Reviews

I actually watched this film when it debuted at the Sacramento Young People's Film Festival back in 2001. It was a sight to see to say the least. The whole audience was confused about why the same person was playing both roles. Nonetheless, they still loved it. It had them in tears laughing.

Watching it some 15+ years later, I can still laugh, but now also see the vision that Stevens had. The narrative may sag at times and the script is a little porous, but what makes a film truly good is its closeness to the filmmaker's vision. The true message of this movie is being an outsider, yet wanting desperately to be accepted by your peers. I don't know many films that can make us laugh and still give us such a deep message portrayed in such an earnest way. Almost as though the filmmaker was going through the same things as the characters in the movie.

Three Eyes Wide Shut is exactly what Stevens intended to make. He went through some rough patches, but what came out was a perfect masterpiece AND a beautiful mess all at the same time.

Has action changed all that much since 2002? Because action in movies has. Back before about 10 years ago, characters were much less jokey, things blew up a lot more, and bad guys had terrible aim.

While dated as can be, xXx is an enjoyable watch. The film's inspiration is questionable, but Vin Diesel plays the title role exactly how you'd expect him to. There is no shortage of platitudinous quips, but he delivers them in a way that makes you forget that the dialogue is terribly written.

Diesel plays Xander Cage, aka Triple X, a criminal stunt man hired by the US government to infiltrate the international mercenary group, Anarchy 99. There's not a whole lot more to it than that, yet the film seems to be able to stretch itself to nearly 120 minutes (132 in the director's cut).

xXx is so 2002 that, at times, you can't differentiate it from a early 2000s Disney Channel Original Movie. It sacrifices practicality for spectacle whenever it gets the chance. But considering its action-based modus operandi, the film still tends to drag at times.

Ultimately xXx does nothing new. At all. The only reason why anyone would watch this film is to experience Vin Diesel's charisma and charm. Because that's really the only unique aspect brought to the otherwise trite premise.

But it's entertaining. Mindless, but entertaining. Despite the hackneyed script, you have to commend the movie for not taking itself too seriously, ultimately not making it a chore to watch. It's actually quite fun and ridiculous in all its glory.

Twizard Rating: 72

Strangely enough Zac Efron was in 3 comedy films in 2016, when the man lacks any sort of comedic conviction whatsoever. It's a good thing he has Adam DeVine to compensate for him in Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates.

The film follows Mike and Dave (DeVine and Efron), brothers who are always screwing up family parties with their wild sensibilities and attempts to snag women. So for their sister's wedding in Hawaii, their parents give them an ultimatum--either they bring nice girls as dates or they don't show up at all.

Right away you think to yourself, "Well they probably have a couple of female friends that are parent approved." Whether or not this would work for the characters' dilemma, this simple solution is never addressed. Mike and Dave jump straight to placing an ad on Craigslist, advertising a free trip to Hawaii, because that's the easiest way to get strange women to go on vacation with you. The unrealistic thought process of the characters not only insults the audience's intelligence, but lets us know that the film is just a means to an end, uninterested in actual logic.

Situations within a ridiculous premise still have to be cohesive to that ridiculous premise. Writers can't just do anything they want just because they've established a impractical scenario.

After placing the ad, the guys get thousands of responses but inexplicably can't find girls who are acceptable enough for their parents' standards. Eventually, a pair of trashy girls (Aubrey Plaza and Anna Kendrick) decide they want a free vacation and put on a nice-girl front so the guys will want to take them.

There are plot holes galore in this setup, but it's also the time in the movie with the best comedy. The rest of the way includes some funny isolated moments, but for the most part it tapers off. Then when it tries to stretch the already-thinning plot, things get weird and unnecessary.

With that said, I laughed more than I probably should have. DeVine has a true knack for comedy, which only serves to outshine his costars, constantly creating a juxtaposition of how poor the rest of them are.

Besides the initial archetypes set for the characters, their personalities are constantly wavering. We're made to like and dislike certain characters on a whim based on what's convenient to the story at any given moment. I do applaud, however, that the film doesn't really waste time trying to create conflict and develop a relationship between the two girls. Whether this was inadvertent or intentional, it works in favor of the overall product.

At one point in the story the film Wedding Crashers is mentioned, which only reminds us of what we could be watching instead.

Twizard Rating: 60

I've always said Ryan Gosling was meant to do comedy. I think very highly of the guy, but I hold the unpopular opinion that he's not necessarily the best dramatic actor in the world. In La La Land he gets a chance to utilize some dramatic-acting skills, but strays away from his usual angst-filled characters as he showcases his humor chops.

It helps that he and Emma Stone have such great chemistry. With their third feature together (Crazy, Stupid, Love and Gangster Squad) the pair demonstrate why they may be our generation's Gene Kelly and Ginger Rogers--two actors that are paid homage to in this film.

La La Land is about a struggling actress, Mia (Stone), who is constantly being rejected at every audition she has, and a mercurial jazz pianist, Sebastian (Gosling), who dreams of opening his own jazz club. He is a talented musician but often finds himself going against his own integrity playing pop music and simple lounge standards. The two meet in a way that would make any classic cinephile proud, and over time develop a relationship, each dealing with his and her own floundering careers is the process.

