Captain American: The Winter Soldier

 There is a reason people are calling this the best Marvel movie in years...it's because a director finally stopped trying to imitate Joss Whedon's crackpot style of directing; producing a distinct quality action film.

Directed by: Anthony & Jo Russo

Rated: PG-13
Staring: Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson, Samuel L. Jackson, Anthony Mackie, Robert Redford & Sebastian Stan
Released 2014

  The Avengers Syndrome {A serious illness infecting the leagues of superhero and comic book film directors. Symptoms: Vast supporting casts, unnecessary side plots and nonsensical plot lines, poorly composed action sequences, and an excess of bad, cheeky jokes. This is the virus sweeping our nation. Enjoyable at first, but if symptom are not treated they will increase and discomfort may be experienced.}

  I do not hate Joss Whedon my fellow movie goers, I simply feel a heighten sense of annoyance that the entire cinematic world feels the need to replicate his work in order to make a "successful" Marvel movie. I liked The Avengers, I lIKE The Avengers, but I do not like what The Avengers has done for the Marvel universe not the movie making industry.
  Iron Man 3 ranked near the top of biggest disappointments of 2013 and for good reason. It was a confused, bipolar film that was neither funny, nor serious, nor a pleasant blend of the two. It was a heavy mess from a studio not even trying to fill in any of the gaping plot wholes left by it's predecessor, The Avengers. It was not entreating, it was contrived and painful to watch.
  Thor: The Dark World, which I both praised and criticized was miles ahead of Iron Man 3 but that was thanks in most to the films charismatic anti-hero Loki-as portrayed by the brilliant Tom Hiddleston. The film was entertaining but far from perfect. I will admit my friends, with it's current track record, Marvel had me dreading the arrival of Captain America's sequel.

 

All doubts were quickly distinguished this weekend as I sat down to my own viewing of The Winter Soldier. Directing duo Anthony and Jo Russo produce an exciting, modern superhero movie with all the elements of a classic espionage thriller. The Winter Soldier is a well developed piece of cinema that doesn't require pre-Marvel obsession to appreciate. This film, while still in the Marvel Universe feel separate from its predecessors. It looks like the Marvel universe, feels like a Borne thriller, and has all the smarts of a classic Bond film. There's a certain sophistication and razor edge awareness that propels it beyond the last two Marvel sequels released as well as the Godfather of this mess, The Avengers. Now don't think that this is a film specifically for a more sophisticated audience void of any witty humor and one liners; it still has all of the elements that made The Avengers such a success with the general public, just toned down and revised for the appropriate moments. The furthest extend to the running gags are finding "Fossil" Steve Rodgers a date. They knew when to joke and when to hold back, The Winter Soldier was made with an editing conscious that many in action films lack.

  It wasn't only the story and overall film that improved drastically, the fight scenes and action sequences are freshly refined. Compare Thor: the Dark World's action/fight sequences to The Winter Solder. Thor's were there more for comical relief than having an actual purpose/need for the fighting and were never resolved. The thing Captain America did was add purpose to the action and with purpose comes more dynamic, exciting scenes! All the action sequences are top notch and evident that actors and stuntmen put a considerable amount of time and effort into constructing and performing them. An impressive variation of fighting styles, gymnastics, and (appropriate) CGI result in some truly gripping battles. Battles that were, for once, IN FRAME. I'm perpetually confounded by this idea that whenever two soldiers go to hand to hand combat we the audience must want a hand held camera close up of their faces, right? Wrong. If you're going to put the energy into choreographing a fight scenes I would like to see a long shot of what the performers are actually doing...not grunting, sweating, and bloody man face. To this aspect alone I tip my hat and say thank you, thank you because I don't think I've seen such riveting hand to hand combat since The Dark Knight Rises nearly two years ago...Good Lord, it's been two years.

  Chris Evans does a nice job, I feel as thought Captain America has become a bit of a joke in the scheme of The Avengers...we haven't seen him being taken seriously yet and I feel someone finally beefed up his character so he's not such an old man who doesn't get the joke. This Capt. is smart and has a solid attitude that isn't just "'Merica" This is a man on a mission, a mission with purpose because as any acting coach with tell you PURPOSE IS EVERYTHING! Someone who's lacking a bit of purpose in this film is Scarlett Johansson's character Black Widow. Perhaps not lacking purpose but a singular one. I feel she's occasionally used as a plot device and nothing mor. She gets things done so Capt. doesn't have to do them himself. There's so much mystery surrounding this character that each writing keeps building and building I just want her to have her own film already. The character is a fascinating one and Johansson kicks major ass, let's be honest she IS Black Widow, but I want to know more! Samuel L. Jackson is Samuel L Jackson, everyone knows, not much to add on his performance or characters.

New comers Robert Redford and Anthony Mackie were perfectly cast in their roles. Mackie is funny but without being in your face annoying as may "sidekicks" can become. He understands this character and doesn't try to steal scenes that aren't his. Given his own film, he'd excel and have room to spread is wings (har har) Redford hasn't been seen in a widely released commercial film for sometime and this role exactly what an actor of his prestige and experience should be doing; like Mackie he also doesn't over act, important in a role that other actors could have mishandled and gone off the deep end. Like the film itself, Redford plays with subtly, he quietly slithers through the film, never raising his voice or turing into a hand-wringing villain.

