Review: The Wizard of Oz

Having seen Oz the Great and Powerful I was inspired to go back and re-watch the two other films based off L. Frank Baum's books, the famous 1939 MGM classic and the underrated Disney sort-of-sequel from the 1980s!

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

An eternally timeless classic, forever referenced and loved. Personally, I have some problems with it.

Dorothy, a girl in Kansas find herself swept up by a tornado and deposited in the colourful, magical Land of Oz where she is directed to find The Wizard of Oz to get help in returning home. Along the way she will meet other unfortunate characters, and will be terrorised by the Wicked Witch!

The sepia toned Kansas and the technicolor Land of Oz is a wonderful transition, the simple but effective method of Dorothy opening the door of her wrecked house is a great start to the proceedings. The film's family fun comes from a jolly sense of theatre; characters are bright and colourful and for young children the Wicked Witch and the film's darker scenes really can be scary.

My one problem with it... and I realise now why the film never grew on me... the songs. Now I know The Wizard of Oz is a musical at heart, but... god, that Munchkin Song, I mean what even was that?? It went on, and on... and on, I think I cracked at the "We represent the Lollipop Guild" segment. Why was all of that in there??
There are great points of character development that aren't in song. There aren't many... but outside the doors of the Wizard's throne room the Lion gives a great speech that says so much about him and it didn't need to be sung!

But regardless, it is a simple but great story about an innocent soul learning, being brave, and being honest and good. It may have aged in production, but the direction is so honestly made that it clearly as nothing to hide.

If you can stomach some overlong and repetitive songs, it is a recommended family film.

       

Return to Oz (1985)

Compared to the original 1939 classic... this film is deeply disturbed! But in that weird and wonderful way of 1980s fantasy, it has a great mesmerizing darkness and physical effects.

The film starts six months after the first film, Dorothy is back in Kansas but cannot sleep because of memories of Oz. She is taken to a mental hospital but is rescued after a power outage, escaping into a storm, she wakes up once more in the Land of Oz. Dorothy finds the land under the rule of The Nome King and the sinister Mombi, who have destroyed Emerald City and imprisoned her friends! Can she set things right?

Being based off stories from two of L. Frank Baum's books many consider Return to Oz as the most faithful adaptation in the trilogy. But that's as may be, Return to Oz is a surreal trip! Not only are we in a perpetually dark and forboding place; from an old mental ward with leering staff, to empty ruins filled with statues of petrified people. We've not even gone into the villains of the film! The infamous Wheelers, and Mombi's cabinets of living heads (easily what I found most terrifying as a child) the imagery is surely creative, but only goes between dark and surreal. The Gump, what even is it??

But if one character can sum up the film's great physicality with effects, it would be Tik-Tok, the clockwork soldier who defends Dorothy regularly. He is a joy to watch and a feat of design and engineering. Nowadays he would be completely CGI!

If you can get over the surreal story (that includes a chicken being the enemies' Kryptonite!) and understand that this is a lot darker than Wizard of Oz, you will find it a magical and highly creative ride.

Additional Marshmallows: Did you know that director Walter Murch invited his friend George Lucas to the film's sound stages, where Lucas would meet Rick McCallum... He and McCallum would later go on to work on the Star Wars prequels.        

Review: Oz the Great and Powerful (3D)

In a time where sequels and prequels to cherished franchises are rife and so easily condemned to failure, director Sam Raimi deserves kudos for this splendid romp of theatrics.

Oscar is a traveling magician in Kansas, he is no hero and only dreams of wealth and fame. When his womanising antics gets him in trouble, he flees in his hot air balloon only to be snared into a tornado. Deposited in the Land of Oz, he is heralded by three witches as the prophesied Wizard of Oz, king of the land. But as the witches squabble over his unremarkable nature, can he rise above himself and save the land?

Like I say, we have had a lot of prequels and sequels (and remakes!) trying to cash in on our childhoods, and while I was never completely sold on the original Wizard of Oz, I can see here that a lot of effort had been made to make this harmonious with the classic. Sam Raimi has put his substantial talents towards making a bright, fun and sometimes dark family film. It is significantly better than... oh, shall we say... Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland...?