The film acts as a love letter to Los Angeles. It's not necessarily a nice letter, but it's not a breakup letter either. More like a letter to an abusive partner who you keep coming back to for some inexplicable reason, only for them to spit on you and tell you you're worthless.

It pokes fun at the city, constantly saying out loud the things most of us would be tried for treason for ever thinking. But they've all been actual thoughts lingering in our minds at one point or another.

It's a quixotical view of what LA is supposed to be--or used to be. The two characters are old souls adamantly romanticizing what they view their ideal careers to be, only to realize that they view this city in an antiquated way that no longer really exists in today's world. Things such as technology and loss of nostalgia are ruining it, and they struggle to find the balance between the new and the old without wanting to compromise much.

The film, on the other hand, compromises the new and the old very well in its every moment. The songs don't feel modern, but they don't feel dated either. They're not necessarily poppy and affable at first--fitting well into the film's jazz theme.

Gosling and Stone are not fantastic singers, but they're not bad either, which makes their performances all the more appealing--they're one of us.

Much like a non-New Yorker can empathize with a film that pays homage (or lack thereof) to New York, one doesn't have to be from Los Angeles to get what the film is trying to say. Viewers can see where the movie comes from. LA is everywhere. We experience it in almost every movie we watch in one way or another.

La La Land isn't just for Los Angeleans. It's for dreamers and people with big visions. For people who have been rejected over and over and over again, told they're not good enough, and still, for some reason, keep going back at it. But like anything we love, it takes a lot of work. La La Land makes you believe in your dreams again.

Twizard Rating: 100

If you want to talk about consistency between the two Neighbors films, they do a great job. Unfortunately, the first film isn't good. And its sequel is perhaps slightly more enjoyable than its predecessor, but suffers from so many of the same fundamental issues (see Neighbors).

I didn't need to revisit the first film in order to prep for this one. All I had to remember was how much I hated it.

This one features the same unbelievable amount of plot holes, the same immature and derivative humor, yet lacks the somewhat "relatable" theme. However, I can probably say that I laughed a bit more this time around (twice is still more than once, right?).

In Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising, husband and wife duo, Seth Rogen and Rose Byrne, sell their house, which is now in escrow. So the new owners have 30 days to back out if anything seems fishy about the situation. It just so happens that a new sorority, headed by Chloe Grace Moretz, moves in next door. Apparently sororities in America have a strict "no party rule," but THIS sorority vows to ignore that rule and throws one every night of the week.

One of the things I hate about the first film is repeated once more here. The filmmakers want us to root for both sides, trying to make us empathize with both Rogen/Byrne AND the sorority sisters. But reality is, Moretz and her gang are really terrible people. What halfway-decent person would throw bloody tampons at a window with a 2-year-old on the other side watching? I'm literally not exaggerating.

Then, in comes Zac Efron reprising his frat-guy role from the first film. But he's not just featured in the film--he becomes a third protagonist. We go into his whole story of being kicked out of his apartment after his roommate gets engaged. Now he feels all alone and is unsure of where his life is going.

So the film is jumping around all three stories and winds up covering zero ground because of it. And Rogen, who's the only funny person out of the leads, is featured the least. Moretz and Efron are great and all, but they're not funny. This is a comedy.

Pretty much the whole film consists of the married couple and the sorority going back and forth pranking each other. Rogen and Byrne report them to the university's administration, so to get back at them, the sorority steals all of their belongings and sells them (?). The filmmakers obviously assume that no one watching this is trying to solve any of these elementary conflicts themselves. Instead, they just keep piling on a series of unrealistic events where nobody is rational at all, and we're supposed to laugh about it.

The movies boasts a couple of nice cameos, which go underutilized for the most part. And the comedy scenes have no real structure or pacing--the takes are all just thrown in there in a seemingly unorganized way.

So if you loved the first film, you'll probably love this Neighbors 2. If you hated the first film, you probably won't even consider watching this one. It's a win-win! Twizard Rating: 54

I love movies that can't necessarily be classified by a single genre. Jerry Maguire isn't a chick flick, but it's not a sports film either. Nor is it a traditional comedy. It's possibly all three, but never just one. That's what makes it great. It appeals to both genders equally without alienating either of them.

The title character is played by Tom Cruise in one of his best performances. He's a slimy sports agent who, one day, has an epiphany, realizing he no longer wants to sell lies to his clients, but real relationships. The only problem is he doesn't even know how to have a real relationship in his personal life. At work, he sends out a mission statement that lauds the idea of having less clients to improve quality. This sudden life-changing notion wins over the approval of his cohorts, but his high-level agency disapproves and fires him.

Starting from the ground up, Jerry has nothing and no one to work with. The only people that follow him are a low-level employee, Dorothy (Renee Zellweger) and Arizona Cardinals wide receiver, Rod Tidwell (Cuba Gooding, Jr.).

The chemistry between Cruise and both of his costars is natural that you can't imagine anyone else in those roles. You see him seamlessly transform over the course of the film, only taking notice of it in the end. Honestly, it's very much reminiscent of Pacino in the Godfather--only backwards.

