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): ***/****

The Brothers Bloom

Oh, con jobs, the second cousin to the heist film....but not related by blood. The two sub-genres are pretty close, using a lot of similar conventions, characters and stories. After all, you can only rob-con-steal in so many different ways. However, I love heist flicks, but I only like con job movies. Case in point, 2008's The Brothers Bloom, a movie that started off decent but derails in the second half.

From the time they were kids, bouncing from one foster home to another, brothers Stephen (Mark Ruffalo) and Bloom (Adrien Brody) have gotten better and better as con men. After 25-plus years of pulling cons -- most of them quite successful -- Bloom has decided he's had enough. Years of conning under his belt, he's lost track of who he is and who he pretends to be. He tries to leave his partnership with Stephen, but his highly convincing brother Stephen pulls him back in for one job. Bloom agrees and takes charge in a con meant to dupe a quirky East Coast millionaire, Penelope (Rachel Weisz), who inherited millions of dollars. Traveling around the world, they intend to convince her that they're smugglers, and she stands to make some money herself if she goes along with the plan. It isn't so simple though, especially when Bloom starts to fall for Penelope, threatening to ruin Stephen's plan.

Quirky is one thing. The quirkiest of all directors, Wes Anderson, has shown that with his films like Moonrise Kingdom, Life Aquatic, Rushmore, Royal Tennenbaums among others. But with a quirky, funny, little-off movie, there's a fine line. You have to be a little off-center with your humor, but you can't be obvious about it. The biggest issue for this film from director Rian Johnson? It is quirky, it knows it, and it aggressively wants to let you know it's not a normal, everyday comedy caper. For a flick to work like this, it has to be almost effortless to be effective. When it's trying to be different, it just doesn't work. Unfortunate here because there's a lot of potential that is ultimately untapped.

As for the general quirky nature of the story, it is both good and bad. In most cases, it just goes too far. It's an incredibly stylish movie, filming in Romania, Belgrade, Greece, Montenegro and Prague. Visually, it's a treat to watch as the locations add another layer to the story. As for the style in terms of the characters and their wardrobe, here's where we meet a problem. Stephen and Bloom are gentleman thieves, always wearing suits, vests, ties and hats. It feels and looks like a throwback to French films from the 1960s. It's a style ripped out of the sky because the story takes place in modern times. Con men that stand out like a sore thumb? That makes sense. The look of the movie is great, but like everything else, it calls attention to itself in a big way, and for me at least, that's off-putting.

Of all the things though that bothers me the most, it was the characters that put me off. Johnson also scripted the movie, but it never finds that right balance between reality and uniquely appealing (and trust me, it's trying). The best thing to develop is the relationship between Brody's Bloom and Weisz's Penelope, two very different people who are drawn to each other because they're different. While everything else is aggressively in your face (WE'RE BEING QUIRKY! LAUGH DAMMIT!), this comes across naturally. Ruffalo is okay, but he's the face of that aggressive quirkiness as is Rinko Kikuchi as Bang Bang, the brothers' accomplice, a specialist in nitroglycerin and woman of few words. Also look for Robbie Coltrane as the Belgian, a member of their conning team, Maximilian Schell as Diamond Dog, the brothers' former mentor turned bitter enemy and Ricky Jay as the narrator. In a weird, out of left field cameo, look for Joseph Gordon-Levitt as a club patron. Seriously, blink and you'll miss it.

The all over the place quirky humor is one thing, but 'Bloom' can't even choose that correctly. Is it a quirky comedy? Is it a crime thriller? Is it a violent story of betrayals? Unfortunately, the last 45 minutes are one and all of those. Not that I was really enjoying it to begin with, but the story completely unravels in the last act. Twist after pointless twist, one after another until things become almost completely unrecognizable, much less able to follow. There are moments I liked a lot, especially Weisz's performance including her exhibition of all the hobbies she's picked up over the years (watch it HERE). A ton of talent assembled with a lot of potential, but ultimately, it just tries too hard to make us like the movie. Good musical score, stylish title cards, but it never goes anywhere. I wanted to like it, but it so desperately wants us to like the film that it's almost painful to watch at times.

The Brothers Bloom (2008): **/****

The Bourne Legacy

With three movies over a five year span, the Bourne trilogy starring Matt Damon was a spy series with its own personal style, a James Bond for a new, younger movie-going audience. There was an odd perfection in those movies and all their frenetic, generally crazy pacing. But following the last movie in the trilogy, 2007's The Bourne Ultimatum, Damon said he wanted out. Never one to give up on a successful series, Hollywood did...well....um....uh...they basically remade The Bourne Identity. Anyways, here's 2012's The Bourne Legacy.

