Noah

Make it rain

Directed by: Darren Aronofsky
Rated: PG-13
Staring: Russel Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Anthony Hopkins, Emma Watson, Ray Winstone, Logan Lerman, & Douglas Booth
Released: 2014

Reasons I was offended by Noah
-Skinny jeans
-Hooded sweatshirts
-Infinity scarves
-The garish font used in the title card and subsequent credits
-The unnecessary 45 minutes in the 3rd act that completely diverged from the theme and plot set forth  in the first portions of the film.

  Let's get some things out of the way, am I a Christian? Yes. Do I believe the public should avoid and our boycott a film specifically because it "offends" or "alters" Christian beliefs or Biblical events? NO.

  Here is something the Christian viewing public needs to understand, if you're going to tell someone to avoid a film because of its inaccuracies or its misconstruction of Christian beliefs I do hope you go see the film FIRST so you can explain exactly WHY. Enough of these second hand accounts. Just because Master Pastor what's his name with his own website and television show tells you not to see or read The Golden Compass does NOT mean you should avoid it at all cost...to me any controversy of this fashion generated around a film or book series simply makes it more alluring. (Say the conservatives "Oh it's Satan's temptation!") It was the reason I began reading His Dark Materials series and guess what? It's one of the best written pieces of young adult literature and one of my favorite book series.

  If you're going to campaign so heartily against a film, you better have seen it yourself so you can back up your claims of inaccuracy. Seeing a film you don't agree with also aids in explaining any questions non-Christians may ask their known Christian friends...instead of responding with "Well...Master Pastor what's his name with his own website and television show saw it and HE says..." No harm ever came from a bit of research...

Director Darren Aronosky & Russel Crowe

Now, of course if you don't find said film in your interest you have every right NOT to see that film, but please don't deter others from expanding their knowledge. I find the fact that a film can get so many people discussing the topic of religion (specifically Christianity) exciting! In this year alone there have been THREE Christian themed/Biblically rooted films released (so far) Noah, is NOT for everyone; director Darren Aronofsky shot it (as all his films) with a very specific theme in mind.
  This is what get's my goat, many strike out at this film, but it was never marketed as something it was not. Noah was never billed as a Biblically accurate account, it was never marketed specifically towards or for a Christian audience. This, I believe, is most important when considering whether Christians should take up arms and fight the religious injustice that is Noah (*cough* sarcasm *cough*) or keep a rational, open mind. I'm not going to dwell on what Noah is, or is not in accordance to religion. The source material for Noah is not THEE Bible, it's a graphic novel written by the film's director and that graphic novel does not boast a strong religious agenda. Just keep that in mind. This is all I want to say on the controversial subject because I'd love to actually REVEIW the film, and after I'm done you can decide for yourself. Will you see Noah so you have an educated stance in the heated discussion of the film, or will you avoid it out of stubborn second hand he-said, she-said accounts OR (Yes there are more than two options) is it possible the film's intriguing aspects were literally drowned by a dismal 3rd act resulting in a dower end product?

Simply put, this is Noah...

Before the flood 8 1/2 out of 10 stars; during/after the flood 3 stars

  I have no problem with how the story was handled, it's artistic license, this is NOT Heaven is For Real, it's Aronofsky (the man who gave us Requiem of a Dream, The Black Swan, The Wrestler) I actually ENJOYED many of the unique, compelling ideas Aronofsky has developed; I became emotionally upset with the three hundred and sixty degrees change the film took after the flood occurred. In the beginning (Ha. Ha.) Noah was the definite hero of the film, his passion and commitment to The Creator (God) frames him as a good man, working against those who have sinned and destroyed the beautiful land they were given. You see how revolting and lost the race of Man has become and why the Earth needs to be cleansed...you shutter and gasp at the atrocities of Man's behavior and but as soon as the Ark shuts its door Aronofsky (who penned the film as well as directing) turns Noah into a completely different character. Gone is the father figure who's dedication to God is inspiring; instead we're left with a bloodthirsty, deranged lunatic who never recovers his respected status obtained in the film's first hour and half. What happened to saving the planet and hopping for a better future? What happened to seeing the best in Noah? Themes of responsibility, hope, and trust in God are completely forgotten and abolished, ending the film in bitter contrast. A feeble attempt to recover them is made in Noah's last scene however the previous change of pace was so dramatic it proved difficult to rebound.

