Open Letters Monthly: Oz the Great and Powerful

Just in case you thought that there were still some sacred things out there, Disney popped out a prequel to the 1939 classic (and perennial top 100 movie) The Wizard of Oz this past weekend. While Oz the Great and Powerful is questionable to overtake the popularity of the film and book series that inspired it, I have to admit a certain fascination with the world and wonders of Oz, and even if you're a movie purist you have to admit some of your own. The real question is whether it makes James Franco worth watching.

Carnival magician Oscar Diggs wants to achieve greatness, to be one of the greatest men of all time. Unfortunately, he's a two-bit philanderer and actor, with his true self nowhere near the surface. When a twister violently whisks him to the world of Oz, he is immediately assumed to be a wizard of great power, tasked with ridding the land of the mysterious and evil Wicked Witch. But while he at first is only interested in riches, he quickly learns the benefits of his abilities, and strives to be the great and powerful wizard the people of Oz imagine need him to be.

Oz the Great and Powerful is directed by Sam Raimi and stars James Franco, Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz, Michelle Williams, Zach Braff and Joey King.

Click here for the full review at Open Letters Monthly.

Movie Monday: Ted

I had a choice this week (what a concept, Hollywood) and had been leaning towards the Steven Soderbergh male stripper flick Magic Mike to cover this Movie Monday. Todd diverted me elsewhere, however, and together we went to see Ted, the Boston-based comedy directed by and starring Seth MacFarlane, the creator of TV's Family Guy and American Dad! I do owe Todd thanks for that, as both she and I enjoyed some of our best laughs since March's 21 Jump Street opening.

Twenty-seven years after successfully wishing that his teddy bear could come to life and become his best friend, John Bennett and Ted have become inseparable. This is not only a problem for John, who seems to have trouble accepting his responsibility for the trouble Ted gets him into, but for John's girlfriend Lori, who believes Ted is keeping John from becoming all he can be in their relationship. John eventually agrees, and he helps Ted move out and get on his feet so that they can live their separate lives. But things do not go smoothly, and soon John may have to choose between his lifetime friend and the love of his life.

Ted is directed by Seth MacFarlane and stars Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Giovanni Ribisi, Joel McHale and Sam J. Jones, and features the voices of MacFarlane and
Patrick Stewart.

Click here for the whole review at Open Letters Monthly.

Rom-Com Merry Go Round

Back in January, I reviewed a romantic comedy starring Ashton Kutcher and Natalie Portman called No Strings Attached. In the film, two friends decide to cast aside the emotional baggage of relationships and focus on the sexual gratification aspect with one another. No matter what happened, they would keep love out of the equation, and remain friends. Well, guess what? It didn't work then and it doesn't work in Friends with Benefits either, to nobody's surprise. Directed by Easy A's Will Gluck, Friends at least looks better than No Strings Attached on paper. While the earlier-released film has arguably the bigger star power (with the eventual Oscar winner Portman leading the charge), the overall production of Friends came off much more nicely in previews. This was thanks not only to the seemingly natural chemistry between stars Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis, but hilarious R-rated scenes featuring Woody Harrelson and Patricia Clarkson. Though their themes would seem to be the same, I was expecting a better total film when I walked into the theaters to check out the newest of the new releases this past week. If at its worst it was still better than No String Attached, it could well be considered a success.

The closest Timberlake will ever be to a real woman?

When young headhunter Jamie (Mila Kunis) successfully convinces indie journalist Dylan (Justin Timberlake) to take a groundbreaking job at GQ, the two fast become good friends. With Dylan adjusting to the pressures of leaving his family behind in Los Angeles to endure the rigors of New York City, Jamie becomes his constant anchor. Both are recovering from major relationship breakups, and while they don't want to become boyfriend/girlfriend with the other, they DO miss sexual intercourse. Like, a LOT. So they decide to make a pact; no emotional attachment, no jealousy, just sex. Oh, and no matter what happens, the two remain friends. That lasts for a while, but as things continue, they begin to grow together, and before you can shout that you saw it coming from the opening credits, the two fall in love. But with their relationship history, is this unlikely pairing even possible in the long-term?