Working with a top secret program funded out of the C.I.A. called 'Outcome,' secret agent and killer Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) tests off the charts compared to the agency's other agents. A product of some medical advancements, Aaron is smarter, quicker and stronger. His superiors (Stacy Keach and Edward Norton among others) though are in some serious trouble, their operations possibly coming into the limelight because of Jason Bourne's "treacherous" actions. Rather than face serious legal repercussions if their own actions are revealed, they torch Outcome, killing everyone involved. Aaron is among the targets but escapes. Now he's looking for some answers, starting with another survivor of the burn, Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz).

I'm not sure where to start with this quasi-Bourne movie. I went in with some expectations if not especially high ones. The Damon trilogy is the rare trilogy that I thought improved with each passing movie. 'Identity' is pretty damn good on its own so that's saying something. Once Damon wanted out though, the series/franchise has to take a twist. I can't help but wonder how director Tony Gilroy's film would have done without the 'Bourne' moniker floating over its head. Knowledge of the first three movies will certainly help, but it's not essential going into this 2012 sequel. Sorry to say though I came away highly disappointed with this newest venture. Building off the Bourne name and success, sure, there's potential, but it ends up being one big, boring, repetitive mess.

Clocking in at a very long 135 minutes, 'Legacy' is 16 minutes longer than any of the previous three movies.....and that IS NOT a good thing. This is a story that needed tightening up. The first hour is sluggish even as we bounce all over the world in a convoluted circle of information, worried looks, and menacing stares. I suppose somewhere in there was an explanation for the story, but I missed it. Long story short? Treadstone, Blackbriar and now Outcome all top each other, one agency becoming more efficient and effective than its predecessor. On the whole, the issue is simple. This is a movie that drifts far too much. The three Damon ventures are frenetically paced to the point where you feel like running home after seeing them. Not here. I was bored, legitimately bored, and counting down the minutes until it was over.

So there's the issue. It seems that Gilroy (who also co-wrote the script) wanted to use the Bourne moniker to get people in the door but from there on in was going to distance itself from those previous films. Unfortunately, the story is basically a rehash of The Bourne Identity. Everything...everything feels like we've seen this before right down to the government war rooms, action scenes, and never-ending chases. In the process somewhere, there must have been an ending too, but it didn't make the final cut. Impressive action scene ends, Cross is semi-happy and cue Moby's Extreme Ways. Oh, oops, my bad. I guess the movie is over. There is no resolution, and not even a huge jumping off point for a sequel. The movie just ends. That's all.

Continuing to springboard off his success from The Hurt Locker, Renner is a very solid lead as Aaron Cross. First off and most important, he doesn't try to be Jason Bourne. He's his own man/character. Aaron's background seems wasted though. There's a layer in there about how he came to be an agent and why he's so driven now that is highly interesting, but nothing much comes of it. Either way, Renner is the best thing going for her. Weisz is a fine actress, but she's nearly unbearable here; shrill, loud and in full-on damsel in distress mode. Norton is the biggest waste here, given NOTHING to do, as Outcome's director while Keach has to look mean and growl. Previous Bourne actors Scott Glenn, Joan Allen, Albert Finney and David Straithairn are around for brief, blink and you'll miss parts. Louis Ozawa Changchien is very cool as Larx 3, an assassin without the glitches of previous agents while Oscar Isaac is memorable as paranoid Outcome Agent No. 3 who a curious Aaron meets early on.

The action for the most part is disappointingly and surprisingly kept in the background, much of it saved for the finale, a foot-turned-motorcycle chase in the crowded streets of Manila. While the stunts are impressive, they still have that rehashed feel to them. That's the movie. There are some very cool moments -- Aaron manipulating a tracker in a unique way via an animal, Aaron's explanation of his past -- but they never amount to anything. Very sorry to give this a low rating if for nothing else than the original three movies set the bar so high. Renner is a good choice to take the reins, but that's about it here.

The Bourne Legacy <---trailer (2012): **/****

Confidence

For every actor/actress you swear you see in every other movie ever released, there are those who are a little bit more picky with the roles they take.  For today, that's Edward Burns, star of a major movie like Saving Private Ryan but typically in smaller, independent movies that barely make a dent in theaters. Limiting his roles on-screen in front of the camera, Burns also writes, produces and directs behind the camera.  So with the few movies he has done, you've got to take advantage when the opportunity presents itself, like 2003's Confidence.