The first hour and half of Noah, brilliant. Gorgeously shot, intriguing and unique, I feel it didn't spit on the actual religion of Christianity at all...simply took a well known story and used it very loosely to construct a new tale of epic proportions. Noah is not a film about staying true to the story in Genesis, it's about environmentalism, saving the world from Man's destructive course (and then some garbage at the end) I found myself willing to suspend disbelief to enjoy the original take Aronofsky presents. If one was to "faithfully" adapt the story of Noah, the film would be roughly 30 minutes long. Fantastic cinematography and expert editing make Noah a pleasing film aesthetically. The images created by cinematographer Matthew Libatique varied from haunting to etherial to painfully realistic...that being said Noah does offer it's fair share of CGI.

The Animals {emit heavy sigh} I understand and agree that it was the only way but I honestly think I saw 5 Moose...the same Moose couple...dispersed throughout the massive hear 5 times...and that Armadillo-Dog.
  The Watchers, another highly contested portion of the film, dare I say it, one of the most fascinated ideas as well as top notch production on the design and creation of these creatures.

Got Moose? Deer? Elk?

  Performances are solid despite some questionable character developments. Is Noah a perfect film? No. Will it be one teachers show in the Sunday school class room? Absolutely not. But what Noah does offer is entertainment. I'm not going to lie, several times I found myself shaking my head at the absurdity of the story, it's characters developments, and comparing/contrasting Bible and Film but I thoroughly enjoyed the first part of the film, however outlandish or "inaccurate" some may call it. Ultimately, a good portion of Noah could have hit the cutting room floor. Had several of the major struggles that occurred on the Ark during the flood been cut out, the films integrity wouldn't have suffered; it actually would have improved. The film didn't need the additional conflicts that drastically tarnished the its title character.  Leaving the theater I contemplated my initial retain to the film and found the film dove so so low there was no way the finale could benefit from its rainbow-ed end. I found myself so upset and depressed at how irrational the last 30-45 had been I didn't feel much hope for a better future. It's been quite some time since I've been so emotionally split by a film; therefore, I defer to my original point, if you'd like to make claims and/or have an opinion about Noah, I suggest you see it for yourself.

I snuck into Captain America the Winter Soldier right after Noah...
    -There is a reason people are calling this the best Marvel movie in years and I can tell you why. It's because a Director FINALLY stopped trying imitate Joss Whedon's crackpot style of directing and actually produced a distinct, quality action film...void of constant jokes and absurd plot lines riddled with gaping holes.

A full review, COMING SOON!

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! 

Mortal Instruments: City of Bones

  Sometimes I wonder what the movie industry would become if it didn't have an endless supply of teen fantasy novels to act as screenplay material...

Directed By: Harald Zwart
Released: 2013
Staring: Lily Collins, Jamie Campbell Bower, Robert Sheehan, Adrian Turner, Kevin Zegers, Jemima West, Jonathan Rhys Meyers, & Lena Headey
Rated: PG-13,

  Vampires, werewolves, and witches; staples in Hollywood cinema are normally figureheads for Halloween themed horror flicks. From Max Sherck to Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney Jr. and even Jack Nicholson, these actors are known for their roles within the supernatural realm. The classic era of Hollywood produced THEE images audiences associate with fantastical and horrific creatures. Looking The Wolfman and Frankenstein in particular, the monster's were terrifying yes, but sympathetic emotions were injected into the story and performances. I myself still want nothing more than to wrap my arms around poor Larry Talbot aka Lon Chaney Jr.and tell him everything will be alright.

Above: The sad and adorable Lon Chaney Jr. & the scary and irresistible Bela Lugosi
Bottom Lon Chaney Jr. & Evelyn Ankers in The Wolfman (1941) 

  March 40 some years in the future and the 80's resurrected horror and it would never be the same. The blood was redder, the girls were hotter, and the villains unforgiving. 80's horror has become it's own genre, generating  countless cult classic that today still have movie goers covering their eyes and jumping out of their seats. The image transformed from sympathetic beast to blood-lusting killer; directors and make-up artists pushed the envelope as well as the fake blood supply. 

