Movie Review: "Big Hero 6" (2014)

You can always count on Disney animated films to keep you consistently entertained. As with other films like "Frozen," "Saving Mr. Banks" and "Wreck-It Ralph" Disney is a genius at taking those elements that make you feel like a child again and amplifying them, resulting in a wide grin throughout the movie.

Their newest film, "Big Hero 6" continues that trend by invoking a range of emotions. Whether that is through cuteness, awe-inspiring visuals, comedy or tragedy, Disney's animated collaboration with Marvel results in a film that you might see coming way ahead of time, but is far from disappointing.

In the futuristic city of San Fransokyo (with the visual style of San Fransisco and Tokyo), 14-year old Hiro Hamada tries to find his way in the world by using his advanced mind to build stunning machinery to use in robot fighting, though it is frowned upon by society and his brother Tadashi. 

After Tadashi introduces Hiro to the robotics department of his college and his latest project, the inflatable nurse robot Baymax, Hiro decides to use his brain for a better use and wants to apply for the robotics department. But when Hiro builds micro-bots that could change the world, it puts his life and everyone in San Fransokyo in danger.



The charm of "Big Hero 6" comes from how it feels like an amalgamation of many films and stories, but without ripping any of them off. Baymax, fro example, only wishes to help others out but has a funny way of going about it, mostly due to his big balloony gut and rudimentary programming, just like another famous Disney animated robot, WALL-E. Both robots are huggable creations that want to serve their functions yet develop a personality along the way. Baymax, however, can talk and is quite clumsy, which sets him apart from WALL-E.

One of the most breathtaking moments in the film comes when Hiro equips Baymax with his new armor, granting him the ability to fly, and the two test out these new powers by taking an aerial tour of the city. Normally, I'd say this would be a rip-off from "Iron Man" when Tony flies for the first time. But then you see how Baymax and Hiro interact with the city and each other, as they go through subway tunnels, circle billboards, land on their version of the Golden Gate Bridge and end it on the many blimps circling the city.



"Big Hero 6" invokes many movies, mostly super heroes and revenge tales, but does so while still having its own unique personality. Each of the six heroes come across as likable in their own right. From the orderly and cautious Wasabi with his electric claws that can cut through anything, to the calm and straight to the point Go Go and her magnetic wheels. These characters breathe life into the film and make otherwise cliché scenes into a joy to watch.

Even the plot, which is quite predictable, becomes quite forgivable in the face of the cheerful but creative nature of this film.



I like to think of "Big Hero 6" as the animated equivalent of "The Avengers." Forgettable story, but wonderfully fleshed out characters, a unique sense of humor, more than delivers in the action department and an atmosphere that just wants to make people happy. A fun experience that will either have you laughing or stunned at how beautiful it can be. I would highly recommend this film to anyone who enjoys super hero films or Disney animated works, which should cover everyone who enjoys cinema.

Final Grade: B+

Mini-Reviews #2

I have to admit, since I decided to do mini-reviews for films I watch on DVD, television and Netflix, it has felt freeing. Over the past few weeks alone, I've tried to watch a movie every day and have succeeded for the most part (days that I don't watch a film, I end up watching about four or five episodes of "The Twilight Zone" as I've attempted to watch the entire series).

On top of that, most of the films I've watched recently have all been very good movies. There is nothing like that feeling of watching consistently good movies and being satisfied with each one.
With that said, let's look at the eight films I've watched recently. Starting with...



"Saboteur" (1942)

This one was weird, even for Alfred Hitchcock. Many of the master of suspense themes are in place, like the secret organization planning a sneak attack on the government, the man falsely accused of a crime, and a race around America as the man is chased by the police while trying to solve the mystery. I think of "Saboteur" as a weaker "North By Northwest." Same basic plot and sense of humor, but a strange fixation on side characters that don't add much to the film. For example, while the main characters are being chased down, they hide in a circus train where they meet the 'freaks' and we get extensive details on these characters that we never see or hear from again. Certainly not a bad film, but an odd one that focuses more on one-off characters and not the overall plot.