Jerry Maguire equally covers the depth of multiple characters brilliantly. The film not only goes inside the mind of a scuzzbag-turned-nice-guy, but of an athlete. Gooding plays a talented football player with a chip on his shoulder. He's not on his way out of the league, but he's no Jerry Rice either. He's on a middling NFL team and thinks he deserves a bigger paycheck than he gets. He knows he's good, but no one else sees it. The film brings very relatable themes to seemingly unrelatable people. There is more to the movie than demand for money. It's about friendship and knowing what's important in life amidst all the menagerie.

Writer-director Cameron Crowe has a knack for storytelling--already evident by his previous work--but he outdoes himself with this one. Nothing is ever truly predictable, which is an impressive accomplishment considering the type of film. Never is there a dull moment, and the dialogue is so effortlessly perfect without ever feeling contrived. The sappy moments are never that, when any other writer would know no other way. It's a rom-com for the ages and may even be the pinpoint for redefining the genre.

It has aged so well and is still a great watch to this day. Highly recommended for those of you who haven't seen it and are arguing with your other half about what to watch on movie night. I promise you'll both enjoy it.

Twizard Rating: 100

In recent years it seems like digital animation is becoming more and more advanced with each movie being released. But the changes are gradual and often expected. We talk about how the scenery looks just like a photograph, or how animals look like they could be real. However, actual humanity is the one thing that seems to be taking the longest to become lifelike. This is where Moana comes in.

While still maintaining that cartoon-like feel, this is the first time where actual human characters' emotions look real. In the past, expressions take on very on-the-nose clichés. Not necessarily over-the-top, but just very obvious. Here, we get facial expressions that look just like yours and mine. It's eerie. It helps us feel for the characters more--especially when it comes to our title character.

Moana (voiced by Auli'i Cravalho) is a teenager growing up on the Polynesian island of Motunui and longs to explore the ocean. However, her father, Chief Tui, forbids her to leave. The one rule they have on the island is that they cannot go beyond the reef. But Moana is stubborn. Even as the island's resources are running out, she resiliently tries to persuade her father, but to no avail.

Her grandmother gives her a small magical stone known as the heart of the goddess Te Fiti. A thousand years prior, demigod, Maui (Dwayne Johnson), stole the heart, which is causing each island, one by one, to dry up. Moana sets out to find Maui so he can return the heart to the goddess.

Disney churns out a solid formula piece with Moana. This is a criticism in some respect. But it can also work to its advantage. The general storyline doesn't really give us any sort of new beats. A girl sets off to do something that we all know she will probably end up accomplishing. We foresee each false victory before it occurs. It starts out predictable and pulls from countless of its Disney predecessors. But it does one thing that's very unusual for a Disney film--it lacks romance of any kind. The two protagonists--of opposite sex--have a strictly platonic relationship. Love isn't the point of the film at all. It's so ingrained in our expectations that it catches us off guard and we are constantly reminding ourselves that the movie isn't about that.

Moana is a captivating protagonist. Whether or not the writing makes her that way. The animation is just that good. There is one musical sequence where they backdrop the characters against a relatively primitive animated background, which has become an ordinary device used in countless films before. But upon looking at the canvas, it almost seems like it has been thrown into a live-action film. In past instances, there wasn't as much of a discrepancy, but now the juxtaposition shows just how far we've come with animation.

I could gush for paragraphs about the visuals of this movie. But that would only end up overshadowing the film's other strength--its music.

Lin-Manuel Miranda writes some brilliantly catchy songs--perhaps the best, pound-for-pound, in recent Disney musical history. From the refreshingly bright islandy "Where You Are" to the macabre Bowie-inspired "Shiny", each track hits hard and becomes addicting. All except for Maui's solo piece, "You're Welcome." It's Dwayne Johnson's only song and is marginal at best. The others are creative and take melodic turns that you never expect, but this one falls into the basic realm of uninspired, perhaps best appreciated by your toddler child. It merely goes through the motions, and only appears worse amidst its brilliant companions.

The songs may be fantastic, but the dialogue is curiously weak, and unfortunately separates Moana from the past Disney bunch. At times it feels like it was written by a teenager--or perhaps someone who wanted to sound like one. The comedy gets childish in a couple of instances, though, to its credit, quickly snaps back. Then there's Maui's character, who can grate on you a bit. His shtick is a little too colloquial and his jokes often fall flat.

But the film heads in the right direction overall. Often times going one step back and two steps forward. It nicely sticks to its narrative with Moana's perspective, and never seems to be challenged by it.

The story could have been merely a device to flex its aesthetic guns (it's not), but it would have all been worth it just to experience the beauty of what's on screen. Here, the movie isn't just telling a story, but creating a full experience--something unexpectedly rare these days.

Twizard Rating: 92

As I've said a thousand times before, the lack of live-action comedies for the younger members of our society saddens me. In the '90s, when I grew up, you couldn't get away from them. It was awesome. But nowadays, pre-teens' only options for movies are of the superhero variety. Or some other big budget franchise. Unless they merely want to watch animated films with characters that aren't human. And I'm not knocking computer animation. It's just that during a time when empathy is getting further and further away, it's nice for kids to see "tangible" characters that they can actually relate to.

