Cinemaniac Reviews

Give five minutes. Save two hours.

Archive for the category “Adventure”

16 Jun 2013
4 Comments

Rat Race

Review No. 499

Lungs hurting? Try laughing till you can’t feel your lungs.

B

DIRECTED BY JERRY ZUCKER.  PRODUCED BY JERRY ZUCKER, JANET ZUCKER, AND SEAN DANIEL.  WRITTEN BY ANDY BRECKMAN. STARRING JOHN CLEESE (DONALD P. SINCLAIR), BRECKIN MEYER (NICK SCHAFFER), AMY SMART (TRACY FAUCET), ROWAN ATKINSON (ENRICO POLLINI), CUBA GOODING JR. (OWEN TEMPLETON), WHOOPI GOLDBERG (VERA BAKER), SETH GREEN (DUANE CODY), VINCE VIELUF (BLAINE CODY), JON LOVITZ (RANDY PEAR), LANAI CHAPMAN (MERRILL JENNINGS), KATHY NAJIMY (BEV PEAR), DAVE THOMAS (GRISHAM), AND WAYNE KNIGHT (ZACK MALLOZZI). ALSO STARRING BRODY SMITH, JILLIAN MARIE HUBERT, PAUL RODRIGUEZ, DEAN CAIN, BRANDY LEDFORD, SILAS WEIR MITCHELL, COLLEEN CAMP, DEBORAH THEAKER, AND GLORIA ALLRED. DISTRIBUTED BY PARAMOUNT PICTURES ON AUGUST 17, 2001. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 1 HOUR, 52 MINUTES. RATED PG-13 BY THE MPAA, FOR SEXUAL REFERENCES, CRUDE HUMOR, PARTIAL NUDITY AND LANGUAGE.

RAT RACE WAS WATCHED ON JUNE 12, 2013.

Rat Race is a slapstick comedy from Jerry Zucker, part of the trio responsible for such classics as Airplane! and The Naked Gun. I must say, this is distinct proof that even without the involvement of the other two, his comic approach is magnificent, and he still has a great mind for goofy, yet memorable “guilty pleasure” movies. Rat Race has virtually all we could ask for in a movie of its kind. Save for Leslie Nielsen, but honestly, we can associate “Eet’s a race! Eet’s a race! I’m weenning!” with Rowan Atkinson, just as easily as we can associate “Don’t call me Shirley” with Nielsen.

¡Vaya! ¡Vaya! ¡Vaya!

¡Vaya! ¡Vaya! ¡Vaya!

And the movie is flawed, but the mistakes are the errors of general moviemaking, particularly in the 21st century. The one thing that sets Rat Race apart from Zucker’s previous comedies, is that it doesn’t seem to mock a slightly timeworn premise. Instead, it embraces it. The story here, as well as the idea of an ensemble cast, dates back to 1963, when It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World became a box office success. The story concerns eight different people who believe they’re going to Silver City, New Mexico, for the $2 million they won at a casino. But really, they’re being set up so that their mindless rat race can be bet on by a group of high rollers.

I’ll forgive Rat Race for the ending. It’s as if all those involved are saying, “The message here is, ‘movies are a great source for cash grab,’ so let’s feature a Smash Mouth cameo.” Why am I forgiving the movie? Because, other than that, there really isn’t anything cash grab about it. Yes, there are countless well-known comedians here. For some of them, this is just another more; for others, it’s a star vehicle; and for some, it’s a return to the screen. But for all of them, it’s a successfully humorous delivery, which is why Rat Race is a decent movie. It doesn’t often make sense, and it’s not supposed to. We learn that the characters have to go 563 miles from Vegas to reach their destination. 563 miles is damn good space for humor. We have a human heart thrown from an ambulance; a Jewish man taking his family to the Barbie museum, which turns out to be an exhibition about Nazi Klaus Barbie; two women tricked into driving into a near-death situation because they refused to buy a squirrel from a strange vagabond; a man who ends up driving a bus full of obnoxious I Love Lucy freaks.  I’ve spoiled these scenes by means of description.  Seeing them is where your lungs get a workout.

Enjoy my review? Please share it using one of the buttons below!
Posted in Adventure, Comedy, [Film Reviews] and tagged
14 Jun 2013
2 Comments

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Review No. 497

“Fantastic” film.

fantastic_mr_fox

A-PLUS

DIRECTED BY WES ANDERSON.  PRODUCED BY ANDERSON, ALLISON ABBATE, SCOTT RUDIN, AND JEREMY DAWSON.  SCREENPLAY BY ANDERSON & NOAH BAUMBACH. BASED ON “FANTASTIC MR FOX” BY ROALD DAHL. FEATURING THE VOICES OF GEORGE CLOONEY (MR. “FOXY” FOX), MERYL STREEP (MRS. FELICITY FOX), JASON SCHWARTZMAN (ASH FOX), BILL MURRAY (CLIVE BADGER), WILLEM DAFOE (RAT), AND OWEN WILSON (COACH SKIP). ALSO FEATURING THE VOICES OF ERIC CHASE ANDERSON, WALLACE WOLODARSKY, MICHAEL GAMBON, ROBIN HURLSTONE, HUGO GUINESS, HELEN McCRORY, JARVIS COCKER, BRIAN COX, ADRIEN BRODY, GARTH JENNINGS, WES ANDERSON, ROMAN COPPOLA, AND MARIO BATALI. DISTRIBUTED BY 20TH CENTURY FOX ON NOVEMBER 25, 2009. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 1 HOUR, 27 MINUTES. RATED PG BY THE MPAA, FOR ACTION, SMOKING, AND SLANG HUMOR.