Final Grade: C+



"Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde" (1941)

Just so we're clear, this the version with Spencer Tracy and Ingrid Bergman, not the one with Fredric March.

It was hard to pay attention to this film for some reason. Perhaps it is because I've heard the story of Jekyll and Hyde so many times before that this is old-hat. Maybe it was due to the film moving so far away from the theme of the monster inside every man to focus on a love story that was founded on creepy and disturbing grounds. Or it could be that the film had pacing problems and moved too slow for its own good. In any case, nice split performances by Tracy but not much else to write home about.

Final Grade: C+



"Kwaidan" (1964)

I can't imagine how much work was put into the matte art and matte shots throughout this film. The beauty of "Kwaidan" lies in the details and artistic choices in the background and landscape of the shots. From the snowy forest being covered by a sky of eyeballs to the ghostly terrain of a fallen Japanese emperor. Every shot is impressive in some way and the film takes time to make the audience appreciate that. Though this means the pacing suffers and makes the film drag on longer than it needs to. Still, "Kwaidan" is worth watching simply to admire how great it looks.

Final Grade: B-



"Cabin In The Woods" (2012)

Without giving too much away, I would describe "Cabin In The Woods" as a movie within a movie. At first, the film seems like your typical slasher fare with the stereotypical characters from the "Friday The 13th" and "Nightmare On Elm Street" films. But as the film progresses, you learn more about this world and why the characters are acting this way. This leads to even more reveals that will make you hate the film and then feel sympathetic towards it. I don't want to spoil it for those who haven't seen it, but this one is certainly worth a watch.

Final Grade: B+



"Snowpiercer" (2013)

So this one is bit out there. In the future, scientists unleash a chemical that will solve global warming, only for it to backfire and cause a new ice age and kill all life on earth, except for the lucky few to board the Snowpiercer, a train that circles the world and operates by a class system - the rich people get treated like royalty and the poor are filth and live in dirt. Lots of big name stars in this one, including Chris Evans, Octavia Spencer, Tilda Swinton, John Hurt, Ed Harris and Korean film star Song Kang-ho from "The Host," in fact this film is made by the same director as the 2006 Korean monster film, Bong Joon-ho. While there are some missing gaps in this film, like why so many people are onboard the train, how there are so many people still alive after 18 years and what makes the Snowpiercer able to withstand the absolute zero temperatures outside, it is a tightly edited piece where almost every line of dialogue has significance later on. It is a unique dystopian future film that shows just how screwed humanity is when you put all the remaining survivors on a train.

Final Grade: B+



"The Haunting" (1963)

This film follows the logic that the best way to scare an audience is through their own imagination. It is your typical haunted house film, but with one noticeable difference: the ghosts are kept a mystery. Many instances of ghosts throughout the film are written off as everything being constructed at improper angles or the house being far too old. But as the opening narration describes, this is a house that was born bad. Most of the charm in this film comes from the professor as he diagnoses the house, refusing to call it haunted and instead call it diseased or crazy. This makes the decent into madness all the more realistic and terrifying as we see many things that could be ghosts, yet we're never sure what to believe. We hear many large creatures go bump in the night, and that is when our own fear kicks in and makes "The Haunting" all the more scary.

Final Grade: A-



"Dredd" (2012)

High octane action from the beginning and this film never lets go. From bad ass one liners to "judges" dispensing their own form of street justice to guns that are voice commanded and can fire all sorts of high explosive rounds to bad guys getting shot in slow motion. The plot is simple: Judge Dredd (Karl Urban) and his rookie cop are trapped in a 200-story building with hundreds of drugged-up criminals who want to kill them for their gang leader, Ma Ma. If you've seen "The Raid: Redemption" this is very close to that, only with less martial arts and more explosions. This one is a fun mindless ride that will keep you smiling all the way through.