The timing of watching movies just seems too spooky sometimes.  Two days ago I reviewed 1973's Charley Varrick, a story about a small-time crook who knocks off a bank holding mob money. What's Confidence about? A team of con men who pull a successful con only to find out their mark is giving them mob money. Still, that's the only huge similarity in this overlooked, very stylish, sometimes needlessly confusing con job flick.  It bombed in theaters upon its release in 2003 and has receded into that sea of box office bombs.  It isn't anything different from so many other similar movies, but with an impressive cast from top to bottom it's hard to let this one slip by.

New in Los Angeles, Jake Vig (Burns) and his team of con men, Gordo (Paul Giamatti) and Miles (Brian Van Holt), run a successful con on a mid-level businessman that nets them $150,000. Bad news though, the money is linked to a crime boss known as the King (Dustin Hoffman), and the man wants his money back.  Instead of leaving town and going on the run, Jake and his crew decide to go to work for King, pulling another con job on a target of his choosing. Their target is a crooked banker with money laundering ties who has a past with King, but now Jake must figure some way to get to the impossible target. With a beautiful pickpocket, Lily (Rachel Weisz), joining his crew, he goes to work.  But when things start to come together, Jake finds out that an old nemesis of his, government agent Gunther Butan (Andy Garcia), is closing in on the team.

Directed by James Foley, Confidence is nothing new when it comes to the last con, the last heist, the specialists working together genre. It's well-made, polished, and stylish to a point.  The problem is that it's very aware that it's polished and stylish in its execution.  It tries too hard to be a cool movie at times. The script is well-written -- even if there are some unexplained plot elements -- but relies heavily on the use of the word 'fuck' just for the sake of saying it.  None of this is to say I disliked the movie, but instead it's just something I noticed.  The best examples of successful movies like this just are cool. They don't need to try, and at times this is that movie that so desperately wants you to like it that it gets caught up in itself instead of just being a good movie.

As is so often the case with movies with some major flaws, a solid cast can be a saving grace even if the materiel isn't up to par. Burns is a surprisingly good choice to play Jake Vig, this very smooth, quick on his feet con man who can pull a job off because he's 20 steps ahead of you. He can lie, manipulate and steal like nobody's business, and you won't even know you've been had when he's done. Weisz is one of the best actresses around in Hollywood today so it's fun to see her do more of a commercial, mainstream role. Her looks never hurt either as she pulls off a great femme fatale part that film noirs would have been jealous of. Garcia is criminally underused but does his best with an underwritten part while Giamatti and Van Holt look to be having a lot of fun in parts that don't require them to do much. Also worth mentioning are Donal Logue and Luis Guzman as two LAPD cops on Jake's payroll, John Carroll Lynch as the new con's mark/target, Franky G as Lupus, King's henchman, and Morris Chestnut as a gunman looking for answers.

From the time he burst into movies in the late 1960s, Dustin Hoffman was a star. Now in 2011 or here in 2003, he's an icon, one of the great actors in the history of Hollywood.  Here as the King, he's playing a role that is mostly a glorified cameo that requires him to show up for three or four scenes all told.  He gets to ham it up playing this crime boss who we're not quite sure what he's involved in.  Hoffman plays so perfectly off of co-stars like Burns and Weisz that he raises their scenes up a level on his own.  His King is a frantic, hyper and ADHD, and a lot of fun to watch.

It is a movie about a con so you know a twist is coming in the finale. This is where the movie tries too hard attempting to pull the wool over the audience's eyes.  It's revealed so quickly all the twists and turns are wasted. The best reveals are the ones that lay out every little thing so we know what happened too.  Confidence gets so wrapped up in trying to trick us too that even after going back and watching the ending again, I'm still not sure exactly what was going on. The movie itself is entertaining and never boring.  But at just 97 minutes, there is way too much going on. Nothing is allowed to breathe and develop, meaning actors like Garcia and Giamatti are wasted in parts where they'd usually shine.  It is still a solid movie that's worth a watch, but don't expect a classic.