I say that because there is a lot of computer generated imagery here. A lot. In fact Oscar's first sights of Oz are almost 100% computerised, which made me a little sad... I understand that Oz is a magical otherworld, but I still find myself pining for physical creations. It does mature once we reach the Emerald City and more human characters appear though, and I should say that CGI or no the creativity and design work are wonderful.

The film starts out, of course, in the glorious sepia tones of the real world, yet Raimi extends the contrast with the colourful Oz by having our world shot in “full frame” and not wide screen! Hopefully people get this and aren't rushing out the theatre to complain the projection's broken!

The acting is good, James Franco as Oscar is a joy to watch, playing a talented but cowardly man without hamming it up completely. His friends are fun and full of life, especially the little China Girl. The Wicked Witch herself is also a joy to watch on the big screen, one of many defining characteristics that proves Sam Raimi is out to make an authentic homage to the classic original.
Having said that, one oddly missing element are songs, in fact the film makes a point of cutting its one and only music number short! Some fans of the original might find this sad... I however don't mind.

So I enjoyed it for the most part! A lot more than I expected to, maybe a little heavy on the CGI and the adults in the audience will see a lot of cliches, but by the end you will be loving it as a theatrical romp with both light-heartedness and scary thrills.

Additional marshmallows: I don't make a habit of commenting on 3D so much nowadays, but here it was effectively used; it didn't ruin the film (I'm sure 2D showings will not lose out) some of the best 3D parts are during the 4:3 "full frame" scenes in Kansas.

Review: Stoker

I was keen to see Stoker as it was directed by the man behind Oldboy, a cult favourite revenge film (it is rated 20th in my top 50 films of all time!). However Stoker may be directed by Chan-Wook Park, it is acted by Americans and set in America. Don't be alarmed though, it still contains all of his trademarks of grim atmosphere, violence and mystery.

The film follows an intelligent, impressionable but sheltered eighteen year old girl India Stoker after her father has died. Her mother (played by Nicole Kidman) bottles her emotions and tries to lose herself in the company of her late husband's brother who is visiting their home. The girl does not trust her uncle, who has appeared out of the blue... and is seducing her mother. But there is even more to his mysterious past, and it all revolves around India.

Stoker is a moody, atmospheric piece as much as it is violent. The colours are muted; their house at times feels stark and cold, even clothes are pallid and ghostly. The first half of the movie is slow as it plays to the girl's natural instinct of listening and observing rather than talking or reacting; it is a quiet, often morbid affair.

However, when the characters and their motives begin to align and shady histories are revealed (not unlike Oldboy's eye-opening finale) the film avalanches into a dangerous cycle of murder and innocence slowly being destroyed.

Did I like it though...? I wouldn't say it was a film worthy of a cinema trip; the start did drag and it probably isn't for the faint of heart. I also missed the more surreal aspects that Oldboy included, Stoker feels somewhat safer (don't misunderstand though, it is still unpleasant!) there was one gorgeous transition mid-way through that I loved. I enjoyed it for the unravelling of mysteries and to see where these characters' (especially India's) moralities will take them.

It is a quiet, moody dive into the mind of a killer.

Additional Marshmallows: It is obvious that some of the film industry's bad habits have scarred me; seeing only the title of this made me think it would be a biopic of Bram Stoker....

Review: A Good Day to Die Hard

If you follow Cinema Cocoa then you are already aware of my disdain for this film having a 12A (PG-13) rating. Yet, many people suggested I watch it for sake of having my opinion. What do I think now? An unsurprising test in mediocrity.

If you go into it, A Good Day to Die Hard is probably the worst example of reviving "old school" action movies of the 80s and 90s (up there with The Expendables) as the fifth in the series is possibly the most watered down and derivative example of what Die Hard actually is as a franchise.

So when he discovers his son has been imprisoned in Russia, John McClane takes it upon himself to go out there and... save him?... Only for the political prisoner his son was protecting to be attacked by terrorists. The two McClanes must settle their broken relationship if they want to get to the bottom of a political conspiracy.