  The one thing this film lacked, The Winter Soldier...I mean, where was he? Sebastian Stan walks away from the film with perhaps 20 minutes of total screen time. This isn't bad, I feel his character and his story could have developed into something very melodramatic very quickly, so I guess it's best to leave it to the fanfic writers. I simply find it amusing that like many classic action thrillers the billed villain is never the real villain; more often the victim.

  There was one scene in the film regarding a character from Steve Rodger's past that I would have preferred to be omitted from the theatrical cut but I understand why it was left in...emotional appeal, nostalgia, closure whatever you want to call it, I call it melodrama. I didn't fit with the timing of the film and would have been more appropriate in the extended cut or deleted scenes portion of the DVD.  The additional after credits scene that was obvious set up for The Age of Ultron basically negated everything that was said and done in The Winter Soldier (literally) which annoyed me and proves that all sequels just place holders until 2015 and the release of the next Avengers. I am excited for the sequel yes but in a very hesitant way...Surprisingly I'm more excited for Guardians of the Galaxy, yet another comical, action extravaganza from Marvel Studio who's only purpose seems to be to expand the world for the next Avengers. Despite my doubts I'll keep an open mind and hope that any up and coming superhero action films will share Captain American: The Winter Soldier's clever filmmaking and clean delivery.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Directed by: Peter Jackson
Released: 2013
Staring: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly, Lee Pace, Benedict Cumberbatch and Luke Evens.
Rated: PG-13

  At this point introducing any film from J.RR Tolkien's Middle Earth brought to you by Peter Jackson is nearly impossible. The films speak for themselves and The Desolation of Smaug is no exception.

  Rewind to 2001, a series almost forgotten by many mainstream book enthusiast regained a new life in the hands of one unknown New Zealand director. The Lord of the Rings series had been adapted from its book format before, but never in such an appropriate, epic style. Seemingly overnight names like Frodo, Gandalf, and Gollum became household names, and 'Hobbit' may be used as an endearing term to describe your hairy footed uncle who can't recall if this is his first or second breakfast. With multiple Oscars under his belt including one for Best Picture in 2003 and more than a fist full of dollars (highest grossing film of 2003), it was only a matter of time before Peter Jackson returned to Tolkien's material.  

  

  We, the anxiously awaiting (fans) public, knew we'd get the The Hobbit sooner or later, what we did not except was 3 Hobbit films, all filmed in sequence at 48 frames per second with extra material, not published in the original book, but Tolkien's none the less. There was much debate over which portions were Tolkien and which were Jackson's; an uproar sounded in the Middle Earth community, whether it was one of joy or outrage was hard to tell but in the end audiences got much more Hobbit than was expected. 

 I've spent many hours reading, watching, and rewatching the original Lord of the Rings series, and as an avid fan it is my humblest opinion that the more the better! Jackson is a director who, when it comes to STORY, does not sacrifice quality for quantity. Was/is there a whole hell of a lot going on in The Hobbit films? Yes. Does any of it take away for the driving plot line? Debatable, but when you get down to it, the answer is no. Is Peter Jackson a greedy little Dragon who is possibly suffering from James Cameron-Ka-Ching-Ka-Ching syndrome? Possibly. As an avid fan, if you present me with a Jackson quality product that remains almost unwaveringly faithful to it's source material while ADDING even more, I'm going to lap it up. The fact that Jackson can do so much while staying true to the book overshadows any doubts I had about the added material. 

  As a reviewer I see faults in The Hobbit series, An Unexpected Journey more than The Desolation of Smaug, yet as a fan I'm completely enraptured by them both. I tell you this, my dear readers, so you will know, there may be nit picking points accompanied by minor annoyances but in the end The Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit has been and will remain my favorite series of all time.

  In my end of the year review for 2012 I named The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey my favorite film of the year on the basis that I had been waiting for it for almost ten years...While this is true, the film was not without it's faults; primarily it's silly, prepubescent humor. The burp, butt and snot jokes were not only disgusting but completely misplaced in Jackson's directorial world. The Lord of the Rings films never lacked jokes and wisecracks, but it's humor never dealt on such a low, bodily level. The Desolation of Smaug regains any traction that might have been lost due to the low blows of An Unexpected Journey by keeping it's humor referential rather than immature, gross out stints. Martin Freeman is a funny actor and very funny in the role of Bilbo Baggins. His physicality and facial expressions lend themselves to the character brilliantly. The script is often quite humorous and I think produces may have read many of audiences reactions to the overall tone of An Unexpected Journey and for that reason darkened the mood of it's sequel.

  The Desolation of Smaug is considerably darker than it's predecessor and rightly so. The first act is over, introductions are finished we know our main characters; we've seen them laugh now we want to see them fight! And fight they do. The Desolation is action packed from start to finish. The fast paced action scenes are engaging and exciting, verging on ridiculous but unimaginable fight scenes are a driving force behind the success of these films. I'm not paying to watch Tom Cruise shoot a gun at a criminal mastermind, I picked this film to see 12 Dwarves and a Hobbit race down a river in wine barrels while pursed by Orcs and high-flying Elves. It's fantasy and fantasy will lend itself to fanciful chases! 

