RED 2

I was really excited for this one. 

So excited I was even willing to pay  for a $10.25 matinee showing. The ticket taker gave a sympathetic chortle when I asked if there was a student discount. There isn't one apparently. 

If you have seen RED, the original movie released in 2010, then you understand my excitement for it's sequel- some of my favorite classics (Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, I could go on and on) all in one entertaining ensemble, witty dialogue, great action sequences and unbelievable fun-all can be found in RED. 

The basic premise in the first movie is that retired assassins/spies/contract killers have been labeled RED (Retired, Extremely Dangerous), and must therefore be eliminated, with the necessary amount of political intrigue. Add a bit of quirky romance, a strong dollop of we-know-this-is-a-completely-preposterous-plot...and-we-don't-care attitude, and you've got awesome. 

The sequel wasn't disappointing. It just wasn't the original. 

Part of RED's charm (the first one) was that it was completely unexpected. 

He stepped out of a spinning car! HE JUST STEPPED OUT OF IT!!!!

Of course John Malkovich would go up against a rocket launcher with a handgun.
I mean, WHY NOT?!?!

RED 2 tried to accomplish that same sense of "don't underestimate what these retired killers can do!" that the first one so playfully presented, but it couldn't be unpredictable like the first one. I honestly felt the same sensation about the Matrix sequels- you can't replicate originality if you use the same gimmicks and tricks. Yes, there is the addition of how to hold on to a relationship that's gotten past the "He's a spy. I like spies" stage, the premise that Frank Moses (Bruce Willis' character) must save the world instead of just America, and kung fu, but it just wasn't as new as the first. 

My one true complaint has to do with the music- the funky soundtrack from the original (lead instruments- harmonica and banjo) was replaced by sadly commonplace THIS IS AN ACTION MOVIE! music that sounded just like every other action movie out there. What a waste. 

That being said, I did enjoy myself. I laughed- a lot. I was wrapped up in the spy story (of which I will not reveal the twists and turns- that would just be rude). The action sequences were exciting and the dialogue was decent. In short, I enjoyed myself, and what else are movies for, really?

The additions of Anthony Hopkins, Catherine Zeta Jones, and Byung-hun Lee to the cast (among others) was on the verge of feeling like Ocean's 12/13, but it never got too silly or full of its self like those sequels did. The silliness felt unabashed, not embarrassing, and I've got to respect something that is so completely itself, no explanations needed. Yeah, let's have a car chase that leads to this scene:

The car is spinning, of course.

All in all, I give this movie three stars- worth seeing, but as a rental. Save that $10.25 for something that is not a sequel.

Oz : The Great and Powerful

This one's a doozy, folks. 

I'm just glad it only cost me 76 cents to rent this from a certain colored box with a promo code. I sign up for every discount I can get, yes, even those 'We'd like to hear what you think' surveys you get on grocery store receipts. Don't judge me, I'm on a budget. 

But I digress...

To begin at the beginning, my sister told me that this movie was so bad, she actually yelled at the TV while watching it. This is not as uncommon an occurrence as you may think, so I was more intrigued than put off by her emotional review. I can safely say, after suffering through all 130 minutes of it, that Corey (my sis) was totally, unequivocally right.

Like a twister, this movie swiftly spiraled into destruction. It payed homage to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz in a rambling oo-ee-oo-ooooaa-way-oo sort of way that would please some frantic fans of the original movie. I will admit Oz: The Great and Powerful was visually interesting, but like a music video that isn't supposed to make sense. The 3-D gimmicks were as frenzied and pointless as ads for Christmas in October, which lessened the beauty of the special effects considerably. The settings and animation were stunning, with eye-popping-bubblegum color that tried to distract the audience away from a very important fact: this movie has very little plot. 

Look, bubbles!

Here's the plot in eleven words (don't worry, this won't spoil anything): Con-man saves POWERFUL women from themselves with quirky sidekicks in technicolor! 

Because that's original. 

I'll come back to the disappointing plot in a moment.