And there have been some good live-action options for kids semi-lately. The Diary of a Wimpy Kid series, for example, was perfect. But many others dumb themselves down for children. And when this happens, you lose the parents as well.

Middle School isn't like that. It's full of quality humor and an engaging storyline that will find both kids and adults laughing out loud--the latter might even be surprised with how much they like it.

The film follows Rafe (Griffin Gluck), a middle schooler who's been inexplicably kicked out of his previous two schools. His active imagination, along with problems with authority, get him into trouble. Especially at his new school, where the principal (Andrew Daly) acts as a warden, creating asinine rules. The kids aren't allowed to talk in the hallways, wear colorful clothes, or even draw pictures.

Rafe isn't having any of this nonsense and wages a war with his principal in a Home Alone-type of way. It's highly entertaining seeing what he comes up with and how his life progresses with those around him, including his best friend, Leo (Thomas Barbusca), his sister Georgia (Alexa Nisenson), and his cool insouciant teacher, Mr. Teller (Adam Pally).

And with the quality talents of Rob Riggle, who plays Rafe's borderline-abusive future stepfather, and Daly, Middle School has humor for young and old.

Yeah, the script has some issues with a couple of jarring tonal shifts, but it also refreshingly surprises us when we least expect it.

I have a hard time knocking a film that does its job. It never talks down to kids--in fact, it gets kids all too well. There isn't some over-exaggeration of how much they use their phones. Even the banter feels lifelike. It speaks to adolescents who are at that "middle" stage between childhood and responsibility-hood. It's a fun time that most of us took for granted. But Middle School pleasantly brings us back so we can live it over again with Rafe--in a stunningly committed first-person narrative.

This film isn't just going through the motions, folks. There's a lot of genuine intent throughout. Plot points and jokes that are obviously very well meditated upon. While sitting and watching this movie, I legitimately thought to myself, "This isn't just a moneymaker for them--they actually want it to be good." Even if it were among the other classic live-action kid films of yesteryear, I would still go out of my way to watch it. I wish I had this movie when I was growing up. But at least I have it now.

Twizard Rating: 89

A lot has changed since the first Harry Potter film was released in 2001. Heck, a lot has changed since the LAST Harry Potter film was released in 2011. The franchise helped change our modern interpretation of what a film series can be. And this prequel spin-off is proof of that. While this isn't a Harry Potter movie, it's part of the same world.

In the 15 years since Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, blockbuster films have become consistently good. Critically acclaimed. It's not just popcorn entertainment anymore--we have higher expectations. And as the blockbusters strive for the quality of the more highbrow indie offerings being nominated for Oscars, they begin resembling them in a way.

The Harry Potter films, especially the first few, had a sort of snappy storytelling to them. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them does not. It's much slower like the later films in the previous series. Yet, the difference is, this is the setup to the next four films. By the time we got to the last few Harry Potter movies, we weren't exactly looking for a brisk narrative. And I was hoping for this in Fantastic Beasts--albeit, probably unrealistically.

Set in 1926, an English wizard, Newt (Eddie Redmayne), comes to America for McGuffin-like reasons (and unclear, at that). He gets into some trouble as some of the fantastic beasts escape from the suitcase where he's keeping them. As this is happening, he gets mixed in with a normal non-magical human, Jacob (Dan Fogler).

Other assorted things happen that are appealing to the audience. We get to go inside this magical suitcase and see dozens of unique creatures in this new expanded universe. It's really cool and aesthetically pleasing.

The movie is long and not enough happens to truly justify it. Instead of using the time to thoroughly explain some of the overarching story lines, the filmmakers spend it drawing things out. Perhaps because they feel like they have to.

Don't get me wrong, the film is great. It's thoroughly enjoyable. It does most of the things a good film should do. While the storytelling isn't quick, it's still very even.

This is what director David Yates is good at, as evident in the last four Harry Potter films he directed. Though Fantastic Beasts is missing the magical world that is Hogwarts, Yates knows how to bring alive New York City in the '20s and make it feel magical.

You will most likely enjoy Fantastic Beasts. If for no other reason than the fact that it's the ingress back into the beloved world of Harry Potter.And Easter eggs are scattered all around. Just don't go into it with the same expectations as its predecessors.

Twizard Rating: 93

I remember watching this movie on TV as a kid and loving it. But I've discovered, upon recently rewatching other Halloween movies from my childhood, that many times they're not as good as I used to think. So naturally, I had the same concerns with 1997's made-for-TV movie Tower of Terror.

And at first, I thought my worries were coming true. The film does a poor job when trying to force character depth. The dialogue gets clunky and self-aggrandizing. The film doesn't truly shine until it happens organically.

Steve Guttenberg plays Buzzy, a former newspaper writer, who has lost all his credibility after a story he published turned out to be fake. So he turns to writing tabloid stories instead. He's approached by Abigail Gregory, an old lady who claims to know how child actress Sally Shine, and others, disappeared one night back in 1939 at the Hollywood Tower Hotel. She claims that Shine's nanny used dark magic to trap the young starlet's soul in limbo. Guttenberg thinks he might have a story on his hands and visits the abandoned hotel to investigate.