FANTASTIC MR. FOX WAS WATCHED ON JUNE 10, 2013.

“Boggis, Bunce, and Bean
One fat, one short, one lean.
These horrible crooks,
so different in looks,
were nonetheless equally mean.”
–music and lyrics by Alexandre Desplat

Creative writing prompts are a matter of reusing and recycling; I think the one I land on the most happens to be: “Choose two different people from two different periods of time. Let them have a conversation with one another. What does one person say, and how does the other react?” The next time I face this prompt, I shall write a response concerning Roald Dahl and Wes Anderson. The problem I’ll run into is the time constraint. These two would sit around all day and not notice sunrise become midnight. You just can’t condense a high-spirited conversation the length of ten, elaborate novels, into a three-page short story.

ashfoxandkylie

From a “West Side Story”-esque scene – the Foxes vs. the Humans.

The animated comedy at hand is tremendously enjoyable for all ages. Wes Anderson has always been fond of expressing stories with adult humor and youthful attitudes, but he’s never been able to channel his work to both parties, due to the inhibitions of the R rating. Fantastic Mr. Fox is rated PG, and in almost every scene, there’s a melodic balance in humor. Anthropomorphism is outstandingly realized. One of my personal favorite moments was a rather fleeting instance: it’s funny for both young and older audiences when Kylie the Opossum starts playing the piano. One age group would laugh at the thought that an opossum can actually tickle the ivories; the other age group would find it amusing that an opossum is able to serenade his critter family as if he were George Gershwin.

My theory is, these five seconds were a subtextual cameo of Anderson’s. If there’s anyone who can adapt Roald Dahl’s work, it’s Wes Anderson. Henry Selick, Danny DeVito, and Tim Burton have all tried and failed. Proverbially, they knew the notes, they just couldn’t play the music. Anderson doesn’t just play the music, he plays it like George Gershwin. It’s been a while since I’ve read Dahl’s book, so I can’t say so for sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if along the way, Anderson gave the notes a little twist. A twist that would make even Roald Dahl smile and remark, “Why didn’t I think of that?”

Warm Bodies

Enjoy my review? Please share it using one of the buttons below!
Posted in Adventure, Animation, Comedy, Family, [Film Reviews] and tagged
13 Jun 2013
2 Comments

Spirited Away

Review No. 496

A movie for all ages, and for THE ages.

spirited_away

A

WRITTEN & DIRECTED BY HAYAO MIYAZAKI. PRODUCED BY TOSHIO SUZUKI. FEATURING THE VOICES OF RUMI HIIRAGI (CHIHIRO OGINO), MIYU IRINO (HAKU/SPIRIT OF THE KOHAKU RIVER), MARI NATSUKI (YUBABA / ZENIBA), TAKASHI NAITO (AKIHIKO OGINO), YASUKO SAWAGUCHI (YUMIKO OGINO), TSUNEHIKO KAMIJŌ (CHICHIYAKU), TAKEHIKO ONO (ANIYAKU), AND BUNTA SUGAWARA (KAMAJII). ALSO FEATURING THE VOICES OF YUMI TAMAI, RYUNOSUKE KAMIKI, AND AKIO NAKAMURA. ENGLISH DUBBING FEATURES THE VOICES OF DAVEIGH CHASE, JASON MARSDEN, SUZANNE PLESHETTE, MICHAEL CHIKLIS, LAUREN HOLLY, RODGER BUMPASS, JOHN RATZENBERGER, AND DAVID OGDEN STIERS; AS WELL AS THOSE OF SUSAN EGAN, TARA STRONG, AND BOB BERGEN. DISTRIBUTED BY WALT DISNEY PICTURES ON JULY 20, 2001. PRODUCED IN JAPANESE BY JAPAN. RUNS 2 HOURS, 4 MINUTES. RATED PG BY THE MPAA, FOR SOME SCARY MOMENTS.

SPIRITED AWAY WAS WATCHED ON JUNE 8, 2013.

“Once you do something, you never forget. Even if you can’t remember.” –Zeniba (Japanese: Mari Natsuki / English: Suzanne Pleshette)

There’s an adage that if something can go wrong, it will. Spirited Away is a tale that presents this perfectly. Young Chihiro is instinctive, but she’s also shy. She’s moving into a new house, and as soon as she opens the car door to get out, she’s petrified with fear. Her parents’ one mistake is in dismissing this as pure shyness. They proceed to an abandoned carnival, notice food, and eat it. They’ve been corrupted by their own greed so much that they don’t even notice how the food is so hot in a carnival so deserted. They are transformed into swine, and in order for them to change back, Chihiro is sent to work herself to the bone in a bathhouse, run by spirits who could care for nothing more than to get their grubby paws on some money. Chihiro is able to forgive her parents for betraying her, only because she is devoted to them. But is it possible that one little girl can use devotion as a weapon against greed, the single driving force that motivates the hundreds that now surround her?

spirited-away-large-picture-1

Miyazaki has an imagination, and he isn’t afraid to use it.

The ending is a dead giveaway. It’s in getting there that an unpredictable beauty takes over. Hayao Miyazaki’s Spirited Away is a brilliant “good vs. evil” fable. The story takes the fantasy genre and does it inside-out, similarly to how Guillermo del Toro constructed his Pan’s Labyrinth. This is, in fact, the exact opposite of Pan’s Labyrinth. That film featured a young girl who used her dream world as an escape from her father, a fascist World War II captain, and ended up getting the two worlds dangerously confused. Spirited Away concerns a girl whose reality becomes a world full of nightmares, which she must escape in order to return to her parents.