David Naughton in American Werewolf in London (1981) 

Keifer Sutherland in The Lost Boys (1987)

  Horror, one of my favorite genres of film, has transformed medieval monsters of folk lore into house hold, revenue-generating assets. Transformation included the jump from horror to other genres; largely fantasy and even more surprisingly romance. Not to say furry monsters, scaly creatures, and charming blood-suckers haven't been the subject of their fair share of amour, just never to the extent of our modern film and more importantly modern literature. 

  New authors create their own rules within their own worlds, generating an endless flow of fresh material for Hollywood to manipulate and market.  I read both Bram Stoker's iconic vampire novel and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein before I finished 5th grade. I read the Twilight series in middle school and despised the film which lead me to question why and how I had enjoyed the books...final conclusion, I enjoyed them out of secret love I had (and still do) harbor for Bela Lugosi and Lon Chaney Jr. Despite the complete failure that was the entire franchise, I continually read fantasy, teen-romance series. While every other girl buried themselves in Nicholas Sparks, Sarah Dessen I attached myself to authors like Melisa Marr and Holly Black. Lots of fae fantasy...{note: J.K. Rowling & J.R.R Tolkien were my first a favorite as far as fantasy literature goes.} 

  But holy cats I need to get back to the movie in question

  Long story short, being a fan of fantasy/romance a friend suggested I check out The Mortal Instrument  series and I HAVE READ THE FIRST ONE, CITY OF BONES...that took much longer than it should have...apologies. The reason I wrote that 4 paragraph exposé was just to give you a little insight on the genre crossing that is so common in not only writing, but in film making. The majority, if not all of the dark fantasy romances with vampires, werewolves, witches, and now demons have come from the flood of cross genre, young adult novels that have captivated readers all over the world. Tolkien was the first, followed by Rowling to create a HUGELY successful franchise off of a fantasy series. It's only a matter of time until YOUR favorite series gets an adaption and you can love or loath how the film industry interprets it. 

FINALLY TO THE ACTUAL MOVIE REVIEW!

 I read City of Bones my junior year I believe and thought it was a solid enjoyable start to a series; I feel the same way about the film. That being said, had I not read the book (no matter how long ago it was) I think I may have been marginally confused by the film. I love vampires, werewolves, fae, and demon hunters so this series is right up my ally; however, for the average movie goer City of Bones may just be a jumbled piles of monsters, angels, demons, and young, angsty romance. 

  

 From what I remember of the book, all major plot points, action sequences, and back stories are present to provide a fun and thrilling movie going experience for audiences but that comes from someone who has read the books and understands that world in which it takes place. I don't know...I've heard mixed reactions from viewers... it IS easy to understand...it ISN'T easy to understand...As one who has read the book it's difficult to be objective. I'll do my best...

City of Bones flows nicely with well choreographed action sequences and features a relatively solid cast. 

  I say relatively solid because let's be honest, this is a young cast in an action/fantasy/romance film, I'm not expecting any Oscar worthy performances but most, save Godfrey Gao as Magnus Bane, were on character and correctly cast. For this reason I'm not going to dissect any of the main cast, just two of the supporting male characters.

  

  The first is Jared Harris as Hodge. His performance less than what I had expected primarily because there was less of his character than you'd think. Where WAS he? I honestly think the character of Hodge was present on screen for less than 10 minutes, making his character nothing more than a story telling device, leading to minimum to no audience connect and therefore reaction when something actually happens to his character. I felt a bit uncomfortable with his character, at first I attributed it to miscasting but the more I think about it that wasn't the problem. The problem was he was just NEVER in the film and was never give a strong character. Hodge is described as this great leader and he was reduced to a shivering coward...I feel screen writers could have done much more with his character, giving poor Jared Harris more to work with.

He does have a nice face...

  Next I want to discuss Jonathan Rhys Meyers...perpetually confusing as a human being, I've never come to a firm like or dislike of him as an actor. Is he fantastic? Not particularly. Is he dreadful? No. He just IS. Soulless seems the appropriate descriptive...Perhaps this is why I so enjoyed Rhys Meyers as Valentine. Soulless yet filled with emotion, is this too contradictory a statement? Well if it is you understand how I feel about him. He has these empty eyes...empty eyes filled with tears, a man totally consumed with power and passion it has destroyed him. Rhys Meyers will next be appearing as the title character in NBC's adaption of Dracula...So far I'm not necessarily thrilled about this BUT one must remember I felt the same way about Hannibal which has become one of my favorite network television series...only time will tell.

