Movie Review: Oz the Great and Powerful

Movie Review: Oz the Great and Powerful

Director: Sam Raimi

Year Released: 2013

Running Time: 130mins

Classification: PG

Genre: Adventure, Kids and Family, Fantasy

I was reluctant to watch this movie. I wasn’t quite sure how the actors would sit in this genre since none (that I’ve seen) have been in this style before. I loved The Wizard of Oz as a kid and loved, even more, Wicked the musical. I didn’t want anything to ruin my memories of Oz. But, alas, it is not ruined.

Oz the Great and Powerful is not even in the same league, hence not worth being associated with The Wizard of Oz or Wicked.

The story tells how a circus magician, Oz (same as the land), played by James Franco, arrives in Oz and how his arrival changes the struggle between 3 witches (Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams). With famous actors/actresses, magical costumes and stunning visual effects, how can this movie go wrong? Well for a start it felt more like a mini TV series than a big Hollywood film.

None of the actors/actresses delivered. This may be due to them not fitted for this genre or to the ‘shallow’ script. The characters were developed lazily and poorly, even the established characters were so basically written, there was no depth in their personality therefore I felt nothing towards them.

The worst was Oz himself, James Franco. He is an unreliable man who wants more in life but does not have the courage to achieve his ambition. He is a liar; he sleeps around, and will do anything for money. Oz is not a likable character, even till the end when all ends well and he saves the day, I was left feeling cheated and underwhelmed. He had the most reason and depth to have his character develop thoroughly but at the end of the day he is Oz 'the not so great and not so wonderful'. 

For the 3 witches, it would have been better to have shown their history rather than hear it from the characters. At least with visual aid, the ‘who’s good, who’s bad’ isn’t just merely implied but set in solid. From the movie, I did not feel the hatred between them was real since I had nothing to go by but talk.

(Side note: Am I the only one who thinks James Franco is not a good actor? Okay, so I haven’t seen 72 hours, but I’ve seen him in other movies and… nope, don’t like his acting…. Maybe it’s just me.)

The costumes stay true to the story with one exception, Theodora. She is the one dressed black pants with a purple jacket and a massive rim hat which I can only assume was chosen because it resembles a witch's hat. Her costume looks less Ozzian, and more Carmen San Diego in purple.

The visual effects were bright and stunning….. but a little too bright. The characters seemed to bounce off the screen in a ‘does not fit into the scenery’ way. Imagine the puzzle pieces that do not fit, now picture those pieces in an entirely different colour as the puzzle. This might have been done on purpose to allow a magical effect but what surprised me the most was all the animated creatures suited the background just fine. Then again I watched this movie in 2D and on a fairly modest sized screen. Maybe on the big screen it would have been different.

Having mentioned 2D, this movie was obviously made for 3D with the occasional flower or weapon diving straight into the camera. The 3D effect was less beautiful (Avatar) but more fun (Spy Kids). Watching it in 2D, I found the effects wasteful and eventually annoying. I recommend watching it in 3D.

Having ranted about the movie: the black and white introduction was a nice touch. Oz the Great and Powerful gave a respectful nod to the original film. It felt like home…..

The Wicked witch of the West was my favourite character by far. She had enough intensity in her make up and eyes to make her really evil.

This movie is enjoyable if you watch it in a kid’s perspective. I did not love the movie, but I did not hate it. I can see the enjoyment and the fun ride some people might have, and at some parts so did I, but I will not be re-watching this movie any time soon. 

Terri's rating: 2/5

Movie Review: Wreck-It Ralph

Title: Wreck-It Ralph

Director: Rich Moore

Year released: 2012

Running Time: 108 mins

Classification: PG

Genre: Adventure, Animation, Family and Kids

Being a long-time fan of Pixar, I was quite sceptical with Wreck-It Ralph. No one can possible do better than Pixar. I was wrong. Wreck-It Ralph may not be my favourite animation movie but it’s definitely one of the best.

Basically, this movie is about Ralph (voiced by John C. Reilly), a video game villain who is sick of being the villain and decides to go fulfil his dream of being a hero. While on his quest, he causes chaos in the arcade world.

This movie ticks all the boxes of a good kids’ animation. It is enjoyable to boys and girls, adults and children, has great animation, a tender touching story with the perfect amount of comedy. If you haven’t seen it yet I highly recommend it. It may not top Toy Story 3 (which is a personal favourite) but Disney is definitely heading in the right direction with Wreck-It Ralph.

One of my favourite parts of this movie is its reference to old video games. If you ever played video games as a kid, you’ll be delighted to see some appearances of characters from your childhood memories. There is also a joke about High Definition games.

