The Great Gatsby

Because no one ever accused Baz Luhrmann of being subtle....

Directed by: Baz Luhrmann

Released: 2013

Staring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan, Joel Edgerton, & Elizabeth Debicki

Rated: PG-13

Times Viewed: 1

  We have been awaiting this film for quite some time, oh yes we have. It seemed every time we were teased with the promise that it was near it's release date, Gatsby would get pushed back even farther. With all the drama surrounding the nearly six month delay I can say old spot, it was worth the wait.

Baz Luhrmann's adaption of The Great Gatsby not only stays true to the book, but infuses the energy and spirit of the jazz age through out every frame, costume, and song. 

One of the first stills released, Tobey Maguire, Leonardo Dicaprio, Carrey Mulligan, & Joel Edgerton in "The Great Gatsby"

  So far Gatsby hasn't been the hit with critics as many thought it would be. But why? Majority of reactions can be summed up in this quote from a review by David Denby 

    

     "Luhrmann’s vulgarity is designed to win over the young audience, and it suggests that he’s less a filmmaker than a music-video director with endless resources and a stunning absence of taste."

         

    Ouch, David, Ouch. 

  

First of all I'd like to ask...Have any of these reviewers seen Moulin Rouge? A fabulous feast for the senses and successful with a wide range of audiences, I can not only see, but feel Baz Luhrmann's presence in Gatsby just as strongly as in Moulin Rouge! Over the top, lavish musical productions is what Baz Luhrmann DOES. That's his creative style. As with any great director, Chris Nolan to Woody Allen, there is a definite style and creative choices that are made that make that director one of notoriety. When I see words like "vulgarity" and "absence of taste" associated with Baz I truly question wether these critics knew what they were getting in to when they entered Gatsby. 

  

  Now, had Baz deviated far from the original source material, THAT would garner scrutiny and scorn. But when a film stays so true to the novel, and clearly expresses F. Scott Fitzgerald's commentary on the Jazz Age I see nothing wrong. I find his over the top production enjoyable because through it he uses Fitzgerald's own words to tell this tale. I mean this quite literally, most of the movie is word for word from the book. And there is a reason The Great Gatsby is THE great American novel. 

Statue of F. Scott Fitzgerald (Rice Park in St. Paul)- taken by yours truly.

  The Great Gatsby is not a love story, I mean it is but  let's put on our freshman high school caps and analyze what this story is about. The Great Gatsby is MINNESOTA author F. Scott Fitzgerald's critique of his own generation. On the outside it seems all about the glitz and glamour. Cheap booze and fast women. Soaring stalks and underground parties. Deep down though, Fitzgerald see a generation decomposing from within. No new thoughts. No progression. No hope. The Great Gatsby is a commentary on basically everything Fitzgerald thought was wrong with the 20's. Old money vs. New money, corruption of young bright minds and so one. Fitzgerald focus' on the positives through the character of Gatsby who represents hope and the American Dream. I can honestly say since I read it in eighth grade, The Great Gatsby has been one of my favorite books. If you haven't read it, buck up and do it....it's only 218 pages.

  Back to the film. Everything that Fitzgerald so passionately put in his novel, Baz puts into the film and illustrates with vivid imagery and narration. The few changes Baz incorporates only aid the ORIGINAL story and justifies the narration throughout the film. 

Now that I'm done boring you with my obsessive analysis (even though I love analysis) I'll get to the pretty parts. 

  This movie is visually intoxicating. The pristine colors, sparkle and shine of each and every frame envelope the audience in the world of Gatsby. I said before, some critics are calling it vulgar and tasteless but it's the excitement, the expensiveness, and the lavish lives lived in the 20's that Luhrmann is trying so hard to communicate with the audiences. And for me it worked! By using such saturated colors, shining diamond accessories and rich materials there was not a dull moment therefore no time for me to become distracted from the story. In my opinion, the more I have to look at in a film, the more entranced and focused I'll be. Perhaps for some critics it's the exact opposite, perhaps it's my theatrical background, but I loved the design production on this film.