Yup, she's helping!

While the story in Friends with Benefits is at least well told, one major misstep is that it ridicules the romantic comedy genre while at the same time committing all its cardinal acts. Characters shouting that true love is a farce pretty much guarantees that true love is what they'll find, and no amount of attempted diversions will make the audience believe otherwise. This is surprising considering how unique and few retread steps adorned director Gluck's last film, Easy A. Other rote rom-com trends include gay best friends, parent-child relationship issues, and one character suffering from an illness that many of us know about but not too many people have to live with. It's depressing how such an up-front idea (casual sex) might have added to the genre had it not merely been made into a set piece, and a poor one at that. There's already been a better casual sex comedy released, but I won't be getting to Crazy, Stupid, Love until next week.

Let the vigorous humping begin

The acting is quite good, but to be honest I wasn't as enamoured with the leading couple as I'd hoped I would be. My criticism with Timberlake is the same as with most of his film roles: all style, no substance. He's portrayed as being just like most of us, a down-to-earth guy who cares about all the right things. The problem with this is that it's not a person, it's a character, and Timberlake doesn't have the acting chops to make it more than that. Sure, he can trade barbs in a charming manner with Kunis, but that's about the highest peak of his prowess in front of the camera thus far. Kunis is by far the better of the main couple, though it would still be a stretch of imagine her as anything other than a slightly older and more mature Jackie Burhart from That 70's Show. It would be obvious that the role was written for her even if the director hadn't admitted to it anyway, and it's too bad, since I think she has some actual talent and hasn't really had an opportunity to showcase it beyond 2010's Black Swan. The duo have some chemistry, but not enough to make the audience stand up and take notice. That's why it's a relief that the supporting cast is much better than the two leads in terms of stealing the spotlight. Woody Harrelson gets the most laughs as GQ's homosexual sports editor who plays the role of romantic advisor to Dylan. Every like he utters is a hoot; it's just a shame they're all in the trailer. Patricia Clarkson is also a joy to see on screen, though it would be fair to say her role here pales in comparison to her part in Easy A. Playing Jamie's sexually-adventurous mother, Clarkson doesn't get nearly as much attention as perhaps she deserves, but does the best with what she can, which includes some truly hilarious and outrageous settings. And Richard Jenkins once again almost steals the show in his scenes as Dylan's father. Honestly, the film could have focused on these three characters and been so much better, but sadly that was not to be.

"Awww" moments are thankfully few and far between

But these acting performances do not save Friends with Benefits from itself. The funniest and best scenes from the film are covered by the trailers, the story has been done to death a billion times before, we really aren't compelled to root for these two lead characters to defy the expectations and get together. Throw in tons of obvious product placement, unfocused and unnecessary use of pop culture references like Olympic snowboarder Shaun White and flash mobs, and the fact that the film quickly becomes the monster it at first decries, and liking this film should not even be an option. Plenty of charm and some good bits do elevate it slightly higher than No Strings Attached, but not by as much as you would think. If you really want to see a sweet, engaging romantic comedy, do yourself a favor and see Crazy, Stupid, Love. Now THERE'S a film worth your hard-earned money.

Roll Out the Black Carpet

When your film opens the Venice Film Festival, it's kind of a big deal. When your film is chosen to open ahead of megastar George Clooney's film The American for that festival, it means something. When your film is on most critics' shortlist for Best Picture several months before it's even released to the general public, expectations are made. That's what it's been for me with The Black Swan, the latest film by Darren Aronofsky. The director, whose previous film The Wrestler was a critical darling and helped relaunch the career of Mickey Rourke (and was one of my favorite films that year), had originally thought of the two films in the same story, but decided to split them into two separate films when there proved to be too much for just one film. So The Wrestler focused on what many consider to be a low-class performance, while Black Swan did the same with what many consider to be a high art form, despite both being physically taxing and exhausting on their respective performers.