Spirited Away is either a wholesome film in the costume of a horror movie, or a horror movie in the costume of a completely wholesome film. I’m flummoxed as to which of the two it is, but I’m sure that this is a movie that has touches of both tameness and horror. Hayao Miyazaki proves flawlessly that it’s possible to craft reality out of a fantastical anime. The dangers Chihiro encounters aren’t accessible, but the one fear she has is one that every human has. You could say Spirited Away is more accessible to children who cannot afford to lose their parents, to which I’d argue that there’s someone, something, or some concept in your own life that you can’t possibly separate yourself from. I first watched Spirited Away when I was in the fifth grade, and it struck an emotional chord for me. Although the one this time was an emotional chord of a different pitch, it was just as strong.

Fantastic Mr. Fox

Enjoy my review? Please share it using one of the buttons below!
Posted in Adventure, Animation, Family, Fantasy, [Film Reviews] and tagged
25 May 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness

Review No. 482

Beam my thumbs up.

star_trek_into_darkness_ver3_xlg

B

DIRECTED BY J. J. ABRAMS. PRODUCED BY ABRAMS, BRYAN BURK, DAMON LINDELOF, ALEX KURTZMAN, AND ROBERTO ORCI. WRITTEN BY ORCI, KURTZMAN, AND LINDELOF. BASED ON “STAR TREK” BY GENE RODDENBERRY. STARRING CHRIS PINE (COMMANDER/CAPTAIN JAMES T. KIRK), ZACHARY QUINTO (FIRST OFFICER SPOCK), ZOË SALDANA (LIEUTENANT NYOTA UHURA), BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH (COMMANDER JOHN HARRISON), KARL URBAN (LIEUTENANT COMMANDER DR. LEONARD “BONES” McCOY), JOHN CHU (LIEUTENANT HIKARU SULU), ALICE EVE (DR. CAROL MARCUS/SCIENCE OFFICER CAROL WALLACE), BRUCE GREENWOOD (REAR ADMIRAL CHRISTOPHER PIKE), SIMON PEGG (LIEUTENANT COMMANDER MONTGOMERY “SCOTTY” SCOTT), PETER WELLER (STARFLEET ADMIRAL ALEXANDER MARCUS), AND ANTON YELCHIN (ENSIGN PAVEL CHEKOV). ALSO STARRING NOEL CLARKE, NAZNEEN CONTRACTOR, JOSEPH GATT, ANJINI TANEJA AZHAR, NOLAN NORTH, SEAN BLAKEMORE, AND HEATHER LANGENKAMP. FEATURING A CAMEO APPEARANCE BY LEONARD NIMOY. DISTRIBUTED BY PARAMOUNT PICTURES ON MAY 16, 2013. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH AND KLINGON BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 2 HOURS, 13 MINUTES. RATED PG-13 BY THE MPAA, FOR INTENSE SEQUENCES OF SCI-FI ACTION AND VIOLENCE.

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS WAS WATCHED ON MAY 19, 2013.

“KHAAANNNN!” –Captain Kirk

In 2009, director J. J. Abrams struck gold with his Star Trek reboot. His intent was to reinvent Gene Roddenberry’s classic world in a way that would market to virtually everyone, while still maintaining the lighthearted corn that any Star Trek fans love. It’s difficult to do, especially when the series has been ripped apart by skeptics and beaten down to the pulp of a clichéd hand salute, a tall-faced guy with pointed ears, and a Scandinavian bloke named Scotty who “beams people up.” But Abrams tackled it in that effort four years ago, and since then we’ve all awaited Star Trek Into Darkness–every purist as well as every fan of the original work.

And now it’s finally come. If you’re expecting something just as good, or even better, you’ll be disappointed. Into Darkness is a significant step down from its dynamic older brother. But it’s undeniable this sequel is exciting. If you enjoy a good CGI scene every now and then, you’re in for a real treat here. I might as well mention that if you enjoy science fiction in general, you’re in for another as far as story is concerned.

movies_star-trek-into-darkness

You know it’s just for entertainment value when a bikini-clad actress randomly appears like so.

Again, forget that this is the Star Trek with a morbidly obsessive cult following. In fact, forget that it’s a sequel to J. J. Abrams’s 2009 work. You could walk into the theater and find every reason to be entertained, regardless of whether you’ve watched the predecessor. Dialogue is hysterically written, with great “odd couple” chemistry between Captain Kirk (Chris Pine) and Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto). Their banter is impeccably delivered. Star Trek Into Darkness presents its own story so that we can embrace it, no matter how much we know about the series beyond its obvious clichés.

I’m not sure what to say about the plot itself, though. It seems cohesive, but it’s struggling to Super Glue five different subplots together; by the time the fifth is introduced, J. J. Abrams is searching for cement to stick it all together, while the story drags. First it’s Spock refusing to be saved from a volcano, afraid of being exposed to the enemy Klingon race. Next it’s Uhura’s banter with Spock, who is her love interest. Then it’s Kirk’s concern with Spock’s lack of emotion, a trait that is natural to the half-Vulcan in him. Then it’s seventy-two photon torpedoes. By the time Khan was introduced, I was beginning to check my watch.

