Category Archives: Movies

5 Things, Features, Movies

5 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW: Elysium

Leave a comment

When I see a movie in theaters, I will write the five things you need to know about it.

5 Things You Need to Know About… 

ELYSIUM

1) The 2154 world of Los Angeles and the space habitat, Elysium (the only settings of the movie) that Neill Blomkamp creates are as visually stunning and well shot as any movie I have seen.  Cameras effortlessly swoop in and out of environments like you are a passenger on the greatest helicopter trip you have ever taken or if you are on an actualized version of the great ride Soarin’ from the Disney Parks.  There is just so much visual detail and nuance to take in.  Many of the best movies that take us to the relatively near future have excelled at what the world feels like on the ground (Elysium does this effectively as well), but Blomkamp’s accomplishment here are his sights from a short distance above.

2) If Elysium had been released in 1983 or even 1993, it becomes an iconic science fiction motion picture in the vein of Blade Runner.  Matt Damon’s protagonist hero Max makes him an even bigger star (on the Harrison Ford mid-80s level).  Elysium Kenner action figures and playsets fill the aisles of Toys ‘R Us and Caldor.  Sharito Copley’s over the edge and over the top Kruger (despite a performance and character that takes a promising concept to an uncalled for extreme) is considered for a spin-off and given glorified villain treatment à la Boba Fett.  Perhaps muted in the over saturated destruction fest that has been the 2013 summer movie season and definitely muted in the current state of the international revenue focused modern cinema, Elysium in 2013 is a short-lasting August box office blip that never reaches its potentially potent cultural relevance.  It just fills a whole in the summer season between Pacific Rim and Kick-Ass 2 and will be soon out of both our collective consciousness and water cooler twitter conversations weeks before Labor Day.

3) Ultimately, Elysium’s failings are intrinsic to its form and the execution thereof.  What makes Elysium great – an engrossing near future interpretation of our world that further disenfranchises its citizenry by race, xenophobia, and class, the “haves” versus the “have nothings” – would have been much better suited for the crock pot marination of a television series.  Blomkamp creates a world that we want to spend so much more time in where we could have explored the vast story possibilities found within.  Unfortunately, the constraints of a movie and its need to create a more succinct central story damaged the ultimate result.  Once Elysium’s plot thickens, characters driven by honest and understandable motivations are thrown off the transport.  We are left with unnecessary violence, unnecessary violent verbal spewing (looking at you Sharito Copley and Jodie Foster), and a pace that ruins the enjoyment of the meal.  A television series of Elysium that crash landed into many different aspects of the segregated future vision that maintains Blomkamp’s exceptional visual mastery is an immediate success story that could thrive for many years over the course of many seasons.

4) Jodie Foster’s performance, character, accent, motivations, horrible overdubbing, and decision-making skills were the definitive low point of the movie.  It is an awful performance that gets more problematic as the movie continues.  Apparently, the original accent was too distinctively French (I would have been fine with this), so a new less pronounced addition was overdubbed over every line of dialogue.  Not only does what is said struggle, but now the how (both what you hear and what you see) becomes close to farcical, pulled from the worst Rita Repulsa scene from a Power Rangers episode.  I thought that after her speech Golden Globes, Jodie Foster had reached the hot mess apex for her 2013, but this Elysium performance has more than eclipsed any viewer discomfort from January.

5) Like District 9, Elysium is a movie that creates such a vivid futuristic world allegory that I could have spent many hours in it, digesting its story possibilities.  Unfortunately, the story chosen to support the less than two hour runtime of this movie is too sloppily plotted, leaves too many lingering questions, and requires too many leaps of logical faith to sustain its ultimate credibility.  Elysium is a movie based upon an incredible idea.  Blomkamp and his team chose the wrong story, mostly the wrong characters, and the wrong medium to present Elysium to its intended effect.

5 Things, Features, Movies

5 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW: World War Z

Leave a comment

When I see a movie in theaters, I will write the five things you need to know about it.