Lee Pace, Director Peter Jackson & Evangeline Lilly

  Speaking of Elves, new comer Lee Pace, beloved from Bryan Fuller's short run and under-appreciated TV series Pushing Daisies, melds perfectly into the world of Elven royalty. He's come a long was from loveably awkward pie-maker. Devilishly wicked and totally unexpected, Pace plays the role of King Thrunduil with operatic bearing. Evangeline Lilly, also new to Middle Earth, was a missed opportunity. A fine actress, Lilly's character whom adds would have audiences believe is the strong, feisty, warrior woman of the series is reduced to an object of affection in possibly the oddest love triangle ever put on screen. I supported bringing in the new, original character of Tauriel thinking she'd be portrayed as a warrior like all the rest; instead she succumbs to the emotional advances of two men...brilliant. This from the director who gave us "I am no MAN", witch king-killing Éowyn. I don't get it. 

  Odd Elven relationships aside, the remaining story line in The Desolation of Smaug stays true to the book as well as any side stories begun in An Unexpected Journey. Audiences weren't left with so much a cliff hanging in the first of the series as something to look forward to, as all good films should. We knew we'd be seeing the great dragon in this installment and the tension leading to the final revel makes it all the more scintillating.   

 

No words review can accurately describe the detail and deadly beauty in the animation of Smaug. It's brilliant, flawless, and any other adjective associated with top notch animation. Every scale and claw was considered...the lighting and coloring are pure perfection...the way he moves and please let's talk about the cutting voice behind though razor sharp teeth. Benedict Cumberbatch with the best and only choice. His voice is pure dangerous allure. Cumberbatch, with the help of visual animation studio WETA, truly became this dragon through motion capture technology. That means voice, movement, and facial expression were all generated by Caumberbatch...and quite perfectly, he gives this inhuman  creature a personality and purpose. A huge hand must be given to the animators behind Smaug, he is a sight to behold on the big screen. No images found online can do him justice.

Benedict Cumberbatch gets in touch with his scaly, fire breathing side

  Smaug's animation soars, leaving many of the other animated characters with a rushed, sloppy, even cheap feel to them. One thing The Lord of the Rings series did so well was create real, disturbing characters through the use of great prosthetics. This is a technique not used as appropriately in The Hobbit series, especially where Orcs, Goblins and other nasty folk are concerned...yes animation is cheaper but nothing draws an audience from the moment like recognizing "oh that's definitely CGI" This is a huge attributing fact as to why Smaug's animation is so incredibly impressive. Comparing the detail in his design to that of others is somewhat disappointing.  

  With a darker atmosphere, Jackson really plays up Biblo's developing obsession with his newly acquired ring and creating a strong tie between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. The Desolation of Smaug is great fun with a couple of nice references for die hard fans and spectacular animation (for the most part) Fans will not be disappointed and new comers to the series should find it just as enjoyable. Don't expect Smaug to be popping up in any category except effects, during awards season like The Lord of the Rings films did, but the heart of this film is in the same place; as is its epic scope and action packed adventure. If there was ever a time to jump into one of the most celebrated fantasy series of all time, now would be it! 

Evil Dead & The Conjuring

This past week I jumped back on the adrenaline pumping wagon that is Horror movies.

  The horror genre is without a doubt one of my favorites. A couple of my favorite movies are horror films [The Shinning, Bram Stoker's Dracula '93, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari] That being said, it's in my opinion the hardest genre to do correctly and successfully.
  A great horror movie isn't just something that presents scary faces, ghosts and gross out moments, it's all about the feeling. A heavy lingering atmosphere is was accelerates an ok scary movie to a great horror film. The sensation of unease and primal wrench in your gut is what a great horror film should create; and not just through it's images. Music, camera angles, lighting are the biggest factors in creating that eery, haunting feeling. Last Friday I dragged my friends along to The Conjuring and was thrilled that after years and years, we have finally got a solid, no nonsense horror classic. But first....

  My review of The Evil Dead has the most hits out of any reviews on Miss Morgan At The Movies.
Now when I originally watched The Evil Dead I was quite terrified. I did not have a good time. BUT THAT'S WHY IT'S SUCH A GREAT HORRO MOVIE. It freaked me the hell out. And for that reason I did NOT want to check out what I thought would be the ultra-ultra-mega-super gross/violent/CGI filled reboot "Evil Dead", but by the end of the review I broke down and admitted I would probably end up seeing it with my friend and fellow cult film lover, Thomas Hacker whom I also watched and enjoyed The Evil Dead 2 with...no Army of Darkness yet...

Evil Dead

Directed By: Fede Alvarez
Released: 2013
Staring: Jane Levy, Shilo Fernandez, Lou Taylor Pucci, Jessica Lucas & Elizabeth Blackmore
Rated: R

  Oh The Evil Dead with it's undying horde of fans, spin offs and even a musical! It truly is a genre of it's own. Zombie-ish, Cabin Teen genre right? Right. Anyway...Evil Dead I can't say I watched this film completely untouched by the influence it's predecessors. I mean...having watched Evil Dead 1 & 2 and ultimately enjoying them both for what they are, I feel like I am apart of the fandom...I know what real fans of the series want and expect. And all I have to say is there are only two opinions for hardcore Evil Dead fans. Love and Hate.

Jane Levy get's in deep in Evil Dead (2013)

   Here's the first thing I must note. Evil Dead is NOT a remake. It's a new story, a new group of kids, but.....The car is there, the deer (anters) are there, the cutting off of the hand is there, vomiting blood in the mouth is there, the sawed off shotgun is there, the CHAINSAW IS THERE. It's ALL there. Evil Dead, to me, seemed to say "Hey! We respect the original, we love the original and guess what? All of that still happened! This is just 30 years after the fact" Repercussions, a loop in events almost. Think J.J. Abrams Star Trek (please don't kill me for that one) It has the same...stuff, but obviously has been modernized and doesn't contain some of the hoke that a low budget movie of the 80's was bound to have.