The story is unique and was well thought out. Rather than having the ‘games central’ in cyber space, Wreck-It Ralph’s ‘game central’ looks like a train station with platforms leading to different games. This idea allows the ‘game central’ to look more solid and realistic.

The characters are all likable and surprisingly, relatable. Everyone can sympathise with Ralph. There is a bit of everything for everyone in this film. Comedy, likable main character, little treasures to be found and a twist (which I did not see coming). There is nothing poor I can say about this movie.

Just go watch it already.

Terri’s Rating: 4/5

Movie Review: Life of Pi

Title: Life of Pi

Director: Ang Lee

Year Released: 2012

Running Time: 158 minutes

Classification: PG-13 (M)

Genre: Drama, Magic Realism

Life of Pi tells the story of a boy who survives a shipwreck only to find himself sharing a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger. A tad unbelievable, perhaps, but that's the whole point. This is meant to be an epic, spiritual journey – one, which we are told, will make us believe in God. Now, I couldn't help but have high hopes for this film, given its celebrated director, prize-winning book, stunning trailer and great reviews, and I was ready to be a sucker and *~believe~*. Unfortunately, I walked away feeling slightly but distinctly unsatisfied.

Things start off well enough. The visuals are stunning from the get-go, with a vivid palette and adorable HD zoo animals. But as I saw more and more of the writer (Rafe Spall) and adult Pi (Irfan Khan), I felt myself deflate. The use of the interview as a framing technique seemed to work well enough in the book, but here it felt limiting and more than a bit contrived – rather than letting the story speak for itself, we are told, on no uncertain terms, that we are about to embark on a ~journey of faith~.

Perhaps it's because I sat in a bad spot in the cinema, but what ensued was not especially captivating. The early discussions on religion are superficial but heavy-handed and the acting somewhat stilted. As such, the retelling of Pi's childhood seems to drag on (get to the tiger already!) and I failed to connect with the character and his beliefs.

Things get better once Pi is played by Suraj Sharma and the ocean voyage begins in earnest. His plight is terrifying yet so absurd that it isn't so much frightening as it is surreal. The vast expanses of ocean and sky only accentuate the dream-like atmosphere. Speaking of, the visuals live up to the hype. They are, simply put, very spectacular; the tiger looks very life-like and the scenery is gorgeous. It's possibly the most beautiful movie I've ever seen and is worth watching for the graphics alone. Pi's strange adventures on the ocean are easily the best part of the film – in survival mode, Pi becomes easier to relate to and you get a sense of his joy, his awe and his despair. As a bonus, everything looks magnificent, but I think I may have mentioned that already.

At the end we're confronted with the question of what to believe and the answer, supposedly, will affirm our faith. At this point, my good spirits withered away. Especially given the shallow treatment of faith and religion at the start of the film, I found this turn of events to be somewhat of a let-down and a reminder of the things I should have felt but didn't. Where I had previously enjoyed this as a story about a Boy and his Tiger, it all now felt a bit hollow. I can't quite remember feeling this way with Yann Martel's book, so I'm not sure whether the problem lies in the tale or its telling.

Many have found Life of Pi to be marvellously uplifting, but I'm afraid I hold with the less favourable reviews. Certainly it is impressive on a technical level and certainly it is a unique tale to have been brought on screen. Pi's adventures with the tiger are indeed wondrous, but alone, they are incapable of carrying the whole narrative. The film's key flaw is that it fails to give substance to its own spiritual aspirations – but clearly, it seems, many would disagree entirely.

Alex's Rating: 3/5

Book Review: Virgin with Butterflies

Title: Virgin with Butterflies
Author: Tom Powers
Year Published: 2009 (originally 1945)
Genre: Adventure, General and literary fiction

(I apologise in advance for the length of this review.)

Look at the cover.

Just look at it.

When a dear friend pressed Virgin with Butterflies into my hands, I knew I held something special. Sure, virgins are a dime a dozen when it comes to fiction, especially when paired with the words “bride”, “mistress”, “boss's” and “billionaire's”, but here we have a virgin who is not defined by a man. Here we have a virgin who sits – as a queen – with a bunch of man-butterflies as her subjects (admittedly, it may seem that “butterflies” is a euphemism for men, but at least they're not men who own her). Upon flipping the book over, I discovered that the blurb only added to the book's mystery – the heroine is described as a blonde (!!) who collects rich men and has (magic?) butterflies that warn her when danger approaches. How could I resist?

I had two hopes: either the book would be hilariously bad or surprisingly good.

In the end, it was just so-so.

So what's it about? Well, at the brink of WWII, a down-to-earth American gal helps out a visiting Indian prince in a bar fight. For some reason she then accompanies him as he flies around the world selling jewels. In the process, she is admired by many men and receives many gifts. That's it. It's never explained why the heroine agrees to go in the first place, especially since she seems so surprised about it all and I can only assume it was because she wanted to be safe from the petty criminals who attacked the prince. It doesn't make sense, but there you go.