The dialogue was written at a level matching George Lucas' love scenes in Return of the Sith. I mean, the tangled "love affair" between Theodora (a witch) and Oz the great and powerful sleaze, which is supposed to be a catalyst for much of the story, fizzled out with the first words and expressions on the actors' faces. It seemed to me that most of the dialogue acted as fillers between special effects. That makes for a tantalizing film.

Maybe the creators were trying to target a younger audience, but you DON'T need to dumb down your writing to make an interesting show for kids. I know this from personal experience as a teacher. Kids despise being talked down to, and I don't care much for it either.

The only semi-inspiring lines (delivered in a range of mono-tone to Monty Python) were totally plagiarized from other great films. Here's an example: "I know I'm not the wizard you expected, but I might just be the wizard you need." 

"You are not Batman. I'm Batman."
Batman is not amused.

The lines themselves would have been bad enough, but oh, it gets worse. 

Dear villains- yelling ALL THE TIME does not show emotional depth nor aptitude for the acting sphere. There were apparently three go-to emotions for the entire cast- fake smile, fake pout or screaming like a rabid football fan. The character with the most expression in her face and voice was a computer generated china doll, for goodness sake. 

Foul ball- very pretty, but for what purpose? Strike one- bad writing. Strike two- bad acting. Yikes. 

And here's where the movie strikes out.

In order for the audience to feel fear for, or connect with, the protagonist, the audience must be led to believe that the protagonist SHOULD WIN and the antagonist is CAPABLE OF WINNING. Take a page from Joss Whedon, for example.

"I shall kill one of your favorite characters, so that you think EVERYONE is going to die."

James Franco's dimples aren't enough to make a butt-head of a character likable, no matter how many times you zoom in on them. Also, if your hideous, flying baboons insist on crashing into every single solid object just as Stormtroopers insist on missing them, then I'm not going to be all that worried for the well-being of the characters that they are chasing. In short, I felt very little anxiety/empathy/connection for or to any of the folks on the screen. 

Strike three- unbelievable/unlikable.

Not only did this movie strike out, it also struck a negative chord. My final thoughts on this avoidable film involve THE WOMEN. When three quarters of the top-billed actors are women, one might think, hey, progress (or chick flick, depending on your viewpoint). A film full of tough and tenacious females, how refreshing. Not so, gentle reader, not so.

Powerful + Pretty = Success, right? Right? 

Rachel Weisz (one of my favorite actors) as Evanora was written as a two-timing witch who betrays her sister with a man and an APPLE from which she must eat...the forbidden fruit of evilness...I mean COME ON. 

The sister relationship between Evanora and Theodora (Mila Kunis) was about as well written and established as the love connection between Oz and Theodora (read- nonexistent). Her tears of pain caused by rejected love literally burned her face...what is that supposed to mean? Is she not supposed to cry? Are tears evil? Is it that hard to fake cry for the camera? Not to mention the what-the-heck transformation she undergoes. Let's just say her color palette is Christmas themed, for no real reason in particular.

And let's not forget how good Glinda the Good Witch was (played by Michelle Williams). And when I say good, I don't mean she was well played (placid at best). I mean, she was good on the inside- no grey areas. Very simple. Good is good, bad is bad. No confusion (or depth) there. I didn't not like her. After all, she was the only reason I wasn't rooting for the bad guys (well, that and all the yelling). 

So, we've got three cookie cutter characters: the evil witch who doesn't care about anything but power (becomes ugly); the betrayed woman who becomes evil because of a man (becomes ugly); and the good one, who has absolute faith in her man (stays pretty). Ugh. I say 'ugh' for all the wasted potential for interesting character development.

But then, I guess, I've been spoiled.

The true minor chords of doom playing in my head after watching this movie don't rise from Danny Elfman's familiar score or flat characters, but from the disappointing theme. According to the plot of Oz, women with the POWER OF MAGIC (not to mention leadership, empathy, authority, intimidation, and goodness, but not necessarily in that order) must be saved/defeated by a circus charlatan. The blind faith held in the newly arrived savior (who is usually white and male) by the natives (who are usually quite competent, thank you very much) is so familiar it's annoying. 