Guttenberg lacks a convincing performance, but he still gives us some nice wit. As the movie's lead, he's affable enough. But it's the others around him that shine a little more. Kirsten Dunst as his niece, Anna, provides solid support, but the five actors who play the hotel's ghosts give us some of the film's best moments.

What the movie does best is craft a fine mystery surrounding the strange 1939 accident and makes us care about its victims--who are all minor-to-supporting characters--but it just fails to keep us interested in its actual leads.

However, it's truly a fun Halloween movie. One of my favorites for this time of year. Kids will love it. It's not too scary, but eerie enough to pique their interest. And it holds up pretty well, giving adults a very cool story to follow with blindsiding twists. It's definitely as entertaining as I remember.

Twizard Rating: 89

I feel like I'm dreaming each time I watch this movie. It's one of my favorites and has meant a lot to me in my life.

Definitely one of a kind, due to it's adamant surrealism, it appeals to both kids and adults.

The elusive Wonka chocolate factory is holding a worldwide contest so that 5 lucky winners can finally get a glimpse inside the factory walls and win a lifetime supply of chocolate.

It's supposed to take place in America, but maintains an industrial European feel. Charlie Bucket, our protagonist, lives with his mother and 4 grandparents. They're very poor, and rely on Charlie's paper route money to get by. Which is why Charlie wants, more than anything, to win this contest.

Anyone who's ever known they wanted something more than anyone else in the world can relate to Charlie's childlike desire to win Wonka's contest. It may seem frivolous, but that only highlights Charlie's desperation. He can only imagine luxurious things. And that ingenuous mindset is what just may give him what he needs.

The film enraptures you within the first 35 minutes, before we even get inside the magical factory. And once we're in, the film ascends to a whole new level. So full of unique ideas and concepts. Set pieces that made people depressed about the movie's fictionality long before Avatar's ever did.

And Willy Wonka, himself, portrayed by Gene Wilder, is a marvel. No other man could have given us such a brilliant performance. He's sweet, he's creepy, he's sincere, and he's mischievous. Roald Dahl's original 1964 novel could be adapted for film one thousand times over, yet Wilder will always remain exclusively synonymous with the role.

Oh yeah, and the music is phenomenally perfect.

For being a "flop" from 1971, this film holds up better than most, if not all, of its contemporaries.

Twizard Rating: 100

I was initially wondering how they would make a 30 minute event into a full-length feature. But then I remember, this is Hollywood--they can do whatever they want.

Sully is based on the true story of 2009's "Miracle on the Hudson" where Captain Chesley Sullenberger had to safely land a plane after a flock of geese flew into both engines, causing them to fail.

The event was traumatic enough, but this film mostly details the airline investigation following the incident. Director Clint Eastwood wisely circles the narrative around, sprinkling the action amidst the drama, keeping the pacing up and saving us from having to experience a long, uninterrupted National Transportation Safety Board hearing.

Throughout the film, Sullenberger is seen interacting with his wife, played by Laura Linney, on the phone. It's an interesting choice not to have them face to face in person. I've struggled to find a good reason why. Perhaps keeping them apart is to emphasize the film's "delay is better than disaster" theme. Or maybe it's to distance Sully from his family and show how he just longs to be home, creating irony around how he was nearly never to be home again. Or it might just be an interesting quirk that Eastwood decided to include. Whatever it is, it's unique and adds to the film's appeal.

Perhaps the only thing that's distracting, though, is Linney's acting. It might seem like it's good on the surface. She shows a lot of emotion, yet is strong when she needs to be, but her delivery is just so off much of the time. It's not believable. It feels like she knows she's acting and is trying her best to sell it. Maybe it's because she was acting into a phone the whole time.

But that's a minor setback. The film is uplifting, just like the 2009 event itself. It gives us a glimpse inside the mind of an American hero. A normal, everyman who lifted our country's spirits during a time when we really needed it. The film doesn't ruffle any feathers. Nor does it ever really make you ever second-guess our protagonist--which is for the best, I think, in this situation. But it takes what it has and does its very best turning the material into one heck of an ode to a memorable person and event of the early 21st century.

Twizard Rating: 98

It's not the prequel to Oceans Eleven, but coincidentally it is from the same year. The Magnificent Seven is a Western remake of Kurosawa's 1954 film, Seven Samurai.

In this 1960 version, seven gunslingers from America are hired to protect a small Mexican village from local bandits.

The ensemble cast led by Yul Brynner and Steve McQueen is not quite a sum of its parts. While McQueen and Charles Bronson boast strong performances, Brynner displays one of his weaker ones.

It's odd, considering director John Sturges does an excellent job with McQueen film, The Great Escape, three years later. It's as though these two films have a different director entirely. Or maybe the script is just not quite as strong. Evidence mostly points to the latter.

The plot is stretched far too thin, and the ending is not quite as climactic as we want it to be. Every once in awhile, they'll throw us a nice line or two, but overall, the dialogue is weak. Much of the film is slow and boring, only to be saved by either McQueen or Bronson--who are as good as ever.

Also, the two leads, Brynner and McQueen have absolutely no chemistry. The writers try several times to bolster their relationship, but to no avail.