5 Things You Need to Know About… 

WORLD WAR Z

1. World War Z is a scintillating and exhilarating professional summer movie experience.  In what appears to be an entire world infected by a nasty zombie bite, Brad Pitt’s character of Gerry Lane declares that “movement is life” and Marc Forster delivers a picture that embodies such a credo.  World War Z is paced like an Olympic relay race with Brad Pitt as the baton passed from country to country on a hunt for potential crumbs of an outbreak containment solution.  Moments to take a breath or to reflect on the magnitude of what has transpired are fleeting and infrequent – any stall could mean death in the world of the play or in the momentum of the movie – but through the lens of the delicate, but strong performance from Pitt, we are able to tune out the wild screams of the pursuant undead and focus on the task at hand.

2. Speaking of Brad Pitt, the power of his obvious visual charisma has never been questioned, but some of his past performances haven’t exactly jumped out of the screen.  Here, he wears his middle age with a wisdom and stature that perhaps he is finally earned. Screenwriters are smart to not cloud his character with too muddy a backstory (there is no clichéd drinking problem or past infidelity). We are given permission to see him affectionately as simply a dad trying to finish a job so he can get back to his family.  He is honorable, courageous, and real.  In a movie centered on the pace and movement of the plot, the stillness and contemplative experience we have with Pitt’s Gerry throughout is what takes World War Z to that next level.

3. In a Zombie nation comparison, World War Z encompasses everything that was successful about the Frank Darabont-led first season of The Walking Dead while avoiding all of the pitfalls and horrible characters that have poisoned the waters of subsequent seasons of the AMC mega-hit.  In World War Z, we do not want moms to die because they are too annoying (Mireille Enos unexpectedly delivers as Brad Pitt’s wife – for anyone who has spent any time in the rain-addled depression pit that is her performance on The Killing – this is a major surprise).  In World War Z, child characters are endearing and sometimes even useful.  In World War Z, we appreciate that it seems like there are people out there who are trying to take meaningful action against the world zombification. In World War Z, there is no governor and there are no governor and Rick standoffs (praise!).  Pitt and other Z characters get that “movement is life” and would never consider hiding out in a prison or a farm for months at a time.  Finally, and perhaps most importantly, World War Z feels like the actual world we are living in in the way people talk, communicate, and feel.  It is a credible vision of the “what if” of such an outbreak and the audience is subsequently riveted from the opening credits.

4. There is an important uncredited performance in the movie (even “uncredited” in the way the camera and actor try not to focus on each other), but, as fan of the actor and the iconic role he recently played, his appearance provides some solace in a most chaotic of worlds, especially when a plane crashes into the climax of the movie.  (If you want to find out about what actually happened with it, read here.  Despite a substantially reduced role, I appreciated his presence.)

5. World War Z is a riveting ride of a summer movie whose production troubles (rewrites, financing) yielded a most satisfying final product.  Cradling the storytelling genre of the moment with a potency and execution yet to be achieved anywhere else on screen or on television, this Brad Pitt star vehicle is very much worth the price of admission.

 

5 Things, Features, Movies

5 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW: Man of Steel

1 Comment

When I see a movie in theaters, I will write the five things you need to know about it.

5 Things You Need to Know About… 

MAN OF STEEL

1) Man of Steel, the bombastic latest cinema incarnation of the iconic comic book legend, is a fiery hot mess of a movie that explodes at every turn with uncontrollable destruction of unspecific metropoli (meant to be Metropolis), characters that are not even attempted to be developed, and a world that has not earned the audience’s right to be saved.  Like most pictures that have Christopher Nolan’s name attached to them (here he gets story and producer credits), Man of Steel is an ambitious work that does strive for a certain kind of greatness, but it focuses too much on the wrong parts of the tale (see: everything to do with General Zod) and not enough on the parts that genuinely captivate (see: Clark’s childhood travails with the perfectly cast Diane Lane and Kevin Costner as Martha and Jonathan Kent).  Like most pictures that are directed by Zack Snyder, action sequences sure looks grey, grand, and ruinous, but he struggles to give us viable reasons to care and compelling people to care about.  The character of Superman has always been a challenge to depict.  As an alien creature to Earth with uncanny super powers, there is an inherent challenge in the character construction with audience empathy and connection.  This is why Batman has always been that much more interesting because we, with some financial wherewithal and proper training, could envision a scenario where we could wear the cape and cowl ourselves.  This is also why Superman stories (most notably in the long-running WB and CW tween soap Smallville) focus on Clark Kent and his growing pains assimilating to a world in which he is unlike any other.  Batman and Clark Kent are relatable.  Man of Steel flirts and dabbles with the Clark side of the equation (to much admitted success), but spends too much time mounting intergalactic warfare that amounts to very little substance.