Director Baz Luhrmann on the set of "The Great Gatsby"

  Now you all know I have a long standing love hate relationship with CGI/3D. When it's needed USE it, when it's not, GET IT THE HECK AWAY. In Gatsby, the 3D and CGI work MADE this film. You're not just watching party goers bustled through a corridor straining to join the festivities, you ARE one of those party goers. These party scenes are where the 3D is truly justified; with flying confetti and popping champagne bottles the effect was mesmerizing and exciting!  

"I thought you knew old sport! I'm afraid I'm not a very good host...I'm Gatsby"
And the entire theater internally screamed.

The Music

  I, as many did, reacted rather hesitantly when I discover hip-hop star Jay-Z would be producing the music for Gatsby. Don't get me wrong, over the years I've expanded my musical tastes and Jay-Z is actually now a favorite of mine as far as hip-hop goes, but it was just the idea of him working with the iconic music of the 20's that concerned me. However, when I finally heard a sample from the film all my reserves were blown away. I am a huge fan of post juke box swing and jazz that has been popping up from the likes of Parov Stelar ect. and the music of Gatsby seemed to follow the same lines. By blending classics like "Don't Mean a Thing If It Ain't Go That Swing" "Ain't Misbehaving" "Bang, Bang (My Baby Shot Me Down)" with modern club beats, Jay-Z creates a sound that shows the younger audiences the energy felt by the people of the Jazz Age. I know that energy because the 1920's is one of my favorite time periods musically, but in today's generation, there are so few young people who are aware of how amazing and vivacious the music was in the 20's.  Craig Armstrong also contributes a BEAUTIFUL original score that I'll look forward to purchasing as well. Armstrong is a clever devil utilizing not only modern, but classical tunes into the score. The use of "Toccata and Fudge in D minor" as the party goers enter Gatsby's house and George Gershwin's, who I might add is the original fuser of classical music and modern jazz, "Rhapsody in Blue" to reveal our hero were definite high points that I looved.  Here's a sampler of some of the music used in the film. I highly suggest that you purchase it for yourself. It'll have to dancing like it's 1922 for sure.

The Costumes

  Costumes, uh Costumes were BEAUTIFUL! As with many period pieces, designers choose to incorporate either a later or earlier decade along with the one they're working in i.e. my review of Anna Karenina. Catherine Martin (Baz Luhrmann's wife) was not only the costume designer, but head of the production design. This, I believe, is why the film had such a great continuity to it. Costumes, in my opinion are second players to all the actors; dress one character incorrectly and it can throw off not only the character, but the whole show. The costumes of Gatsby, like the music, has a taste of modern edge. The reason? Catherine Martin collaborated with Miuccia Prada!

   The colors as I mentioned before are brilliant, and also the use of accessories and make-up; it's almost like all the 1920's themed shoots Vogue as ever done have exploded in mansion. And I loved it. The amount of time and effort to creating, producing and clothing that many extras must have been colossal. Not to mention hair and make-up as well...and there were no half-assed jobs. I look for that a lot in period piece films, especially during large party or ball scenes. Gatsby's costume and make-up department went all out, didn't miss a fingernail flawless. I wish beyond wish I could get a Polaroid of each extra in full blow costume and hair because there were soo many and they were all soo good I want to see each one in detail. 

  Look how cute! I want to married to an overly theatric (and actually quite attractive) director and make costumes for his lavish films!

The continuity in the Production Design for The Great Gatsby is incredible and I really do hope it's enough to gain it an Academy Award for Costume and Production Design...Or a nomination at least!

The Ensemble

Everyone (with the exception of Tobey Maguire) did how I expected them to do! Quite brilliantly. 

  Leo is, of course, spot on. He brings not only the pomp to Gatsby, but also the humanity that is so desperately important to his character. For those saying he's going to get an Oscar nom...sorry I don't foresee that happening. If it didn't get one for THE BEST SUPPORTING PERFORMANCE of the year in Django, I highly doubt he'll be recognized for Gatsby. Trust me, I want Leo to win an Oscar probably more than most, but it won't be with this role. 