The special effects were nothing special...somewhat generic, but I thought they were used well when it came to the werewolf transformations and some of the fire demons featured near the end of the film.

As I wrote earlier, the action sequences were very well choreographed with various weapons and fighting methods used, it kept the fights interesting. I particularly enjoyed the battle with the Vampires. These are no Twilight, hopeless romantic vegetarians, they're an underground bloodsucking gang; taking prisoners and ensuring fear. In this series, the author has returned to the vampires natural core, evil and hungry. The make-up used made them appear a bit zombie-ish but I'll take ripped clothes and dirty skin over diamond sparkles any day. 

Adrian Turner sports some Sweeney Todd esque hair as alpha werewolf Luke

  The troop of werewolves are a bit generic and stereotypical...a bunch of scruffy, motorcycle driving, car fixing guys...but hey, Adrian Turner looked the part and was a good choice for the part. Also, let us rejoice that the werewolves weren't a click of young, hot, hairless teenage bros but older, rough and tough gents I can picture a hard hearted Lon Chaney Jr. joining...as long as he grew a beard. 

  The movie was not without it's corny bits but it's a teen based film so what can you expect...All in all I enjoyed watching City of Bones. It not exceptional, but I think they did quite well taking the source material and putting it on the big screen. It's no Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings and doesn't have the support like the Twilight fandom, but I feel badly that this film didn't do better. Earlier this summer I watched another fantasy teen romance series turned film franchise Beautiful Creatures. I hadn't read the books but my feeling toward that film were almost equal to City of Bones. Nice. I had a good time, I enjoyed it. Many, many critics say these films are "misfires", I disagree. They're just good enough to possibly make a sequel. I mean you have to consider the MATERIAL you're working with...

My final reaction to City of Bones, surprisingly positive.
 

Life of Pi

...A horror movie in which the ocean is the villain and a 16 year old boy goes 227 days without growing any facial hair.

Directed by: Ang Lee
Released: 2012
Staring: Suraj Sharma, Irrfan Khan, Rafe Spall, & Richard Parker via Rhythm & Hues Studios
Rated: PG
Times Viewed: 1

  Perhaps it's because I watched both A Perfect Storm AND Cast Away at far too young of age, but I have always been TERRIFIED of deadly ocean storm and/or stranded in the ocean type films. Life of Pi, while vividly entertaining and beautifully envisioned, was no exception. If there was ever a film that  would convince me to stay away from ship travel this one would be it; forget Titanic, it's Life of Pi all the way. That being said, I'll do my best to cope with my fear of the open ocean/drowning and review the film without shuttering.

"Better than Disney World Mumbai!!!" 

   Everything you've heard about the amazing CGI in this film is absolutely true. Originally I was completely against the idea of  nearly 100% computer generated animals and visuals(set?) JUST USE A REAL TIGER and some clever trick shots is what I kept saying. Humbly, I must admit I was quite wrong about that and the visual team at Rhythm & Hues Studios did an outstanding job!

The detailed process behind making Richard Parker come to life

  I do believe you will always be able to detect CGI from non-CGI, but what the artist's generated was truly amazing. All of the animals, Richard Parker (the tiger for those of you who don't know) especially were created with such detail, vibrance, and movement when one is engaged in the film it's quite easy to forget they're not real. And for that I take my hat off to the designers and engineers at R&H Studios who were unjustly NOT appreciated or mentioned for their fantastic work during director Ang Lee's acceptance of the Best Director Oscar at this year's show...I'll delve deeper into that later.

A fight for dominance in "Life of Pi"

If they used some shots of a real tiger mixed with CGI I will never be able to tell the difference.

  Back to the animals...Animals which can so often appear flat and cartoonish on screen due to the lack of detail, attention to lighting, and depth, come alive in Life of Pi. As you would in a live animal, you can see every hair on the tigers coat move and ever scale on each fish glisten in the sunlight. The saturated colors of the entire movie help the animals really pop and allow the viewer to see how much work was put into creating these creatures.

