motive, and almost as much depth as Erik Killmonger. He's a dark and twisted guy whose mere presence makes the movie darker and more twisted. Infinity War is his movie.

A big reason why I like Infinity War more than a lot of other Marvel movies is its sense of despair. How do they win? Will they win? Probably. But actually maybe not. In fact, I kinda want to see what happens if they lose, because at least then we wouldn't feel cheated out of a realistic outcome.

The stakes in this movie are just higher than every other one before it. But at the same time, how will they match or exceed that sense of importance in future installments? You can't just go back to the Avengers fighting another Obadiah Stane. You need to keep playing off of this Thanos character.

My biggest complaint is how the movie could have ended about 45 minutes sooner if it wasn't for a ginormous plot hole involving Star-Lord. But then again, we wouldn't have gotten as much justified dread in the long run. So I'm conflicted.

I'm genuinely excited about where the story will go next--perhaps the first time in awhile I've felt that way in this franchise. So overall, Infinity War is a win in my book.

Twizard Rating: 90

Quick Movie Review: Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2017)

Fans may be frustrated with the lack of twists and big reveals in the new Star Wars movie. But personally, I'm glad there isn't anything big. We don't want these films to merely become fan pandering. Vehicles for countless Easter Eggs with the stories becoming second fiddle. 

This is the middle act of a trilogy. It's meant to keep the story going while presenting the perfect amount of conflict and resolution, balancing both. If it tries to do too much, it risks losing its identity and any cohesiveness developed so far.

Although J.J. Abrams directed Episode 7, and is slated to direct Episode 9, it was a good choice to get Rian Johnson on board to direct this installment. 

While Abrams is a lover of popcorn entertainment that's big and full of audience-craved plot points, Johnson isn't as concerned with that. He's focused more on giving us what we actually need. He builds up momentum slowly and knows how to give us the proper climax.

Johnson also directed 2012's Looper, which I don't necessarily love, but can still appreciate. Rogue One is poetic, but doesn't really come together until the end. 

This was my fear with The Last Jedi. But since it utilizes The Force Awakens to help set up much of the story, it doesn't have to focus on that as much here. And the poeticism works well for this one as the middle act. Though I wouldn't want all of the films to be like this. I like my Star Wars a bit more popcorny--just like J.J. Abrams.

The Last Jedi starts off pretty slow. It takes place immediately after the events of the last film, and noticeably struggles to pick up the well-built momentum of its predecessor as well. Much of the first half is spent with Leia and the Resistance trying to survive attacks from the First Order. It's interspersed with Rey trying to convince Luke to train her to become a Jedi Master.

This film is also much darker than the last. We've seen now that Johnson is also a big fan of the theme of finding hope amidst despair, yet constantly reminding us of that despair. Certain moments are very potent. Use the end of Rogue One for reference.

A truly bright spot in this film is the introduction of Benicio Del Toro's computer hacker character, DJ. His moral compass points to neither good nor bad. He plays for himself and adjusts accordingly. And they brilliantly utilize him to parallel Kilo Ren--albeit a less monstrous version. Both men are capable of being empathetic and selfish at the same time. Del Toro's existence in this movie is absolutely no throwaway.

As much as The Last Jedi will pride itself on staying true to its goal of telling a solid and important story first, it still has it's fair share of surprises. Naturally though, there aren't as many. We have to remember that these new stories must stand on their own at some point too. 

As far as major plot points go, this film makes all the right decisions. It may not feel like a Star Wars film in the traditional sense, but it's a really amazing story executed at the highest mark. 

Twizard Rating: 100

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: A Bad Moms Christmas (2017)

While sequels to movies like Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey take 25 years to get greenlit, 2016's Bad Moms begins principal photography on its followup just 10 months after its release.

In a sequel more rushed than Porky's 2, Bad Moms Christmas must've had some sort of high demand. I know I was very surprised with the first film, but in no way did I need a sequel a year later. Especially if I knew it was going to look like this. 

The premise revolves around the three main characters from last time--played by Mila Kunis, Kristen Bell, and Kathryn Hahn--having issues with their own mothers as they visit during Christmastime. 

Of course, it wouldn't be hilarious unless their moms had putrid flaws. And the writers know this as well, which is why we get cookie cutter maternal stereotypes: the over-bearing mother who never gives her daughter any space (Cheryl Hines), the mother who neglects her daughter and only comes around to ask for money (Susan Sarandon), and the high expectations mother whose daughter can never do anything right (Christine Baranski)--all three played way over the top in the most annoying and unrealistic way possible.

But that's pretty much the whole movie. Everything the characters do or say to each other is unrealistic. The hijinks always ensues because of this. In fact, it NEEDS character responses to be impractical in order for it to exist. It merely serves to further the plot and allow the story to keep going.

Which it barely even does. Up until the last 10 minutes, nothing develops between the beginning and end of this movie. There's just scenario after scenario of the mothers doing things to upset or annoy their daughters. It's the final straw about eleven different times, yet there are no changes in the outcome or how the characters deal with it either way, because no one possesses any real self-awareness. The characters just keep getting angry, and so do we.

And it's not just the lack of development that keeps it running at snail's pace. The humor is juvenile and unfunny. So many scenes are halted by verbose dialogue that's supposed to make us laugh. We don't. When a film draws out comedic scenes for too long--which is a trend these days--it suspends any momentum that the narrative has built. But when it happens over and over again, there becomes almost no momentum to be suspended in the first place.