2) It would be one thing to have given Clark Kent a more developed foundation, but Man of Steel, as any Superman telling must, spends too little time with his human surroundings.  Snyder relies on our past understanding of the Superman world to fill in a plethora of character gaps.  We only know that we are supposed to care about Perry White (Laurence Fishbourne picking up a paycheck now that his weekly CSI salary is off the books) because we have before, but there is so little energy given to his development that by the time he is the face of a city on the path of destruction, he doesn’t really matter to us.  When one of his Daily Planet minions, Jenny (an intern perhaps, I don’t know and I don’t care), finds herself caught amidst a pile of rubble (of which there quite a few), are we supposed to care when crafty character actor (and a high point of House of Cards) Michael Kelly pulls her out?  Do we really care when Detective Stabler (you left SVU for this?) comes around on Superman’s positive intentions or Toby Ziegler makes noteworthy scientific observations?  I think Snyder thinks we will, but again, thirty-seconds of screen time caring for a character does not make.  Lois Lane (played delightfully by Amy Adams – more on this in no. 4), strangely in the center of all alien (and very non-human) interplay and given a substantial amount of screen time, seems to make decisions without consequence, logic. or any degree of realistic motivation.  She throws herself into every dangerous fray because we are told she is a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist, but we do not understand why nor do we get to access any part of her deeper inner self.  To her credit, Adams plays her like there is more there, but I guess we will have to wait for the inevitable sequel.  Finally, as this bullet touches on the people of Man of Steel, why aren’t there more people in this movie?  Earth seems inhabited by maybe a couple of hundred (or as many extras that showed up).  Metropolis sure has buildings to destroy, but it seems largely vacant from any human life.  Unless you are an insurance company raking in property damage residuals, the stakes for Earth never seem that high because Earth appears to be a planet made up of a small town in the middle of Kansas, a fishing village in the Pacific northwest, and a ghost town of a Metropolis that has a thriving newsroom.

3) General Zod, played grumpily by Michael Shannon with a bad, late 90s boy band trim, is a terrible villain.  When he is spitting out speeches about saving Krypton and furthering his race of his people or creating havoc in product-placed American institutions like Sears and IHOP, I am not sure if he is supposed to be funny or whether it is a good time to take a bathroom break.  Either Michael Shannon is woefully miscast or General Zod lacks any charisma as a character.  I would argue both.

4) Unfortunately, Man of Steel has some promising raw material that is never brought to fruition.  Casting Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as Jonathan and Martha Kent, Clark’s Earth parents, is expert casting 101.  Costner is right at home as a dad on a midwestern farm (“If you build it, he will come!”) and is a perfect counterpart for the ageless and wonderful Lane.  Their too few scenes together with younger versions of Clark are electric (as presented in this beautiful, misleading trailer from last summer) and would have been a better focus for this movie.  Henry Cavill, especially when moonlighting as a fisherman/barkeep, is a captivating force on screen and could have been that much more effective had he been given more Clark time and less “punch out with Zod” time.  His chemistry with Amy Adams (a performer who holds her own against many different types of leading men – see: The Master or The Fighter) has great potential, but sadly much of their more intimate time together is only alluded to.  We gather that they have shared something important (upon a mutual visit to a Kansas cemetery), but Snyder decides not to show us the actual conversation (oops).  I would have loved to have watched a different movie with more Cavill and Adams getting to know one another and more Clark growing up with Costner and Lane as parents.  This would have been a Man of Steel that had some wings to fly on.

5) Man of Steel is movie of unrealized ambition and direction that unfortunately plows a path of story, character, and audience enjoyment destruction.  It strives to be as iconic as its lead character, but plays the wrong notes too loudly and the right notes too softly and not frequently enough (I am not talking about the expected professional score from Nolan go-to Hans Zimmer).  It could have been built on some wonderful raw material (the Cavill-Adams-Costner-Lane foursome could not be a better place to start), but the Kryptonian/General Zod infrastructure falls apart as easily as the CGI buildings Zod knocks down.