I’ve tried not to spoil anything too big. All of the aforementioned barely lead up to the ending. And no, the climactic scenes aren’t particularly involving, but once Abrams has a grasp on the ending, he’s prepared to surprise us. Star Trek Into Darkness is a good movie, to put it in simplest terms. Yes, these characters are, essentially, uptight space cowboys, but the one benefit of the intertwined story lines is that we begin to care about them deeply. There’s a scene in which Spock and Kirk have their hands pressed together, with only a glass door to separate them. Scenes like these are the ones that are downright clichés in any movie, but director Abrams and writers Orci, Kurtzman, and Lindelof still have a way to make them emotionally powerful. Thus Star Trek Into Darkness isn’t just a fun action movie. It’s that too, but if you were to not notice the dramatic depth, it would be because you simply wouldn’t be watching the movie.

“Fascinating.” –Mr. Spock

Pretty in Pink

Posted in Action, Adventure, Science Fiction, [Film Reviews] and tagged | Leave a Comment
07 May 2013
4 Comments

The Fugitive

Review No. 465

The perfect blend of action and drama.

fugitive_ver2

A

DIRECTED BY ANDREW DAVIS. SCREENPLAY BY JEB STUART AND DAVID TWOHY. STORY BY TWOHY. BASED ON “THE FUGITIVE” BY ROY HUGGINS. STARRING HARRISON FORD (DR. RICHARD KIMBLE) AND TOMMY LEE JONES (DEPUTY MARSHAL SAMUEL GERARD). ALSO STARRING ANDREAS KATSULAS, DANIEL ROEBUCK, JEROEN KRABBÉ, JOE PANTOLIANO, JOSEPH KOSALA, JULIANNE MOORE, L. SCOTT CALDWELL, RON DEAN, SELA WARD, AND TOM WOOD. DISTRIBUTED BY WARNER BROS. ON AUGUST 6, 1993. PRODUCED IN ENGLISH BY THE UNITED STATES. RUNS 2 HOURS, 10 MINUTES. RATED PG-13 BY THE MPAA, FOR A MURDER AND OTHER ACTION SEQUENCES IN AN ADVENTURE SETTING.

THE FUGITIVE WAS WATCHED ON APRIL 21, 2013.

“I don’t care!” –Samuel Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones)

Harrison Ford is one of the toughest badasses around Hollywood. The majority of action heroes would beg for a stunt double. More often than not, he requests that he do it all himself, regardless of whether smashing his face and limbs against glass will require surgery. Most commonly, it’s been a mere excuse to make a great popcorn flick, but in The Fugitive, he does it all to exhibit his character’s determination.

The Fugitive is fuel for the heart, be it for adrenaline or strong emotion. Ironically enough, its protagonist, Dr. Richard Kimble (Harrison Ford), is a cardiologist. Beyond that, he’s just a man, a good Samaritan. But he’s lost his honor: he has been accused of his wife’s brutal murder. Now he has been dubbed a fugitive, while he actually has set out to find the man who did kill his wife. Kimble is the ideal character to root for, unless you simply couldn’t stand Atticus Finch (To Kill a Mockingbird) or Lester Burnham (American Beauty)–similar characters who go through hell to prove their innocence and devotion.

On the other end is the man chasing him: Deputy Marshal Samuel Gerard (Tommy Lee Jones). It is apparent that his character was written with inspiration from Inspector Javert from Les Misérables; Gerard is the perfect replication, only brought to greater heights by Jones’s tour de force performance. We don’t mind the character at first. He’s just doing his job, right? Yes, but he does it to exemplify his authority, not to support the community. He seems more and more detestable as the story proceeds; it’s almost impossible to notice the moment he has a change of heart.

I truly enjoyed The Fugitive. The film is an adaptation of a 1960s TV series; simply put, I cannot imagine this much depth on television of any age. The film does go a bit over the top with improbability. Our hero barely makes it out of a bus before a train wrecks it; he also jumps a waterfall to avoid being arrested…and survives. But where is plausibility in the action genre? I don’t know about you, but I think if I identify any scene as unforgettable, it’s the climactic scenes. I don’t remember the last time I held my breath for so long.

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

Saving Private Ryan

Posted in Action, Adventure, Drama, Thriller, [Film Reviews] and tagged
05 Apr 2013

What’s New Pussycat

Review No. 450

If I had just watched it, I wouldn’t be drawing such a blank on “What’s New”.

whats_new_pussycat

Directed by: Clive Donner
Written by: Woody Allen
Dr. Fritz Fassbender: Peter Sellers
Michael James: Peter O’Toole
Carol Werner: Romy Schneider
Renée Lefebvre: Capucine
Liz Bien: Paula Prentiss
Victor Shakapopulis: Woody Allen
Rita: Ursula Andress
Also Starring: Annette Poivre, Barbara Somers, Daniel Emilfork, Edra Gale, Eléonore Hirt, Françoise Hardy, Howard Vernon, Jacqueline Fogt, Jacques Balutin, Jean Parédès, Jess Hahn, Katrin Schaake, Michel Subor, Nicole Karen, Robert Rollis, Sabine Sun, Tanya Lopert

Distributed by United Artists on June 2, 1965. Produced in English by France and the United States. Runs 108 mins. Not rated by the MPAA.

What’s New Pussycat was watched on March 9, 2013.

“I’ll be back tomorrow. If I’m not back tomorrow, send for the police. If they’re not back tomorrow, send my clothes.” –Michael James (Peter O’Toole)

With the notable exceptions of Dr. Strangelove and the Inspector Clouseau canon, Peter Sellers is the “disposable comic.” His films never show marks of brilliance, and they’re difficult to remember by name, but they’re all fairly decent farces.