  Carrey Mulligan...good, solid. She doesn't make Daisy as much of a ditz as Mia Farrow did in the 1974 production, which is such a relief, but she doesn't make her over likable either. Which is also good. We are NOT suppose to LIKE Daisy. I see all this "Channel you're inner Daisy" online and I just keep thinking NO! She is the rotted core of the corrupted, decomposing apple that is the 1920's Jazz Age. So no, you do not want to be like Daisy....just saying...I'd rather be like Jordan...she's not much better, but I always connected with her in the book. 

Super sassy, somewhat detached and a little bit sneaky

  Joel Edgerton where do you hide? I mean really, I love you in pretty much everthing (WARRIOR!) then you hide away and reappear to my delight a year later! So odd...Edgerton is physical and chose the perfect disposition for the character. He is exactly how I envisioned him in the book. 

Secret brothers. Jason Clake & Joel Edgerton

Then we have discount Joel Edgerton, Jason Clarke who is ALSO almost always brilliant. You and Joel Edgerton need to stop doing films together (Zero Dark Thirty) I always get you two confused! 

But on a seriously, everyone in this film was EXACTLY how I envisioned them in the book. Even Tobey Maguire character. When I heard Maguire was cast as leading man Nick Caraway I thought 'NOOOOOO!' Because, well solely because of Spiderman. I didn't want Spiderman as the most important character in the film! Thankfully, as he did in Seabiscuit, Tobey surprised me! Character was spot on. There was an innocence but also enough of a devil in him to go along with the party, but make it believable. In the end I really enjoyed his performance. 

Final Thoughts 

  For once, I'm have to arduously disagree with many critics on their harsh treatment of The Great Gatsby. This film is a treat for the senses and an experience that really must be enjoyed in a large theater in 3D Trust me old sport, it'll be well worth your money. Baz Luhrmann returns to the theatrically arousing style of film making that made him such a great success. He uses the source material expertly and blends the magic of the old world with the technology of the new. I hope to soon see The Great Gatsby a second time and relish in it's splendor and innovation. They say it's a film that only young audiences will enjoy? Good. Because maybe, just maybe that love for the movie will spark a love for the original novel and the more young people reading classic literature the better. I see nothing wrong with a film that has a wider appeal to the younger audiences, especially if it's one like The Great Gatsby. 

Drive & Valhalla Rising

A Nicholas Winding Refns Double Feature

Drive

Released: 2011

Staring: Ryan Gosling, Carrey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston, Albert Brooks, Oscar Isaac, Ron Perlman & Christina Hendricks 

Rated: R

Times Viewed: 2
Available on Netflix Instant Streaming

   I feel like many young (women) people have this pre conceived notion about Ryan Gosling. They think he, like his sweater, is perfect boyfriend material.  Soft and sensitive. Strong and hot to trot. Just a funny, good looking guy. They know The Notebook and they know Crazy Stupid love...they know Ryan Gosling's abs. A lot of people think Ryan Gosling is just a Rom-Com leading man...I like to think that I know better. I know that HE is better than that. Truth be told, Ryan Gosling is a helluva lot darker than the uninformed public knows. There is a quiet brutality and insanity in him that echoes throughout many of his lesser known and more violent films. 

  If one was to look at his profile on IMDB one would see that the only real "Rom-Coms" that he's been in are The Notebook and Crazy Stupid love. I like to think of these films as the skeleton that holds Ryan Gosling acting career together, but the real flesh and blood of his work are films like Blue Valentine, The Ides of March and one of the films I'll be reviewing today, Drive. 

Drive is an expertly crafted homage to the 80's filled with impeccable performances, blood & tears violence, and shot with great style.  Refns' modern action masterpiece.

 Ryan Gosling plays a part time stunt driver part time get away car for hire who, after becoming invested in the lives of his pretty neighbor and her young son, finds himself in deep with the wrong tank of sharks. 

  Everything in this film works. From the color scheme to the FANTASTIC soundtrack, Drive is the complete package in first rate film making. There is a deception in the first half of the film. Like Ryan Gosling's character (who is never given a name...billed as "Driver" in the end credits) it's a quiet film. But quiet does not by any stretch of the word mean boring. When I say it's quiet I mean there's action, but it's a subdued action, not thrown in the audience's face from the opening frame. This is prepping the audience for the ultra blood and guts violence that's to come later.