5 Things, Features, Movies

5 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW: The Great Gatsby

1 Comment

When I see a movie in theaters, I will write the five things you need to know about it.

Two things before I get to my 5 Things…

No. 1 – Full disclosure: I saw The Great Gatsby two weeks ago today.  It has taken me this long to devote an hour (if it were only) to writing this piece because I was less than inspired by the movie (admittedly there were several things that were successful) and I did not feel a compelling reason to provide analysis within timeframe that fell under TGG‘s relevant time in theaters (when people are most likely to see it).  I have committed (really only to myself) to write about every movie I see in theaters, so the obligation still exists, I just feel this particular movie experience gave me an open invitation to procrastinate.

No. 2 – I have read the great (an understatement) The Great Gatsby novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald (ironically for the first time only quite recently) and did not expect that this iteration of this tale would in any way live up to the novel.  I can appreciate the differences between the two mediums of literature and film and understand that quality replication is never the easiest of tasks.  This is a major factor in why I have chosen not to read the Game of Thrones novels in fear that it will negatively influence my experience of watching the incredible HBO series.  A movie or television show can be a viable and wonderful version of a story originally presented in a book and often trying to equate the two yields disappointment.  My feelings about this movie have not been too colored by this dichotomy.

5 Things You Need to Know About… 

THE GREAT GATSBY

1) The Great Gatsby is directed by Baz Luhrmann.

2) Movies directed by Baz Luhrmann (of which The Great Gatsby is one) often adhere to the following trend: The first fifteen to twenty minutes are an exercise in constant cutting, a series of quick shots (albeit visually lavish) that blink the viewer into a state of over stimulation and nausea.  He creates a world where pace, movement, and headaches are the accepted norm.  Then, it seems like Baz Luhrmann gets a little tired.  His editing technique slows down (as if he became bored of it all), he throws in some orchestral pop songs (usually under the musical guidance of Craig Armstrong) and relies on romanticism and a color palette featuring every crayola option.  By the time we get to this tepidly paced second act, our sensory arousal has already been peaked and we now get weighed down by the balladic heaviness of it all.  There are some beautiful segments (the first time Romeo and Juliet meet, The Elephant Love Medley from Moulin Rouge), but we are left unsure of what movie we are actually watching (it may not be for everyone, Baz, but why can’t you just follow through on your concept for an entire movie?).  Unfortunately, The Great Gatsby follows this Baz Luhrmann trajectory and the result is a little bit of a colorful, hot mess.

3) The climactic confrontation scene in the Manhattan hotel is a phenomenal piece of theater (if only it more closely resembled another part of the movie!) and would fit well in the best Broadway play.  Joel Edgerton finally created some justification for what his “actor to watch out for” press status has been all about.  He gives a phenomenal performance of controlled rage, picking apart the suddenly vulnerable Leo’s Gatsby.  I will likely never see this entire movie again (I have done my time), but I look forward to repeated viewings of this scene.

4) Actors in The Great Gatsby have more chemistry with the camera than with each other.  Leo DiCaprio has never looked better in this post-youthful charm stage of his career, yet his character, outside of his ability to host a part or two and flip hair off his brow, seems less than great.  Toby Maguire toes his own baby face line as Nick Carraway, the narrator and beleaguered guide, but seems at arms length from each of his co-stars and from the audience.  Carey Mulligan face glistens with technicolor majesty, yet her performance is the grey of a black and white filtered lens.  Luhrmann’s big bright, roarin’ world never feels quite real (but for the aforementioned hotel scene) when the fantasy is stripped away.

5) Once again, The Great Gatsby is a movie directed by Baz Luhrmann. Like several of his movies that have come before it, it has a promising and unique vision that doesn’t last as long as it takes to get used to it. If Baz commits fully, whether you like it or not, it is certainly a distinctive voice.  Unfortunately, he dives deep into Gatsby’s outdoor pool for only a few moments before quickly returning to the surface for some air. The audience either wants a longer swim or would prefer not have gotten wet in the first place.

5 Things, Features, Movies

5 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW: Star Trek Into Darkness

Leave a comment

When I see a movie in theaters, I will write the five things you need to know about it.

