Oz the Great and Powerful (2013) – Review

Review: Oz the Great and Powerful is a pleasant mix of wondrous, scary, funny, and exciting elements and moments. The film is a prequel to The Wizard of Oz, detailing how the Wizard came to Oz and became the man Dorothy encounters (which is sort of weird, as The Wizard of Oz is presented as all being Dorothy’s dream – also, Oz in this is not Mr. Marvel right? Or is he?). More specifically, Oz is a contemptible carnival magician/con-man who finds himself in The Land of Oz after being caught in a Tornado. Now in this strange land, Oz is tempted by the promise of riches to go off on a mission to stop the Wicked Witch and free the people – but things are not quite what they seem.

Oz the Great and Powerful reminds me of the great films I loved as a kid – full of adventure, humor, frightening moments, and great characters – and in that way it has a nice nostalgic feel. In a way, this nostalgic feel rooted in how the film has a classic adventure quality to it is sort of the point – why director Sam Raimi wanted to make this film. As a kid, I can imagine being scared of the Wicked Witch, amused by the silly humor, and enthralled by the action/adventure – now as an adult, I enjoyed the sleazy façade of Oz as a con-man, the surprisingly strong supporting characters, and the emotional spectrum that the film touches on. It has a good heartfelt message without the modern skepticism and cynicism (which is probably why it has a classic/nostalgic quality to it), and this is also why Raimi was maybe the perfect person to make this film.

Raimi’s style certainly seems to meld well with the tone and material. His kinetic camera theatrically emphasizes moments, while his somewhat goofy yet sweet sense of humor fits the world well and is one of the strongest aspects of the film. And, for fans of Raimi there are a lot of references to his work and cameos (like Bill Cobbs, Ted Raimi, John Paxton, and of course Bruce Campbell).

Visually, the film is both fantastic and problematic. Most of the film’s sets seem to be created digitally giving the film a very clean and colorfully bold palate which pops and does fit the aesthetic of the world. Additionally, there are a lot of visual and thematic references to The Wizard of Oz that fans will appreciate. However, the artifice of it all also seems to make the film feel a bit soulless. The cast is very strong and their great performances and energy brings a lot of the heart back into the film, and with Raimi’s direction saves the film from feeling overly cold and emotionally detached (Disney’s misguided need to create their fantastical live-action worlds digitally puts presentation over substance, which is never good – Alice in Wonderland had the same problem – they might as well just make these films as fully animated). That said, it is interesting to note that two of the best characters in the film are animated, but that is due to the great voice acting and character moments given to them.

These fantastic supporting characters are Finley and China Girl (who does not have a proper name), Oz’s two traveling companions. They bring humor and compassion to the film and Oz (as they allow him to right some of the wrongs he left behind in Kansas – at least thematically), and their character moments are almost always superb tonally. They are very much a vital part of the film’s overall success.

While the characters are mostly well done, the narrative and characterizations sort of feel a bit outdated as well. Specifically, why do the three Witches need the Wizard at all? They seem all very capable of handling things within the Land of Oz without any help, yet they appear somewhat lost without the aid of a male character. Though, the story can be taken (and maybe should be) as a journey in which Oz is to become a good person – a hero – rather than the selfish, greedy, cowardly, and shallow con-man he is. Thus, the narrative is seen through his perspective. And, since he sees woman as somewhat weak-willed (as seen in his manipulation of May in Kansas), it is only right that the women in the Land of Oz would be projections of his own opinion of women.  Plus, it seems as if Glinda could fight her own battles, but is taking a conscious backseat to Oz so that he can learn from his journey and become the man he needs to be (and maybe she does need his help a little too). Evanora never feels like she needs or even respects the Wizard, and is merely playing along (like Glinda to an extent) to get what she wants. However, Theodora comes off the worst. She is completely naïve and easily falls victim to the Wizard’s false charms (but again, in doing so she helps teach him a lesson he needs to learn). Thus, the female leads do feel outdated, but this serves a specific role in the narrative (good or bad). But, the whole affair has sort of ‘it’s a man’s world’ vibe to it.