Final Grade: B



"Bullitt" (1968)

You know, when people talk about this movie, they only mention one scene: The car chase across the San Francisco landscape. Some might talk about the cool Steve McQueen but that isn't limited to this film. I will admit, the car chase scene is impressive and is edited so tightly that it keeps you glued to the action. But outside of that scene, there is not much to this film. It is your typical cop who plays by his own rules film with lots of legal jargon that does not mean much. The final battle in the air field through the airport is fun to watch but does not live up to the chase.

Final Grade: C

The Worst Movie Ever Made!

Film critics will often say that you cannot truly appreciate the best that cinema has to offer until you've sat through the absolute worst movies of all time. To be able to distinguish good filmmaking from bad and to watch movies that so terrible that you'd rather be doing anything else than watching this filth.

To me, movies that are "so bad, they're good" do not fall into the group of the worst films ever made, like "Plan 9 From Outer Space," "Birdemic: Shock & Terror!" and "Manos: The Hands Of Fate." You can have fun with them, be entertained by their absurdity and terrible moviemaking abilities. These films are an unintentional comedy gold mines.

Then you have movies that fall into the category of just terrible filmmaking. These are the types of movies that are not fun to watch, even for their badness. They are unpleasant, insulting, poorly made, confusing and don't care for any sort of audience. By the time these movies are done, you feel dirty and unhappy, as if you just wasted your time.

Yet, I will firmly admit there is one film out there that I consider the worst movie of all time. A film so bad that I have no idea how it got made or how anyone making the film thought what they were doing was a good idea. A film so bad that even "Mystery Science Theater 3000" could not make it enjoyable.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the worst film ever made, "Monster-A-Go-Go."



I have never watched a film that was so poorly put together, as if a five-year old was in charge. Actually, a five-year old would have made a more vibrant and light-hearted film, not something so hateful and condescending towards others.

"Monster-A-Go-Go" was directed by Bill Rebane, who somehow was able to direct multiple movies after this abomination came out, including the laughable "Giant Spider Invasion" which I feel goes in the class of "so bad, it's good." Yet that film, which was made years after the 1965 "Monster-A-Go-Go," still had the same terrible style of filmmaking: piss poor lighting so that you can barely make out anything the shot, the camera positioned so far away from the actors that even if it was lite well you still couldn't see anything, actors looking down at their feet constantly (most likely to read the script taped to the floor) and editing that is either nonexistent or nonsensical.

Both "Monster-A-Go-Go" and "Giant Spider Invasion" were featured on "Mystery Science Theater 3000" but had two entirely different results. While MST3K ripped both films to shreds, you can have fun with "Giant Spider Invasion" due to the ridiculous nature of spiders taking over a small town in Wisconsin and two bloated scientists - one of whom is bigoted towards the female scientist - trying to stop the invasion from spreading. "Monster-A-Go-Go" on the other hand has nothing likable about it from the beginning.

In fact, to let you know exactly what I mean, here's a link to the MST3K episode that riffs "Monster-A-Go-Go." As a result, you can see the worst film ever made in its entirety, while these comedians try desperately to save the movie and their sanity.

I've watched this episode in the past, and each time I've noticed that these guys not only hate watching this movie, but can't seem to find a way to make it funny. Try as they might, but they can only point out the flaws. Even Crow tries to make fun of the names in the opening credits, only to trail off and admit "this is gonna suck." Years after the episode was released, the creators of MST3K said they felt "Monster-A-Go-Go" was the worst movie they ever riffed.

But in the end, the sign of the worst movie ever made boils down to how it makes the audience feel. The worst films out there will make the audience feel insulted, like the film is nothing more than a big middle finger on the silver screen.

For me, very few films do that. Simply because it is a movie. It is not a sentient creäture with emotions, desires and awareness. But every once in a while, there is that film that goes out of its way to be hateful and disrespectful to many people. "Godzilla: Final Wars" for example is hateful towards fifty years of Godzilla's history and the fans that have enjoyed the franchise, by having a supposed celebration film be two hours long and only have twelve minutes of screen time for Godzilla.

