Oz the Great and Powerful

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective 

by Frederick William Springer III

Oz the Great and Powerful

Release Date:  8 March 2013                                                               Runtime:  130 Minutes              

Review Date:  2 June 2013                                                                   Rating:  5 (of 6)

 

Oz the Great and Powerful is a fun film, James Franco delivering in the title role.  (Though, Rachel Weisz leaves you spellbound, giving the best overall performance.)

The color palette was very vibrant, helping transport you to this other earthly world.  The CGI, however, was heavy-handed, particularly with plants, flowers, leaves, squirrels and butterflies, making it look phony and 2 dimensional, almost like a cartoon where they appeared.  Maybe that was the filmmakers' goal in the creation of a fantasy land but, while someone may try to justify it in that way, I do sincerely doubt that was their intention.

Conversely, you have the character of the Little China Girl who looked amazingly lifelike and realistic.  CGI should be that.  That should be the definition of CGI.  That should be how CGI is used.

Oz is supposed to be a prequel to the original novel, not the 1939 movie starring Judy Garland, so you will find continuity issues between the two films.  One odd difference is the Munchkins here seemed to be played more by dwarves whereas they were played mainly by midgets in the other.

I'm sure there will be those that take issue with this opinion but I do believe I enjoyed this more than The Wizard of Oz. 

(I did rewatch that movie afterwards to confirm this sentiment, at which time I noticed 2 glaring plot holes.  1) If Glinda knew the ruby slippers to be powerful and that the Wicked Witch of the West would do all in her power to obtain them, why didn't she take them herself rather than force that burden upon an innocent, defenseless outsider?  She could have protected them better herself.  2) Once putting Dorothy in harm's way, instead of making her take a long journey on the yellow brick road, why didn't she just safely transport her to the Emerald City in a bubble?  Really, Glinda is a reckless, unthoughtful bitch when you think about it.  Never having read the novel, I don't know if this element is from the source material or something added in the adaptation.)

THE CALL

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

Release Date:  15 March 2013                                                               Runtime:  94 Minutes              

Review Date:  19 May 2013                                                                   Rating:  3 (of 6)

Even with Halle Berry at the center of attention, this movie left me with the case of the blahs.  Not exciting, engrossing or all that entertaining. 

(I'll admit I saw it when I was tired, running on fumes, even nodding off for micro-seconds.  But I'm fairly positive this didn't affect my final assessment of the flick.)  While not bad, I don't think it's really worth seeing.

 

I was surprised when I noticed this was produced by the WWE, which left me very confused.  Since when do they make movies?  And, if they are producing films, why wouldn't it be with any of their wrestlers?   Perhaps they should stick with wrestling as this product was very lackluster.  In fact, had I known beforehand that WWE Studios was behind it, I probably wouldn't have ever bought a ticket to see The Call in the first place.

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

Star Trek into Darkness (IMAX 3D)

Release Date:   16 May 2013                                                               Runtime:   132 Minutes              

Review Date:  19 May 2013                                                                Rating:  5 (of 6)

 

Whoa! 

While the first installment was a good origin story, I would quantify this as separate but equal.  There were a couple of twists and turns, some that became apparent towards their conclusion, others evident from the get-go but still a fun ride nonetheless.  They also did a pretty cool thing with the Enterprise that certainly hasn't been done in any previous film and not in any of the series to my knowledge/recollection either.

Other than that, I don't want to say too much more as you'd appreciate discovering the surprises and being Uwed and Ahed on your own.  I, myself, purposely did not read any reviews or even watch the trailer.  All I saw was the movie poster plastered all around town--couldn't avoid it--which alluded to possibilities of what may be going on but nothing like I imagined.

I think Benedict Cumberbatch, who played the villain John Harrison, gave an excellent performance.

Really, anything else I'd want to say for or against would be a spoiler so I'm doing my best to hold my tongue.

However, I will address the ongoing debate wherein really hardcore, staunch Trekkies dismiss J.J. Abram's rebooted series as blasphemous sacrilege.  Their argument, as I understand it, is essentially that the original series and movies were more character driven and focused on social, moral, ethical and philosophical issues whereas Abram's is an action-packed, popcorn flick with no real depth.

It is true, in this one there isn't any real character development, aside from Kirk and Spock (and maybe the smallest pinch of Uhura) of which there is a substantial amount--in both of these films, they are the lead characters.  Though, this is at the expense of the supporting cast in this outing, Chekov and even Sulu being little more than extras on the set with hardly any lines when they are rarely seen.  If they were cut, there'd be no noticeable change in the film.  This is almost likewise for Dr. McCoy, too.  And Scotty, while he shared little screen time as well, his role was pivotal.  But in fairness, there are both episodes and films of the past alike that focused on certain members of the crew more so than others, depending on the plot and storyline itself.  So you can't come down on this film too hard solely due to that.

The other gripe was addressed more in this film (almost completely absent in the previous), wherein several of the characters discuss, react and deal with social, moral, ethical and philosophical issues.  While certainly not on the level of any of Abram's predecessors (or should we say the predecessors of writing team Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof), fans should be happy that they at least made a small effort to take a baby step in that direction.

But it is a fair assessment to say that this is still very much the action oriented, popcorn flick, making it more akin to Star Wars as Abrams had always set out to do (which will prove invaluable practice now that he'll be helming that franchise as well).  That being said, I don't think that "action, popcorn" flick always needs to be synonymous with a film lacking all else.  I think this one was well executed and entertaining, even heartfelt at times.