Jane Levy as Mia sits atop a familiar car in Evil Dead (2013)    

"Cut it, CUT IT!"
No turkey to carve, but plenty of rotting flesh
Evil Dead (2013)

    You have character that represent the past characters. At first Thomas and I kept asking "Where's Ash? WHERE THE HECK IS ASH!" But as the film went on we caught it...Ash has three letters in his name, Mia has 3 letters in her name...MIA IS ASH! And for me...it all worked. Once that hit me, the re-imagining with nods to the past, I sat back and let the references come. This is what I think will split the true fans...they'll either enjoy it for the clever, sometimes subtle sometimes not so subtle nods to the past, or they'll hate it for "shitting on the original" Whenever a film has such a passionate group of people behind it, someone is gonna get upset. I just really hope fans can and will enjoy it for what it is...don't try to make it into the new Evil Dead because it's not and nothing ever can be, but there's no reason why we can't all just sit around a burning cabin chanting the incantations of The Book of the Dead TOGETHER!

What I liked most about this new take was there was actually a plot line. The group taking Mia to the cabin to help her quit drugs is not only justification for them being there, but also ads a bit of psychological creepiness to it...the friends first think she's just hallucinating, it's gets worse blah, blah...but yes. I liked that part. BUT WHERE WAS BRUCE CAMPBELL? #LOLZ #ForeverBadass

Horror soundtracks are sometimes difficult because of drawn out pauses for effect and the screechy scratchy can get annoying and not particularly enjoyable to listen to, but Evil Dead composer Roque Baños did a fantastic job.
Crazy scary, fitting, and unique. Check out this track that accompanied the final scene. Sirens, Chanting, Piano it has it all.

  

Final Thoughts

1. Did I like it? -Honestly I have to say YES. It's gross. Horribly gross, but so was the original. And I'm sooo happy it's not just a remake with the exact same characters and plot line...it actually HAS a plot line now. I wasn't too thrilled with the ending...I won't tell you what happens but the end end did bring it down a couple notches...no sunshine...NO.
  -Also, MAKE-UP. They used REAL MAKE-UP, fluids, and PROSTHETICS. This is one of the reasons I think my expectations were surpassed. I truly thought majority of mutilations in the film would be done with CGI (it must die) BUT for the most part, it was REAL...well real make-up. LIKE THE ORIGINAL. I think I'll cry from happiness.

2. Would I recommend it? -Uhh...unless you are a fan of the original or ultra gore-horror I have to say no. For the average movie goer who wants a good ol' horror movie for a couple jumps and scares this is not the movie for you. It's just too much (as with the original) tree rape, blood vomit-in-mouth, razor blade tongue-cut, chainsaw motherf*cker dismemberment...I mean Thomas and I were laughing, and cheering but for the average person...No, I can not knowingly suggest this to my friends who are not gore-enthusiast.

  While it has it's fair share of scares, Evil Dead is without a doubt a gross out horror film. Created to scare it's viewers through blood, guts, and severed limbs. You'll be watching through your hands, but that's because of the mutilated bits of flesh and body parts flying across the screen...not from genuine suspense and scares...The Conjuring on the other hand proved to have all these kinds of scares and more!

The Conjuring

Directed by: James Wan

Released: 2013

Staring: Vera Farmiga, Patrick Wilson, Lili Taylor, Ron Livingston, Joey King & children ensamble.

Rated: R

  It's been quite a while since I actually went to the theater to see a horror movie; the last one I remeber was 1408 with my sister back in 2007! Besides mockumentary superstar Paranormal Activity, my generation is not one to flock to the theater in great throngs to catch the newest horror flick; however, smart and classic, The Conjuring might be just the film to change all of that.

  With it's trending on twitter almost every night since it's release on the 19th, The Conjuring is an undeniable hit with a sequel soon to come.
The Conjuring is laden with suspense and eye covering, jump out of your seat moments.

  The 70's and 80's were cinema's golden years as far as horror films go. They were everywhere and they were good. The Exorcist, The Shining, The Omen, Poltergeist, these are good old fashion horror films that terrified audiences and for good reason. They're not hokey (well the Exorcist might be now but back then it was horrifying) and they play on a level of psychological horror as much as physical.

I quite enjoyed Vera Farmiga as Lorraine Warren
The Conjuring (2013)

   Just as Evil Dead has has it's own (multiple) sub-genres, {Gore, Zombie, Devil/Demonic Possession ect.} The Conjuring is primarily a haunted house film. The Hunted House movie has to be one of my favorite sub-genres of horror. The Conjuring sticks to the atmosphere of the classics without becoming old and tiresome. A familiar story is refreshed by clever camera angles & tricks, and unexpected scares.

  The Conjuring tells the story of demonologist, ghost hunters, and married couple Ed and Lorraine Warren as they attempt to shed the Perron family of the ghosts who inhabit their home and torment their children.

So I when I wasn't cowering in my seat, I was admiring Patrick Wilson...He's kind of a fox...and as I whispered to Sarah "Him...nice butt"
Patrick Wilson (NOT Will Arnett) in The Conjuring (2013)

 While it starts a bit slow, The Conjuring develops into an epic of  engaging and spine tingling suspense.  The scares, as in any horror/ haunted house film start slowly, quietly and innocently then escalate to a scream inducing collage created by a creepy score, even creepier back story, and prime ghost effects.
  The special effects weren't over done or ridiculous, and when a certain character was possessed I was again thrilled that the scary visage appeared to be created by make-up and prosthetics...maybe Hollywood has been reading my blog!
 