You might think otherwise about What’s New Pussycat, knowing of its writer. Woody Allen made his writing debut here. Yes, the same Woody Allen who wrote directed the more dramatic comedies Annie Hall and Manhattan. It wasn’t until around the mid-1970s that Allen departed from his initial style: slapstick. And yes, some of these era flicks are, nonetheless, brilliant fun. Watch Sleeper or Bananas for immediate proof. Allen’s writing makes no change to a typical Sellers comedy, shallow but adequately humorous.

What’s New Pussycat is a grab bag of jokes that disguises itself amid no true plot. The film begins with the outlook for a tale that intertwines two similar stories connected by one character (Sellers), both tales of a man (O’Toole and Allen) and his respective search for love. The story quickly fades away, unless you can possibly follow its wild, ADHD pacing. Certain events could be highlighted, but how they come to be is practically a mystery.

Contrary to what you might expect, What’s New Pussycat does offer one genuine surprise. A film like this isn’t one that would be marked with superior acting–no matter who is in it–but Peter O’Toole and Woody Allen both perform solidly, the latter in his onscreen debut. The film may not having been quite as amusing without them, because we have seen it all before. I enjoyed this wild, nonsensical romp while it lasted. I guarantee you will too, so long as you enjoy the lighthearted, giddy humor. If you’re looking for something that will stick with you, though, you may as well pass on What’s New Pussycat.

B MINUS

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

Broadcast News

Posted in Adventure, Comedy, [Film Reviews] and tagged | Leave a Comment
03 Apr 2013
8 Comments

Oz the Great and Powerful

Review No. 448

Same wizard, same Oz, better visuals, new generation.

oz_the_great_and_powerful_ver5

Directed by: Sam Raimi
Screenplay by: David Lindsay-Abaire and Mitchell Kapner
Based on: the “Oz” series by L. Frank Baum
Oscar “Oz” Diggs: James Franco
Theodora: Mila Kunis
Evanora: Rachel Weisz
Glinda, the Good Witch of the South: Michelle Williams
Annie: Michelle Williams
Finley the Flying Monkey (voice): Zach Braff
Master Tinkerer: Bill Cobbs
China Girl (voice): Joey King
Also Starring: Abigail Spencer, Bruce Campbell, Ted Raimi, Tim Holmes

Distributed by Walt Disney Pictures on March 8, 2013. Produced in English by the United States. Runs 130 mins. Rated PG by the MPAA–scary moments, infrequent violence, infrequent/mild language.

Oz the Great and Powerful was watched on March 8, 2013.

“There’s no place like home; there’s no place like home; there’s no place like home…” –Dorothy Gail (Judy Garland) in The Wizard of Oz

It’s not really fitting to say that Oz the Great and Powerful is a useless prequel to 1939′s The Wizard of Oz. L. Frank Baum wrote fourteen “Oz” books between 1900 and 1919, and since then, countless others have expanded the universe dramatically. By this point, it’s surprising we haven’t had a direct Wizard of Oz lead-in already.

Sam Raimi’s movie, in fact, does what every prequel sets up to do: tell a story that gives more detail about the characters. The problem is, the Wizard of Oz is only a mentioned name until the last ten minutes of Victor Fleming’s 1939 classic. He enjoys a brief onscreen appearance, leading to an ending that is spoiled within the first three minutes of Oz the Great and Powerful.

We’re talking about a horse of a different color. Not just a prequel, but something of a quasi-remake feel. Oz is, as well, an update for children who cannot possibly sit through a melodrama like the one it precedes. It takes that story, imagines the Wizard in Dorothy’s place, removes any subtlety in the entire message (“be yourself and stay faithful to your friends”), and unknowingly adds frivolous humor left and right. If you ask me, it’s a pretty lazy attempt at screenwriting. I guarantee, however, that your little cousin would strongly beg to differ.

Oz makes passing nods to the timeless work from which it uproots. Oscar Diggs, known by his illusionist stage name “Oz the Great and Powerful,” is blown away in a tornado to a land he never would have dreamed of. There are three witches among the land–one good, the other two wicked. One of the wicked witches must be destroyed in order for the arrogant, egocentric Oz to be appointed king, and to prove that he has been sent to save the Emerald City. But when Oz left Kansas, he was known only as a conman. When that’s all the respect he has for himself, how is he going to earn the trust of an entire nation?

What saves Oz is the visuals. I wouldn’t recommend watching the movie. If I simply can’t convince you and you’re dying to see it in theaters, I’d suggest going for the most Oztentatious approach. The film is incredible in 3-D. Sometimes it can make a show of itself and it’s difficult to care. The film opens in black and white (an homage to the initial work, which commenced in sepia tone) in a 4:3 aspect ratio. When Oz reaches the Utopia, there is a stunning burst of color and a slow shift to standard widescreen.

I would call this sort of eye candy mind-blowing, but nothing else about Oz the Great and Powerful even comes close. All right, James Franco was sturdy in the title role. And the ending was acceptable. Mila Kunis isn’t half bad during the first half, though I’d rather not mention any offenses she threw at L. Frank Baum’s land after her transformation into the maniacal, green-faced witch.

My main problem, near the ending, was that I was beginning to fidget in my seat like a young child. I don’t know if it’s because I’ve seen The Wizard of Oz too many times and thus found this prequel predictable, or that the film was just poorly written. It’s easy to say that neither is a tolerable result.