I love all three of those movies, by the way. Ironic?

Here's where this movie becomes as damaging as a twister- the underlying message is that women must be rescued (plus the whole kingdom, don't forget the munchkins who sing and make nice clothes). 

Really? Even James Franco doesn't look convinced.

Oscar Diggs (Oz) is delivered flatly, written badly, and never given a chance to show the hidden qualities that make Glinda the Good Witch believe in him so much. Even after Glinda is lied to, must save the magic-less wizard several times, becomes aware that he is "not the wizard she hoped for," and is nearly abandoned by said savior, she still delivers this classic line, "If you can make them believe, then you're wizard enough." I was not made to believe. 

I keep coming back to that troubling idea that these witches are strong. Some are decidedly evil, but strong. And this random dude with the power of..."I wish to be great someday"...is supposed to upset the whole order of things in this magical land? I know this movie is a prequel trying to explain how the wonderful wizard got there in the first place (and the end does wrap that up rather nicely), but even my love for the original story could not overlook how blatantly patronizing this entire production truly was. Oz: the Great and Powerful fails.

Never judge a book by its movie

"The book is a film that takes place in the mind of the reader. That's why we go to the movies and say, 'Oh, the book was better.' "
Paulo Coelho

Too true, random Brazilian writer I found on the Internet. 

As an English teacher, I dread the inevitable question of, "Are we going to watch the movie?" after I announce we'll be reading a new book in class. I picture myself jumping on my desk, knocking stacks of paper away with my comfortable shoes, shouting, "Don't you understand?!? The book is always better than the movie because it's YOUR imagination and connections and journey and NOBODY else can create the world you travel to in your mind!" But I've yet to have this John Keating moment in reality. I usually state, with a heavy sigh, "Yes, to practice compare and contrasting." Cue harmonic moans and groans. 

That's right children, step on my childhood memories with your unwillingness to read. 

Edmund Wilson, literary critic, once stated that "No two persons ever read the same book," and when it comes to what we see in our minds, I often find a director's vision of the characters and setting lacking my mental picture's (with it's inexhaustible supply of viewpoints and pocketbook) standards. 

HOWEVER, there are always exceptions to the rule (including that one). Eight, in my experience.

If I have to be truly honest with myself, I'd be less harsh of a judge if I accepted the fact that these are two very different story telling mediums, and maybe I should cut the screenwriters a break...NAW. If you hack up my book- because once I've read it, I own it you see-you shall suffer a tirade of jibber-jabber and insults worthy of English parliament. 

Here they are, the movies that match my esteem for the book, in the order I remembered them by, with a "short" explanation as to why:

Matilda- Omniscient narrators always help a book-to-movie-translation along, and if I had a voice describing the innards of my goings-on, Danny DeVito would be one of my top ten choices. The casting rocked, the effects are still well done 17 years later, and best of all, EVERY SINGLE ONE of my students who watch this film laugh heartily with the true enjoyment that only Roald Dahl's child-like version of reality could bring. Readership of Dahl always goes up after this movie is shared in the classroom. I personally love a good giggle, and this movie keeps the necessary plot points without loosing the book's charm.

Cloud Atlas- This beautiful movie blew me away and I actually had to watch it twice before completely comprehending it (more on that later). That being said, the complexity of the story telling may not match the layout of the excellent novel exactly, but it dazzles in its own way. If you've read the book, I'm sure you'll discover David Mitchell's six intertwining stories are treated with the greatest respect. A few plot points are changed to leave a happier product in the hands of the movie's consumer, but I personally liked those changes. What can I say? I'm a sucker for happy endings. 

Hunger Games- I shake with anticipation for the second installment after the success of the first. With the exception of the shaky camera craze that leaves me not with a sense of "being there" but "being saddled with sea-sickness and a headache," this movie did a remarkable job of visualizing children killing each other for the entertainment of the privileged.  I wondered how that would transfer from the written word. It's one thing to read it and imagine, a whole different experience to see the bright-red-bloody violence of gladiator teens. Our minds can create worlds within worlds, but we can sensor ourselves too. I guess that's why this hasn't been made into a graphic novel yet. 