Confidence <---trailer (2003): ***/****

Runaway Jury

So you check the mail, and that dreaded letter appears, the one you fear finding...JURY SUMMONS!!!  Ah, the benefits of a democracy where accused crooks get to be tried by a jury of their peers.  Too bad about being on the jury though.  You get to meet all sorts of new idiots, get paid very little, and in general, are taken away from your everyday life.  That is unless you're on a jury in the movies.  There you get to meet Henry Fonda, save the world, and deal with all sorts of intrigue and deception behind the scenes of the courtroom trial, like 2003's Runaway Jury.

That description of course minimalizes the movie and the duty of being a jury member.  Based on a novel from courtroom master John Grisham, this 2003 thriller benefits from a very strong, very deep cast that turns in worthy performances from top to bottom.  The main idea of the novel/movie is one that should make you chuckle.  Someone actually wants to serve on a jury.  As for their motivations, I can't give everything away here.

After two years of pretrial, a court case is finally going to trial.  A lawyer, husband and father (an uncredited Dylan McDermott) is gunned down in his office along with 10 other employees.  The man's wife is suing the guns distributor with a famed prosecutor from New Orleans, Wendell Rohr (Dustin Hoffman), agreeing to take the case.  The arms companies understand that if this case is lost, they stand to lose possibly billions of dollars, and hire a specialist to make sure the verdict goes their way.  His name is Rankin Finch (Gene Hackman), and he specializes in blackmail and deception to get the right jury candidates on the jury and then use them to his advantage.  One juror, Nick Easter (John Cusack), isn't going to go along so easy though.  With help from his girlfriend Marlee (Rachel Weisz), Nick plans to blackmail Finch into paying for him to sway the jury.  Of course, the offer stands for Rohr too so whoever comes through with the $10 million gets his jury.

As I reviewed several weeks ago with Primal Fear, courtroom dramas translate incredibly well from play, novel, and TV to the big screen.  It's a setting that is naturally full of tension and nerves so when you throw a halfway decent script into a mix with a very deep cast, it can be hard to mess that formula up.  In a nice twist though, the courtroom drama is secondary here with the behind the scenes situation ending up being far more interesting.  Cusack's character starts off as this clueless dolt, and then you realize he's the one duping us all along.  But with girlfriend Marlee, are they looking for a huge payout or do they have ulterior motives with their actions?

That's where I was a little disappointed with this Gary Fleder-directed courtroom drama; the ending.  Easter and Marlee clearly know what they're doing and more than hold their own in these confrontations with the always-intimidating Gene Hackman.  You're honestly not sure of their intentions for much of the movie, but it's apparent they are not just in it for the money.  When their true motivations are revealed in the last 10 minutes, everything fits together nicely that can be wrapped up with a nice bow.  But there is something missing, and for me, the finale limps to the finish.  I won't call it sappy, but it certainly tries to pull at the heart strings.  It is not necessarily a bad ending, but not the one I envisioned.

Complain about whatever you'd like from this movie, but the casting is basically off-limits.  And with so many names, characters drift in and out, but almost each one is given their chance to shine.  The jury includes chameleon-like Cliff Curtis as an ex-Marine, Jennifer Beals, Nora Dunn, an uncredited Luis Guzman, and several other recognizable faces.  In the courtroom, Bruce McGill plays Judge Harkin, Bruce Davison plays defense lawyer Durwood Cable (doesn't he just sound bad?), and Jeremy Piven is a jury specialist working with Hoffman, and Stanley Anderson as the face of the guns distributors.  As two of the four main leads, Cusack and Weisz work well together, Weisz especially standing out from the crowd with her performance.

What really stuck with me though was the performances from Hoffman and Hackman, two of the biggest stars to come out of the late 1960s and then the 1970s.  Before this 2003 drama, the two had never worked together so it's a treat to see them in the same movie.  The problem though? Originally they weren't even supposed to have a scene together.  Problem solved when a quick rewrite had the two in a confrontation in a courthouse restroom that echoes De Niro and Pacino talking in Heat (the DVD special features discuss this in detail).  It's a scene full of great dialogue and a camera that never really stops moving, pushing the frenetic conversation to an even more anxious level.  Their performances on the whole stand out from the rest of the movie, but their scene together -- almost 7 minutes long -- is a big reason to watch this movie.

So overall a flawed courtroom drama, but one that is definitely worth looking into.  The story is set in New Orleans, and while location shooting doesn't always jive well with typically inside courtroom dramas, Fleder does show off the city when given the chance.  Above everything else -- including an ending that didn't blow me away -- the cast is the main reason to watch this one.

Runaway Jury <----trailer (2003): ***/****