(And, with a SMALL popcorn being $6 and upwards, the best action is to skip the junk food that's pricier than some admission tickets, anyway!...)

Escape from Planet Earth

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

Escape from Planet Earth

Release Date:  15 February 2013                                                            Runtime:  89 Minutes     

Review Date:  14 April 2013                                                                   Rating:  2.5 (of 6)

     Escape from Planet Earth, while not a bad movie per say, was one that failed to capture my imagination or interest.  Not even the voice talent of William Shatner could rein me in.  (Nor Rob Corddry, Brendan Fraser, Sarah Jessica Parker, Ricky Gervais, Sofia Vergara, Jessica Alba, George Lopez…)

Warm Bodies

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

 

Warm Bodies

Release Date:  1 February 2013                                                             Runtime:  98 Minutes              

Review Date:  14 April 2013                                                                  Rating:  3 (of 6)

     While a different and interesting idea—a zombie with feelings and the capacity to love—ultimately Warm Bodies was slow and, in parts, even boring;  which, I guess, may be appropriate as I imagine that’s what a zombie’s life is like anyhow and we are told the story from zombie R’s perspective.

     I would have enjoyed seeing more of Rob Corddry, who had a small supporting role as M, as I usually enjoy his performances.

     I do question if there was a zombie walking around with brains in his pocket for several days, fresh when he obtained them, that there wouldn’t be an offending odor.  I would also question, zombies being rotting corpses and all, wouldn’t they reek horribly, so much so that they’d make people automatically retch?  They do kind of dismissively touch on the latter with an off-handed comment, just saying they don’t, but I’m sure the brains in your pocket thing would still smell pretty bad.

     I also don’t get how the skeletons are faster than the zombie corpses.  You might justify that by them not having meat on their bones that they’re actually lighter so they can run faster.  But at the same time, they don’t have muscles, or very little of them remain.  Yet, the skeletons are also portrayed as extremely powerful but, again, have no muscles.  So, I don’t get that.

     It did have its humorous parts, but they were far apart most of the time.  So, again, slow and boring.  In fact, if this hadn’t been the case, I don’t know that I would have had time to ponder and then dwell on the questions that came to mind above.  In fact, of all the zombie movies I’ve ever seen (and there have been many), I have never once questioned that they should smell and should probably do so to the point of enacting one’s gag reflex but, if I ever write my own zombie movie, I now know that that is something that will need to be addressed—zombies can’t sneak up on you because you’ll smell them coming unless our noses become so desensitized because the whole world now permanently smells that way.  So, thank you for that Warm Bodies.

     Another question:  Having been based upon a book, how did the theatrical version fair against it?  Unfortunately, the movie left me no desire to find out for myself.

Identity Thief

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective
 

by Frederick William Springer III

Identity Thief

Release Date:  8 February 2013                                                           Runtime:  111 Minutes              

Review Date:  14 April 2013                                                                Rating:  4 (of 6)

     Short and sweet:  Identity Thief was a cute, fun film.  Jason Bateman was a pleasure to watch.  And Robert Patrick’s brief supporting role only enhanced the movie as a whole. 

A Good Day to Die Hard

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

 

A Good Day to Die Hard

Release Date:   14 February 2013                                                          Runtime:  98 Minutes              

Review Date:  14 April 2013                                                                  Rating:  5 (of 6)

     Yippe-ki-yay!  A Good Day to Die Hard is an action-packed, popcorn flick with a soundtrack that helps roll it along.  For franchise continuity purposes, I haven’t seen the first 3 movies in over a decade and the preceding installment for several years so I don’t know if it holds up what they set up but as a standalone film it does quite nicely.

     Continuing with the rolling along theme (perhaps better suited if I was going over Die Hard with a Vengeance which had “Johnny Goes Marching On” built into its soundtrack), it’s easy to overlook some of the discrepancies.  Mainly how—the others having well-established John McClane as a little off-balance—John assaults civilians and partakes in grand theft auto (again, from a civilian) while in a foreign country (Russia!) where such offences would be amplified seems like a bit of a stretch even for him.  And then you take one of these cars and John’s driving it on the roofs of other cars stuck in highway traffic, potentially injuring and killing a whole slew of civilians—for all we know, those civilians were injured or killed since the movie never touches on this again—not to mention property damage, makes it even more ridiculous.

     You also have the scenario where the bad guys are traveling to a remote location by helicopter while our heroes, John and his son Jake, travel by car and yet somehow the car gets there relatively soon after the helicopter touches down doesn’t really seem to fly.  Just for a finishing touch, when returning to the United States, you would think that after everything they’ve been through that maybe, just maybe, Jake’s mom would be there to see him home (as does his sister), happy that he’s alive.  I guess she could have been detained somewhere else, I don’t really remember if the preceding installment mentioned what became of her though I recall John and her being separated or divorced in Vengeance*, but considering the situation I’m pretty sure my mom would make damn sure she was there.

    But those little things you can kind of overlook and gloss over with the fast pace of the movie and the story moving along, no time to really sit and dwell on it (unless, of course, you intend to write a review of some kind and you want to try and make yourself remember the point so you can mention it later in your writings, haha).

*They were separated in Vengeance and divorced in Live Free or Die.