Released in 2013 under the direction of Malcolm D. Lee ("Undercover Brother") on a budget of $20 million with distribution from The Weinstein Company; "Scary Movie V" is the long-delayed sequel to the once-popular "Scary Movie" comedy franchise.
It's often rare to find movies that become acceptable to hate in the general public, whereas most people will cry foul and put themselves on the front line to defend the movie even if it's not all that great (see "The Phantom Menace"). Then there are movies that become socially cool to hate and any defenders are just ignored or laughed at for even trying to (see "Twilight"). That's where we come to the Scary Movie franchise, a series of parody films mocking whatever movies are popular, generally horror films as the title suggests. From "Scream" and "I Know What You Did Last Summer" to movies like "The Haunting," "Signs," "Saw" and "War of the Worlds."
Between you and me, the "Scary Movie" films were better when the Wayan Brothers weren't involved in the directing or writing of these movies and those positions were filled in by "Airplane!" and "Naked Gun" writers David Zucker, Jim Abrahams and Pat Proft. "Scary Movie 5" was stuck in development hell for years following the slew of terrible parody films from former Scary Movie writers, Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer ("Epic Movie," "Meet the Spartans," "Disaster Movie") as well as numerous cancellation dates and recasts, thus is comes as no surprise that many of the films referenced are from 2010.
Dan (Simon Rex), an ape researcher, and Jody (Ashley Tisdale), a wannabe rock star turned ballet dancer, are a happily married couple who adopt Charlie Sheen's three children found in a cabin in the woods by Snoop Dog and Mac Miller. Taking them to live in a suburban home, the couple begin to notice strange and supernatural things occurring. To find answers, the couple employ a con psychic, a Leonardo DiCaprio look-alike and a magical book that turns people into zombies who threaten to swallow your soul
"Scary Movie V," to put lightly, is like going to a party with someone who tells jokes that they think is relevant when it's not anymore.
That's this movie.
Half of the jokes aren't funny and even when the movie does find footing to tell a funny joke, it jumps to another reference that has no relation to the movie or the genre it's satirizing. Why is Christian Grey in this movie? No real purpose or reason, he's just in here because "Fifty Shades of Grey" is popular right now.
I admit to chuckling to a few instances of physical comedy, but most of the time, I found myself just sitting there munching away on my popcorn (which was $13.95 with the drink by the way, thank you AMC) expecting to laugh but just couldn't find much to laugh at. It'll probably get some laughs out of some teenagers, but take it from me, it's worth waiting till OnDemand has it availble.
Final Rating: 2/5
Thursday, April 4, 2013
Oz The Great and Powerful Review
Released in 2013 under the direction Sam Raimi on a budget of $215 million with distribution by Walt Disney Pictures; "Oz The Great and Powerful" is an adaptation of the fantasy novellas written by L. Frank Baum in the early 1900's but meant to act as a prequel to the classic 1939 film "The Wizard of Oz." The original story "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" was a dark fantasy tale that involved animals getting killed and people getting tortured, so you could imagine why MGM had to pay $75,000 to purchase the book's rights so they could tone down the violence and keep it light-hearted enough for all audiences, the result though, took 14 writers and five directors just to make it safe for audiences and keep it to the production code heavily enforced on Hollywood movies at the time. But That's not the only obstacle the original film faced, during production, actors were severely injured (Margaret Hamilton had her copper make-up burned by an accident and even her stand-in for stunts was burnt as well), the costumes were difficult for the actors to perform in (Judy Garland had to wear a corset, Bert Lahr wore heavy furs that overheated his body and was 90 pounds heavy with all the studio lights pouring down on him), some of the costumes even brought severe health damage (Buddy Larson's original Tin Man makeup used aluminum dust that coated his lungs and his replacement Jack Haley was applied with aluminum paste that nearly made him go blind) and even despite all this , the movie flopped at the box office at the time of it's release. But just like "Fantasia" and "Citizen Kane," time worked in "The Wizard's" favor and soon, a new generation greatly found supreme admiration for this film and became a staple-mark of children movies for decades to come. But I bring all that up to contrast with the movie's leap to digital effects and to remind that this film has really nothing much to do with the 1939 film albeit some nods here and there.
Plot: In the black and white land known as Kansas (which should be brown-and-white but am I the only one who noticed that?) Oscar Diggs (James Franco) is a small-time circus magician claiming to be the powerful Oz whose ego knows no bounds as he flirts with anything that has ovaries. After escaping from a circus strongman who found out he was flirting with his wife, Oscar get sucked up into a tornado with his hot air ballon where he then appears in the Land of Oz, where there is color and widescreen aspect ratio. While he's there, he meets Theodora (Mila Kunis) a witch who states that he is the prophesied wizard who will come to Oz and overthrow the Wicked Witch who murdered the previous King of Oz. On the way, he steals her heart and rescues a Flying monkey wearing a bellhop suit named Finley (Zach Braff) who swears eternal loyalty to him. After meeting with Evanora (Rachel Weisz) who dresses in black and wears a bright green necklace and who TOTALLY shows no hints she could be evil in the slightest tells him that to be the King of Oz, he'll have to destroy the Wicked Witch. On his way to the Dark Forest, he repairs a little china girl ("Oh oh oh ohhhhhh") and he discovers the "Wicked Witch" is really Glinda, the Good Witch of the North (Michele Williams) and that Evanora is really the Wicked Witch who killed her father (noooooo, really? Who would have guessed with her dark clothing she wore?) and she takes him to the land that has Quadlings, tinkers and Munchkins in it so he can lead them to defeat the Army of Darkness and recover the Necronomicon Ex Mortis and return to working as S-Mart and- dammit, I confused movie plots again.