The narration is done in a really casual first person. Just imagine those old black and white American movies where a woman goes “so I says to Darlene, I says” and you'll have a pretty good idea of what the entire book reads like. I'm not entirely sure what to make of the heroine. She has the Mary Sue-esque trait of being obliviously but obviously gorgeous and every man she meets comes to admire her in one way or another. Still, she's somewhat likeable, being good and kind and decent. She's also practical and surprisingly culturally sensitive, but the thing that stands out is how simple she is.

Her cluelessness at times almost beggars belief, especially when it comes to how she even gets to flying about with the prince in the first place. She's a grown woman, not a child, and I can't quite decide whether she's irritating or charming or both, for instance, when she says things like “some other Japanese that sure was no gentlemen, they came over to a place that's called Pearl Harbour and they blew it right up. And they oughtn't to of done that, so there was a war.” (p78-9 for those playing at home).

For a book that was written in the 40s, it's pretty non-racist. In fact, I'd probably go so far as to say it's almost the opposite, promoting cultural and religious tolerance. There's a number of racial stereotypes, but they're fairly mild and apply equally to everyone, including the British, who say things like (p159) “Quite a bit of a neat show, what?” and so on. The worst of it is probably the depiction of the Sudanese king, who is shown to value a sewing machine above several sacks of gold, because somehow no one had ever thought to sell him another sewing machine or something. Be ye warned.

As for the actual story, it's not very well told. The narration jumps back and forth in time, and the main plot of travelling is further interwoven with a story about the heroine's family – namely her brother's arrest and her uncle's evilness. While such a style of storytelling might have worked with a different narrator or writer, it's just annoying here. All the jumping about destroys suspense and serves only to baffle and disappoint. The narrator will mention some future ~exciting event~, and then when we actually get to the ~exciting event~, it's just glossed over or blandly described. It's almost like watching a movie and realising that you've already seen all the good bits in the trailer. The style matches the heroine's character, so I guess the heroine just isn't a very good storyteller.

The same goes for the descriptions. The heroine visits many exotic locales, but it feels like the countries are name-dropped rather than explored. The worst part I can pinpoint is the non-description of an Indian temple on p169: 

“Well, it's no use trying to tell all about it, because if anybody's been to the movies enough you don't have to describe nothing much. They know what it looks like. And that's just what it did.” 

This is after the temple is described as “a huge big church with no windows and no pews and no Stations of the Cross or anything”. Thanks for that, narrator!

In summary, I didn't really enjoy this book. If you were thinking of reading this for the lulz, you'll probably be disappointed for the most part. If, however, you really enjoyed the excerpts I posted, then you'll probably find it very funny indeed. Personally, I found it a little on the boring side, the poor story outweighing what lulz there is. The heroine's voice is easy to read and there's a good sense of her character, but I can't decide if she's annoying or sweet and at any rate, the story and its telling aren't the greatest. The cover and title are the best thing about this book and they (along with the blurb) are misleading – other than the Indian prince, I can only guess at who the other heads are supposed to be. And FYI, the titular butterflies refer to stomach flutters (how disappointing, am I right?). I had maybe been hoping for some kind of mystery story where the heroine, by reason of her virginity, can control some magic butterflies that are actually spirits of men and she must escape pursuers who want the butterflies for their own nefarious purposes or something. But yeah. I was wrong. Still, take my dismissal with more than a grain of salt, for though I say there isn't much to this book, I have somehow managed to write this freaking essay on it (with quotes, no less).

Alex's Rating: 2.5/5

Movie Review: MirrorMask

Title: MirrorMask

Director: Dave McKean

Year released: 2005

Running Time: 101 mins

Classification: PG

Genre: Adventure, Fantasy, Drama, Family

A dark artistic fantasy world.

MirrorMask follows 15 year old Helena. She stumbles into a fantasy world and embarks on a mission to find the Mirrormask to save the kingdom and to find a way home.

The storyline is the traditional lost kid in another world believing it is all a dream. Very ‘Alice in Wonderland’ and ‘The Wizard of Oz’.

What makes MirrorMask unique is its artistic story telling, designs and the distinctive eeriness of music used. Written by Neil Gaiman and Dave McKean the movie has a darker tone then a normal kids’ film.

Note: Neil Gaiman is a well known science fiction/fantasy writer. His books include American God, The Graveyard book and the graphic novel series The Sandman. If you enjoy his books, you will definitely like MirrorMask.