Oz the Great and Powerful, despite a few minor issues, is a great film for kids – it mixes all its elements with the right balance. It also works for adults (I found myself smiling quite a bit while watching the film – pesky adventure film nostalgia and love of Sam Raimi’s style and past work), as it has good characters and a tonally adept sense of humor making it very entertaining.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: As said in the review, Sam Raimi may have been the best choice to helm this project. His sort of classic sense of how an adventure film should be made fits this film very well (and his natural goofy humor worked really well here too). Plus, his background in horror, made the scary moments much more effective than they probably would have been in lesser hands adding to the overall power of the emotional connection that the audience has with the characters and narrative. I am interested to see where Disney takes the story from here in their proposed sequel (Raimi has said he is not interested yet in doing it) – will they remake Dorothy’s story? How will that work? And, I look forward to Raimi’s next project.

Danny Elfman’s score both fits the tone and style of the film very well and also feels and sounds like a typical Elfman score (which is great too – for fans of his). Here is his theme for the film (I think it is one of his better scores in a while). Like Elfman, cinematographer Peter Deming is also a frequent collaborator of Raimi’s. With this film, his work is very good. While the overall look is very clean with bright solid colors, Deming’s work amplifies the dark moments wonderfully. Production designer Robert Stromberg also designed the Disney’s live-action Alice in Wonderland and brought a similar feel and look to this film (only without the added Tim Burton stylistic elements). On a side note this is his third film as production designer, and he won Oscars for the first two. His work here is very good, but again it also feels very soulless which ultimately hurts the film (though, he may indeed be nominated for yet another Oscar).

The performances are very good throughout the film, and one of its strongest attributes. Joey King and Zach Braff’s voice work for China Girl and Finley respectively is exceptional creating maybe the two best characters in the film. Rachel Weisz is good as Evanora. She plays the part as almost the polar opposite to Mila Kunis’s Theodora. Weisz keeps her emotions and schemes hidden while Kunis is completely all-in and exposed emotionally. Michelle Williams’s Glinda is wholeheartedly good, but a bit mischievous as well. All three actresses bring their witches to life charmingly for the tone of the narrative (and seem to be having fun with them too). James Franco is excellent as well playing Oz. He is completely cheesy skating by on charm, which works marvelously because he is a two-bit sleazy con-man and carnival magician (of course he is cheesy), but it works so well because under all the showmanship and façade is a lost soul. Franco plays this remarkably well.

Summary & score: Oz the Great and Powerful is an adventure film rich with style, great characters, and fantastic moments – and best of all, it is enjoyable for both kids and adults. 7/10 