So yeah, the story really isn't anything brag-worthy or original, in fact, it's a tad bit sophomoric that doesn't have any real twists or turns in the narrative sense. It's exactly as you'd expect it to be, the only real turn I could think of was seeing Bruce Campbell as a city guard. Anyone who grew up with The Wizard of Oz may dislike this movie for it's abundance of nods and references to the original film, from opening up with a 4:3 aspect ratio and in black and white before switching to wide-screen and color, to seeing Theodora turn green and fly around on a broomstick, to even Oz's showmanship as he employs trickery using smoke and lights and fireworks (which I consider the best part of the movie). Regardless though, the overall theme of "a doubtful con artist overcoming his personal doubts" is one that's too familiar with me since I've seen it used so many times. Thankfully, unlike other movies where we have that whole "liar reveal" cliche, they manage to use this theme lightly as he never actually reveals that he's a con man but he manages to use his trickery to convince the people of Oz he's legit.
Characters:
James Franco: He's okay, over-the-top at times when he's trying to solicit his "magic" and he's funny when he has to be. Then again, I've always admired Franco when he tackles really personal and difficult roles like "James Dean" or "127 Hours" but when he does these kind of generic roles, he always manages to find a way to bring his A game to the role, be it good or bad. He plays it straight, which helps the audience to adapt to the world he's found himself in, which he does so well to convey, you find yourself buying it. Even if his character is an archetype we've seen too many times, I did find myself wanting to see him accomplish his goal.
Mila Kunis: The term "deliciously wicked" comes to mind. She's not really so much evil as her motives for becoming so are based more from jealousy and heart break than power. Though I couldn't help that even when she turned green and evil, I couldn't see her as Margaret Hamilton but as Meg Griffin with a pointy nose and chin. Still, when she was over-the-top, she was amusing but all the times she tried to be intimidating, I wasn't really scared by her. Sorry Mila, but Margaret set the image and it's rather hard to imitate greatness.
Rachel Weisz: I sure haven't seen her in a while, must have been nice to come back and get a heaping good paycheck while she was at it. Sadly she doesn't really sell on me as being a "good" witch who tricks everyone into believing she's evil, anyone with a working pair of eyes could have seen through her facade by how she was dressed. How about a movie where someone is dressed sinisterly and yet they turn out to be the good guy? Is that too much to ask?
Michelle Williams: She's pretty good. Soft-spoken and pretty-looking, though her dress wasn't as far-out as Billie Burke's was in 1939, but that's an observation and not a criticism as I assume this movie was trying to take more influence from the original source material than the movie for it's characters and settings.
Zach Braff: A comic relief monkey in a bellhop uniform, that sounds like the beginning of a joke, doesn't it? He's a good side character, witty and heart-felt when it was required of him to be in scenes.
Joey King: She was all right. Some people have gone and said they cried at the ending, I thought the ending was sweet but I didn't think it was material that deserved my tears. Still, she wasn't useless, which is a complaint I usually have with supporting characters, she was helpful when she needed to be and she brought depth to the Oz character when necessary to do so. By the way, "I'm feelin' tragic like I'm Marlo Brando when I look at my china giiiiiiirl."
I've heard some people say their performances were bland, I just thought the cast did what was called for them to do and they did it as well as the script called for them.
Production: Seeing how this film was produced by the same people behind the 2010 "Alice in Wonderland" project, naturally this movie finds ways to fill the screen with visual wonder and vibrant colors. The Land of Oz is definitely one that's familiar from the classic, it's lush and immense. Some of the fauna does appear to have taken some cues from "Alice in Wonderland" but that's just an observation than a complaint. The visuals looked really good not he creature effects, namely on the China Girl, she looked the most realistic to me, which is something that I find hard for movies with special effects to do, only rarely have I found convincing effects this day in age but I guess you can chalk up this China Girl as one of them, along with Maurice from "Rise of the Planet of the Apes." Music is all right, it's whimsical and big, but like a lot of Danny Elfman scores in recent years, it sounds all the same, hell, even before his name appeared in the opening credits, my dad leaned over and said "sounds like Danny Elfman" and what do you know, he was spot-on. I even found the 3D to be effective, especially in the beginning with the Academic aspect ratio how certain actions done inside the frame pops past the frame's border, like smoke or debris flying past. If you're unwilling to forgive the story or the characters, then certainly, the visuals will no doubt win you over.
Bottom Line: As Leonard Maltin perfectly put it: "No movie ever can, or will, replace 1939's The Wizard of Oz, but taken on its own terms, this eye-filling fantasy is an entertaining riff on how the wizard of that immortal film found his way to Oz" and you know what? I agree with what he has to say. Yes, this isn't the classic and it shouldn't be seen as such. It's a visual treat with a story that isn't really that dark as the source material and it's not as whimsical as the original film, but it's good for audiences of all ages, which is what the original film set out to be. It did wonders with technicolor, which was quite a rarity at the time and it wishes to pay homage to the film of everyone's childhoods. I was dazzled, I was charmed and I was entertained, not sure if I'd buy it when it comes to Blu Ray, but I'd watch it again when it comes OnDemand but I still have the original "Wizard of Oz" until then.
Final Rating: 3/5
Until next time, I'll keep the fires stoked for when we burn through celluloid.