Dave McKean is a renowned artist and has collaborated with Neil Gaiman before on The Sandman series. His art work is unmistakable and it is his designs which make the fantasy world come alive.

The plot is self explanatory. The delivery of the storyline is intertwined perfectly with the mind game art technique used by McKean.

The entire movie is dim. Our world looks like a cloudy day before a storm while the fantasy world is covered in a sandstorm colour. The fading visual images in the fantasy world allow a dream like appearance. Kind of like submerging something in dusty water where you can see it, but not clearly.   

The creatures of the fantasy world resemble normal animals but yet are so unique you will have trouble placing them. (Besides from the Giant Twins, of course. They are definitely not from this world.)

Music is used wisely. Most of the music played in the background has a soft beat that I have never heard used in any other film. (Then again I have not seen every movie on the planet.) There are a lot of chiming noises. It makes the atmosphere feel more spiritual and even restful. The most memorable song would have to be Close to you played while Helena transforms into the Princess. I personal hate this song but the way this song is delivered in this particular scene, it hypnotised me as the magical dust did to the Helena.

However MirrorMask is not for everyone. It runs slower with no bright colours or happy singing to keep the more easily distracted audiences amused. So if you like your happy la la, bright colour singing children’s film, you may not enjoy MirrorMask.

I highly recommend this movie to anyone who has always wanted to have an adventure. MirrorMask not only takes you on an adventure into another world, but will open your eyes to a place where dreams are lost, books have thoughts and where the darkness is alive. It is the mixture of art design and storyline that makes this movie brilliant.

Terri’s Rating: 4/5

Movie Review: Mirror Mirror

Title: Mirror Mirror

Director: Tarsem Singh

Year released: 2012

Running Time: 106 mins

Classification: PG

Genre: Comedy, Drama, Adventure, Kids and Family, Fantasy, Romance

This new adaption to snow white stars Julia Roberts as the evil queen and Lily Collins as Snow White. It might be one of the latest adaptions but definitely not the best.

The storyline is pretty much the same with some minor changes from the Disney version of Snow White. The 7 dwarves are thieves that wear stilts, a dragon creature lives in the dark forest, and the kingdom is set in a land of snow.

Let’s start.

I like Julia Roberts. I think she’s a respectable actress but her portrayal of the Evil Queen was … poor. Instead of an Evil Queen, Julia Roberts came across as a pathetic Queen. 

Generally I would blame this on the writer or directer, but this Evil Queen was all Julia Roberts. 

I understand this movie is a comedy, but the point of an EVIL Queen is for her to be EVIL. She can be funny but at least have some aspects where the audience can believe she is ruthless. All I saw was a pathetic Queen obsessed with her looks who happens to have a magic mirror.

Snow White is meant to be innocent, sweet and altogether wholesome. I get it. This Snow White was also timid. I honestly did not believe she could do everything she did. The transition was poorly done. She went from an innocent girl to a woman able to stand up to the Evil Queen unconvincingly.

The part I hate the most is the end. The Queen is defeated. Everyone’s happy. Snow White turns evil? (Okay, she does not turn evil). But her facial expression, rather than a triumphant look, was a sly “I beat you Queen, now face the consequences and die”. So much for innocent, sweet and wholesome. (Unconvincing transition).

But the worse bit is the song. I'm not a fan of happy la la songs at the end of a movie when it's not a musical. After the Queen dies, Snow White breaks into a song. Not any song. A Bollywood style song. Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against Bollywood but if you're going to put a song in the end, put something more relevant to the genre of movie. 

However I did like the twist behind the King's disappearance. Visually, the costumes are definitely unique, not in a bad way, except for the large bow on Snow White’s dress at the end of the film. The costumes and stage set gives the movie a fairy tale quality which is perfect for this film.

I really liked the animation at the start of the film. I think I would have preferred the whole movie as the animation.

If you are looking for a good fairy tale, don’t bother with this movie. It is definitely a kids' film and to be enjoyed by kids, not by anyone over the age of 8. Make sure the kid likes princess films too. 

Terri's Rating: 1/5


**Extra mini-review by Alex** Oh my. I enjoyed this film! It was a big ham-fest all the way and it was fun, if a little predictable. I actually prefer this to Snow White and the Huntsman - the dwarves at least were distinguishable from one another and the romance here is more convincing, even though the Prince (Armie Hammer) is just beefcake (though this says more about SWatH, really). I agree about the costumes (only King Sean Bean looks uncomfortable) and I also liked how things looked in general. Tarsem Singh is known for stunning visuals, and here there is a fantastical hyper-saturated look which really works for the movie. I also agree that Snow White's character seemed a bit inconsistent, but this is more of a problem if you think about it. My solution: don't think. I'd leave my brain at home and just enjoy the pretty. Rating: 3/5