Take This Waltz (2012) – Review

Review: Take This Waltz is a character drama with a complex protagonist. The film is about Margot, a married woman who meets Daniel while writing an article. They have an instant powerful connection, and to make matters worse they are neighbors. Margot flirts with the idea of being with Daniel but also loves her husband Lou and does not want to hurt him. Writer-director Sarah Polley crafts the narrative to be sympathetic to Margot, when in most cases she would probably be viewed as the villain. She is somewhat troubled (or seems to be) and naturally restless. This attribute is paramount to Polley making her likable while toying with the idea of leaving her husband (it also helps to have Michelle Williams in the part). The viewer recognizes in Margot their own aspirations outside their trapped life. But rather than Margot be fully functional, her restlessness or even inner sadness gives her a pass. Polley is almost commenting on it not being enough for someone to have a powerful connection with someone else while already being in a relationship (with all the attached social magnitudes) to break from said relationship. For society to accept that she can be with someone that is not her husband, either her husband needs to be presented as deficient (which he is not, at least not outside any realistically reasonable expectations) or Margot need to be deficient, otherwise the audience will likely turn on Margot and thus the narrative will not work (and by deficient I mean, a palpable reason for the audience to side with and understand where Margot is coming from – and in this, her restlessness allows the audience to relate and see that it is not that she is a bad person for wanting something different, it is just who she is, rather than her wanting to be with Daniel in spite of Lou even though that is true). Even with Daniel, who is new and seems to make Margot happy(ier), there is noticeably something missing. Polley does this also to illustrate that while new seems exciting and different new still fades and becomes old and the same. Polley has more complex characters than are typically found in romance dramas (dramedies). These characters are much more realistic than the audience is use to for the genre, and it is refreshing. The film in a way is also a comment on the nature of relationships, specifically the difference from the day-to-day normalcy for couples that have been together for a while and the high of the ‘honeymoon’ period. There is not really anything wrong in Margot’s marriage. She is just restless and imagines something different as she faces the day-to-day tedium of her life (the pros and cons of it). Daniel is different (and is presented as being noticeably different than Lou personality wise). Polley does not condemn nor condone Margot or her choices; she just presents them as they are. The other marriage in the film is between Lou’s sister who is an alcoholic (who goes off the deep-end sometimes) and her husband. Again, Polley presents it as it is without commenting on whether it is good or bad. Relationships are complicated. The film is more about the complexity of life and relationships than the typical cookie-cutter characters and narratives that populate the romance genre. The film does have comedy as well, mostly coming from the absurdity of everyday life (the scene in which Margot is participating in water aerobics is very funny, when it is turned on its head as being seen by a third party). Issue wise, Polley has a lot of slow moments in the film, which somewhat work against the momentum of the narrative. The dramatic weight of Margot’s restlessness and neediness is not lifted with enough comedic moments making the film feel more burdensome for the viewer when the overall tone seems lighter, creating a conflict in the tone which subconsciously confuses the view, as they are not sure what kind of film they are watching which again can make it seem slow. Also, Margot is not going to be likable for everyone, and thus the narrative will not work for everyone. Take This Waltz works overall however because Polley has created characters and relationships that feel very real to the viewer, and thus is a good romance and character drama.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Sarah Polley is probably best known as an actor, but with two commercial features that are both solid she is making a name for herself as a very good dramatic director. I look forward to her next film. Jonathan Goldsmith’s score fades into the background, while the found music soundtrack plays a bigger role in reinforcing the emotions of the film. Cinematographer Luc Montpellier does fantastic work (I really look forward to his future work). The film takes place during the summer and needs to both convey the heat of summer and of the passion Margot is feeling towards Daniel. Montpellier and Polley accomplish this by having the camera intimately shoot Margot and for the lighting to be natural and soft, with lots of reds and yellows and other warm colors. This is also accomplished in Matthew Davies’s production design. Polley often has Margot taking in the warmth of the sun through the kitchen window as Lou is otherwise occupied (which makes the ending reveal more telling). Polley and Davies have selected the perfect Toronto neighborhood to fit the feel of the film (even if it does not work logically taking into consideration the economic welfare of the characters). The performances from the small cast are fantastic. Sarah Silverman is good in support bringing both comedy and a serious edge to the film. Seth Rogen is very charming as Lou, but also seems somewhat blind to Margot’s needs (and/or troubles). Luke Kirby has a breakout performance as Daniel, playing somewhat of a master seducer. He knows just the right buttons to push. Michelle Williams is excellent carrying the film, and playing Margot to be the complex character she is. In a certain light, she really is not a likable person, but Williams’s intrinsic adorableness seems to help overcome this.

Summary & score: Take This Waltz walks a thin line with its complex protagonist being likable (as she can also be seen as the antagonist if she is unlikable). If the viewer relates to her, the film is a good romantic character drama. If not, the film will play very tediously. 7/10

My Week with Marilyn (2011) – Review

Review: My Week with Marilyn is both a character study and short-form biography (like a time-in-the-life, specifically of Marilyn Monroe through the eyes of Colin Clark). The film is about Monroe’s experience in England making The Prince and the Showgirl with Laurence Olivier, as told by a young man on his first film set (and first job) as the film’s third assistant director. Director Simon Curtis creates a common structure to this type of film. While Colin is the lead in terms of who the camera stays with, it is Marilyn who is the star. The film is completely built around Michelle Williams’s performance. If she is not good, the film will be awful – but she is good and thus the film works. Curtis and Williams present Marilyn as not a very likable character, as she is seems completely fake and manipulative – even if what she shows you is the truth, nothing is trustworthy and so you are never sure. And yet, she is completely engaging and you cannot take your eyes off her. In this, Curtis and Williams have created the aura of Marilyn and is the reason the film completely captivates its audience despite being filled with unlikable lead characters (for the most part). The allure of Marilyn is why the audience can relate to Colin even though his actions (especially towards Lucy) are less than gentlemanly. But, he is also naïve to the world, and thus his wonder also excuses his behavior. Marilyn’s personal troubles are very much known due to her sad end, and the film does not explore new territory – rather the look into the psyche of screen legends Vivien Leigh and Laurence Olivier is almost more interesting (if Williams was not so compelling). Narrative speaking, the film is a bit muddled. It is a character study of Marilyn, but told through sort of a coming-of-age story. The character study works but is nothing new in terms of exploring Marilyn, and the coming-of-age story is undeveloped and the audience does not really care about Colin (again due to the complete viewer and scene gravitation towards Marilyn). This leaves My Week with Marilyn a good but not great film. It is built upon Williams’s performance, and that is really the reason to see it. As a side note, the film fan (and student) in me loved the filmmaking background of the film.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Simon Curtis makes his feature debut with this film, having done lots of good work on TV. Slight narrative and story issues aside, Curtis has a great talent at garnering wonderful performances from his actors, making him someone to watch in British cinema (his style sort of reminds me of fellow British director Tom Hooper, who came out of TV to become an Oscar winning director with his third feature). Conrad Pope’s score is good and works well with the tone of the film, but the best piece of music is Marilyn’s Theme which is written by Alexandre Desplat (who could have the best score category to himself). Ben Smithard’s cinematography in the film can be exalted for his ability to light Michelle Williams so beautifully, again helping Curtis and Williams create the aura of Marilyn. Donal Woods’s production design captures the period look wonderfully. But, as stated above, this is a film built primarily on performances (not story). The performances are great (and thus the film is good). Julia Ormond, Judi Dench, Dominic Cooper, and Emma Watson (showing that she can be good in something post-Harry Potter) are all good in small supporting roles. Eddie Redmayne continues to develop as one of the best young British actors. He does a good job with Colin presenting him as completely fresh in the world (which the story dictated as a necessity). Kenneth Branagh is fantastic as Laurence Olivier. He plays maybe the biggest stage star in England at the time with such a veiled vulnerability. However, and this is true of Williams as well, his performance also comes off as if he is playing a character (not wholly becoming the character), but again he is very good in the film. Williams is astonishing as Marilyn. While it does seem as if she is playing a caricature, she captures the essence of Marilyn perfectly and to an extent Marilyn was playing a role her whole profession public life (which is why Williams comes off that way).