"Monster-A-Go-Go" is another hateful film, mostly because of the ending. It's a plot twist, but a twist that makes the rest of the film completely pointless and without meaning. As if the film is saying, "Haha! We tricked you into watching this garbage and you'll never get that time back! Whose the loser now?"



The true loser is Bill Rebane and "Monster-A-Go-Go" for being the most disrespectful, wasteful, poorly constructed piece of trash I have ever seen on the silver screen. You do not even need a basic understanding of filmmaking to know this film sucks. Anyone with a half of a brain stem could tell you there is nothing enjoyable here, even ironically.

Still, I would recommend you watch "Monster-A-Go-Go" once. If only to understand why it is so bad and to see a contender for one of the worst films ever made. I would not recommend watching this without the MST3K commentary though, as that is the only thing which makes "Monster-A-Go-Go" bearable.

Movie Review: "Nightcrawler" (2014)

If it bleeds, it leads.

This is not only a substantial quote from "Nightcrawler" but is also one of the biggest ideas pushed upon young journalists these days. In a world where news is readily available at people's' finger tips, the newspaper is in the slow process of dying and you can find out any information you need with a simple Google search, you need something of substance and shock to grab the viewer's attention.

Nobody cares about the headline "Dog bites man." But if it suddenly became "Man bites dog," then you've not only got a story, but people will care about what you have to say.

In a way, this is the sad reality what we live in. We've been so desensitized to violence, scandal and vulgar activities that we crave it. We want to see the terrible things that happen to people, that's why news coverage will so often have violent crimes as their top stories.

This is the reality that "Nightcrawler" thrives in. In their world, the only way to make a living is to look out only for yourself and be willing to compromise your morals and ethics. As far as "Nightcrawler" and Jake Gyllenhaal are concerned, the idea of the "American Dream" is out there, but only to those who are willing to go out and look for it and extinguish anyone who gets in their way.

"If you want to win the lottery, you have to make the money to buy a ticket." The motto of our protagonist, Louis Bloom (Gyllenhaal).

Bloom is a hard-working individual, with ambition and a drive to succeed (his own words, not mine). The problem is that no one is willing to hire him, due to a criminal background. After he witnesses an accident on the freeway and a group of cameramen swoop down on it, Bloom decides to go freelance and use his "talents" to make a name for himself by filming breaking stories and selling the footage to a lowly news station that eats up these types of tragic events.



"Nightcrawler" lives very much in the same realm as "Gone Girl" in that it is gritty, unsettling, irresistible and that people are expendable if you can achieve your goals. To someone like Bloom, the people that he films are not living creatures. They are merely pawns to advance him further in life. He tapes all sorts of gruesome accidents and attacks, yet never once does he show any sign of sympathy or remorse for selling out their pain. To him, it is all part of the job.

Much like Jordan Belfort in "The Wolf Of Wall Street," Louis Bloom lives in his own made-up world where his outstanding work ethic and no-back-down approach to bargaining puts him at the top of his class, but personally believes he is above everyone else and that anyone who would not do what he does is weak and will live in poverty for the rest of their lives.

This makes Bloom a scumbag of the highest order. But you cannot take your eyes off of him.



Part of this is because of Gyllenhaal's performance and how he exudes dominance when making a deal, yet being so weak and doughy-eyed when doing anything else. You want to slap him, but you also want to see what he'll do next.

But another reason is how logical and orderly Bloom handles everything. To him, it's about getting the money and growing as a business to make more money. Do what is needed to be done, as long as that will help the business ascend. There is a creepy truth underlying throughout this film and makes Bloom's actions somewhat justified.

By the end of the film, you will hate Louis Bloom, but you cannot fault him for what he does.



"Nightcrawler" is a character study on a man who wants nothing more than to be successful in a world that is unforgiving and uncaring. It is unnerving, gripping and hard to watch at times, but always contemplative. If you loved "Gone Girl," then you will enjoy "Nightcrawler" and then some.

