Showing posts with label Fantasy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Fantasy. Show all posts

Monday, May 27, 2013

Movie Review: Beautiful Creatures

Beautiful Creatures
Directed by: Richard LaGravenese.
Written by: Richard LaGravenese based on the book by Kami Garcia and Margaret Stohl.
Starring: Alden Ehrenreich (Ethan Wate), Alice Englert (Lena Duchannes), Jeremy Irons (Macon Ravenwood), Viola Davis (Amma), Emmy Rossum (Ridley Duchannes), Thomas Mann (Link), Emma Thompson (Mrs. Lincoln / Sarafine), Eileen Atkins (Gramma), Margo Martindale (Aunt Del), Zoey Deutch (Emily Asher), Tiffany Boone (Savannah Snow), Rachel Brosnahan (Genevieve Duchannes), Kyle Gallner (Larkin Ravenwood), Pruitt Taylor Vince (Mr. Lee).
Ever since Harry Potter became a huge hit, Hollywood has tried to mine other successful Young Adult novels and turn them into a profitable series. For everyone that hits – like Twilight and The Hunger Games – we seem to have one that misses – like The Golden Compass and now Beautiful Creatures. The quality of the movies themselves don’t seem to be a huge factor here – The Golden Compass is far better than any of the Twilight movies, and roughly equivalent to The Hunger Games, and even though Beautiful Creatures isn’t a very good movie, it can certainly stand alongside Twilight on the quality scale. Hollywood, it seems, isn’t very good at judging just how passionately young readers feel about the source material – hence initially you had executives who wanted to completely change the Twilight series from the novels, or why they green lit Beautiful Creatures at all, which given the box office performance of the film, no one really seemed to be demanding – and the sequel of which we will never see. While I cannot argue that’s a great loss, it is slightly disappointing – because while Beautiful Creatures itself is a merely mediocre movie, the story has potential – and when it focuses on the adult characters instead of the star crossed teen lovers, it is at times a downright riot.

The movie stars Alden Ehrenreich as Ethan Wate who lives in a small North Carolina town, and longs to get out. While the other students in his class seem to be idiots – who think it’s a wonderful thing their church has so much influence they can ban books like To Kill a Mockingbird from the curriculum, Ethan fancies himself smarter than the rest – a writer in waiting – who reads Vonnegut and will move onto Bukowski. He’s just about to enter his Junior Year, and is counting down the days until he can go to college anywhere, as long it’s far, far away – his mother died years ago, and his father has pretty much locked himself in his bedroom ever since.

Into Ethan’s life enters Lena Duchannes (Alice Englert) – who everyone is school takes an immediate dislike to, since she is a member of the famed Ravenwood family – who may be the richest family in town, and own half of it, but are hated because they are suspected of being Satanists, and the family leader Macon (Jeremy Irons) is too stuck up to ever venture into town. He’s Lena’s uncle, who has agreed to let her attend school, even though he doesn’t like the idea. While everyone else hates her Ethan, of course, falls for her. And because he’s so witty and charming, she falls for him too – but she has, of course, a secret that will take the movie in the direction of the supernatural.

Beautiful Creatures is not a very good movie. The screenplay was written by director Richard LaGravenese, and he cannot overcome the overwrought, melodramatic dialogue that was probably part of the novels (I’m assuming, since most Young Adult novels are filled with it). As a director, he seems to be aping Tim Burton, and although there is some wonderful art direction in the Ravenwood mansion, LaGravenese cannot match Burton for his sense of weirdness, that Burton pulls off in his sleep.

Still, the movie comes far closer to succeeding that it probably should because of the performances. Ehrenreich is a natural movie star if he’ll be ever to find the right role – he has that effortless charm that wins you over despite of yourself. Englert, far better in the recent Ginger and Rosa, is still quite good – the kind of beauty that could be an outcast only in the movies. They’re fine together, even if you never quite believe their story. The real reason to see the movie – if you must – is for the performances by the adults. Viola Davis is mostly wasted as Amma, the librarian who harbors secrets of her own – as are two other very good actresses, Eileen Atkins and Margo Martindale. Perhaps all three signed up because they thought this would become a franchise and would be an easy paycheck for a few years or because future installments promised more for them to do– but as it stands, the movie doesn’t do anything with them, and with the series dead, it never will.

However, whenever Jeremy Irons, Emma Thompson or Emmy Rossum are onscreen, the movie comes alive. Irons seems to have no real criteria for what movies he’ll do – he’s been in far too much crap for an actor as good as he is – but in the role of Macon, he is clearly having a blast and has some great moments – especially at a town meeting he is not wanted at – even if he too is saddled with too much explanatory dialogue. Even more fun is Emma Thompson, who shows up as the true antagonist of the movie, and rips into her role with gusto, obviously relishing the chance to play the villain for once. Do either of these British actors come close to a believable Southern accent? No – but then I don’t think they were trying to. They seem to enjoy going completely over the top in their exaggeration of their accents – and so I enjoyed them as well. Even better than both of these actors – surprisingly – is Emmy Rossum who owns the screen in her all too brief appearance as a cousin of Lena’s – able to control men even more than a woman who looks like Rossum should be able to. Build a movie around her character, and you got yourself a movie.