In Black Swan we meet ballerina Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman), a mid-career dancer who has never had a chance to be a star. Hoping the producer will feature her more this season, Nina tries out for the lead role of Swan Queen in the classic show Swan Lake. For the role, producer Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassel) wants a dancer who can embody both the two distinct characters of the White and Black Swans. Like the White Swan, Nina is technically proficient and innocent, but the Black Swan is the manifestation of seduction, and Nina has a difficult time putting emotion and seduction into her dance. While fearing being replaced by the technically-awkward but graceful newcomer Lily (Mila Kunis), Nina's pursuit of perfection on the stage lead a whole new side of her to emerge, manifesting itself in shed skin and black feathers.

Like The Wrestler, the feeling of Black Swan is gritty and dark, a refreshingly ground-level look at the world of ballet, as dancers are constantly in danger of being replaced by younger, fresher variants and careers on stage end long before those of your average athlete. Nina is square in the middle of that conflict, young enough to hope for more focus and to replace the company's lead veteran (Winona Ryder) while old enough that the appearance of Lily has her metaphorically peeking over her shoulder. As a result, and in order to achieve the perfection she so craves, Nina's descent into darkness comes as no surprise. It's easy to see where Aronofsky was influenced by such films as All About Eve, in which a veteran actress is eventually replaced by a younger, energetic protegee, only for that young woman to undergo the same situation as soon as she's square in the spotlight. Comparisons to The Wrestler are of course expected, though the former focuses on recapturing old glory and redemption, whereas the lead in this film seeks "merely" to be perfect. And that is expressed perfectly every time Nina is shown stretching (in which we're shown ways in which the average American could never find themselves) and in dance, which always manages to look beautiful while apparently uncomfortable to the person performing.

Like Thomas thought of Nina, I knew Natalie Portman would do a good job of portraying the innocent, timid ballerina, but wondered how she would pull off having to be more emotional and seductive in her performance when the Black Swan took over. To my relief - and glee - Portman proved to be every bit the actress needed. Not only did her performance astound my senses as an innocent woman forced to adapt to survive her chosen profession, but her dance was also inspired. I'm not a ballet aficionado, but while I was pleasantly surprised - if somewhat bored -  with her ability early in the film, it couldn't hold a candle to a late-film performance in which the Black Swan has taken over, and I couldn't take my eyes off the screen. Cassel plays a theatre producer who uses sexuality to get his performers to create art, rather than just dance. Though Nina has the hots for him, he's hardly an attractive man. His charisma is undeniable however. In a scene in which he he seduces Nina, then walks off saying that was what he wanted in reverse was brilliant, one that exemplified all that was good and bad about the character. I'd never been particularly impressed with Mila Kunis in the past, but she puts on a great show as Lily, Nina's complete opposite. Playing the Anne Baxter to Nina's Bette Davis, Kunis does a great job as the seductress who might be after our hero's job.

The supporting cast is also strong in two small roles. Though the overbearing mother of a dancer is something of a cliched role, Barbara Hershey is perfect in this role. Technically, the elder Sayers never actively seems to push Nina in any direction, but her complete lack of respect for Nina's privacy among other things leads one to believe that Nina feels the pressure from her former dancing mother. Hershey plays well the role of supportive mother, though one perhaps a bit misguided. Winona Ryder plays Beth MacIntyre, the company's veteran dancer and former star who is being forced into retirement. Though she's Nina's idol, she feels the same of Nina as Nina feels towards Lily: unbridled fear of being replaced. Ryder is actually amazing in this small role, which doesn't see her much screen time but allows her to put all her emotion into a few brief scenes.