Summary & score: My Week with Marilyn is going to work the best for those who enjoy very good performances, cinema history and period dramas. 7/10

Shutter Island (2010) – Review

Shutter Island is creepy, well made and interesting – a film that interacts with its audience, building not only tension but also engaging the viewer to participate in the detective aspect of the film. The main theme of the film is redemption set against the early Cold War paranoia. Leonardo DiCaprio’s character Teddy Daniels above all else seeks atonement for the tragedies of his past, which all come crashing to a head as he investigates the disappearance of a patient on Shutter Island’s facility for the criminally insane. As the Teddy and the viewer decipher clues, listen to the interviews and get wrapped up in the case, director Martin Scorsese forces in flashback and haunting imagery to signal that all is not what it seems, with the character, the case and the film. The avid viewer will enjoy participating in unraveling the case, clue by clue, as the payoff is evident amongst the facts before it is revealed. The thematic elements of the main character trying to find redemption and attempting to fit into society, in whatever form that exists around him, are common in Scorsese’s work and it is interesting to see the different ways that he comes at them. Here, Scorsese seems to be most interested in how tragedy affects people, the different ways that they cope. Do they retreat or push forward? Teddy digs deeper into his work, and so the film works best as an interactive detective narrative with these thematic elements influencing the character and his perspective. Another interesting aspect to the film is that only Teddy Daniels seems to be a fully fleshed out character – in other words, Teddy seems real, while everyone else is a caricature playing a role (minus one other character), which normally would seem like a negative, but here it works quite well in the narrative that Scorsese has laid out. The imagery that Scorsese uses is impactful and meaningful, both emotionally and in terms of solving the case. A number of the scenes visually were masterfully impressive, poetic and with wonderful composition (my favorite is the flashback scene in which DiCaprio is staring down at the German officer bleeding to death while paper floats in the air behind and around him, sort of beautiful and intensely sad). Scorsese’s visualization of Teddy’s nightmares is astonishing, visually stunning yet emotionally tragic. The music used in the film at first seemed to be strangely over the top and forced given the genre, but as the film plays out, this makes sense and like many other aspects works well in the structure. The music does add to the tension that the film builds throughout in addition to the story elements and situations that have implicit anxiety attached (some in the theatre could not handle it screaming out at parts). The film is very well acted by DiCaprio and there is strong supporting work by Michelle Williams. Ben Kingsley gives a slightly offbeat performance which seems very odd at times, yet like everything else, works here. Emily Mortimer is also good and really creepy. The shooting style of Robert Richardson mixed with the editing of Thelma Schoonmaker along with Scorsese’s input created an interesting visual style to the film. At times, the camera would pan, yet it looked like a projector moving to the next slide, as if the divulgence of visual information was rehearsed to be presented. Also, there are shots of perspective that seem off when the location is visited again. Things seem off throughout, but again it works. All in all, the film is a very good detective film with psychologically-thriller elements built in to the narrative structure with fantastic imagery creating an interestingly made film – another fine one from Scorsese. 8/10