5 Things You Need to Know About… 

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

  1. Outside the context of the expansive (although not always universally inclusive) Star Trek universe and its many iterations as originally and thoughtfully conceived by Master Gene Roddenberry, Star Trek Into Darkness is a well-paced, well-performed, occasionally compelling, but often redundant summer action movie.  The J.J. Abrams brain trust (Damon Lindelof, Alex Kurtzman, Robert Orci) are on their game – the storytelling is considerate in conception (though not always in execution), lens flaring occurs, and Michael Giacchino does his thing scoring the action – but like the worst moments of Lost or of last summer’s Prometheus (also scribed by Lindelof), there is too much focus devoted to pleasing the fanboys and girls and too little focus to making the best possible stand alone movie.

  2. Inside the Stark Trek world of TV shows, movies, books, and dress-up conventions (I have been but a casual peruser over the years, not a true devotee), Star Trek Into Darkness is an average and uneventful Star Trek iteration that relies too heavily on the mostly empty allusions (Was a repeat of this really necessary?) to the past (but ironically future events in the timeline of the Kirk, Spock, and Co. narrative).  Yes, I enjoyed Karl Urban’s borderline caricature portrayal of Bones, but Doctor, please treat the screenplay’s a dozen too many uses of “Damn it, Jim!”  You will get more out of Star Trek Into Darkness if you have trekked a few times before, but if you have trekked before, you will be disappointed that you didn’t get more out of this installment.

  3. Spock is just an outstanding character and Zachary Quinto could not execute a better performance.  It is not easy to consistently nail the stoicism of this largely emotionless Vulcan yet simultaneously instill so much humanity.  Quinto manages to do both with an apparent ease.  I do wish there was more Spock speaking, considering, and deciding and less Spock fighting in entirely unnecessary climactic battles set against entirely unnecessary large set pieces.

  4. It is obvious that Benedict Cumberbatch (delightful and brilliant as ever) plays the bad guy in this movie, but his character’s true identity had been cloaked in old school, spoiler-alert proof M. Night Shyamalan secrecy during the endless prerelease press junket.  If you haven’t already heard who the artist sometimes known as Sherlock’s alter ego really is, let me tell you a secret: when you find out, it really doesn’t matter (and maybe it matters even less for devoted fanboys when all is said and done).  The (we were made to think) big reveal is already listed correctly on the IMDB character page.  (As a point of comparison, IMDB still lists Kevin Spacey as portraying Roger ‘Virbil’ Kint in The Usual Suspects.)  According to the Final Frontiersmen who will actually care about the true identity of John Harrison (as he is introduced when the movie begins), the Cumberbatch character in this movie was more interesting and compelling enough before the reveal and did not need to become mired in an ultimate and inevitable lackluster and unmaintainable comparison to an original version.  This part is another win for Cumberbatch, but his character’s inclusion is likely a slight loss for Stark Trek Into Darkness.

  5. To both the strange world of its most passionate fans and to the new world of the audience on a summer blockbuster viewing voyage, Star Trek Into Darkness does not boldly go where no movie has gone before.  Although it may entertain through a modern action movie lens flare, it does not have a deeper impact.

 

5 Things, Features, Movies

5 Things You Need to Know: Iron Man 3

Leave a comment

When I see a movie in theaters, I will write the five things you need to know about it.

5 Things You Need to Know About… 

IRON MAN 3

  1. Iron Man 3 accomplishes what it set out to do: to provide escapist, somewhat smart, summer action entertainment in the style and scope of the modern Marvel brand (see: Iron Man 1, The Avengers, Thor) and box office behemoth.  Robert Downey Jr. remains his ever enjoyable pithy deliverer of witty hubris, his toy collection and personal AI butler, Jarvis (Paul Bettany’s best work since A Beautiful Mind), is even more on (and really over) the cutting edge, and the action sequence direction has been seamlessly passed on to the more than capable hands of Shane Black who knows a thing or two about writing action movies (Jon Favreau was given the opportunity to exclusively focus on his acting chops as Happy, the one man wrecking ball of Tony Stark’s human security detail).  Although the box office ceiling may have no bounds (WOW!), the quality of movie ceiling is an enjoyable two hours of entertainment that will provide a worthwhile distraction that lasts only as long as the lights are dim in the theater.

