Oz the Great and Powrful

A classic novel from author L. Frank Baum that was turned into a classic 1939 film, The Wizard of Oz is about as iconic as any film out there. No matter the age, it seems everyone's seen it at some point, and for a reason. It is iconic, classic, influential and most of all entertaining. Watching the story, it leaves a lot of ground for background information, how things came to be the way they are.....and you know what that means!!! Prequel!!! Away we go down the Yellow Brick Road with 2013's Oz the Great and Powerful.

It's 1905 Kansas and magician, con man and all around ladies man Oscar 'Oz' Diggs (James Franco) is working with a traveling carnival, typically staying one step ahead of his past troubles. His troubles have caught up to him this time, and he's forced to escape by the only means in front of him; a hot air balloon. Oz escapes, but he's swept up into a tornado and finds himself in a world unlike anything he's ever seen. Full of color, flowers and trees and creatures that just shouldn't be, Oz also meets Theodora (Mila Kunis), who reveals she's a witch along with her sister, Evanora (Rachel Weisz). He's informed that he's the answer to a longtime prophecy, the man who will save the Emerald City.....if he can kill Glinda (Michelle Williams), an evil witch. Seeing the treasure that awaits if he can do it, Oz agrees, setting off to kill the evil witch, but everything isn't quite as it seems in the wonderful land of Oz.

The little touches here linking the 2013 film to the classic 1939 film are evident. The appeal is obvious, and judging by the box office of almost $500 million worldwide, audiences ate up that appeal. Director Sam Raimi does a fine job bringing to life an incredibly stylish world, full of adventure and fantasy. The movie begins in black and white, the frame small and focused. When Oz arrives in this new world, the frame expands to widescreen, colors literally bursting off the screen. It's a nice nod to the 1939 classic without being too obvious about it. Beyond that, it's cool to see the flying monkeys, the Emerald City, the poppy fields, the Oh-We-Oh palace guards, the munchkins, they Yellow Brick Road and so much more. On top of that, we see how Oz becomes the Wizard, how the Wicked Witch of the West becomes the Wicked Witch. Just a lot of little things and forebearers that any fan of the 1939 film should appreciate.

Now I write this next criticism admitting I didn't see 'Oz' in 3-D, IMAX, or 3-D IMAX, just a regular old flat-screen at home. The visuals are insanely good-looking here....but it went a long way for me. At a certain point, it became overkill. We see Oz exploring this world full of flowers, plants, trees, beautiful hills and mountains, caves and forests. Eventually, it felt like the story gets left by the wayside to focus far more on the stylish aspects of the movie. So as good as the visuals are, they come at the expense of the story, and it's the rare occasion that is a positive for me. As Oz assembles a motley crew of helpers and assistants, the story lags while the focus remains on the background visuals. It's pretty flawless, Franco, Kunis and Co. blending seamlessly into the computer-generated images. I just wish there could have been more of a balance between the two, a happy middle ground.

Where I can't really find a weakness is in the casting. Fresh off a really odd Franco flick -- Spring Breakers -- comes this far better part, far more suited to his strengths. His Oz is a smooth-talker, a pretty decent magician, and generally a troublemaker who always manages to get out of said trouble. Franco gives him the right dosage of roguish charm mixed with a guy who wants to do the right thing. As for the witches, these are three very talented actresses working together (and they're easy on the eyes so that doesn't hurt). Williams does a fine job as the calm, almost angelic Glinda, Weisz similarly very good as the manipulative Evanora, and Kunis gets the biggest transformation from lovelorn Theodora to lovestruck and angry Wicked Witch. My only real complaint is that when Kunis transforms her voice talents remind me far too much of her voice work as Meg Griffin on Family Guy. Regardless, it's a very solid quartet working together.

The rest of the cast includes Zach Braff providing his voice talents as Finley, a small flying monkey (a good one, not a bad one) dressed like a doorman who pledges a life debt to Oz for saving him from certain death at the hands of a lion. He also plays Frank, Oz's loyal assistant in Kansas. Bill Cobbs plays the Master Tinker, a handyman of sorts who helps Oz to victory while Tony Cox is Knuck, the herald of the Emerald City, always ready to sound off a welcoming hurrah. Also solid is Joey King as China Doll, a broken doll Oz fixes who tags along on the adventures. Even look for Bruce Campbell as an Emerald City guard.

While I didn't love 'Oz,' I did like it a lot. The positives mostly outweigh the negatives in a movie that's a tad long at 130 minutes. My favorite moments were the funny ones -- surprisingly funny -- as Oz, Finley and China Doll navigate the twists and turns of the Yellow Brick Road. It's a visual treat with solid characters, surprising action and some good laughs. Not a bad combination at all.