  As I said before a great horror film isn't just in it's scary images and gross out moments, it's in the atmosphere; the feeling, and The Conjuring consistently carries that feeling of apprehension and dread. You really don't want to know where the clapping is coming from, you don't want to see what's reflected in the mirror, you don't want them to go in the basement, but at the same time you NEED to! THAT is exactly the uneasy feeling a horror film should generate for it's viewers. That is exactly what The Conjuring brings to the table in old school fashion. According to interviews directed James Wan stated that he modeled the "cinematography and atmosphere after vintage 1970's horror films" This was very evident in the title sequence...color, font, scrolling and all.

How can a font and color be so scary?

  For me one of the most horrifying parts of the film was something so small yet had a huge impact in the creating of an atmosphere full of terror and panic. Near the climax of the film, there is a scene where Ed Warren & Roger Perron are attempting the rescue Roger's wife Carolyn from the locked home after discovering it's her the demon spirit is after. The camera is situated behind the two men as they attempt to break open the front door and once the door is finally flung open there is this unholy sound that rushes out of the house and seemingly into the audience. It's simply part of the score, nothing the characters react to as the camera flies above, but as they charge into the house a blare of deep horns, and voices, engulf the audience as if all the tortured souls of that house are bleeding through the speakers.
...is that too dramatic of description? Well it had me sinking about 6 inches lower into my seat. I felt like my soul and just dropped into the pits of hell...at first I didn't even know if it was in the movie because it was sometime I had never experienced before in a film. Such perfect blending of camera work and musical score...utterly terrifying.
   Music by Joseph Bishara

We are NEVER playing the clap game.
Lili Taylor in The Conjuring (2013)

"Based on a True Story" as always is fabricated for film, but after some research it's been discover the house in which the Perron family lived did have quite the history. As far as the questioned credibility of the Warren's...They worked deeply in the Amityville Horror case which is alluded to in the end of the film and therefore a possibility for the sequel...to say their work was or wasn't real would force one to admit whether one does or does not believe in the supernatural, demons ect. Either way they were a  fascinating couple; both in real life and on screen.

  The Conjuring is not without it's flaws. Like I said, the first 20 minutes are a bit slow but pick up quickly. The recurring instance concerning the Annabelle doll was unnecessary. It was perfect for an opening and character introduction but not needed after that. I felt the same away when the Warren's daughter kept getting brought up. It seemed like something that was thrown into the script as an after thought and doesn't really do anything for the film except remind the audience that the Warren's have a daughter too...other than these minor flaws this was, without a doubt, the best horror movie I've seen in a very, very, long time.

Ok I could have gone without literally a ghost in sheets but I see what you were going for.
The Conjuring (2013)

Final Thoughts

1. Did I like it?
     -Yes. Yes. Yes. I am particularly particular about my horror movies and The Conjuring took the haunting and suspenseful vibe of the classics of the 70's & 80's and modernized it.

2. See it in Theaters or wait for DVD?
     -I say see it in THEATERS for sure! When was the last time you went to a horror film in theaters? I hadn't since 2007 and I had forgotten how fun it can be! That sound ridiculous, but when you watch a horror film with such a large group of people you have the chance to see how differently every reacts to  films like this. Some scream, some jump, some talk nervously throughout the who film, and other's just cover their faces completely. It was filmed in scope and really utilizes surround sound. Even though some may pass it off as "just a horror movie" I really think this is one to see NOW and in theaters!

Oz: The Great and Powerful

You know James Franco was high on set when he repeatedly called Glinda "Wanda" for a good 30 minutes of the film.

Directed By: Sam Raimi

Released: 2013

Starting: James Franco, Michelle Williams, Rachel Weisz, Mila Kunis, voice talents of Zach Braff & Joey King

Rated: PG

Times viewed: 1

   The fantasy genre has always been a favorite of mine and I'm always open to a new, exciting revisit of the classics; however, the original trailer for Oz: The Great and Powerful left me feeling anxious for several reasons. First, James Franco. I know he is a huge darling of many a young hollywood fan but in all honesty I find him as dry as the blunts he probably smoked during the filming of this movie. Are blunts dry? I don't really know...we'll say yes for simile's sake. Second was the visuals...As I've mentioned in previous post, I am not a huge fan of 3-D dependent films...but I figured since it is a FANTASY film along the lines of Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, it could be forgiven and James Franco ignored.
 Months pass and eventually my excitement to see Oz grew, so last tuesday night (it was a slow week) my friends and I made the journey to our local AMC. We bought our outrageously expensive tickets, popped on our hermetically sealed 3-D Ray Bans, and were prepared to be wowed by the spectacle of the Land of Oz!

     Overall Impression  
Oz: The Great and Powerful, while high on visual splendor proves to be lacking in script and quality acting.

  The biggest disappointment from this film was my expectation for it to be MORE than a children's movie. From the trailer it seems darker, scarier...just what Hollywood has been doing with recent remakes of classic children's stories, fairytales and fables (Red Ridding, Alice in Wonderland, and Hansel and Gretel) While there are definitely some very scary creatures including the Bad Witches flying baboons and the Green Witch herself, Oz is without a doubt a children's movie. I honestly had no clue going in to the film that it was rated PG and after seeing the flying baboons I was almost positive that it was PG-13...but then the last hour commenced and the sap started to flow.  