  Refns couples actions with suspense and character intent. There are no unnecessary, loud and brash conversations as there are in many action films. The script is clean and concise; it's a story of human experiences. There are no over blown conspiracy theories, unwarranted explosions, or ridiculous plot lines. Everything that happens in the film could have been taken from an unpublished memoir of a Driver living in Los Angeles. It's (the script's/story) simplicity allows the actors to really shine and when it is time for the action to erupt boy does it taste good. 

  Gosling is FANTASTIC. As I said before his character is quiet, but you KNOW that inside his head gears are turning; he's planning, thinking, and calculating. This stubble nature makes the performance all the more brilliant when he really hits the gas and starts hunting down the scum that threaten Carrey Mulligan and her son. Calm and collected he walks into a strip bar and beats the brains (quite literally) out of a man. Only until he pulls back and the camera focuses on his shaking hand do we see an once of humanity it his action. Truly it's breathtaking. The last 30-45 minutes of Drive is a violent roller coaster ride. Those who've had some difficulty with the "quietness" of the first half should stay put because the car chases and beatings taken in the second more than make up for the first half.
        (I personally loved all of the film, but I know a few people who didn't enjoy the first half as much)

A blood bathed Ryan Gosling in "Drive"

  If Bryan Cranston is as good in Breaking Bad as he is in Drive perhaps I should start watching the series. He's just so damn amazing. 

Ryan Gosling & Bryan Cranston in "Drive"

  Finally we need to talk about Albert Brooks. Describing someone like Albert Brook's character is difficult, but him being a relatively unknown actor to many in my generation worked for him. He comes out of no where and knocks it out of the park. He plays it like a snake slither through the grass, cool and collected until he strikes at the end...leaving more than one dead body in his wake. Brooks received a Golden Globes nomination for the role.  

Now I need to talk about the whole reason I'm here. Director Nicholas Winding Refns, a native of Denmark, is a relatively new Director but boy does he know his stuff. He knows what STYLE means, especially when it's applied to film. Drive is a film of complimentary High Key day shots and Low Key night shots where the shadows take charge and the main lighting sources are the stop lights ahead. This effect is gorgeous and really enhances the 80's feel the whole film has.
The soundtrack is definitely one of the best parts of the film. The 80's synth and heart-beat like bass that accompanies the dark, midnight drives through the streets of L.A. build suspense when the violence has been suspended for a while. Even if you don't watch the movie, I highly recommend the soundtrack.

Drive is one of my personal favorite modern films. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Valhalla Rising

Released: 2009

Staring: Mads Mikkelsen, Gary Lewis, & lots of other unknown scruffy actors 

Rated: R
Times Viewed: 1
Available on Netflix Instant Streaming

One review called it a "masterpiece" another called it "unbearably self-important." Via Netflix, one viewer compared it to drinking their own urine. "Stylish Brutality" is another apt description of Refns productions. So what's my verdict on this visceral, religious and physical piece from Nicholas Winding Refns? 

  Valhalla Rising is without a doubt a visual journey that is either a close hit or a far flung miss for most of it's viewers. It takes patience, an open mind and a bit of imagination to interpret this enigmatic film.

The film follows the journey of an enslaved warrior who kills his captors and travels with a young boy and a group of Viking Christians to Jerusalem. Only they never arrive in Jerusalem. Lost at sea, they soon discover it is not holy ground they've landed upon, but a new world as unforgiving as Hell itself.

The Film is broken into 6 Parts

Wraith 

Silent Warrior

Men of God

The Holy Land

Hell

The Sacrifice

  I'll just put it out there right now and say this is not a movie most ladies will enjoy. It's medieval brutality and ambiguous story are not  for the faint of heart.  And for those of you watching just so you can see Mads Mikk's awesome body. GET OUT. Yes it is definitely an enjoyable feature, but if you watch a film just for the body...I'll run after you fillet you. I believe I made it very clear in my review of the Hannibal series that I too possess a strange attraction to the Dane prince, but the majority of that attraction is to his talent.