It's not all bad. The premise is intriguing, and it gives us nice characters to root for. The production value is top-notch for the time. The set pieces are impressive, as are the shootouts. And we can't forget about the score, which is one for the ages--granting the movie some extra points. But they're not enough to save this disjointed film. It's a part of history, and I could see it being impressive back in 1960, but it hardly holds up well today.

Twizard Rating: 74

Most people are going to want to see this film based on the trailer alone. It looks like a funny and adventurous heist movie of some sort. While it's not a comedy in the truest sense, it's just light enough to keep the audience involved.

The film follows two twenty-somethings, Miles Teller and Jonah Hill, as they venture to the top of the international arms dealer industry. Amidst the war in Iraq, they use unorthodox techniques to fulfill US military contracts.

War Dogs gets a little wordy when it's setting things up. Also, Teller's voice-over goes on a little bit too long at times. But while verbose when explaining things, it covers a lot of ground answering most of our questions in a Big Short type of way. Thus, a potentially byzantine premise never becomes convoluted.

Teller plays David Packouz, the antiwar protagonist who is contributing to the war effort out of financial necessity. He's good, but Hill arguably carries the film, playing the real-life Efraim Diveroli. He's basically a selfish scumbag who could double as a mob boss at any given moment. Hill broadens his range as an actor with this role, proving he can play sinister along with his goofy trademark. He's so deceptively creepy that we become literally afraid of him.

Genre-wise, it might seem to be stuck in limbo, but it's not. The comedy is evenly written and is balanced consistently into the drama. The exposition is fast-paced and doesn't require us to look back scratching our heads.

War Dogs doesn't necessarily explore any new territory as far as the life of a criminal goes, but it's educational and entertaining every step of the way.

Twizard Rating: 89

Usually modern comedies have a difficult time building any kind of depth without either feeling forced or sacrificing its sense of humor in the process. Bad Moms, with the help of its strong cast, knows how to work around this.

While it's not some highbrow character study, it shows all sides of the situation without making it obvious that it's using a traditional path to get there.

Bad Moms stars Mila Kunis as Amy, a mother of two who gets absolutely no help from her husband, who apparently likes the dog more than his own kids.

Christina Applegate plays Amy's antagonist, Gwendolyn, who is president of the PTA and doesn't allow anything with sugar at the school's bake sale. Amy doesn't buy into her philosophies, nor her manipulation tactics, which causes Gwendolyn to try and ruin Amy's life. Applegate does an excellent job of making the audience despise her, while countering Kunis' charismatic charm.

Amy pairs up with two other mothers who are on the same page as her. They're played by Kathryn Hahn and Kristen Bell. The former is always under-appreciated in comedic roles, while the latter is totally unrecognizable as a pushover and naive mother.

It's truly the cast that helps carry this film so well. No character is a wash or unnecessary.

And the jokes are consistent. They run all along the whole film without ever growing tiresome. Each joke is as fresh as the last--and there is a true sense of cohesion amongst it all. No bit seems out of place.

The only thing wrong? The film portrays every husband as useless. Literally. Not one husband in the film is even a little bit competent at being a father or spouse. I guess it bodes well for the film's target audience, but it may alienate some men out there.

But regardless, I still found the movie highly entertaining and one that I would watch over and over again.

Twizard Rating: 91

The original 1977 Pete's Dragon is one of my favorite Disney movies from my childhood, and based on Disney's job with the new Jungle Book, I had high hopes for this one.

This is an impressive re-imagining, although it's much different than the original. The tone isn't quite as dark, and gone are the themes of alcoholism and abuse. This one is about magic and believing in something without seeing it.

Director, David Lowery wanted this film to stand on its own apart from the original. Keeping true to his goal, there are basically zero nods to its source material.

It's practically a remake in name only--with the exception of the 2 lead characters, Pete and Elliot. But not to worry, because it still hangs on to the spirit of its predecessor.

The film opens up with a young boy, Pete (Oakes Fegley), becoming abandoned in the forest after a car crash kills his parents. Elliot, a giant green dragon, takes him in and the two become best friends.

It's one of the best friendships in recent film history, and a lot of emotion is drawn out of both Pete and Elliot by Lowery. It's not a film where the emotion tries to manipulate you. It's naturally charged.

Fegley is excellent as Pete. He's not overly precocious or coy. And the supporting cast, including Bryce Dallas Howard, Karl Urban, and Wes Bentley, fills in the gaps around him nicely.

Pete's Dragon doesn't take itself too seriously. For a family film, it understands humor, and the jokes never come off as childish.

At times, things in the film are taken slowly. This isn't a bad thing at all. Throughout the whole movie, you won't see any 21st century technology. Even the cars are ambiguously dated. It's to keep the time period vague, but it's also to compliment the film's philosophy on exploration and adventure.

But the heart of the film is the relationship between Pete and Elliot.

It's emotional. I didn't just cry. I balled my eyes out. Anyone who's had an animal as a best friend will get this movie just a little bit more.

It's a simple film. Which proves even more how good it is. If a film is this simple without being boring, you know the filmmakers are doing something right.

Twizard Rating: 100

Pete's Dragon was my favorite Disney movie when I was growing up, but I hadn't watched it since I was little. Recently, I've revisited many films I loved as a child only to be disappointed by them. So naturally, I was afraid the same was going to happen to the one I loved the most.