The film does have a few small problems, but the biggest is it's special effects budget. The film tries to show more than can be believably implemented in quick sequences, involving one scene with rapidly-growing feathers. Darkness helps these bits somewhat, but the cheapness of the effects is still a minor distraction. The timing of these effects however is actually much better, as the director shows a good eye towards making you think "did I just see that?" in an otherwise normal scene. Also, there's certain level of confusion towards the film's finale which doesn't feel fully believable. It's hard to explain, and it's only one bit, but still, a bit more exposition wouldn't have hurt there. The film also surprisingly has a sense of humor, which is certainly funny but at times detracts from the idea that this is a psychological horror film, and doesn't blend in as much. Still, when one character finds out that another had a sex dream about them, he cry to her retreating form "Was I good?" elicited chuckles from the packed theater I was in and does a good job of lifting the dark film's mood. And on a final note, Tchaikovsky's familiar melodies are still as lively and energetic as I remember from when I first heard them so long ago. Hearing the music is like being accompanied to the show by a familiar friend, and makes the experience much more enjoyable.

As I said at the beginning, when a movie like Black Swan garners so much early attention, expectations are made. Sometimes these expectations exceed the actual quality of the film, but in this case they don't. Black Swan was everything I expected and even threw a few surprise curves my way, making this a unique experience compared to anything I've seen this year, and it's portrayal of the dangers of seeking perfection is expertly told. With great performances, excellent mood, wonderful art and a truly shocking emotional transformation by the film's lead make Black Swan my new #1 film for 2010. But really, are we surprised?

Walk the Line

In Hollywood in 2010, it's safe to say that if you're headlining films that receive world-wide theater release, you're probably doing pretty well for yourself. If you're Denzel Washington, however, it must be somewhat disappointing to no longer command the same respect and box office draw you once owned. Seriously, despite being one of the most talented performers in the industry, his inability to pick quality projects has seemingly derailed his promising career. Not that awards and box office rankings are the epitome of career success, but they are a good source of the facts, and the facts are that not only has Washington not had a number one box office movie since 2007's American Gangster, he hasn't even been nominated for an Academy Award since winning his Best Actor Oscar for Training Day, all the way back in 2001. It's no secret that Man on Fire and The Manchurian Candidate were not especially well-received films, yet at least Denzel has never let his talent dim, his ability to command any scene he's in almost as inspiring as it was during his golden era.

Denzel hits on hard times

The Book of Eli came out early this year with almost no fanfare and in a bad spot, opening during the time when everyone was still rushing out to see Avatar and it seemed like no other movie mattered. It finished number two opening weekend, but fell quickly after that, not helped by mixed reviews and Avatar fever. It was destined to lie among the forgotten Denzel movies of the past few years. That's a shame, because I have it now ranked as my new #3 film of 2010, as shocking a placement for you as it was for me to find out how enjoyable this movie actually was, and not just resting on the laurels of it's lead actor's talents.

The breathtaking visuals are half the excellence in the film

That's not to say Denzel doesn't bring his A-Game. Throughout this story of a solitary man trekking westward through the nuclear wastelands that are all that's left of a post-apocalyptic North America, it's a one-man show through nearly the first third of the film, and Washington never loses the audience's attention whenever he's in the scene. It's just that he's not the only great thing about this movie. It's obvious from the opening scene of a slowly-dissolving forest that the look and atmosphere of this film is unlike many you may have seen; the dark gray clouds and seemingly odd sunlight that shines on the world, you feel as if this world is alien, something never seen before by human eyes. The directing is also surprisingly adept, especially coming from sibling directors Allen and Albert Hughes, who hadn't directed a major motion picture since 2001's From Hell. Taking the original story by versatile screenwriter Gary Whitta, the directors have managed to create a whole new world, populate it with survivors of a great war who barely manage to cling to their humanity in the face of unspeakable adversity.

Nothing screams "unfriendly" like a trenchcoat

The movie, as I said before, has Denzel's Eli traveling across what's left of the United States, traversing damaged highways, roads and cities, all the while showing adeptness at hunting, pathfinding and, when beset upon by bandits, personal defense. We soon discover that he is carrying a very precious artifact, an actual copy of the King James Bible, possibly the last in existence. After the bombs and the apocalypse, we learn, many of the survivors of these atrocities blamed the war on religion and sought to purge the holy book, utilizing book burnings and plain old fashioned desecration. Eli believes himself to be on a mission from God, meant to deliver this book safely to it's destination somewhere to the west. On the way, he encounters a small town ruled by the ruthless Carnegie (Gary Oldman) who by chance has been sending raiders and miscreants out into the wastes to bring back books, searching for just the kind of book that Eli is carrying in his pack. It's only a matter of time before paths cross...