  2. Sure, there may be some continuity benefit to having seen Iron Man 1 and Iron Man 2 and last summer’s The Avengers, but the serialized storytelling stakes are just not that high (I honestly barely remember any of the previous films or think they are necessary to understand a bigger Tony Stark character study).  Your Iron Man 3 experience will not be lessoned if this is your first movie from the Marvel film factory.

  3. If you have seen promos or trailers for Iron Man 3 (I admittedly mostly tuned them out each time they come up this past winter and fall), it would have been hard to miss the ethnically ambiguous main villain, the Mandarin, played by Sir Ben Kingsley.  I was skeptical of how this highly ornamented, time period confused, and seemingly lesser than bad guy would work.  Not only is Ben Kingsley my favorite part of Iron Man 3, his character may be my favorite and most unexpected creation in a Marvel Universe movie since all that was 2003’s exceptional X 2 (Iron Man comic book fans are apparently not as pleased with this Mandarin depiction that strays quite far from the source material).  This unorthodox version of the Mandarin made Iron Man 3 that much more fun.  On a semi-related note: I love how Robert Downey Jr. and Ben Kingsley bonded over their mutual admiration for Sir Richard Attenborough.  I also love how Sir Richard Attenborough has come up in the last two “5 Things You Need to Know” and the year is 2013.

  4. There is a post-credit scene at the end of the movie that, after a much too long closing credit/end titles sequence, is not worth staying for.  Whatever fleeting momentum the movie provides is lost by the time you get to see Tony Stark one more time.  For those of you who see this post-credit scene as an essential component of the Marvel movie experience, this scene is clever and even a bit comical, but does nothing to further connect Iron Man 3 to the greater Marvel universe.

  5. Despite record-breaking domestic and international box office returns, Iron Man 3 is not a pop culture moment, a cinematic touchstone, or even a “I have to see in theaters in order to hear what all the fuss is about” summer blockbuster.  Iron Man 3 is unapologetically an enjoyable escapist movie sequel that keeps you entertained and satisfied.  I have seen it, I had some fun, and now, like most other Marvel universe movies, I will soon forget about it.

5 Things, Features, Movies

5 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW: JURASSIC PARK 3D

1 Comment

When I see a movie in theaters, I will write the five things you need to know about it.

5 Things You Need to Know About… 

JURASSIC PARK 3D

1) Jurassic Park 3D is a movie that you must see in theaters.  I would be remiss not to provide some relevant background information about my JP history.  Although it is not my favorite movie (albeit solidly in my forever top ten), Jurassic Park is the most significant movie (and the experience that comes with it) of my cinematic lifetime.  In the summer of 1993, fresh off a dozen (I wish I were kidding) readings of Michael Crichton’s brilliant original work, I was a full-fledged devotee of the Jurassic Park phenomenon.  I intimately remember all four of my in theater viewings, especially the last one in September of 1994, a full year and a half after the original release, with my Dad at the Capitol Theatre in Arlington, a local throwback cinema that prides itself on its second and third run movie screening longevity (Back in 1994, it was not unusual for a movie like Jurassic Park to last in theaters for eighteen months.  In today’s “get it now on demand” viewing culture, this would be unheard of.)  During these beautiful and innocent few years, playing “live” Jurassic Park (with human raptors) was a near nightly occurrence in my “hearkening back to a simpler time” neighborhood.  I still know a preponderance of the dialogue (especially all of Ian Malcolm’s lines – “Must go faster!”) and cannot meet an Ian without immediately hearing “Ian, freeze!” or a Tim without immediately hearing “Tim, no Tim!” in my head, often to the bewilderment of the new person I have met suspicious of my noticeably distracted state of mind.  Action figure reenactments (Kenner: well done on dinosaurs, but questionable original work on the people characters) would span several yards outdoors or inhabit entire houses indoors.  October 4, 1994, the day of the original VHS release, was coined “Jurassic Park Day” by me and my neighborhood compadres and featured a formal agenda of several interactive JP iterations (action figures, live action, video games) topped off with a group viewing in the comfort (or in retrospect, it was quite uncomfortable on that scratchy rug we used to have) of my basement.  In later years, raptor voice and physical impersonations were standard fair during rehearsal breaks for my musical directing ventures in which I found new JP devotee people connections.  Clearly, Jurassic Park holds a special (a gross understatement) place in the younger version of myself’s heart (Who am I kidding?  This has not changed at all.)  Today’s viewing at the IMAX at Jordan’s Furniture in Natick was a special experience (when the “buttkickers” first kicked in with the opening score’s pounding moans, the butterflies of nostalgia went on high alert) that completely delivered.