Would your 10 yr. old child be ok with this crazy creature reaching out of the silver screen? I don't think I could have handled it! 

  Once the audience scrapes past the intricate and impressive land of Oz filled with high chroma characters and iridescent fog and bubbles, they'll find the film itself is another watered down attempted to teach children that GOOD ALWAYS WINS...even if the man who get's you there is a total con artist.  The script is just sooo dumbed down filled with question, answer, question answer conversationa and lot's of "Look out! This way! Oh my goodness! There're behind us!" The whole film (concerning the script) verges on the edge of too literal to enjoy for an older audience. At least in a film like Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, Burton effectively utilizes some mature jokes and characters to engage his older audience and fan base.  Burton is the master at incorporating the morals of a children's film with the maturity of adult fantasy without catering too heavily to one or the other. Biggest examples Alice in Wonderland (which I'll compare to Oz a bit later in a visual aspect) Frankenweenie, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. 

  Now WHO was it that directed this film? SAM RAIMI. Sam, father of gore n' horror, RAIMI. How he convinced Disney to let him direct this movie I'll never know, but I feel like there could have been so much more from him. I feel, since he knew he would be dealing with a well known children's story, he had to dumb it down to avoid any type of backlash from the company and  parents alike. I suppose it's a bit unfair to compare Raimi to Burton..I mean let's be honest...Sam Raimi and Tim Burton operate on opposite ends of the horror scale. Tim creates the quirky, creepy characters, but never anything in the gore end of horror (save Sweeney Todd)...that's Sam's territory. The man creates whole movies around the concept of dismemberment and chainsaws. i.e. The Evil Dead. Perhaps they two should have a meeting and exchange notes...I love Tim Burton and after watching The Evil Dead 2 I've decided I kinda, sorta do like Sam Raimi and his cats in a box style of directing and creating. 

James Franco with Director Sam Raimi  on the set of "Oz: The Great and Powerful."
Is that the book of the dead you're reading Sam? 

So now I have you completely confused by my self contradictions "Oh it's too scary for children, but the story line is too dumbed down to be taken seriously by an older audience." I have to apologize, but honestly, I'm not sure WHO to recommend this movie to...The movie was easy to follow, not confusing, definitely fun to look at but THIS SCRIPT IS SO BAD! So I guess I'll start by giving you some of my positive reactions to the film first...

Visuals concepts, 3-D, & the first 45 minutes.

  As I've written before, this movie is gorgeous to look at. The opening credits are fantastic featuring optical illusions and such, all in mind bending black and white.  I really LOVED that when the film started in Kansas they used the same black and white color palette as well as the smaller screen ratio. The film didn't HAVE to be made this way...the creators could have assumed everyone knows the classic Wizard of Oz and will connect the Kansas in that film to the Kansas in this film but they used the same techniques anyway and I really appreciated that. What I also almost passed out over was (*small spoiler*) the girl who Oz was in love with in Kansas (also played by Michelle Williams) said that she was going to marry Frank(?) GALE. AS IN DORTHY GALE'S FATHER! 

And Disney was kind enough to put the beautiful opening credits on youtube! Even more impressive on the big screen in 3-D

A magical score by Danny Elfman makes me think if this really WAS a project intended for Tim Burton...

As stated numerous times, I am not a fan of 3-D being put in to films when it is NOT needed or movies that are primarily visual effects, HOWEVER for Oz it all works because this is set in a fantasy land that couldn't exist without the help of 3-D and CGI. Apart from several locations that look more like Wonderland than Wonderland did in Tim Burton's adaption, the set design behind this world is brilliant. I'll let the pictures speak for themselves.

  The humor in the first 45 minutes or so of this film is actually quite good. Franco (whom I don't care for) is overly theatrical, charming and a total con artist. Exactly who he should be. But then...after the Balloon has landed in Oz and Mila Kunis' character get's involved...it's all (apart from the visuals) down hill from there.

The Bad

The Acting

  Apart from James Franco, I had high hope for the cast of OZ. I mean, Michelle Williams? She's brilliant! And Mila Kunis proved in Black Swan that she is more than just Jackie. And Rachel Weisz is consistently engaging and believable. Sadly ALL fell apart due to a TERRIBLE script. Proof that bad writing and a bad story can lead to an over all bad movie and the impression of bad acting. I must say...Mila Kunis without a doubt is the WORST. I can't even describe how terrible she was...It was rage and pain but rage and pain that a high school student does in their sophomore one act play. It didn't help when she did turn truly evil and transformed into the wicked witch she looked like THIS...

LET'S MAKE HER AS LITERAL AS POSSIBLE!

I mean this LOOKS awesome right? Right...until she appears and opens her mouth.

Costuming

  This is my territory people and let me put on my Tim Gunn face and say this...EDIT PEOPLE EDIT!! There was just so much random crap thrown on EVERYONE, especially Rachel Weisz's character. Gorgeous, green sequin dress? Lets add feathers on your back AND shoulders AND a huge slit so you can wear leather leggings AND knee high boots! Just WHY!?

So the top I love...then as we go down it's a dress with leggings underneath and just WHY!? I can't explain.