Final Grade: A

Are "Manos" and "Plan 9" really that bad?

When people discuss the greatest movie ever made, it will usually lead to an intellectual discussion between movies like "Citizen Kane," "Vertigo," "Casablanca" and "2001: A Space Odyssey." But when people talk about the worst movie ever made, it is filled with laughter and pointing to two movies in particular: "Plan 9 From Outer Space" and ""Manos": The Hands Of Fate."

These two films have been the laughing-stock of all cinema since their creations in 1959 and 1966, respectively. With laughable effects, the worst acting you've ever seen, plot lines that wouldn't even cut it in a mediocre daytime soap opera and cinematography that looks like it was filmed through garbage.

"Plan 9 From Outer Space" was the "masterpiece" of the infamous B-movie director Ed Wood, who was known to make movies for little to no cost and in a hurry. As you can expect, his work suffers because of that. The plot follows a group of aliens who intend to resurrect our dead to build up an army and take over the planet, or at least that's what I think is happening. It's so hard to tell with these flamboyant aliens and their spaceships that look like nipples.

"Manos: The Hands Of Fate" was funded entirely by one man, who owned a fertilizing plant in Texas, and was filmed on an ancient camera that was fixed to shoot for roughly 30 seconds at a time. Apparently, the editor chose to not cut any shots sooner than that because every shot goes on for longer than it needs to, just showing the actors standing there looking like idiots.



While I could (sort of) describe the plot of "Plan 9," I cannot do the same for "Manos." I would need multiple flow charts and diagrams to describe what happens in this mess. There's a family going to resort, lots of driving and getting lost, they stumble across a lodge that's owned by a man who gigantic thighs (he must love his Bo-Flex), the family finds a tomb at the back of the lodge with a man worshipping the god "Manos" and has six wives and there's a lot of screaming, wrestling and Thigh-Master trying to get laid. Oh, and there's a couple making out close by that keep getting interrupted by the cops.

The cherry on top of this disaster sundae? "Manos" is Spanish for "hands." So the correct title of the film is "Hands: The Hands Of Fate."

These two tragedies of filmmaking were made by people who loved movies, but did not really understand what separates a good movie from a bad movie. They made what they saw in their heads, but only saw that vision and nothing else. They didn't realize their own vision was blurred and made no sense to anyone else.

To these guys, they got the film they wanted and were proud of that. But what we got were two candidates for the worst films ever made.

Or are they?



As much crap as "Plan 9" and "Manos" get, we still talk about these movies and continue to watch them. Both of these movies were made famous by "Mystery Science Theater 3000," a show all about watching terrible movies and ripping them apart. "Manos" is considered one of the best episodes of the series and "Plan 9" has spawned multiple live riffings by the cast of MST3K.

These films are making people laugh hysterically at the characters, effects, editing, direction and plot. Hell, I even laughed a couple of times while writing up the synopsis of "Manos" and remembered how insane that movie was.

One of the biggest reasons people watch movies is to be entertained. Whether that is through excitement, drama, laughter, suspense or any number of reasons, if a film is consistently keeping you entertained and happy, then that movie is doing something right.

Though "Manos" and "Plan 9" are not being enjoyed the way the filmmakers originally intended, people get a kick out of watching the lead detective in "Plan 9" twirl his gun around like it's a toy, blissfully unaware that he's holding a live firearm. Or watch Torgo (the guy with the massive legs) try to stand up, only for him to take over 40 seconds to do so.



That's the secret to movies which fall under the "So bad, it's good" category. From a technical level, they are the bottom of the barrel and don't deserve to be seen even once. Yet I can honestly say that I've sat through "Manos" and "Plan 9" multiple times. All willingly.

Why? Because there's a charm to watching a filmmaker aim for their work to say something and think so highly of their movie, only for it all to backfire in their own face and watch the movie implode in on itself. I have a great time laughing at how long and unnecessary the shots are in "Manos." I love the opening narration in "Plan 9" that explains nothing. Open up a beer, get a bunch of your friends together, and you'll have a blast ripping these movies apart.