Oz the Great and Powerful (2013): ***/****

Meek's Cutoff

What truly defines a movie? Is it a highly stylized story heavy on visuals and twists and turns with an in your face camera technique? Or is the opposite, a minimalist style focusing on a more realistic visual, a slice of life storytelling? The answer of course is both and neither, falling somewhere in between. It comes down to personal taste what an individual viewer likes or dislikes. Falling in the minimalist style is an indie film from 2010, Meek's Cutoff.

It's 1845 and Americans are starting to drift west, some looking for new lives and others for riches. Among those travelers is a three-wagon train headed by trail guide Stephen Meek (Bruce Greenwood). Traveling with her older husband, Solomon (Will Patton), young Emily (Michelle Williams) is part of the little train heading for Oregon. Meek has decided to leave the main trail, heading west separate from the known route. The settlers go along with the plan, assuming the guide knows what he's doing. Does he though? The water supply starts to get dangerously low. Meek and Solomon manage to capture an Indian that's been tailing the group, leaving them with a decision. Do they entrust the Indian to guide them to water or continue blindly, hoping to find some? It's a decision that doesn't come easy.

Let's get this out of the way early. I hated this movie. We're not talking an indifference like I was disappointed or a mild dislike. Hated this movie. Seeing reviews and all the awards it won at film festivals all over the world, I was curious. Something has to be positive here that so many critics and moviegoers saw an appeal in it. Right? You would think so. And now reading the generally positive reviews, I don't feel like I missed a thing. If anything, I feel like so many others got duped. But that's for you to decide, not me yelling at you.

Minimalist, existential, lyrical, all these thoughts went through my head as I watched this movie. With a 104-minute movie, basically nothing happens at all. N-O-T-H-I-N-G. Director Kelly Reichart makes a conscious effort to make this a real story. The camera is placed in front of the actors, and that's it. No close-ups, no movement, just the action (using that word loosely) unfolding in front of us. Whole scenes of wagons moving across the horizon drift on and on. Minutes go by with not a word spoken. When the dialogue does come along, it's mind-numbingly repetitive and pointless. I applaud Reichart for the approach she took. It's different, I'll give her that much. But a 104-minute movie that feels like it took days to watch?  An epic failure.

The approach Reichart takes is that small window into the lives of these settlers. We know little to nothing about any of their past lives and learn little else by the end of the movie. Existential picture of the individuals in a survival, life or death scenario? Possibly. As a result though, I had no personal investment with any of these people. I was rooting for Michelle Williams and Will Patton, not Emily and Solomon Tetherow. They're representative of people, not actual flesh and blood people. The other settlers include Paul Dano and Zoe Kazan as one couple and Neal Huff and Shirley Henderson as another with son Tommy Nelson. Greenwood gets the most showy of all the parts, but that's not saying much. Stuntman Rod Rondeaux plays the Indian.

Then there's the ending, the definition of ambiguity. Open-ended doesn't begin to describe how 'Meek' ends. Add another check in the 'Surprise Column' that viewers thought it was a potentially happy ending. For me, it is an epic downer ending. The whole tone and style of the movie points to a downer, more realistic ending, but I could be off-base. Moral of the story? It's a judgment call that each viewer will have to make for themselves.

I just don't know what to make of this movie at all. Is it supposed to be of that existential variety, making a bigger, broader statement about survival, about living and dying? Or is it just the story of a small group of settlers moving westward desperately fighting for survival? On either level, 'Meek' didn't work for me. I hate judging a movie as 'boring' because it sounds too easy on my part. That's the problem though. No energy, no interest, no positive impression at all. Give this one a wide berth and steer clear.

Meek's Cutoff <---trailer (2010): */****

Shutter Island

When a big budget movie comes out and I find out it's based on a book, I typically try to read the book first before seeing the movie.  It isn't a hard and fast rule, but it always helps when I've heard of the author or know the book is held in high regard.  For that reason, it took me a month and a half to see Shutter Island in theaters.  When I saw previews for a thriller from director Martin Scorsese, I was hooked, but I paused when I heard it is based on a novel by Dennis Lehane and features quite a twist.  My thinking has always been with books/movies, if I'm going to be surprised, I'd rather be surprised by a book.  