  Mikkelsen is superb in this film. His performance only garners more praise because his character was a  MUTE. Yes that's right. He doesn't say a single word through out the whole film, but oh my stars is his performance incredible. OH! And he only has one eye. So now he's lost two of the key essentials that actors use in delivering a performance and still kills it. Mikkelsen uses his physicality to act as his voice, simply turning one way, or lowering a shoulder that way he concisely communicates the character's state of mind and stance. His presence speaks for itself.  

  The first 15 minutes of the film as I wrote before are stylistically brutal. Lot's of bare handed medieval mud fights where One-Eye literally beats an opponents skull open with a rock. As in Drive, when it finally comes time to show the violence, Refns doesn't hold back on the blood or gore. Honestly I love this. I think it adds emphasis but because each beating (both in Drive & Valhalla Rising) are relatively short scenes and not the entire film, he (Refns) can get away with it without being vulgar.  

  A recurring plot subject in Valhalla Rising is trust and devotion to God. After procuring One-Eye and the young boy, the Christians set out for Jerusalem. At first they believe the mighty warrior will bring them good luck, but when a mist sets in and the ship is lost at sea for an uncountable number of days, the men now see One-Eye as the devil. A bad omen delivering them all to the gates of Hell. 

           They end up on the coast of North America so close enough. 

  Through out the film One-Eye has, what I interpreted as, visions of the future.  The film will cut from a close up of one One-Eyes face in normal print and color to a close up of the injured side of his face filmed in black and red. After this the film cuts again to whatever bit of the future he may be seeing (all done in black and red coloring) An arrow head, where the ocean turns into a river, the native americans, and ultimately his own death. The first time it happened I had no idea what it was but each scene that he sees in red occurs later in the film i.e. seeing into the future.

  After landing on shore and loosing several of their ship mates, the Christian Vikings being to loose faith in their religious leader. They soon turn to One-Eye for guidance and follow him as their leader despite the boy telling them they're all going to die eventually. Valhalla Rising is packed with Religious symbolism near the end. Once the leader of the vikings dies, the events and style of Refns' directing clearly show One-Eye meant to represent some God or Jesus like leader who eventually sacrifices himself  to save the young boy. Valhalla itself is a heaven like structure in Norse mythology.     

"Valhalla Rising" was filmed entirely in Scotland and boast some gorgeous cinematography. 

Gary Lewis finds the light in "Valhalla Rising"

My favorite shot from "Valhalla Rising" AMAZING color spectrum.

 
  While it took some patience to watch, Valhalla Rising is a BEAUTIFULLY shot film with great cinematography, prime beating fight scenes, lots of thought provoking symbolism and an unforgettable, silent performance by Mads Mikkelsen. Final verdict, it was an intense movie going experience although I won't recommend it to everyone. 

    

  

Les Miserables

That awkward moment when you and your drunk friends plan a revolution and NO ONE shows up...

Directed by: Tom Hooper

Released: 2012

Staring: Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Eddie Redmayne, Sasha Baron Cohen, Helena Bonham Carter, Amanda Seyfried Samantha Barks, & Colm Wilkinson

Rated: PG-12

Times Viewed: 3

  Hipster musical Morgan has to say this...I am terrified by the obsession that people have with this film. Yes, It's a pretty good movie but the musical is MUCH better. It's just kinda scary. TUMBLR, FACEBOOK, TWITTER, PINTREST, YOUTUBE, people are posting Les Mis non stop everywhere...I mean good, great...if it gets you interested in the music and the book bravo but...ah...so much everywhere. 

  So here's how I've watched this movie. The first time I watched it, I was blown away by the sheer scale and amped up music score. I'm quite used to listening to the original Broadway cast recording from 198(1?) So lots-o synthesizer, but great voices.  Then, as with any movie, you rewatch it and see...well just things you didn't see and aren't necessarily looking for. Things to poke fun at...like an older sibling poking fun at the younger. You do it out of love; not because you wish any hard feelings...it's just too funny not to. 