Unintentional or not, "Manos" and "Plan 9" are great comedies that show the lower points of cinema and how fun it can be. And if that's the case, can they really be considered the worst films ever made? Because I don't think so.



But then, what do I consider the worst movie ever created? Stay tuned, because in the next few days, I'll unleash the greatest horror the silver screen has ever seen.

Movie Review: "St. Vincent" (2014)

Apparently a new film pet peeve of mine has recently appeared: Films that keep the motives and reasons for why a character is a terrible person a secret until the last ten minutes of runtime.

Seriously, this happened with "The Judge" and it pissed me off. For two and a half hours, we're in the dark about why Robert Downey Jr. and Robert Duvall hate each other, when they should have no reason to despise the other. This could be solved with Downey Jr. (or even his daughter) asking the question, "Dad, why are you being such a grouch to me?"

But no, we have to build up the drama and pile on the hate in the movie, because audiences love it when family members despise one another and don't want to be around them and blame all their problems in the world on your siblings attempting to do the right thing, right?

Oh wait, no. That just sounds stupid and hateful for no good reason.

I bring this up because it has happened once again with the newest Bill Murray movie, "St. Vincent." Much like "The Judge," the film attempts to play to its lead actors strengths and gets lost along the way in its cliché, predictable and unimaginative story. Unlike "The Judge" though, "St. Vincent" does not give its lead actor enough room to breath and let him do his own thing.

Vincent (Bill Murray) sure leads a charmed life. He lives out of a small, broken down house in Brooklyn and constantly runs over his own fence. He drinks, smokes, gambles, swears like a sailor, has constant sex with a pregnant prostitute (Naomi Watts), and always seems to owe somebody money that he never has. Things change though when a new neighbor moves in and the mother (Melissa McCarthy) is constantly working, so Vincent has to reluctantly babysit her wimpy son.



So right off the bat, we know Vincent is a terrible human being. He is only interested in himself and would choose a world without other people if he could. Why is he like this? Until the last few minutes of the movie, this goes unexplained and unasked. He is just a grumpy angry old man because the script says so.

Story-Telling 101: If you're going to make your character an unlikable and terrible person, especially if he is your main character, you must tell us why he is like that and why we should care about a guy like this. As soon as possible. Do not hide character traits and backstory just for the sake of being dramatic.

"St. Vincent" meanders around as Vincent and the boy bond over adult activities and the kid toughens up. This would be fine if we got plenty of laughs and Bill Murray's brand of dry yet witty humor, but there is a distinct lack of that. Murray does just fine the material that is given to him, but it's obvious that he is reading from a script, and is not given room to improv and do what feels natural to him. That's what made films like "Ghostbusters" and "Groundhog Day" so enjoyable and why we all love Bill Murray.



Not to mention the film would rather be depressing and sad instead of funny and uplifting. Every character has several tragic events happen to them, including the boy getting beat up and having his keys and wallet stolen, Melissa McCarthy's character crying while explaining why she moved away from her husband and her job at the hospital and Vincent's struggle to help an old woman in a retirement home.

None of this is helped by the lack of good comedy throughout the film. You'd think with two comedic talents in Murray and McCarthy, there would be some funny moments. But as I'm writing this, I can't recall many moments that made me laugh. The sad moments stick out more than the funny ones. That is truly sad.



Overall, "St. Vincent" was a depressing snore that does not utilize that talented actors and actresses at its disposal. It is manipulative, far too sad for its own good, unfunny and predictable. The film starts to get better once we learn why Vincent is such an asshole, but it is too little too late. If you love Bill Murray, just watch "Groundhog Day" and you'll get a funnier and more worthwhile experience out of it.

Final Grade: F+

Movie Review: "Giant" (1956)

Legacy. When you think about it, how much power does that word really have over you? For some, it is nothing. For others, it is everything.