Warning! Gratuitous Violence in Effect!

I was very excited to see a movie done in this post-apocalyptic setting. It's such a fascinating idea, not that we'll eventually bomb ourselves into the stone age, but the recovery from that traumatic experience. How would humanity as a whole react to this kind of setback? The innocent and just, hunted and assaulted by those anarchists who would take advantage of the new world. Irradiated drinking water. vast stretches of land where trees, buildings and cities that once stood are no more. Destroyed infrastructure. And, perhaps most unsettling, the lack of wild animals to hunt or soil to grow leading many down the path to cannibalism. I've always found it an interesting, if somewhat terrifying prospect, that humanity may one day head down this dark road. Or maybe I'm just overly excited at the prospect of playing Fallout: New Vegas by year's end, but either way, the setting was a big deal for me. Thankfully, no specifics are given to explain exactly why the war happened; We're simply plopped down here like so many survivors of the end times, and that works for me.

He still kinda looks like Count Dracula

The other reason I loved this movie so much is that finally - FINALLY - I've seen a movie where I actually thought the bad guy had proper brains, motive, smarts, and muscle to make himself a real danger to the protagonist, even advantages at times. Gary Oldman can chew scenery like a theatrical rottweiler, but the best things about his performance are what the script has his character doing, rather than what he brings to the part. Oldman'sapocalyptia, while Eli wants to bring the book west because he believes doing this will help spread God's word. That the movie perfectly walks the line between faith being used as a salve and a weapon is amazing, which even works for me, who follows no faith to speak of.
The odds are decidedly against Eli, alone but for his wits and skills, and occasionally he appears to be blessed, where he'll take a bullet to the back without getting hurt or escaping from a locked cell with an armed guard watching the door, or many such things. These seem a little out there on the oddity scale, as not all of it can be explained away rationally as an alternative to the idea of divine intervention. In this way the story gets a little far-fetched, but fortunately, don't hurt the flow of the story at all, simply makes it a little too fantastical to completely believe. The other problem I had was with the small town's ample resources. The place seems to somehow have plenty of fresh water and fuel, and while the water is explained satisfactorily, can anyone explain to me how proper fuel can exist in this type of place so that the bad guys who want to drive big trucks and motorcycles can do so? I know other movies in this setting have had vehicles that people drive, but unless they use some sort of alternative fuel, I can't believe it's gasoline they're filling their engines with 30 years after the fact.

No, this isn't what it looks like

The acting is mostly excellent, with Washington and Goldman raising the bar of what might have been expected of with a different cast. Jennifer Beals is also excellent as a blind concubine under Carnegie's control. There aren't many large roles in this movie, but plenty of good small roles, and a cast of Ray Stevenson, Michael Gambon, Tom Waits, Frances de la Tour, and Malcolm McDowell all do good jobs with their roles. The only one who could be considered a disappointment is Mila Kunis as Beals's daughter, a slave who ends up following Eli. Kunis has yet to show me any transformation in any of her roles, as they all remind me of Jackie Burkhart from That 70's Show. And she shows no deviation here. She's interesting only because it gives us a hero alongside Eli, but we didn't need that, it was a better David vs. Goliath story without the extra help.

Walking the roads

I never expected to like The Book of Eli as much as I did. It's a shame it was released when it was; if it had been released in the brief time between when Avatar and Inception had been in the theaters, it may have had a chance to do much more at the box office. Still, it hasn't been a total loss. The studio made their money back and then some, and when the movie was released on DVD, it was an excellent seller, meaning it hadn't been completely overlooked. And that's good, since this is a smart, fascinating film that has enough surprises to make you shriek and is smart enough to keep you interested until the final credits. It just goes to show, don't ever underestimate a Denzel Washington film.