A Very Long Engagement- Translated from the French novel, this WWI detective/romance is directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet, of Amelie fame, starring none other than Audrey Tautou. That combo by itself is a winner in my book, and this movie doesn't fail to deliver. There is actually one scene where Audrey's character, Mathilde, receives bad news over the phone and I SWEAR, the scene looked, sounded and felt just as it had in my mind as I read the scene. That happens a grand total of never. I already liked the movie up until that point, but I adored it after that scene. 

The Princess Bride- The book read like a screenplay to begin with, so adapting this humorously twisted fantasy onto the silver screen was simply a question of the right director at the right time. This movie is chock full of everything good, from Andre the Giant to oh-so-quotable lines, I just don't know where to start gushing. I guess I'll just move on, as you have probably been wishing me to do for a while. 

Holes- Another favorite for my classroom, I love the amount of plot they squished into this film. It is one of the few movies where students have trouble finding differences from the book. It's one of the few Shia LaBeouf productions I can stomach after Transformers. I think the best thing about this movie is that the additions made for humor's sake add to the characters' development instead of changing the character's personality, unlike some movies we know (The Lightning Thief, please stand up). I'll take my italics and move on now. 

Pride and Prejudice, the BBC version- Oh yes, five and a half hours of details, details, details (not to mention Colin Firth) that only the BBC can provide. I think, quite arrogantly, that Jane Austen would have been proud. I watch this (and the next one) whenever I'm sick and need to escape from the current world for a long period of time.

Anne of Green Gables, just the first two- I grew up on this pack of four VHS (that and the Sound of Music...which actually explains a lot about me). What geeky teenage girl doesn't identify with Anne's love of literature and hyperbole, and her complete inability to see the truth that yanked on her braids and called her 'carrots'? L.M. Montgomery provided almost too much information for the Canadian movie makers to draw from, and much of the story is actually drawn from six books, not just the first two. The editing works, and let's just say, I've always wanted to be called Cordelia. 

Oh, Pinterest, you creative genius you. 

The list of movies BETTER than the book actually exists, but shall be a story saved for another day. 
The list of books that SHOULDN'T have been made into movies (at least not yet) is one I'm looking forward to writing.
The list of movies that commit high treason and should be hung, drawn and quartered for butchering the book they were "based" on is longer than Santa's naughty and nice list put together. I don't think I'll go there, except in short bursts, spread out for every body's benefit. The process will be slow and cathartic, to be sure (evil grin).

It's all a part of the plan.

1. I LOVE movies. Love, love, love them. As said in both versions of The Invention of Hugo Cabret, movies are seeing your dreams in the middle of the day. I'm a dreamer at heart.

2. I've seen too many films to count. 

3. I need an excuse to spend more time watching more movies. So many dreams, so little time.

There you go. My credentials/reasons that support my act of stepping into the movie critic/reviewer/watcher/admirer-or whatever word the academics want to call it these days- world. 

Here's the basic plan: Each month, I will create four posts. 

Week 1 will be a new release you've GOT to watch, I mean, life-hangs-in-the-balance kind of GOT to. This can either be in the theaters or released on video (that dated me, and hey, I'm not changing it). 

Week 2 shall warn you away from a movie that should never have been recorded on celluloid. Ever. I watch everything so you don't have to.

Week 3 is going to be all about the classics that maybe you've seen, but you sure as heck should if you haven't. These can be anything created from the rise of the silver screen to about five years ago. Any closer in time to now and it's still a new release in my book.

Week 4 is where I get to go all artsy-fartsy and write about whatever the heck I want to if it has some relation to movies, which too much of my life seems to be connected to. Think of that confession what you will. 

To end with a quote...

People who like movies have a favorite. People who LOVE movies couldn't possibly choose. 

Nicole Yatsonsky

Here are my...favorites...well, some of them.