  I feel like there was no turn direction or concept behind these costumes. No connecting thread...Glinda is dressed in half 1930s evening gowns and half Galadriel armor...Mila Kunis was an Equestrian Rider(I actually would have loved that in a different movie), then a 1950's debutant, then THEE most literal translation of "WITCH" If I ever saw one. Individually there are parts of each costume that were impressive but when brought together they just confuse the audience and don't give any inspiration to the true feeling of the land of Oz. Costuming is SO important to the overall feeling and continuity of a film...I feel Oz just assembled 3 different costumers, had them all make separate collections, then picked at random interesting pieces from each. If you read my review of Anna Karenina, you'll understand the importance of connection, continuity, and a solid concept in costuming.

I cringe because this ensemble has NO place in the film! It doesn't fit....

PLUS!!! #1 irritation, the people of Oz didn't where a spec of green!? Anger and sadness.

           GARY JONES...I'm coming after you...

Anna Karenina (2012)

  A revolutionary vision that stops mid revolution. 

Directed by: Joe Wright
Released: 2012
Staring: Keira Knightly, Jude Law, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Matthew Macfadyen, Domhnall Gleeson, Alicia Vikander, Michelle Dockery, Kelly Macdonald, & Emily Watson.
Rated: R
Times Viewed: 1

  If you know me, you know THIS is my kind of film. Victorian bustles, lace, taffeta and tool. Hats and feathers. Jewels and dramatic silouhettes. Yes, I'll admit I'm a costume whore. Periodical costume whore. Victorian periodical costume whore to be specific. I love theater and fireworks, magic and romance. Needless to say, when this trailer was released I was a tad bit excited. Not only did it star the lovely and talented Keira Knightly along with Jude Law, but was being directed by Joe Wright; master of the modern day romantic period piece. This makes sense yes? Yes. For those of my readers who are not up on the know who of directors, Joe Wright directed Atonement and Pride & Prejudice.  With an academy acclaimed director and killer ensemble of actors, check out that list above, I had this one pegged to beg a big contender at this year's academy awards. Come awards season though, the film seemed to be all but forgotten about in every category save Costume Design, Art Direction, and Cinematography & Score. This leaves the viewer believing this was solely a visually accomplished film and nothing else. So what happened? After FINALLY tracking down a copy of the film I think I have an idea.

While visually striking, the vast scale and grandeur of Joe Wright's Anna Karenina sometimes engulfs the actors; swallowing performances and the well developed production.

Now, I'm not going to lie, I've never read the entire novel. It was one of those HUGE pieces of classic literature I picked up in 8th grade thinking I could finish it and soon discovered it was not meant to be. From 8th grade, I felt I simply didn't have the time to finish the lengthy book, so Anna Karenina has never made it's way from my "Want to read" to "Read." shelf....I tell you all this to reiterate that this review will not be a comparison of book and film (screen play) adaptation. I will be reviewing visual aspects of the film along with acting/character progression in relation to THIS FILM.

Set, cinematography, and an unique approach to a classic

  The visual/cinematographic aspects without a doubt, are what drive this film to existing apart from other period, costume dramas. The revolutionary idea behind the spectacle is setting all scenes in St. Petersburg on (a) stage and transitioning the scenes as a play transitions sets. I wish I could find a clip of the opening scene because it's that scene that establishes to the audience the new and unique road that Wright has chosen to take. The bustling, "fake", acting, world of city life in St. Petersburg is contrasted by natural, organic, sweat and blood "reality" of life in the country. The transformation between the staged city and the natural city, while absolutely brilliant, lost me at times In various shots it seemed as though there should be even MORE over exaggeration or at least transitional method from stage to field. On several occasions I wondered if the actors really had left the set of the city or whether it was just an abrupt stop of the set changing motif the film carried. I honestly thought the revolutionary vision had stopped mid revolution. This was until I realized that the stage was the city and the large, open fields were the "real world" of the country...but this realization didn't happen until the film was almost over! As the film progressed, I though they had just forgotten the set changes; using them simply as a lure to gain the audiences attention for the first hour and a quarter...but that would be an amateur mistake. While the set metamorphosis IS used LESS as the film advances, it's not completely abandoned.

At work in the fields 

  This being said, I truly loved the concept of the set transitions and wish they would have used it to the extent they did in the opening and establishing scenes. The form is so unique to film, the viewer CAN NOT stop watching. It's an engaging technique that reminded me quite a bit of Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet from 1996. *One of my favorite films* While Branagh used cuts in his film, in many scenes servants are seen moving certain set pieces and working in the back, transitioning the scene from one location to another. 

The films even bare similar posters as well as several artistic shots and set design.

As Jude Law throws torn pieces of a letter into the air, the shreds turn into falling snow. Beautiful

This action is reminiscent of the wedding scene at the beginning of Ken Branagh's Hamlet (1996)

The "Play" of Anna Karenina's life in St. Petersburg is set within the "Play" of the stage.

"The play's the thing, wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king!"

Hamlet also deals with plays inside plays, who's acting, who's catching who, what is real and what is for show ect. ect. Branagh's adaptation deals heartily with the young Prince putting on a show for his Uncle the King. The film features an abundance of rich gold tassels and fringe along with velvety red curtains. Anna Karenina utilized many of the same decorations.

