The Purge

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

The Purge

Release Date:   7 June 2013                                                                  Runtime:  85 Minutes              
Review Date:  30 June 2013                                                                  Rating:  5 (of 6)

Well, we can start by saying, "fucking kids, man!"  If it weren't for them, the family the movie centers on wouldn't have been affected.  Of course, than there wouldn't have been a movie either.  Or at least not one featuring them center stage.  But it definitely leaves you with a feeling of never wanting to have kids.

I give writer/director James DeMonaco here a lot of credit because, with a very simple premise, he's managed to set up a potential, never ending franchise.  And one that, if made in the same vain as the first, would be relatively cheap to produce.  Of course, they'll have to up the ante each film to keep people coming back, but even then they can still maintain a moderately low-budget.  (Looking at the numbers posted online, it only cost $3 million to make but brought in $34 million its opening weekend and virtually doubled that in less than a month so sequels are pretty much guaranteed.  The Purge 2 has already been announced.)

It's worth checking out, so I'm going to give this a 5. (Though, I'm hesitant to do so--I see I only gave Sinister a 4 and I'd recommend that Ethan Hawke film over this one.  I must have been particularly harsh when rating that one, or overly generous here.) 

Evil Dead (2013)

  TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

Evil Dead (2013)

Release Date:   5 April 2013                                                                   Runtime:  91 Minutes              

Review Date:  11 June 2013                                                                    Rating:  5 (of 6)

Evil Dead is how you do a remake right, darker and creepier than the originals.  Unlike all the remakes and reboots unleashed in this genre the past decade, this one is actually worth seeing.

I liked the new approach as to why this group of people had assembled.  It was something I don't recall being done before and, thus, it was refreshing.  There were also a couple of nice twists and turns that kept you second guessing.

The only questionable thing is the events of the opening.  Who were these people (freaks included)?  Why did they choose this cabin?  How'd they gain possession of the book and why would they leave it behind, easily accessible?  What do the later found cats have to do with the opening when they weren't present at the time?

Most of these things wouldn't much matter if it weren't for the implied fact that it was the family's cabin (or at least a cabin frequented by the family).  So, for another group of people to randomly choose it (granted it had been broken into) for such purposes sparks one's curiosity.  It was also convenient (but excusable) that the book calls for 5 people and our group of characters happens to contain exactly that amount.

You'll want to stay in your seats till the credits finish rolling.  I'd love to further quantify but don't want to spoil anything.  As a side note, as it becomes more common place for features to have additional material during the credits and after a movie, I don't understand why anyone would risk walking out before the credits end.  If for nothing else, how about showing a little respect for all the hard work from the many people involved?  That's kind of like going to a boring graduation ceremony and then leaving before the graduates are even named.  (Well, not exactly, but you get my drift.)

A round of applause is due to writer/director Fede Alvarez (and his decision to stay away from CGI as much as possible), fellow writer Rodo Sayagues and the cast for their believable performance.  Some would say Alvarez had big shoes to fill.  I'd say he broke the mold and set a new benchmark for Sam Raimi when he  himself returns to the franchise for Army of Darkness 2.

G.I. Joe: Retaliation

TAKE 1: One Man’s Opinion

…because film is largely subjective

by Frederick William Springer III

G.I. Joe: Retaliation 3D

Release Date:   28 March 2013                                                            Runtime:  110 Minutes              

Review Date:  9 June 2013                                                                    Rating:  3 (of 6)

     For an action flick, G.I. Joe: Retaliation is pretty boring, even during the action sequences.  I will say that 3D technology has seemingly improved over the past year, the action sequences in The Avengers (which were a large part of that movie) blurry and hard to follow, whereas here they are more crisp and clean (but not quite perfected yet).

     Not having seen the first film and neither the toys, cartoon nor comics being part of my childhood, the draw here was seeing Bruce Willis in the trailer while being credited as the original Joe.  That, to me, sounded bad ass.  However, Willis doesn't even make an appearance till 50 minutes in (and a short scene at that) and then we don't see him again for another 30 minutes (again, quick, brief appearances).  I'd venture to guess all of Willis's work was shot in less than 5 days and his sole purpose was to cameo so the marketing department could put him on the poster (front and center) and tap into his fan base, much like in The Expendables franchise.  If you're longing for a Willis film, this isn't it.

     Not seeing the first movie, I got the feeling that maybe you should watch it prior to get a better feel for these characters.  However, as I'm typing this, I checked out the original cast and our 3 main characters this time around, Roadblock (Dwayne Johnson), Flint (D.J. Cotrona) and Lady Jay (Adrianne Palicki), weren't involved.  This is pretty much a clean state so this film pretty much fails in character development.

     Story wise, I will give kudos for the clever, creative way the world's nuclear arsenal problem was solved, albeit it's one that will likely never transpire.  I'm usually pretty sharp, but the opening sequence left me very confused.  It seemed as though there was one flag flying at the installation that was attacked but then the flags were swapped and the G.I. Joes learn they had attacked the wrong place.  This was never explained afterwards, making me at first think that the lack of addressing the issue meant that the rest of the movie was going to show what happened preceding that scene and how they got there but things soon transpire that makes it apparent that that is not the case.  So the opening is just left very misplaced and irrelevant, other than showcasing teamwork.

     I found the performance delivered by RZA as the character of Blind Master horrendous.  I personally think I'm a lousy actor but believe I could have done better and been more believable.  While some singers do have the talent to crossover into acting (Mos Def for example), others clearly do not.

     So with action and story both lacking, there really isn't much reason to go see G.I. Joe: Retaliation at all.

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.)