  The limitless ocean, dream-like sky, and floating island also must be mention as they are all gorgeous and truly unique. I must say, this is a movie I really wish I would have seen in 3-D. I could tell from watching at home, Life of Pi was a film that was developed to be shot in 3-D and utilize it with the depth of the ocean, lashing tiger, and flying fish. Lee even changed the aspect ratio of the film several times to submerge the viewer even deeper into Pi's beautiful and deadly adventure.

  I  reccomend this film for the sole reason of the outstanding work the special effect team did on the whole film. It's vibrant, fun, sometimes scary, and always stunning. Life of Pi is definitely a feast for the visual senses.

I'm sorry Pi, the tribe has voted; You must either leave the boat or be eaten.  

Richard Parker & Pi have a staring contest to kill time...RP is a sore loser. 

  The story and themes behind Life of Pi, I feel could have been a bit stronger than were presented in the film. What themes you ask? Religion is supposedly the driving force of the story; however, at the end of the tale I felt as if religion had been lost rather than found. Religion is mentioned quite a bit at the beginning of the film as the writer and we the viewers are taken back to Pi's childhood and his induction into three (I believe) religions. I found this part of the tale quite intriguing and enjoyable; Pi telling us how he is able to simultaneously be apart of Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam. At first I thought the back story telling was a bit excessive but now that I think about it, that's what really connected me to the character of Pi.

  The strong appeal of the three different religions acting as one was perhaps why I felt as if they were missing at the end of the film. The character of the writer himself says the whole reason he was sent to Pi was because he had been told that Pi had a story that would make him believe in God...I felt, as Pi concluded his tale, the shock of the two different scenarios detracted from the major theme that was supposed to be represented in his tale.

A young Pi discovers Christianity.

  This is where the story and review get tricky. Pi revels to the writer that his whole magical journey with Richard Parker might not have even happened. It might have just been his mind's compensation for the tremendous amount of mental and physical strain put upon him by the wreak. I'll just leave it there so I don't spoil too much, but when those dual stories are introduced there will forever be conflict embedded in the story. JUST like THE LADY AND THE TIGER. Which one did she choose? Which one was behind the door? Which story was reality? Will we the reader and/or viewer ever know for sure? The writer chooses to believe the tale featuring Richard Parker because obviously it would make a great book to film adaption (har har) I'm not saying that I didn't enjoy this psychological turn of events, on the contrary I found it added a bit of substance to a rather fanciful film; but it was the intrigue of the two stories that seemed to be of greater interest to the writer and audience rather than religion. Again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, to me it just seemed to diverge from the original intent of the story.
      -I have never read the book although I've been told to by many...just so you know.

Director Ang Lee on set.

Ang Lee...that man is a strange duck...I'd just like to take the time and remind you all that this is the same Ang Lee who directed 2003's horrendous Hulk, which I think SyFy channel has even stopped playing. That being said, he has also directed some great films like Sense and Sensibility and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon...everyone gasp as I confess I have never seen Brokeback Mountain.

  Range in directing is good, but I feel his is at either end of extreme levels of quality. After finally seeing Life of Pi, can I say that I agree that he should have won the award for best director...eh...the list of directors this year was odd...I personally think Benh Zeitlin should have won for Beast of the Southern Wild (if you haven't seen it yet go NOW) Spielberg is and always will be fantastic, I've yet to see Amour, but then David O'Russell? I did like Silver Linings Play-Book a lot more than I had anticipated, but I didn't see O'Russell getting an award for it. Odd group...just odd. I was shocked when neither Tom Hopper or Quentin Tarantino were nominated; I would have loved to see Tarantino win for Django, but he go his Oscar for original screenplay so that's just as good if not better.
     
  I don't know...best directing? Really academy? Of the whole 2012 year?
Special Effects for sure...but directing? AND I must admit I lost a bit of respect for Ang Lee when he didn't even mention the special effects team in his thank you speech. I know there was a big lock out/the company was shutting down scandal, but those where the men and women who CREATED THE WHOLE FILM. Perhaps now I'm getting too subjective...don't let any of this deter you from watching because it really is a great film.

Life of Pi is no Cast Away. The gritty realism we as viewers have come to know from many a ship wreck film is replaced with spectacle and fantasy. Life of Pi is beautiful, with an fresh story and unbelievable special effects, this one is a must watch. Viewers of all ages will find something to enjoy in this film even if it is just the vivid scenery, glowing fish, or a tiger named Richard Parker.

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...