But they didn’t build a movie around her – they built it around an overwrought, melodramatic teen romance that somehow ends up bringing the Civil War into the proceedings. Far too much of the movie is spent telling the story, which isn’t all that interesting, and far too little is spent on the characters you actually want see onscreen. I don’t think Beautiful Creatures is a very good movie, but it did have potential. Perhaps a TV series would have worked better than a movie because this is the type of story you want to dig deeper into – where you want to background to come to foreground.

Monday, March 18, 2013

Movie Review: Oz: The Great and Powerful

Oz: The Great and Powerful
Directed by: Sam Raimi.
Written by: Mitchell Kapner and David Lindsay-Abaire based on the books by L. Frank Baum.
Starring: James Franco (Oz), Mila Kunis (Theodora), Rachel Weisz (Evanora), Michelle Williams (Annie / Glinda), Zach Braff (Frank / Finley), Bill Cobbs (Master Tinker), Joey King (Girl in Wheelchair / China Girl), Tony Cox (Knuck), Stephen R. Hart (Winkie General), Abigail Spencer (May), Bruce Campbell (Winkie Gate Keeper).

When I watched Oz: The Great and Powerful a few days ago, I did so in 2-D. I don’t really have anything against 3-D per se – although normally, I don’t really think it adds much to the experience – but the time of the 2-D show was just much more convenient to me, so that’s what I saw. While I was watching the film, I couldn’t help but wonder if director Sam Raimi – or any director who works in 3-D these days – considers how the film is going to look in 2-D. Afterall, many audiences will still their work on the big screen in 2-D, and many more will do so over the years on televisions in their own home. The reason why I ask this is that are moments in Oz: The Great and Powerful which were cringe worthy in 2-D – blatant moments where things fly at the screen with absolutely no reason to, other than to give the audience their money’s worth on the 3-D surcharge. There were other bad moments – although maybe they were just as bad in 3-D – where the visual effects seemed off – a moment where Oz and Theodora are running over a hill for example, that simple seemed clumsy.

I wondered these things for a few reasons – for one, they stood out like a sore thumb. For another, the film is directed by Sam Raimi, who is a gifted director, and whose earlier films all had his signature style – a style that shows up in only one shot of Oz: The Great and Powerful (the plants with the eyes, and how they see Oz and company in case you’re curious), but for the most part, Oz: The Great and Powerful has none of Raimi’s fingerprints on it. It could have been made by just about anyone, because more and more of these special effects epics are starting to have a homogenous look to them. The other reason I noticed was much simpler – I was bored. Oz: The Great and Powerful utterly lacks in imagination in its storytelling, and along with the flaws in the visual effects, this made it impossible for me to be swept up in the movie’s “magical world”. The world of Oz in this film is so clearly fake, that it took me out of the movie. An even bigger problem is that the characters seem as fake as their surroundings.

Compare this to the original The Wizard of Oz from 1939. Visual effects have obviously grown by leaps and bounds over the past 74 years – but that’s not necessarily a good thing in every respect. The Oz in the 1939 classic was still a “real” place – everything in it looked as though it could touched and felt, because, of course, it could. Everything in the new movie looks like a computer game. And on another level, although the effects in the 1939 version show their age in many ways, the story is so compelling, the characters so relatable, real and either lovable or hateable, that kids still get drawn into the movie’s spell all these decades later. I doubt anyone will be watching Oz: The Great and Powerful decades from now.

The movie stars James Franco as a carnival magician/con man/womanizer, who while running away from an angry husband, jumps into a hot air balloon and ends up in Oz when a twister hits. The first person he meets is Theodora (Mila Kunis), a witch, but a seemingly good one. She tells Oz of a prophecy of a wizard descending from the sky who bares the land’s name bringing peace to all. And of course said king who be showered with riches. So first Oz seduces her, then they head off to the castle where they meet Theodora’s sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz), who informs Oz of something Theodora forgot to mention. In order to rein, he needs to kill the “Wicked Witch” Glinda (Michelle Williams), who lives in the Dark Forest. So, with the help of his new flying monkey Finley (Zach Braff), Oz heads into the Dark Forest to kill the Wicked Witch.

If the movie was hoping to surprise us with a role reversal, I doubt too many will be shocked to discover that Glinda isn’t really the Wicked Witch – Evanora is. And because Oz broke her heart, Theodora turns wicked as well. You’re not fooling anyone by having the brunettes be evil, and the blonde being as pure as driven snow.