2) Jurassic Park (3D) has aged well.  Steven Spielberg’s summer blockbuster, a pioneer picture for today’s now commonplace CGI laden movie, does not look like it was made in 1993 and rather appears much more real than your average CGI-infested wannabe of today.  The integration of CGI with the late great Stan Winston’s creature shop (a wise move, Master Spielberg) creates dinosaurs that live and breath as we imagine the real thing would have.  Yes, some of the dialogue and usage of computers (Lex’s pride about being a “hacker” or excitement over an interactive CD-ROM, Grant’s fear of computers, the entirety of Dennis Nedry’s workspace and Chicago font filled monitors – “Ah Ah Ah, you didn’t say the magic word!”) and the high rise on the female pants and shorts are more retro Real World than Real World: Portland, but this two decade distance does not detract from the viewing experience.  Jurassic Park’s suspenseful potency and visual mastery remain ever much the thrill ride it always was.

3) John Williams breathtaking score is such a massive strand of the DNA of this fantastic movie.  Several times during the viewing experience, the memorable score induced a pit of my stomach release or a plethora of goosebumps up and down my arm.  It is the best kind of movie score – the kind that does not leave you after the running time of the movie reaches its conclusion, but rather stays humming in your consciousness forever.  John Williams is the deliver of several such scores, but none creates the kind of raw emotional kinship as this one.

4) The 3D of Jurassic Park 3D really works, never feels forced or disparate with the intent of the original release, and enhances the picture to a whole new level of awesome.  Some of the movie’s most iconic visuals (the Brachiosaurus reveal, the helicopter flying over Isla Nublar main theme money shot, the T-Rex foot stomp) are that much better in 3D.  It speaks to Steven Spielberg’s original cinematography and his ability to give each shot such wonderful contrast and juxtaposition.

5) Once a movie (and one of the preeminent works in the history of the modern summer blockbuster), Jurassic Park must now be considered one of the best motion pictures of the last thirty years of cinema.  If you have never seen it, the loss has been yours, but you must see it in theaters now.  If you are like me and have such meaningful and lasting childhood memories of the world of Jurassic Park, don’t be so preoccupied with whether or not you could (go see it again), you need to stop and think because you should.

5 Things, Features, Movies

5 THINGS YOU NEED TO KNOW: Oz the Great and Powerful

Leave a comment

When I see a movie in theaters, I will write the five things you need to know about it.

5 Things You Need to Know About… 

OZ THE GREAT AND POWERFUL

I will preface this column by sharing that my relationship with the incredible and beautiful land of Oz and its many offshoots and stories goes way back.  Before I reached the age of 5, my mom had read me the 14 Oz books (I reread them myself at age 10) and they have since represented one of my most special and formative fantasy worlds I have ever experienced.  Both the 1939 motion picture classic and the hauntingly engrossing book-based sequel from Disney, Return to Oz, have an important place on my DVD shelf.  My dream directorial or producing project remains an HBO backed fantasy television series a la Game of Thrones that chronicles the brilliant ingenuity and lush storytelling of L. Frank Baum’s more than a dozen original books.  When I stepped into the snowed-in cinema last Friday afternoon on opening day of Oz the Great and Powerful, I was still so excited to be transported back to a world that I remember so fondly, despite the early reviews that had not treaded so favorably on this latest road of yellow brick incarnation.  Notwithstanding, I desperately wanted Oz to be both “great” and “powerful.”  Unfortunately, as you will read below, this was not the case.