What we leave behind in this world, how we have impacted the people around us and how the world will remember us. It can shape a man's life, trying to provide for his family and making sure they grow up to be respectable people. But once that man is long gone and many generations have passed, will his legacy mean anything? Is that man, who focused so much on making sure the world remembers him, living in a future he will never see rather than the present?

Among many other things, that is the driving force behind George Stevens' 1956 film "Giant." This epic chronicles three generations of one family out of a massive cattle ranch in Texas, focusing mostly on Bick Benedict (Rock Hudson) and his newlywed, Leslie (Elizabeth Taylor), a socialite from Maryland and must become accustom to this strange new life in the heart of desert cow country. All the while, Bick and Leslie face many perils, including themselves and egotistical farm-hand Jett Rink (James Dean), who constantly quarrels with Bick.

In a way, the story can't be any simpler. We watch as Bick and Leslie fight, their own lifestyles and personal choices getting in the way, raise their kids, decide what is right for themselves and their children and the consequences of those actions. The conflict is not forced in any way, as the drama and resulting action comes naturally from the characters.



The main flaw within many of these characters is too much pride. Bick has so much pride in the legacy of the Benedict family line that he must keep it going, and his son must keep it going after him. But he never takes into account that his son may not want to be a rancher. He believes in the strength of his family and does what is right for that. Nothing else matters. This leads to Bick's life falling apart when his son wants to be a doctor and the need for cattle begins to decrease in America.
Bick never took into account that, as he got older, the world would change.

Leslie can be full of herself, but is quick to adapt. When she arrives in Texas, she is put off by waking up early in the morning to find her husband has been up for hours, that her breakfast has been made by Bick's overprotective sister Luz, and faints due to the hot Texan air. Luckily, the next day she gets up before everyone else, makes breakfast for Luz and wants to go horseback riding with Bick.

Her need to assert herself gets in the way many times, all to prove that she, and women in general, should be treated as equals to men. She has an outburst in front of Bick and his friends during their conversation on "men stuff" and how they're setting the world back 100,000 years. Leslie is a proud woman, married to a man who sees men and women as two different species. Which is why they're perfect for each other.



Bick gives Leslie strength, and Leslie gives Bick purpose.

There's nothing necessarily wrong with what Bick or Leslie do over the course of the film. Both of their actions speak of two different life philosophies, different end-goals and they are products of their times. Bick is very much an "old ways" kind-of-guy; Men are the strong ones who bring in the money, and women are supposed to raise the kids, cook, clean and make her husband happy. Leslie grew up around politics and social gatherings, where she was allowed to study all sorts of topics and speak her mind.

This leads to their children being mixed up people once they grow up. Even they admit it when discussing where their twins are heading in life. "We've raised an odd set of fledglings," says Leslie.

However, no matter what choices their kids make, they're willing to make the sacrifice of their legacies for the happiness of their offspring. Their pride still rears its ugly head sometimes, like during Christmas morning and Bick gets drunk on bourbon, but only because they have been hurt by their sacrifice.



"We can raise our children, but we can't live their lives for them," says Leslie. To me, this is the line that encapsulates the struggle of Bick and Leslie, and "Giant" as a whole.

It speaks of struggles that we must all face. Personal sacrifice and the willingness to help out the ones we love. That we would do anything, even give up our dreams, if it means our children can live a better life.

Bick may not have given his children the lives that he wanted for them, but he has given them lives they wanted to see through to the end. That is what a legacy truly stands for.



"Giant" is a masterpiece. At over three and a half hours, it moves a fast pace and never feels like it is dragging. Each scene has importance and is beautifully shot, making the Texan landscape feel enormous yet empty. Every character is fully fleshed out and feels just as relatable today as they did in 1956. The way "Giant" moves feels natural, never doing something just to grab the audiences' attention, only to show the hardships, pride, love and legacy of Bick and Leslie Benedict.

Final Grade: A+