The bigger problem with the trio of witches though is simple – they are all extremely boring characters. This is doubly disappointing when you think of how the original Wizard of Oz (and all the Oz books) was one of the few children fantasy series to have strong, female protagonists. In this one, they have been replaced by a womanizing huckster, who treats the women poorly – and the women behave as one dimensional stereotypes. I love Michelle Williams – she’s one of the best actresses working today – but she’s not really right for a goody-two-shoes role like Glinda (how they hell they DID NOT cast Amy Adams in this role is a mystery to me).Instead of being sweet, innocent and lovable, Williams is just kind of bland. Weisz is even worse, as she’s one dimensionally evil and obviously so from her first scene. The film never really gives her much to do. I think they tried to make Theodora a more complicated character, but her transformation from wide eyed innocent to cackling super witch is so abrupt that it feels unnatural – not to mention the fact that Kunis doesn’t look natural in green paint – she’s just one more phony looking special effect. James Franco is fine, I guess, as the charlatan wizard, but there isn’t much he can do with the role. At least Zach Braff is an entertaining annoying flying monkey.

In the past few years, I have read more than one piece about how all big budget movies look the same – that they no longer have any style of their own, but all have the same “blockbuster” aesthetic. I still don’t know if I quite believe that – no matter what you think of Nolan’s Batman movies, they are all undeniably his in every way – including visually, and the same goes for Michael Bay. But these type of fantasy movies are starting to run together, and have little to differentiate themselves from each other, and suck all the style from the director. Is there anything in Oz that marks it as a Sam Raimi film? He is a gifted visual director, but here it’s layered under so much candy colored crap it’s hard to tell. Tim Burton had a similar problem with Planet of the Apes (truly, the least Tim Burton-esque of all Tim Burton films) and Alice in Wonderful. It seems to bigger your budget it, they more your film has to look like everything else.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Movie Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Directed by: Peter Jackson.
Written by: Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens & Peter Jackson & Guillermo del Toro based on the novel by J.R.R. Tolkien.
Starring: Ian McKellen (Gandalf), Martin Freeman (Bilbo), Richard Armitage (Thorin), Ken Stott (Balin), Graham McTavish (Dwalin), William Kircher (Bifur / Tom Troll), James Nesbitt (Bofur), Stephen Hunter (Bombur), Dean O'Gorman (Fili), Aidan Turner (Kili), John Callen (Oin), Peter Hambleton (Gloin / William Troll), Jed Brophy (Nori), Mark Hadlow (Dori / Bert Troll), Adam Brown (Ori), Ian Holm (Old Bilbo), Elijah Wood (Frodo), Hugo Weaving (Elrond), Cate Blanchett (Galadriel), Christopher Lee (Saruman), Andy Serkis (Gollum), Sylvester McCoy (Radagast).

When I first heard that Peter Jackson was planning on splitting The Hobbit into not just two, but three different films I assumed, like many, that it was purely a monetary move – more movies means more box office. But after seeing the first part, I don’t think that’s the case (at least not for Jackson – the studio on the other hand, I’m not sure of). Because the nearly three hours of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey plays like a film where the director is too in love with the material – he doesn’t want to sacrifice a moment of his film. That isn’t to say that it is a bad movie – it is in fact quite good, with wonderful battle sequences, special effects, production design, music and performances – but it sure does feel padded. Cut out an hour of the film, and Jackson may well have had a great film on his hands.

The Hobbit is the story of Bilbo Baggins, a humble hobbit who lives a quiet life in the Shire, and that’s just the way he likes it. Than one day, Gandalf the Grey shows up at his door and invites him to go along on an adventure. Before Bilbo knows it, his hobbit hole is filled with Dwarves, who plan on storming their old home, beneath a mountain, that they were forced out of by a dragon decades before. Gandalf is going along on their quest, and feels they need to add the skills of Bilbo Baggins. What those skills are no one, not even Bilbo, seems to know.

The film was made by pretty much the same team that made The Lord of the Rings films – and it shows. Jackson strikes the same tone in this film as he did in that trilogy, and cast the same actors. Even nine years after the final Lord of the Rings films, it didn’t take long to sink back into the Middle Earth that Jackson and his team have created. The key addition to the cast is obviously Martin Freeman as Bilbo, and he is quite good. His plays the role more quiet and subtle than I expected him to – but this is actually effective, making Bilbo a more believable character. Ian McKellan sinks right back into the role of Gandalf like he never left it. Richard Armitage is excellent as Thorin, the leader of the Dwarves, strong, tough, brave, but also stubborn. The best performance in the film belongs, once again, to Andy Serkis as a slightly younger, but still crazy Gollum. The riddle scene between him and Bilbo is easily the best of the movie.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a fine movie – not great like The Lord of the Rings films were, but entertaining nonetheless. While I certainly think the film is far too padded – and takes far too long in pretty much every scene – I cannot say I was ever bored by the film. Perhaps it’s just that Jackson has unrealistic expectations to try and meet with The Hobbit – that he already dazzled us with The Lord of the Rings, and now he’s got to return to that world and try to do it again (which is probably why initially, he wasn’t going to direct these movies). And The Hobbit, as good as it is, just isn’t as good as The Lord of the Rings. I have a hard time believing that Tolkien fans won’t enjoy the movie – hell, for perhaps the first time ever, fans of the book cannot complain that things were cut out of the movie version. The Hobbit could have using more editing, but that doesn’t mean it’s a bad film by any means.