See how I couldn't go through the synopsis without struggling? Die Hard 5 has so many ambiguous plot devices and derivative excuses for having action sequences. It isn't explained why John McClane goes to Russia, in fact he is constantly reminded how he causes trouble wherever he goes, and... twenty minutes in he does. He barges into a CIA operation and complains he was only on a vacation.
This isn't John McClane acting like John McClane... the formula for Die Hard films is that he finds himself in the wrong place at the wrong time, not barging in to other people's problems to blow stuff up! (even Die Hard 4.0 got this right!)

Whoever directed this needs to be introduced to something. It is called a steady-cam. Good lord I thought the movie business learned after Quantum of Solace that shaky camera doesn't work. This actually makes Michael Bay's direction feel poised and controlled! Even atmospheric, slow shots are wobbling all over the place like the cameraman's drunk; your eye gets misled constantly as the camera skews left and right, it is haphazard while characters are so much as walking!

The film itself is mercifully short, though you will find yourself begging for more to give the spontaneous and juvenile plot some sustenance! What kills this film and renders it little more than a line of explosion effects (asides an over-complicated twisty-turn plot) are the villains themselves. Die Hard villains are mostly pretty fun! Jeremy Irons and Alan Rickman were gloriously silly. Even the guy in 4.0 was interesting. Here the villains barely exist! We don't get to know them, we have no idea who they are... and the film is so badly paced that it kills them off before the audience can truly appreciate them.

So what works in A Good Day to Die Hard, if anything? Well, if you forgive them being shot in horrendous shaky-cam, the action sequences are pretty excitingly executed, and I do appreciate the franchise clearly continuing with a family theme: McClane hits rock bottom in the third film Vengeance, and 4.0 and 5 are about him trying to reach out to his kids. It's just a shame this film couldn't make that more prominent with a better screenplay.

I haven't even gotten to the part where John McClane couldn't say his catchphrase because of the stupid 12A rating... Or you can read my 12A rant.

It is quite sad then that this has happened to the franchise, then again, you can just get the trilogy. Die Hard 1 - 3 are excellent and have very little wrong with them!   

Additional Marshmallows: Yes, I saw your references to the original Die Hard... They hurt me... They made me want to watch a better movie.

Also, I would like to stress that this film cannot be excused by the theory: "Oh, it is just a Die Hard movie, it isn't meant to be intelligent". While the previous films weren't world changing drama by any means, they were a hell of a lot more rewarding than this. I know, I rewatched them only a few weeks ago.
   

    

Review: Quiz Show

The first film I've seen that was directed by Robert Redford, Quiz Show is rightfully regarded as one of his best.

Based off a true story, the film follows the ethical minefield of a quiz show at the advent of television that encouraged its contestants to cheat by giving them the answers ahead of time. While the dramatization made it a huge hit for audiences, when one contestant is told to lose so that a new winner can replace him, an investigator sets to work in uncovering the conspiracy.

It is a very simple concept; the film's backbone is following several unique and powerfully represented characters as they make morally shady decisions and how they cope under the pressures of being found out.
A lot of the film's weight comes from Ralph Fiennes and John Turturro's performances as two of the quiz show's champions, as well as the production and set design of the film, very much set in the late 1950s (I'm always happy to see Turturro legitimately acting outside of the Transformer films!)

As I have said, the morality of the characters' choices are in a very grey area, being offered huge amounts of money by cheating in such a undetectable manner would be hard to refuse, that and how the show made money by it and the audience loved it. This is the film's core; television's ability to turn honest people into quite infantile liars and yet have us, the viewer, feel sympathy.

There is a rather insidious quality that lurks inside the film's core when considering today's heavily dramatized, staged "reality" television that we are subjected to constantly!

It is a simple, short film that doesn't drag or outstay its welcome. I wouldn't say I was completely captured by it; there are many dialogue scenes that are inhuman with heavy question-and-answer sessions, deliberately showing the characters are "extremely intelligent people" and little else. But, Fiennes and Turturro are strong enough to make even gimmicky scenes like these effective for what they needed to be.