Honestly, "Honest Trailers" are the best. 

Bah, so I suppose I have to get it out of the way now...The LIVE singing. Duh, duh, Duuuuuhn!

  So the first time I heard about this I was like OH MY GOSH! THAT SOUNDS AWESOME! GREAT IDEA...MORE ACTING INSTEAD OF REHEARSED SINGING! Umm...ya I take that back. Again, a good IDEA but just executed...poorly? In reality this has NOTHING to do with the singing abilities of the actors, except poor Russell Crowe and possibly Amanda Seyfried, but let's think about this. Making a movie and performing in a musical are two very different things. Movies have takes. Take after take after take. And when you do a take multiple times you are going to get tired, your VOICE is going to get tired. This leads to awkward pauses, sing talking, and all over poor quality of singing. Take Anne Hathaway. Yes her performance while singing "I Dreamed a Dream" was heart wrenching and worthy of an Oscar, the actual song itself has some horribly low low notes and terribly troubling high notes. Apologies, but I must speak the truth! Chorus is good. Individuals not on key...just sounds...eh...not sure what to make of it...

I'm just not a fan of it. And really, I see all these people walking around campus listening to the movie soundtrack on their iPods and I'm just like HOW? It's about 45% talk singing. No lie. Not music. Monologue-ing. 

Also, they fudged up my favorite songs "Love Montage/A Heart Full of Love" But that might have been Amanda Sigfasddsfjlkj fault. And that's all I'm going to say to that...

     

   So APART from the live singing/singing EVERYTHING, This was a fantastically made film. Tom Hooper, who you all may know, is the relatively new, Oscar winning director of The Kings Speech and the brilliant yet under-viewed The Damed United. This man is the KING of the period piece. He is the Duke of Detail and the Count of the CGI Crane shot! Ehehe ok not that the later of the two is really that impressive but this man takes everything little thing into account when directing. Even teeth! Genius he is, Tom Hooper had the make up department make caps for the majority of the cast becaauuse if you're singing with you trap wide open (Anne Hathaway has an unbelievably large mouth) the audience WILL see each and every one of your teeth. And in the mid 1800's dentistry wasn't the industry it is today. 

Anne Hathaway sports a less than lovely smile during her performance as Fantaine.

  For the amount of detail Hooper puts in his films he works at polar opposites of shot ratios. The film opens with a huge (cgi :S ) descending crane shot and uses this technique several more times throughout the film; however, when it's not CGI, there are some beautiful cinematographic moments set in the mountains earlier in the film. Wide shots are then contracting by...

   Yes...Tom Hooper loves, looves his extreme close-ups. Not saying they're horrible but can you just back it up like two frames and you'll be good. There are also a couple of odd angles he enjoys shooting at...maybe Hooper is friends with J.J. Abrams...psh Anything is possible. 

  So how's the cast? Obviously there won't be much to talk as far as acting is concerned but there is still quite a bit to be said about this star studded cast. 

  The Good

          Hugh Jackman, Sasha Baron Cohen and Eddie Redmayne/Samantha Barks.

  Casting Hugh Jackman in the leading role was, without a doubt, the best decision that was made in the film. Jackman is not just a movie star, he IS a singer. He's been successful in many a musical. In other words, he is the experienced one. Jackman ages his voice with the character and while his vibrato may be a BIT for me, he is the one who most effectively utilizes the new concept of live singing...Jackman does have some pitch issues at times when he EMOTES ehehe, but so does everyone else.

  Sasha Baron Cohen...I remember I when I thought you were just that nasty Borat man who ran around in string speedos. Thankfully over the past few years, Baron Cohen has proved me wrong. I now LOVE seeing this man. He is a fantastic character actor. He can transform himself into anyone yet still always seems to have such a self aware presence. Take Hugo, a "serious" role for him but with many added humorous attributes. He's just a treat and bumps any film up ten notches.  

Eddie Redmayne...Not only are you completely adorable, but I LOVE YOUR VOICE. Please, Eddie Redmayne, skip hollywood, get a some more lessons and and become an OPERA SINGING! With some training he could be fantastic. 