After reading the book, I can say the twist worked very effectively and I never saw it coming.  In a way, seeing the movie after finishing Lehane's novel almost made the theater viewing feel like a second time around.  Scorsese sticks extremely closely to the storyline with a few small exceptions and one MAJOR exception, but on the whole, the highly respected director more than treats the subject matter with respect.  As for the twist, knowing it going into the movie certainly influences the viewing.  No two ways about it, this is a good twist.  Hints are dropped left and right, but they are incidental moments that mean nothing without the knowledge.  It's not a twist for the sake of having a twist, instead providing a moving and surprising ending.

It's 1954 and U.S. Marshal Teddy Daniels (Scorsese favorite Leonardo DiCaprio) has been teamed up with a new partner, Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo), on a strange investigation.  In Boston Harbor on a small island called Shutter Island, a violent criminal escapes from her cell at Ashecliffe Mental Hospital.  Daniels and Aule are called in to investigate the escape which as the evidence is revealed seems more and more like a disappearance.  Nothing adds up concerning the escape, and the head physician, Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley) seems to be hiding something.  Nothing on the island is what it's supposed to be, and Daniels and Aule begin to wonder what they've gotten themselves into.

Several reviews I've read said Scorsese's newest movie has some Hitchcockian cues, and I'd be hard pressed to argue that, especially making some comparisons to Vertigo.  I think the closest thing you can compare Shutter Island to is Scorsese's remake of Cape Fear, but even then, it's a loose comparison.  The director has created a visually stunning movie here, full of doom and gloom on this island out in Boston Harbor.  The cinematography is beautiful in a dark, terrifying sort of way, a foreboding that everything is not quite right.  Lots of play with dark and light, shadows and smoke make the story uncomfortable to watch at times like a good thriller should.

However, after watching the trailer, reading the book, and now having seen the movie, I think it was marketed wrong.  It's advertised as a scary movie, but it really isn't.  Sure, there's some 'Gotcha!' moments, but as a whole, it's a moody, dialogue-driven movie.  The creepiest parts of the movie by far are the flashbacks and dream sequences as Teddy deals with some demons from his past as he investigates this peculiar case.  The island setting contributes to this because as the marshals begin to uncover things there's no place to go, they're trapped and at the mercy of the hospital's staff.  That feeling of claustrophobia just adds and builds on this sense of doom that starts from the opening shot and never really lets up.  Kudos to the soundtrack (can't find a composer) that at times is loud and ominous at times, and quiet and soothing at others.

Early in his career, Scorsese's favorite actor was Robert De Niro, but now DiCaprio has stepped into the spotlight as the favorite.  I loved him in The Departed, and here he even continues on with that Boston accent.  Other than that, it's a great performance.  His Teddy Daniels is a man who's good at what he does, but sometimes at a cost.  His mental stability is questioned because of his past when his wife died in a fire started by an arsonist.  The character is basically the viewer, trying to piece things together as they're presented.  DiCaprio hasn't made a ton of movies for being such a huge star, but this quickly climbs to the top of the list in my opinion.

With a Scorsese movie though, one star wouldn't be enough, and here his supporting cast is pitch perfect.  Ruffalo gets the workmanlike role as the new partner trying to keep up with Teddy's investigation.  It's a thankless part, but he's rewarded in the end.  Kingsley matches DiCaprio step for step as Dr. Cawley, the head physician at Ashecliffe in a role that keeps you guessing.  What's he really up to?  He is steering the marshals away from something or steering them where he wants them to be?  A consummate pro like Kingsley handles it with ease in a part that I hope gets him some Oscar buzz for best supporting actor.  Michelle Williams plays Dolores, Teddy's dead wife who he still sees in his dreams in a very moving part.  If that trio wasn't enough, add Max von Sydow, Patricia Clarkson, Jackie Earle Haley, Elias Koteas, Ted Levine, Emily Mortimer and John Carroll Lynch.  Other than von Sydow, none of those mentioned are in more than a scene or two, but they all bring their A-game with their brief appearances.  Audiences may have issue with the movie, but it's not because of the cast.

I go back and forth with movies with a twist, but when handled well I have no issue with them.  This is clearly one handled well.  It's the type of story that leaves you confused and questioning everything you saw and will almost certainly make a second viewing almost mandatory to see all the clues and hints.  Even knowing it's coming in the movie, it still surprised me because it is handled so well.  The reveal is by far the best scene in the movie and the most powerful/emotional too.  Scorsese did make one addition -- the movie's final line -- which I thought was unnecessary, but other than that, I have no issue with a twist that seems to divide audiences right down the middle.

A little different for Martin Scorsese, sure, but with one of the best directors ever, it's fun just to see him work.  This is a movie that works in term of story and also on its own as a strong movie with casting, cinematography, and atmosphere.  It doesn't really matter the order, but read the book and see the movie!

Shutter Island <----trailer (2010): ****/****