On paper, this movie should be good. But this proves that a film is so much more than its actors. A Bad Moms Christmas is a complete waste of its talents.

There are countless comedies that are forgettable, yet still give us one or two memorable moments. They won't ever be considered classics, but they were never trying to be. You have to take them at face value. However, even at face value, this one is way below par. 

Twizard Rating: 41

Quick Movie Review: Murder On the Orient Express (2017)

There aren't nearly enough murder mysteries made these days. They're fun, but I get how they're difficult to execute. In these kinds of films, you have only the facts to look at. Whereas, in real life, you can look at if someone seems like they're lying. In a movie, everyone is lying because they're all actors. You can't solve it from that. So the clues are all given in what the audience--and, in this case, the detective--knows, and nothing else. 

Fortunately, we're all on the same page in this one. Often times, the filmmakers have to give the on-screen detective some bit of information that we don't get to know, in fear that we might solve it before we're supposed to. But here, it's not a crap shoot because we can still figure it out if we really think about it. Yet, we still don't--unless we already know the story.

I suppose, however, that in these instances, the film is most enjoyable for those who haven't read the book or watched any previous adaptations. Because the best part, still, is the mystery and the conclusion, itself. If one already knows the outcome, then they are looking at other things. For me, I didn't know the story, so with fresh eyes, I thought it was truly well-executed. Though, by others' standards, maybe it won't quite live up to its predecessors. Taking on a project of this nature, you can't please everyone.

The movie starts off a little slow as our main character, detective Hercule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh), is being established. We get to see him solve a case, meet with some friends, and then eventually get a telegram requesting his help solving a case in London. His friend gets him the last room left on his train, the Orient Express. 

The murder on the train doesn't occur until almost the 40 minute mark, but then it significantly picks up the pace from there without losing its identity or tone established before. 

Details pile up, but the dialogue is so fluid that it's pretty easy to follow unless you're not a fan of movies with a lot of talking.

Where it gets the most confusing, no matter what you like, is when the dialogue relies too heavily on the characters' names to let us know what's going on. There are about a dozen other passengers on the train that help make up this ensemble cast--which includes Josh Gad, Johnny Depp, and Judi Dench, to name a few--and it gets hard to keep them all straight at first. But eventually we catch on.

When watching a whodunit, there is always this inherent fear that the conclusion won't be worth the time you spend waiting for it. However, this story is one of the most famous mysteries for a reason. It's really clever. And as someone who has had no exposure to any Poirot in his life, this film has made me a fan. Now I want to see more. This is my own benchmark.

Twizard Rating: 98

Quick Movie Review: Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)

I sure wish writer-director Martin McDonagh would make more movies. He only has three, but they're all highly regarded. His 2012 film, Seven Psychopaths, is one of my all-time favorites.

His newest movie revolves around Frances McDormand's character, Mildred, renting three billboards outside of town in order to put a message on them criticizing the local police chief, Bill Willoughby (Woody Harrelson), for not solving the case of her daughter's rape and murder. 

This plays with our own gut reactions, as we quickly shake our heads assuming that this must be another result of a corrupt system. It's not. Willoughby actually becomes the film's best character, grounding it and providing the one true conscience amidst everyone else's anger and lack of forgiveness. You could make a case that he's the real protagonist.

Much like in Seven Psychopaths, Three Billboards is character driven, but in a way that incorporates their actions as well as their given depth. They all have faults and make terrible decisions, but their peer's counter-decisions is what changes them--even if their peers aren't doing great things either.

Most of the characters are neither good nor bad. Much like most of us, they have their vices AND their virtues. McDonagh could have followed this sentiment with showing them, at the end of the day, being completely changed in every aspect. But he doesn't. Because it's never that easy in real life. It's never that black and white. 

The key to fully appreciating this movie is knowing when Mildred is wrong even when it's portrayed that she isn't. She's always talking all high and mighty. It's like arguing with a guy who thinks that just because he's yelling, using big words, and sounds intelligent that he's right.

The reason why Three Billboards is such a brilliant film is because McDonagh understands film formula so much that he knows how to perfectly subvert it without alienating his audience. It allows so much more to happen in a smaller amount of time. Much like Hitchcock used to do, he prevents everything from being streamlined or foreseeable, while at the same time not letting it become jarring. The abrupt tonal shifts are completely intentional and meant to be a simile for real life.

Sam Rockwell plays an extreme cop who handles situations with violence because he thinks he can always get away with it. Rockwell's mercurial demeanor that he brings to many of his characters fits so perfectly with McDonagh's style--which draws comparisons to the Coen Brothers (but with more warmth and realistic endings).

McDonagh has a love for the politically incorrect. He likes to draw humor out of situations that shouldn't ever be funny. You might not laugh at first if you're in a room with others because you're unsure if you're supposed to. Often times the joke is surrounded by very serious context. It's because he knows that the best humor is rarely in the well-scripted dialogue, but in scenarios that are true to life.

McDonagh does well to keep his own ideals and agendas out of the movie. Though he slips up once in allowing his anger to enter in through Mildred when she rants about how priests should have culpability like the Blood and Crip gangs have in Los Angeles. It's an odd choice for a person of power in this industry to promote culpability laws in his movies--especially at a time like this in Hollywood. 

With that said, Three Billboards is truly a brilliant film, and another reminder of why McDonagh should have more than just three movies.

Twizard Rating: 100