1) Oz the Great and Powerful is neither a great nor powerful movie and is largely a waste of your viewing energy and time.  Despite depicting a fantastical world of flying talking monkeys (in this case they were mostly baboons), the wickedest of witches, and sights never before seen in the monotonous grey boredom of the state of Kansas, the land of Oz’s great power has always been in heart, soul, and emotional authenticity.  Yes, there is certainly a leap of logic when a lion or a scarecrow are able to speak to you, but once you spend a little time digging deeper into what is behind the mane or layer of straw (respectively), these characters have the same wants, desires, and feelings as you or I.  Oz the Great and Powerful is disappointingly emotionally inauthentic and largely without any real feeling.  Most core characters meander through this once (and too obviously and overall too fake) green screen world making decisions that have little to do with understandable motivations.  The central protagonist and antagonist conflict between James Franco’s Oz (more on him in a bit) and Mila Kunis‘ wicked witch-to-be resounds in a fantasy world of its own, mired in unbelievable action and reactions that leave the viewer caring less and less.  The stakes are low, the consequences don’t really seem to matter, and the land of Oz really feels like a dream that you immediately forget when you wake up.

2) After struggling to watch James Franco on screen for almost the entirety of the belabored more than two hours of movie run-time, I have come to a decision that I should have made a long time ago: I will no longer be attending James Franco movies.  A day after the movie release, vulture.com did a brilliant piece titled “What the critics said about James Franco as Oz” that expertly catalogues the many different ways critics said James Franco was a problem.  There are some great lines to pull-out (“Franco is, frankly, too callow, too feckless, too much the dude for this role” and “A flat, awkward central performance by James Franco), but no one characterizes his performance better perhaps than Keith Ullich from Time Out New York: “Franco is a distinctly uninspiring Oz, which works for the early scenes, but is near disastrous when he assumes his predestined roles of liberator, savior and big giant head. The actor’s two default modes—stoned indifference and performance-art aloofness—do not an invigorating leader make.”  That is just it.  James Franco spends the entirety of the movie aloof and distant, with a callow grin seemingly habitually painted on his face that gives out an “I don’t really care” aura.  Like his infamous Oscar co-hosting “performance,” Franco’s lack of interest is off-putting.  It is through this apathetic and hubris filled lens that we follow his Wizard of Oz character through what should be the most magnificent of worlds.  To Franco, it all seems kind of average and mundane and it subsequently leaves the audience with little reason to care.

3) Going in to the movie, I knew that my preconceptions about James Franco were going to be obstacles to overcome (and boy were my fears validated), but in considering the three women cast as the witches of Oz, I was genuinely excited.  Michelle Williams is a wonderful actress who never shies away from taking emotional risks (see Blue Valentine).  Mila Kunis has always been delightful to me and this became all the more true after watching this interview with Chris Stark from the BBC.  Rachel Weisz could very well be my answer to the question, “who is your favorite movie actress?”, and I usually cherish opportunities to watch her do her thing on screen, let alone in a world as personally beloved to me as Oz.  Unfortunately, all three witch performances were complete disappointments.  Michelle Williams plays Glinda as if she is still in role on the set of My Week with Marilyn and consequently comes across as a flighty ingenue without substance or strength.  Mila Kunis plays Theodora (SPOILER ALERT: the naive witch, who, over the course of the movie, improbably and irrationally becomes the iconic Wicked Witch of the West, green makeup and all) as a lifeless Audrey Hepburn fashion wannabe.  Her physical transformation is one thing, but Kunis’ attempt at a witch voice is the worst Christian Bale as Batman impersonation that you will ever hear.  Poor Rachel Weisz tries so hard to chew up the vast expansive space that the green screen behind her has so obviously fabricated, but even Rachel cannot hide some of her struggles with dialogue and motivation that mire her evil Evanora character.  I spent a little too much time wishing for Dorothy’s house to arrive and crush her ruby slipper adorned body.

4) It says something when the most authentic and relatable characters in the movie, Finley, the talking monkey voiced by Zach Braff, and China Girl, voiced by Joey King (who also played the young Marion Cotillard from the prison in The Dark Knight Rises), are both entirely CGI.  I actually cared about both of them and wished that they were not so compelled to follow the unlikeable Oz (as in Wizard of) along his uninspiring journey.

5) Oz the Great and Powerful is a movie without a soul that inspires little interest or intrigue, creates a fantasy world without depth or purpose, and leaves the viewer with every intention to just want to go no place but home.  Part of the land of Oz’s magic and mystique has always been its promise of adventure and discovery juxtaposed with the grey and bleak mundanity of everyday life, but in this iteration, the mundane is Oz, the character so poorly portrayed by James Franco and the green screen created land that he inhabits.