C PLUS

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

My Left Foot

Posted in Adventure, Family, Fantasy, [Film Reviews] and tagged
27 Mar 2013
7 Comments

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2

Review No. 442

Good news: It’s over. Bad news: See below.

twilight_saga_breaking_dawn__part_two_ver7_xlg-690x1024

Directed by: Bill Condon
Screenplay by: Melissa Rosenberg and Stephenie Meyer
Based on: “Breaking Dawn” by Stephenie Meyer
Bella Swan: Kristen Stewart
Edward Cullen: Robert Pattinson
Jacob Black: Taylor Lautner
Also Starring: Ashley Greene, Billy Burke, Christopher Heyerdahl, Dakota Fanning, Elizabeth Reaser, Jackson Rathbone, Jamie Campbell Bower, Kellan Lutz, Mackenzie Foy, Maggie Grace, Michael Sheen, Nikki Reed, Peter Facinelli

Distributed by Summit Entertainment on November 16, 2012. Produced in English by the United States. Runs 115 mins. Rated PG-13 by the MPAA–violence, infrequent sexual situations, infrequent/brief nudity.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2 was watched on March 3, 2013.

“About three things I was absolutely positive. First, Edward was a vampire. Second, there was a part of him-and I didn’t know how potent that part might be-that thirsted for my blood. And third, I was unconditionally and irrevocably in love with him.” –Twilight by Stephenie Meyer

The good news: the Twilight saga has earned its stars enough dough to retire right now. That means, perhaps these ex-vampires and ex-werewolves can stop lazily bleeding/drooling over Hollywood. That means, maybe the solitude of their own mansions would delight them just as much as their absence from the silver screen would delight us. The bad news: they won’t retire. Sorry to burst your bubble.

The idea of splitting Stephenie Meyer’s Breaking Dawn into two separate films seemed like a cash grab upon my viewing of Part 1, back in 2011. It’s interesting, for lack of a better word, to think that no one in the film industry would pick up the novel itself and realize how uneventfully everything plays out. It’s just an egregious soap opera with three back-to-back narrations. Whereas the first three books were huge elaborations on love, this one has three events, which can be labelled just as shallowly as they are explained/rambled about: marriage, pregnancy, protecting the offspring. The entire novel, as I recall it, could fit well into a ninety-minute feature film. But these producers, they just figure, it’s over seven-hundred pages, so why not split it in two? And now the book marks a total of almost four hours onscreen. Bad acting abounds to try and keep you awake, as does a screenwriter who rusts in so much cornball dialogue, it’s almost certain she hates the series.

Part 1 found Edward and Bella newlywed and unable to take their hands off each other. The interspecies mating (that is, vampire-to-human) causes Bella to become pregnant with a half-human-half-vampire breed. And now he must save her from some sort of strange, possessive, vampiric STD she has acquired. And that’s all there really is to any sort of plot.

In Part 2, Bella is a “newborn,” or a being who has recently endured a transformation from human to vampire. That’s all I can really say of the story, if there was one. Oh yeah, and Bella watches her baby Renesmée mature rapidly, as the Volturi try and kidnap the child.

Breaking Dawn – Part 2 is, under my impression, one of the most elongated ways to say “Life goes on.” Part 1 came so close to reaching the two-hour mark, which all of its predecessors had significantly succeeded.

Just on the way to getting there, Part 2 dies hard. The movie ends up with 115 minutes to use against its innocent audience. A disambiguation of this record short length brings several useless bits that makes the movie feel twice as long. A two-minute CGI opening credits sequence (which wasn’t that bad, but could have been spared). At least nine minutes of closing credits. A grotesquely extended finale that features a montage for the Twihards (still, I’d estimate about 60-70% of them would still be awake by this point). A routine, twenty-minute battle scene featuring the offings of several characters, if you can follow the hyperkinetic camerawork. And to top it all off, one of the most absurdly angled love scenes since the dreamlike one in Fight Club (which was computer generated, for that matter).

I’m not sure how well this follows the novel, since that has left my memory as well, but from what I’ve heard, there are several additives and alterations. All this delivered by “actors” and “actresses” who, although clearly stupid, know how to carry out one common but unpunished crime: that a typical Hollywood audience is the easiest bank to rob.

Proof: Breaking Dawn – Part 2 warranted the eighth largest opening weekend. During its 101 days plaguing the cinema, it managed to roll in nearly $850 million. That’s a lot of people begging for their money back. Worse, Lincoln opened the same day, and I’m not sure how many of those had time and money to fit in a viewing of that dozen-Oscar nominee.

Visuals aside (why is it that this is Hollywood’s easiest means of waking us all up, yet it’s so damn time-consuming a process?), there are two upsides to this production. One: it’s instantly forgettable. It’s so boring that you often forget you were watching it, and the easiest sequences to think back to are those that evoke laughter. For those who have not acquainted with the saga, there are quite a few.

Two (and this one’s slight!): the film’s producers can finally call themselves award-winners. In fact, I’m not sure why “MOVIE OF THE YEAR” hasn’t been branded across the Blu-Ray design. Probably because it hit home video before winning the Golden Raspberry for Worst Picture. Some films that garner that recognition are truly awful but easy to enjoy for their guilty pleasure. Not here. The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2, like its title, is long, plodding, and a waste of time to try and finish.