Anna Karenina

Hamlet

   The sets designs were amazing and it's a shame Sarah Greenwood & Katie Spencer didn't win the Oscar for Production Design or Seamus McGarvey for Cinematography. Sadly though, I feel like the design and over designed approach out weighed the story and performances. This film went from a beautiful retelling of classic in a unique way, to a film who's main focus is it's design and distinct staging. I believe Branagh's Hamlet could handle the lush furnishings because the performances were just as bold. Not say the acting in Anna Karenina isn't fantastic, because it is, I just feel the story was told more through visuals and less through acting/performances/words.
       Now for me this wasn't a horrible thing, I enjoy spectacle/pomp/avant-garde, it's just a fact to keep in mind if you're wondering why you the viewer didn't see more of Anna Karenina during awards season.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

One member of the crew who DID receive an Oscar for her work on Anna Karenina was the impecable Jaquline Durran. 

To the costumes....the costumes the costumes the costumes. Honestly I cannot begin to describe how GORGEOUS and detailed every character's costume is in this film...I can try my best and show you every screen shot, but it wouldn't begin to describe how wonderfully Jaquline Durran's pieces move and work on screen.  She is a beautifully gifted designer that believes in collaboration with the actors to help develop the character's they've created from the film...an invaluable characteristic to have while working in film.
  In interviews, Durran has stated that Joe Wright's original concept was to mix 50's couture with 1870's silhouettes. In an unimaginable way, these two time periods mesh together almost seamlessly. Many of the fabirics used in the late 1800s (taffeta, brocades, silks of course) were hugely popular in couture houses of the 1950s...specifically Dior and Balenciaga. Not only are similar fabrics and necklines used, but  the majority of hair accessories are HUGE nods to fashionable, rich women of the 50's....when I say hair accessories I mean feathers. The use of feathers ares dramatic and unique. Instead of featuring a single plume as many films of the late 1800's or Victorian era did, Durran bends, clips, and position the feathers into new and fascinating shapes that seem both old and new. She remains true to the respective period, alludes to the 50s, but keeps the whole film relevant without loosing the characters in heaps of fur, feathers, and tool.  Here's a great behind the scenes short with  interviews from Jaquline Durran and some of the main cast...

There is a reason she won the Oscar people....

Jaquline Durran with some costumes from Anna Karenina

A very 50's pill box hat.

Another pill box hat as well as swooping 50's neck line.

Touch ups and a gorgeous feather hair piece. 

FUR!

Breath taking!

~~~~~~

Acting

  Now I'm not going to touch much on the quality of the acting in the film because when you have Keira Knightly, Jude Law, Matthew Macfayden, and Michelle Dockery you can assume, quite correctly, that the performances are great. Not to contradict myself though, sometimes the lavish epicness of the film does swallow the actors a bit leaving the story telling up the visuals and "wow factor" versus the the pure talent of it's main cast.

Keira Knightly- As the leading lady she does fantastic as always, but in this role Knightly did something that I don't believe she's ever done before. She made me hate her character...this doesn't pop up till the very end, but after hours of her not making up her mind, going crazy and ultimately killing herself I didn't feel much pity for the character in the last 20 minutes or so. I feel this is a strong quality though...it shows the audience developing with the character. I went from liking this young, fashionable  lady, to feeling bad for her, and ultimately not shedding a tear when she dies...cold hearted am I? Perhaps, but any actor that can make me feel a strong emotion one way or the other towards a character  has already done their job.

Jude Law- I felt the same way towards his character as I did towards Knightly's only in reverse. Frist hate, then pity...an interesting character.

Aaron Taylor-Johnson- I can't really say much for the young, somewhat unknown who played Anna's lover Vronsky. He was fine, neither a nuisance nor an asset...simply a pretty face who delivers lines in an obsessed, gentlemanly like fashion.

Matthew Macfadyen- Oh my gosh MR. DARCY I LOVE YOU'RE MUSTACHE! I say this in all honestly that I bore the most ridiculous grin whenever Matthew Macfadyen's character Oblansky was on screen...and NOT just because he IS Mr. Darcy...it was because he was so NOT Mr. Darcy. Oblansky is a total social deviant; loud, smiling, having affairs and not really apologizing for any of it. I. loved. it. A great performance that shows Macfadyen's true range as an actor.

Reunited and it feels SO GOOD! 

Michelle Dockery- Although her role is somewhat small, Michelle Dockery leaves her stamp on the character to the point where you're not sure if it's Princess Myagkaya (uh...Russian names) or Lady Mary Crawley. So yes, she does play somewhat of the same crass yet truthful character, but she just does it so well! Dockery's character is one of the only one's to remain a true friend to Anna through out her adulterous troubles. Now come on, who WOULDN'T want to have Michelle Dockery as their best bitch friend ready to slash any haters down with her sassy wit and sharp tongue? Plus I really loved her dress...

Michelle Dockery is judging you and it is NOT a secret...

Watching out for her friends and looking lovely in lavender.

Alright and finally if you're not sold on the whole "epic love tragedy affair" nonsense, you can watch for the real love story and the character that I enjoyed most in the film, LEVIN! Freakin' most adorable man in this film. His love for Anna's friend Kitty represents a sincere pure love that Anna and her brother Oblansky will never know.

 

Thomas Hacker I give you exhibit B to our "No Male Gingers Are Attractive" discussion.

I want a rugged ginger, Russian Farmer!!!

So in loooove!

Find me that ginger, get me that ginger, I will MARRY that ginger.

Yeay for the tragic, love sick ginger! In a plum suits no less!

Uh...AND I just discovered that he played BILL WEASLEY in the HP films. It's done.