The film is about a boy, Pete, who has escaped with his dragon, Elliot, from his abusive foster family. The two of them come to the town of Passamaquoddy, where they meet a lighthouse owner, Nora (Helen Reddy) and her father, played by Mickey Rooney.

As far as the music goes, the songs are some of Disney's best. It's hard to point out highlights, since all of them are so memorable. My favorite might be the film's first song, "The Happiest Home in These Hills," which is as memorable of an opening as could be. They say that in most films, the part you remember the least is the beginning. But in Pete's Dragon, it's one of the best scenes. The choreography and the creepiness of Pete's orphan family chasing him through the swampy forest is still ingrained in my head all these years later and sets the tone for the rest of the film.

But the dark tone shifts a lot throughout and we end up getting more of a campy musical feel the rest of the way out. But at least that's what it wants to be.

Elliot, the dragon, is as adorable as any Disney character. He brightens up the screen whenever he's on it. In fact, the biggest problem is probably the fact that he only gets 22 minutes of total screen time in a movie that's 134 minutes.

It's still better than the original plan, which was to have him absent in the movie altogether. Instead, remaining in Pete's imagination only. What we get is better than nothing.

Most films back then aren't without their issues, and neither is Pete's Dragon. It has its fair share of plot holes. It doesn't make much sense why Pete waits almost the entire movie to show Elliot to Nora. He has no reason to hide him from her. But if you throw in nostalgia, these things don't really matter as much.

It's a fun movie. Kids will enjoy it, and it's completely tolerable for adults.

Twizard Rating: 92

Being a fan of the Bourne series may or may not determine whether you like this new installment. Jason Bourne (the film) boasts much of the same formula from the series' first 3 films, yet doesn't give us a whole lot of new direction.

We left off in the last one with Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) finding out his real name and finally remembering joining the Treadstone program. Here, it's 10 years later and he's been living off the grid. Resurfacing for miscellaneous reasons, he's now trying to figure out even more about his past.

This one offers us something that the previous films don't really give us: a twist. It's a pretty decent one, too.

We also get some interesting new characters. A CIA director, Robert Dewey, played by the always-respectable Tommy Lee Jones. Jones gives us a CIA villain to truly despise. He's so believably evil, that he makes the film just about as much as Damon does.

And while director Paul Greengrass creates a film that could be mistaken for any one of its predecessors (which is a good thing), we're hoping for a little bit more than just finding out more about Jason Bourne's past--something that could probably have been covered in The Bourne Ultimatum.

It's not that Bourne's character has no depth, it's just that we've already seen it all in the previous 3 films. There's not much left to discover about his personality. And basically nothing new added here.

Oh yeah, and there was this whole fourth movie featuring Jeremy Renner, called The Bourne Legacy, which was basically not touched on at all in this film. The thing I was most excited about was getting a follow-up to a cliffhanger-filled movie.

But we don't. However, one can still hope that this sets up a neat tie-in between the two stories.

There is one moment, however, where we actually consider that Jason Bourne's death is possible. It's probably the only moment (besides the end of Ultimatum) where we think this.

Though many might consider this new film unnecessary, it's still just about as entertaining as the best unnecessary films out there.

Twizard Rating: 86

Bourne Legacy gives us a lot of good for being sans Matt Damon. Jeremy Renner holds his own very well and proves he can be a leading man in a blockbuster.

Starting off prior to the events of The Bourne Ultimatum, Legacy finds Jeremy Renner's character in the Alaskan wilderness, being hunted by a pack of wolves. Then, all of a sudden, he discovers that a drone is trying to blow him up.

Eventually, the film moves past Ultimatum and becomes about another secret government agency. They're feeling threatened by Jason Bourne's uprising and trying to kill their own assets before they have the chance to retaliate.

The biggest issue with this film is that it tries to be cryptic. It's capable of telling us what's going on, but chooses not to--which can be frustrating when watching a movie. You can tell that these events are opening the door to something cool in the series, but it just doesn't let us figure out what that is until later.

Often times, we find ourselves scratching our heads, hoping that it all ties together in the end. And it does for the most part. But even when things click, it means nothing of value. You just accept it and hope it will make sense in the next film.

We're also never entirely sure how it all connects to the Bourne series--other than the same people are involved. But the glimmering hope that it's going to open the series up to something grander--the bigger picture--makes every piece of this film intriguing.

Regardless of the mysterious plot, it's really entertaining. The action and chase sequences are high-quality, and there are some really intense scenes. It's all fun in the end.

Twizard Rating: 85

Since the dawn of the internet and smart phones, films have tried to relate to the generation that's so engulfed in the technology. From the guy in his 30s trading on Wall Street to the teenage girl who can't seem to separate herself from Snapchat or Instagram. Many have tried, and few have succeeded. Most are done in a way that comes off as a little too pushy or polemic. Others use it as a devise to make the film look more attractive to a younger demographic. Either way, it's always seemed as though it was the technology that was propelling the stories--almost forcing them upon us.

Right off the bat, the concept of Nerve may have you thinking the same thing, but its premise is much more relaxed. And where it isn't, it's more subtle than its contemporaries. Nerve is, all around, more mature with its subject matter.