D MINUS

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

Undefeated

Posted in Adventure, Drama, Fantasy, Romance, [Film Reviews] and tagged
26 Mar 2013
2 Comments

The Golden Compass

Review No. 441

I’ve got so many “Golden” puns…but none fit.

golden_compass

Directed by: Chris Weitz
Screenplay by: Chris Weitz
Based on: “Northern Lights” by Philip Pullman
Mrs. Coulter: Nicole Kidman
Lee Scoresby: Sam Elliott
Serafina Pekkala: Eva Green
Lyra Belacqua: Dakota Blue Richards
Lord Asriel: Daniel Craig
Featuring the Voices of: Freddie Highmore, Ian McKellen, Ian McShane, Kathy Bates, Kristin Scott Thomas
Also Starring: Ben Walker, Christopher Lee, Clare Higgins, Derek Jacobi, Edward de Souza, Jack Shepherd, Jim Carter, Magda Szubanski, Simon McBurney, Tom Courtenay

Distributed by New Line Cinema on December 7, 2007. Produced in English by the United Kingdom. Runs 113 mins. Rated PG-13 by the MPAA–violence.

The Golden Compass was watched on February 24, 2013.

“Then staid the fervid wheels, and in his hand
He took the golden compasses, prepared
In God’s eternal store, to circumscribe
This universe, and all created things:
One foot he centered, and the other turned
Round through the vast profundity obscure”
–Paradise Lost; book 7, lines 224-229

My first impressions of The Golden Compass were that it would be like C.S. Lewis’s “Chronicles of Narnia” as re-imagined by a bleeding-heart atheist (author Philip Pullman). I had decided that as far as characters, I could’ve been correct with my prediction. It just so happens that the two standout performances are from Nicole Kidman as Mrs. Coulter (a reminder of the White Witch) and Ian McKellen as the voice of Iorek Byrnison (an armored polar bear who almost precisely parallels Aslan the Lion). But other than this, I finished the viewing with no real certainty as to how correct my theory was.

From just about everything I’ve heard, Philip Pullman’s Northern Lights is a very complex read. I have no problem with a screenplay that simplifies jumbled material, if “jumbled” would be a fair word to use. But if writer-director Chris Weitz thinks this is what “simplification” looks like, I implore him to go to the library one day when he has time and check out the dictionary. Not that I endorse the “art” of mockery, but I think the man should feel very insulted if he knows that the credits began with “Screenplay by Chris Weitz.” I had to assure myself it wasn’t intended as a joke.

The Golden Compass is a visual CliffsNotes, except worse. Rather than giving key information to freshen the memory, it takes a random 75% of story and doesn’t explain much of it at all. Oh wait, there’s that one scene in the very beginning that gives us a brief rundown of what’s about to happen. It’s a very fleeting sequence and doesn’t manage to stay in one’s mind for more than five minutes; having never read the book, much of the film seemed to me like an inside joke.

I’m not saying The Golden Compass doesn’t have a good story. If it weren’t for my eleven-year-old sister, who had recently read the novel, I wouldn’t have gotten the story and known that it is, in fact, interesting. She paused 35 minutes through and took less than two minutes to explain every bit of necessary detail about what had happened and was happening at the moment. Hmm. Before sitting down in front of The Golden Compass, I could’ve sworn the film was at least two hours long. It’s not, but it should have been, and I would have taken it at that length in a heartbeat.

Our story concerns a young girl—Lyra, portrayed almost carelessly by Dakota Blue Richards—who is given a fascinating compass that “tells the truth.” With her cute animal companion, she delves into a deep, dark, forbidden secret known only as “Dust”…but the society is not allowed to speak even that name. I enjoyed the irony of it all. The title comes from John Milton’s Paradise Lost, and like that story, The Golden Compass features protagonists that are pure evil (a human in a pair with an animal sidekick is known as a “Daemon”); they prove consistently remiss to what we later discover to be “the good side”—the powerful, bright force known dubiously as “Dust.” I’m convinced this was all from Pullman’s novel, because if I know the name Chris Weitz as the one who went on to direct equally forgettable works The Twilight Saga: New Moon and A Better Life, he couldn’t dream of “pulling” off symbolism as dynamically as that. But this is aimed at younger audiences. Remove about forty seconds near the end and the film would fare for an easy and arguably mild PG rating. I’m not sure even the most astute child prodigy would pick up on something so subtle.

The Golden Compass is watchable for one minute reason: its visuals. These are dazzling, and I’m not afraid to say it. Sometimes it’s not too easy to tell how ADHD the plot is, because every setting—be it a metropolis, a ship, a ghost town, or the arctic—is beautifully designed and magnificently captured. I was very satisfied to see a polar bear earn at least half the movie because just that computer generation stole its scenes. As mentioned, Ian McKellen is memorable voicing him as well—but what happened to actual actors stealing their scenes?

At least two actors were there for clearly no other justification than a good old-fashioned cash grab: Daniel Craig, who had just been brought to maximum fame by Casino Royale, and superior movie veteran Christopher Lee. I kept waiting to see Craig do something useful, even if it wasn’t James Bond-esque, and I almost forgot he was there. Similarly, Christopher Lee should have had a huge name to this movie; both he and The Golden Compass have “dark” tattooed inside their veins. Maybe this was the root of my disappointment. Oh who am I kidding. It was a disappointment of equal contributions.

C

TOMORROW, ON CINEMANIAC REVIEWS…

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 2

Posted in Adventure, Fantasy, [Film Reviews] and tagged
23 Mar 2013
4 Comments

Alone in the Dark

Day Thirteen of the Two-Week Torturefest

I know I’m “Alone in the Dark” with no one to agree with me, but this one was so bad, it was actually kinda good.