Eddie Redmayne can creep on me anyday. Anyone else see him in My Week With Marilyn? He was wonderful!

    I really enjoyed the fact that they cast a relatively unknown actress for the part of Eponine. Samatha Barks was perfect for the part. She didn't over act and she didn't under act. She was spot on. 

The Bad

        Russell Crowe and Amanda Seyfried. 

In interviews Top Hooper said they needed someone who could go toe to toe with Jackman both physically and in acting ability...so they chose...Russell Crowe? Russell, Russell Crowe. YOU TIRED! You tried SO hard and it's sometimes painful to listen to and watch. You were uncomfortable...and so were we...But you tried.

Amanda Seyfrinedajs;kldjfaks FOR THE LIFE OF ME I WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO TYPE YOUR NAME WITHOUT LOOKING IT UP AT LEAST 10 TIMES!

    I have to hand it to A.S., if you would have told me 5 years ago that she would have a career after Mean Girls, I would have laughed in your face. After playing such a memorable role like Karen in the unforgettable Mean Girls I would have thought it impossible for her to get past the dumb ditzy teen. But SHE DID! So while she is not my favorite, I must say GO GIRL. Really. Good for you.  Yes, some of her movies are stupid (Mama Mia) and some of them are quite bad (Red Riding Hood, a guilty pleasure of mine) but she keeps trekking on and landing roles so...good for you! And I must say, if I had to choose between A.S. and Taylor Swift, I'm ecstatic that they chose A.S. If only she could have gotten a couple more lessons. The role of Cossette is basically the role of Johanna in Sweeney Todd. You're locked inside a house with a considerably older man, (who in the case of Les Mis is sexy, buff and scruff Hugh Jackman in stead of a creepy judge who raped your mother and imprisoned your father) you meet a boy through a window/gate and without a proper conversation fall desperately in love with him before YOU know his name even though HE knows yours. And he says your name...all the time. But seriously, this I think this soprano part must have been written for the same girl or at least is always sung by one that sounds like a song bird gargling lemonade. It's sooo sweet but toooo much weeble-wobble. And RANDOM, but is anyone else creeped out by her overly large eyes? In Les Mis especially...they age her too much. Just looks disturbed. To reconcile this insult, she did look HAWT at the Academy Awards...she made my Best Dressed list.

Perhaps it's just me, but she's not looking too good here...

mid 30's I'd say...Step away Marius!

  As much as I pick at her for singing, guess what? SHE ADMITS that she's not the best and needs more work. I read an article in which she expressed her interest in joining a show like Wicked on Broadway but came right out and said she wasn't (vocally) ready. Again, GOOD FOR HER! This is not sarcasm, I am truthfully happy for her. Unlike most young actresses, she recognizes he weaknesses and wants to get better. 

...Know what? GOOD LUCK! 

Elegant and lovely, Amanda SEYFRIED at the 2013 Academy Awards.

Overall, I like this movie. The singing is not singing and some times is can be laughable, but Tom Hooper knows how to MAKE beautiful, moving films and it's a fantastic musical by itself. Musical are never intended to be taken too seriously and that's why sometimes you just need to let things go and flow.

       Random thoughts while watching the last hour of the movie

-THERE IS A barricade boy WHO LOOKS LIKE CONAN!  

Coco. Found.

-Hugh Jackman is too sexy to be anyone's father. Open billowy white shirt, manly man chest. This is inappropriate. 

-CGI Crane shots

-SBCOHEN killin' it

-so many freckles...

-Tennant Hair.

-Hugh Jackman basically wills himself to die. It's ok. 

-Valjean and Fontine are going to have ghost sex. ANGST! ANGST! ANGST!

-WHENEVER I SEE COLM WILKISON I JUST FEEL LIKE CRYING BECAUSE HE WAAS JEAN VALJEAN!!! 

-OK that last song is overly impressive and moving. Nice job.

-CAMERON dUCKIN MACKINTOSH! If you ever want to kiss a Broadway producer, he's the one. (He and Andrew Lloyd Webber are buds)

-That "Suddenly" song ya I don't like that stuff...ick.

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...