It stars Emma Roberts as Vee, an artistic high school senior who's best friend, Sydney (Emily Meade), thinks she doesn't live uninhibitedly enough. Then there's this secret game/app which the user can choose to be either a watcher or a player. As a player, you have to complete tasks, or "dares", for money. The two who last the longest without giving up go to the finals.

The rules of the game take much of the film to get a grasp on, but it makes sense when it needs to.

Along the way, Vee meets Ian (Dave Franco)--another player. The watchers like the two of them together and keep giving them tasks to complete with each other.

The audience should also like them together, since they have a natural chemistry, which helps us see past some of the streaky performances.

The film bounces around between different characters in the story seamlessly without losing us, or its energy, in the process.

At no point do you look down at your watch wondering when the film will be over. It keeps you in its grasp the whole time. And afterward, you'll be talking with others about hypotheticals if the app actually existed in real life.

You will definitely be surprised by this film, despite any preconceived notions. It's one of the best we've seen in this "techno" subgenre. Maybe by now we've gotten over the newness of our devices and can finally get a real film that actually takes control of the technology within it, rather than the other way around.

Twizard Rating: 91

The animation is easy to watch with its unique look and feel, and the grocery puns are usually very clever and well thought-out, but besides that, Sausage Party is more gag-inducing than funny. And you can't help but think that it's merely for shock value.

As thought-provoking as it intends to be, it's mostly in vain due to its irreverence. The items in a grocery store are all brainwashed to believe that humans are their gods, and that they must be "chosen" to reach the Great Beyond--which is unknown to any of them at the time.

It's led by a sausage, Frank (Seth Rogen), who is slowly discovering the truth--that humans aren't gods, but monsters set out to murder all of them--but no one will listen to him. The storyline has promise, but much of the time is spent on extraneous sex jokes, for the sheer purpose of having sex jokes made by pieces of food.

It has its moments, but you spend too much time cringing or laughing out of discomfort. And even within the ridiculous logic of the film, certain things still don't always make sense.

Certain characters are enjoyable, like a chewed up piece of gum who cannot die because he's a piece of gum. But on the other hand, there's a villain (besides the humans) whose motives are foggy and entirely unconvincing.

Honestly, the film's strongest aspect is making us truly want to know how it will end. But when it does, you're still not completely satisfied.

Twizard Rating: 63

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 catch-up 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 benefited 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

To some, shaky-cam has become synonymous with low quality. But not the way Paul Greengrass does is. The director doesn't just do shaky-cam--he masters it. Every single movement is perfected and deliberate so that during fight scenes, we still know exactly what's happening all while getting the feeling that we're involved.

The pacing is pretty much perfect in the third installment of the spy-thriller series. We pick up weeks after the events of its predecessor, and Jason Bourne (Matt Damon) is still trying to figure out his forgotten past. The secret CIA program which was once called Operation Treadstone is essentially the same, except operating under the name of Blackbriar.

Dipping and dodging different assassins, Bourne is one step closer to finding out how he became an important piece in all this. But this time, there's more desperation. More urgency. He knows he could be dead at any moment and possibly should have been dead already. But he's not and he doesn't know how much longer he can cheat death. We feel it too. We want him to find everything out before he gets killed.

It's this energy that runs all through The Bourne Ultimatum that keeps you on the edge of your seat the entire time.

Bourne's character depth doesn't really progress anywhere from the last film, but we don't really feel like it needs to. He doesn't say much, but we can read his thoughts much of the time.

In the end, we're relieved, but not necessarily satisfied. There is still more to be found out. Although in the moment, we aren't aware that there will be more sequels to come. We just hope that there are.

Twizard Rating: 95

I guess in this day and age, we expect things in trilogies--or serials at least. But Star Trek Beyond isn't that. There isn't a lot of story tie-ins from the previous two films. It's just the same crew--albeit a little more mature and a little wiser--on a brand new mission.

And as much as part of me wishes that it was like all the other blockbuster franchises these days, I can appreciate the solidarity.

Chris Pine looks like he fits the Captain Kirk mold better than ever as he's debating whether or not he should leave the Enterprise and take a promotion as Vice Admiral--meaning he would be permanently grounded.

The first 30 minutes are fairly slow, as the film is catching us up with these characters, bringing us to the point where they want us to be.

Then, all of a sudden, the Enterprise ship is ambushed and all but destroyed, killing much of the crew and leaving the rest stranded on some Earth-like planet run by Krall--who's out to seek revenge on the Federation for unknown reasons.

They actually happen to be very good reasons, but we don't know them until almost the end of the film. Up until that point, Krall just seems like another generic bad guy with unclear motives--which can come off as convoluted, and even frustrating at times.

But once the ending hits, you realize what's happening and acknowledge to yourself that it was worth the journey. Even if it's perhaps because you want it to have been.

The franchise is no longer directed by J.J. Abrams, but he's still signed on as producer. Instead, it's directed by Justin Lin--known for many Fast and Furious films. And Beyond has him written all over it. Just the increase in shaky-cam alone.

But I really enjoyed the film. It's not as well-organized as Abrams' previous 2 installments, but it's fun and intriguing and has you on the edge of your seat. I'm excited to see what's next.

Twizard Rating: 91