Day Fourteen - Alone in the Dark

Directed by: Uwe Boll
Written by: Elan Mastai and Michael Roesch & Peter Scheerer
Based on: the video game Alone in the Dark by Infogrames and Krisalis
Edward Carnby: Christian Slater
Aline Cedrac: Tara Reid
Cmdr. Richard Burke Stephen Dorff

Distributed by Lionsgate Films on January 28, 2005. Produced in English by Germany and Canada. Runs 96 minutes. Rated R by the MPAA–graphic sci-fi violence, profanity, infrequent sexual situations.

Alone in the Dark was watched on December 27, 2012.

“This doesn’t make any sense.” –Cmdr. Richard Burke (Stephen Dorff)

(Editor’s note: Well said, but that’s what’s to love about it.)

Leave it to Uwe Boll to give Ed Wood credibility. At least Wood knew what he was doing with his films that made them so awful. Uwe Boll doesn’t, taking the “dramatic depth of a video game” cliché to the extreme, and directing a film career of almost entirely video game basis.

Alone in the Dark was his 2005 threat. It’s almost impressive how abysmal this film is, so much that it’s fun to watch crash into trees like a plane with a delirious pilot. Delirium seems to be Uwe Boll’s middle name here, to use one of the few movie clichés he doesn’t address.

Alone in the Dark carries an a plot that required almost no thought. The story is of evil spirits which are resurrected in the 21st century by archaeologists who get their hands on a strange fossil. Or something like that.

It has been in hibernation since 1962, after the legacy of a tribe last seen 10,000 years ago was demolished. Or something like that.

All of a sudden, these demons head toward an orphanage, attack all the little children, and turn them into black, muddy, hideous creatures, who terrorize their town. Or something like that.

I don’t know about you, but as I think this, I imagine Gremlins. You feed a Mogwai after midnight, it turns into a Gremlin. Similarly, you let a group of archaeologists get their hands on a rock no one’s dared to touch for over four decades…well, you’re dead.

The only flaw that actually makes Alone in the Dark difficult to watch at times is the pacing. Much of the latter half vacillates from so bad it’s good, to so bad it’s just boring. Everything else makes it a mindless guilty pleasure. Let’s run through those jawbreaking missteps, shall we?

- The characters carry semiautomatic weapons and don’t know how to shoot them. I don’t know how to use a gun, but you don’t swing the weapon around like a drunken idiot as you fire. It’s amazing the heroes never kill each other by mistake.

- In one scene, an archaeologist approaches a nun, who has her arm around the shoulder of a teenager girl wearing a shirt that cuts off a few inches above her waist. Some nun, not offended by this. Hey, why’s the scientist acting all nonchalant? This scenario is about as likely as seeing a hippopotamus try and catapult a giraffe over the Brooklyn Bridge.

- The old casting gimmick is used, in which a young, pretty, blonde woman dresses in a lab coat and glasses, and we’re expected to believe she’s a scientist. Better yet, she’s trusted in covering for an aging, revered scientist while he’s away.

- The music’s mentality is severely plagued by a multiple personality disorder. During combat scenes, we hear death metal. During tense lead-ins, we hear screeching violins. During a (particularly random) love scene, we hear “bubblegum pop.” And over the credits rolls ska rock.

- Too many clichés are addressed. What’s truly hysterical is when they’re incorrectly addressed. For example, in one scene, the blonde scientist finds her co-worker/boyfriend has come back from research on the Amazon. She punches him in the face and shouts, “I thought you were dead!” The correct answer is: make out with him and sigh in relief, “Oh, I thought you were dead!” If that’s too difficult to remember, use “make love, not war” as a mnemonic device.

- The characters have ADD, and it often shows at inopportune times. In one scene, a scientist is staring off into space in the middle of a museum, when suddenly, a gigantic, malformed creature arises from behind him. He doesn’t move a muscle, no matter how close it gets to him. He doesn’t turn around, and he only screams when it’s clearly eating him alive.

- CGI is poorly accomplished. Alone in the Dark is part action movie, part horror movie, all monster movie. The black, murky creatures that feature here are sped up to seem more dangerous. The one time we kind of wish he had stuck with cinema’s archetypes, in which the predator inches slowly toward its prey–stupid, but a) so is this movie and b) the technique is known to get the heart rate up. That’s not all: once the motion of these monsters is sped up, the entire sequences–for whatever reason–are sped up. It’s amusing to watch everyone run around like mice armed for some sort of apocalypse.

- The opening narration is intended to sound threatening. Instead, it sounds as if someone with absolutely no talent listened to Morgan Freeman’s narrations for nature documentaries, and modeled amateurishly from that.

Now I’m sure I missed several flaws that make Alone in the Dark such an abysmal movie. It certainly is flawed in nearly every possible way I can think of; I no longer wonder why Uwe Boll is considered the worst director alive. It’s a true guilty pleasure: no one sincerely loves it, but there’s something about it that gives you the urge to watch it once more. And that would be the humor that was never intended, while it makes up for all the asininity that was. At that level, I’d recommend it.

B MINUS


Staying Alive – the uncalled for sequel to “Saturday Night Fever” that almost completely contradicts its own title.

This review was brought to you by…
TWTF

Posted in Action, Adventure, Horror, Science Fiction, [Film Reviews] and tagged

Post Navigation

← Older Entries
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 790 other followers

%d bloggers like this: