Review: Oz - The Great and Powerful

A look into Sam Raimi's gigantic new fairy tale epic and where it stands on a larger scale. Very minor spoilers will follow, but won't probably affect your viewing pleasure.

Oz-zone

Postmodern takes on fairy tales are in, that much anyone with eyes knows. In fact, the only thing that has stopped a revisionist interpretation of L. Frank Baum's The Land of Oz series is something different. One film version based on those stories is more famous and popular than all the books Baum ever wrote. And that's, of course, Warner Bros.'s 1939 Technicolor marvel The Wizard of Oz. Any new film version must be tied to that film in one way or the other, because that's what anyone knows and pictures whenever Oz is mentioned.

Baum's books are public domain nowadays, but Disney in its infinite wisdom has since trademarked some of the most famous aspects of it. The studio tried a direct sequel with 1985's creepy, oddball and altogether post-apocalyptic Return to Oz. I have a great deal of admiration for that sole directoral role of sound engineer legend Walter Murch, if only because it didn't spoon feed children with formulaic, cutesy, candy-colored vomit but rather went for something altogether weirder and more disturbing. That movie resembles a horrifying fever dream, with Dorothy starting out in a mental institution, and coming up with a more grotesque account of the events she had at Oz the last time around. Mortal peril awaits at any corner.

Anyhow, that film sadly bombed and it took this long for Disney to have the guts to try again. Now they tried their hands at a prequel, explaining the origins of many aspects from the 1939 movie. So, in a very clear business-move, they copy the formula of their mega-hit Alice In Wonderland. Have the movie in 3D, hire prolific actors and do super-bright visuals, all leading up to a Lord of the Rings-style epic battle in the end. Last, but not least, they hired a quirky, inventive and popular director with a signature style and a fortune made in superhero movies: this time one Mr. Sam Raimi. And thereupon lies the movie's greatest strengths.

Storybook motions

As in the original film, things are set up in the B&W scenes that are mirrored later in Oz.

Part-time con man and womanizer Oscar Diggs (James Franco) performs magic at the circus under the name Oz. He is weary of tiny audiences who don't realize he's destined for greatness. He will also have to admit the limits of his skills. One instance of porking a wrong woman leads him to escape the circus with a balloon. Of course he runs into a tornado and is whisked away into a land of wonder.

After a crash landing, he meets cute a pretty young witch named Theodora (Mila Kunis). She explains that the land is looking for a Wizard to end the tyranny of a wicked witch. Treasures and glory interest Oz and he sets to free the land of the villain, even though he isn't quite sure on how to defeat a witch, or even of her identity. Someone is pulling the strings and sending terrible bat-baboons around. It may be a woman in a far-off land (Michelle Williams), Theodora's sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz) or even Theodora herself. While searching for the witch, Oz encounters new friends who join him on their quest, including a flying monkey called Finley (Zach Braff), a porcelain girl (Joey King) and a grumpy midget (Tony Cox).

Oz-ploitation

While the story has a lot of air in it, where characters aren't quite sure on where to go or what to do, Raimi manages to make the film quite an enjoyable ride. The problem is, he gets a lot more chances to play around with his signature sense of humor in the black & white beginning of the film. The further movie goes along, the more conventional and familiar it gets.

Another clear parallel of the movie's themes is Martin Scorsese's Hugo. Both movies (and directors) have an affection of the early days of cinema, when it was still all a matter of magic and unbeforeseen technology. It's a story of a power of cinema, and I especially like that in the end, it is used in spite of violence and bloodshed. Cinema brings peace and ends a battle without any casualities. It's a good break of form in an otherwise pretty formulaic action movie. As a counterbalance then, the end scene after that takes way too long.

Oz Princess Bubble Ride will be the video game adaptation for the girls, War of Oz hack 'n slash for the boys.

Raimi has spoken before in interviews how he wants to make films that feel like an amusement park ride, and with the modern 3D technology he brings this idea a lot more forward. One POW waterfall-falling scene in particular is something straight out of a carnival 4D-cinema showcase reel. Plenty of times Raimi allows elements to leave the borders of the screen, particularly in the beginning when he plays around with a much smaller aspect ratio. Much later, in the climatic end battle, the much-expected spears to the audience's eye of course make an appearance. The 3D here is meant simply to showcase and entertain, not to immerse the audience or do anything particularly new. Many new 3D films don't feel that special any more other than the pain from wearing the classes, but Raimi is desperate to make an impression.

The Oz-born's

Luckily, there's only one song in the entire movie.

Oz has enough of weird little critters, magical beings and occupants in general that it feels like a populated land. Luckily, Raimi also avoids georgelucasism of filling every image with as much CGI creatures as possible in the hopes of some that stick. However, now you'd be hard-pressed to find any that are truly memorable. Baum had more imaginative characters in his books that are not utilized properly.

The meat of the movie is in the magicians. Raimi has also been always the talent to pick good actors for their parts. This skill twindled a bit with Spider-Man movies, but here, he's back on form. The three leading ladies are particularly a sight for the sore eyes with the colorful suits and the 3D effects. The function of the females of the story is to steer a hapless male around, running errands or trying to meet their wishes, so it's not exactly feministic, though. Nevertheless, the leading ladies perform their cartoonish roles with just the right amount of ridiculousness and earnestness. The mixture of beauty and talent is great in all three. Best of 'em all, as always, is the lovely Michelle Williams.

The Great Campbellio - oh. No.

Franco is a good choice for a Sam Raimi lead, and especially in the beginning he seems to channel young Bruce Campbell. His pompousness, comical exaggerated gestures and larger-than-life persona make him likeable even in the beginning where he's quite an asshole. The fast-talking, borderline screwball scenes feel very comfortable for Raimi. Perhaps he'd like to do a Coen brothers' -style old-timey comedy next? Sadly, the film's success suggests the director won't be leaving Oz anytime soon.

★★★

OZ - THE GREAT AND POWERFUL
USA, 2013
Language: English
Director: Sam Raimi
Screenplay: Mitchell Kapner, David Lindsay-Abaire
Cinamatography: Peter Deming
Starring: James Franco, Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz, Michelle Williams, Zach Braff

Fun in -11-12

I'm currently in the process writing my top movies of the year list. But as you may realize, putting just good films on a list after one another doesn't give out the full story of the year. We will have to wait for years to know which films will capture the zeitgeist and what not. However, it has been established that popular, big-budget films can have staying power regardless of quality. People remember when they have fun.

I realized recently, that I have very nostalgic feelings on early 2000s movies, since I saw them in my teens. So I held the first Spider-Man, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Minority Report and even a lot stupider films like Die Another Day in special accomodation since I had fun watching them in a particularly influence-heavy age. Today, there probably are future film freaks that watch these movies and have similar feelings a decade later.

I should mention that while these films are all 2012 theatrical releases in Finland, many of them premiered in 2011 in the United States. But since I didn't do this retrospective last year, it hardly matters. So here's a look at blockbusters from these past 1,5 years.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
Director: Peter Jackson

So Peter Jackson has made another Middle-Earth trilogy for us to enjoy. Stretching a simple story we all already know into three movies with a lot of kid-friendly whimsy, talking and setting things up for the main event, and featuring some uncomfortable technical processes that do more harm than good. The whole thing started to feel quite a lot like Star Wars prequels before opening. But while The Hobbit wobbles a bit on the dangerous path, I ended up quite enjoying it.

Based on J.R.R. Tolkien's 1930's children's novel, The Hobbit tells the tale of Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), a simple hobbit living a lazy countryside life. But the wizard Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellen) deems him a worthy addition to join an expedition party, much to the little guy's chagrin. So Bilbo meets with 12 dwarves, led by Thorin Oakshield  (Richard Armitrage), who plan to free their conquered city of Erebor from the hostile giant dragon Smaug. Bilbo does decide to join the party and is given the duty of working as a thief, sneaking around silently, since he's so little and hard to notice.

As was expected, stretching a 300-page story into three 2,5 hour films means a lot of padding up. In this case, Jackson has decided to vow the story more tightly into the events of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. So, we have extra orc attacks and cameos from old favorites (Ian Holm narrating the story, Elijah Wood walking by, and a lengthy discussion scene with Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee and Hugo Weaving) and a lot of mythology-building. Some new villains and threats are introduced, which will presumably become more important later on. The film's style is thus a little all over the place. But not as much as I feared.

The golden brown-colored film gives a whiff of nostalgia in many ways. The balance between deathly battles and bumbling dwarves actually reminds me of several earlier Harry Potter films. I consider The Prisoner of Azkaban and The Order of the Phoenix to be the best of that series, since they quite comfortably can blend the unnerving fear of death with some warmer, friendlier and more humoristic parts. As with Jackson, the balance isn't always the most smooth, but it works in maintaining audience interest.

As a Tolkien fan, I must also say that I might find it more enjoyable to follow endless historical discussions and mythology-creating speeches. But the film offers hefty action scenes as well. I would advise to avoid the HFR 3D version, though, since it makes the whole thing look speeded up. The overly clear contrast also reminds more an electronics store HD TV demo than a proper film.

Finally, what pushes the film to work are the performances. Freeman is a perfect Bilbo. He presents the stuck-up englishness the hobbits seen previously in Jackson's films have lacked. But there's also his dry sense of humor and perfect comic timing, which I would've liked to see more. Ian McKellen's Gandalf seems a bit odder, coming off as unbalanced, this time around. But in the grand scheme he works as a balance to the soft power weilded by his zanier, animal-loving colleague Radagast the Brown (Sylvester McCoy) and the hard power and authority of Saruman the White (Lee). Who, by the way, comes across as a real blow-hard but not as a real evil force to be dealt with.

Finally there's Andy Serkis's Gollum, who has never seemed more tragic, lonely and corrupted than now. It helps that the final seams of his CGI presence have been fixed (perhaps the dim lighting of his cave helps too).

So for those yearning another trip to Middle-Earth, The Hobbit does work okay. At the moment I understand how the story could be divided into two. But Necromancer knows what on Middle-Earth could be included in the third part.

Film: ★★★ 1/2
Fun: ★★★

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol
Director: Brad Bird

It's always a tell-tale sign of the state of Tom Cruise's popularity at any given time seeing as how big a role he gets in his flagship franchise. It's not so hot nowadays, since the latest Mission gives the most room for the Impossible Mission team outside of Cruise's stunts. As with Bourne Identity and The Avengers, Jeremy Renner is carted in to fill in as a probably candidate to take over the franchise. There never was just one.

When an operation is botched in Moscow, resulting a major bombing, the government shuts down the entire Impossible Mission Force (or I.M.F.). Ethan Hunt (Cruise) and a few of his fellow trusted agents must go on their own to find the culprit. It turns out to be professor Kurt Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist), a dangerous left-wing terrorist who threatens to start a nuclear war between the United States and the Sov Russia. They attempt to track the place where Hendricks and his lackeys attempt to do the launch.

The action is not overplayed and looks great. As with previous films, Tom Cruise had once again done his own stunts in a major scene. This time around, it's a hair-raising climb in Dubai's tallest building, the Burj Khalifa. The banter with Hunt and eager younger agent Benji Dunn (Simon Pegg) and veteran agent Jane Carter (Paula Patton) keeps things interesting. Guessing Renner's William Brandt's motivations, less so.

The film loses to its predecessor in one major point and it's by not having a good enough villain to pose a credible threat. The Cold war Bond film-like missile launch just doesn't cut it. Nyqvist is a burly middle-aged man, not nearly as cut and fit as Cruise. So the final beat-down scene actually makes the viewer feel sorry for the villain. The finnish Samuli Edelmann does a lot better as Hendricks' main henchman, who gets a lot more screentime. Since his Wistrom talks little, his job is mostly to look intimidating.

For animation director Brad Bird this seems like a move to finance a more personal live action project next. Cruise always could choose the right directors at any given M:I episode. But since the film is treated as just a bit o' fun, the attempts to bring any gravitas to it are automatically failed. The continuity-laden final scene is made all the more aggravating by this kind of shoehorning.

Film: ★★★
Fun: ★★★

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
Director: Guy Ritchie

Guy Ritchie's 2009 Sherlock movie emphasized the Victorian literature hero's fighting skills and explosions. The sequel comes from the more-of-the-same construction line. At times it feels like the film's script is aimed at slash fiction writers, since the homosexual tensions between Sherlock and his sidekick Dr. Watson go so over the top. It's not innuendo any more if topless and made-up Holmes falls Watson on the ground, saying "lay down with me".

Tensions between Europe's superpowers, France, Germany and England are building. Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) soon deducts that these politics are manipulated by the criminal genius Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris). At the centre of the fiend's nefarious plot seems to be a fortune-telling gypsy Madam Simza Heron (Noomi Rapace) and her family. Dr. Watson (Jude Law) is about to marry his fiancée Emily, but Holmes insists on him to return to his aid for one last case. As Moriarty intends to hit Holmes where it hurts, Watson and his bride are targets, so the good doctor has no choice but to accept.

As with the first one, the film is shaped by it's talented cast. Harris, best known for his role as Lane in Mad Men, brings gravitas and unexpectedness to his Moriarty. He strongly holds his own in a role that could have gone to any more famous British thespian or even Hollywood super star. On the other end is Holmes' brother Mycroft, played with a warm humor by Stephen Fry. As opposed to most adaptations, Mycroft is now even more eccentric than his younger brother. Fry seems to have great fun in his flamboyant role, but we do get to see perhaps a bit too much of him.

As for the plot, it is, in its essentials, so simple that its hardly a proper mystery at all. The flashy Hollywood sensations overcome any good deductions or brain-twisting riddles. The action is passable, even if it is so large in scale, it's hard to take any threats to our heroes' lives very seriously. They ability to shoot, run, jump and dodge bullets seem unnatural most of the time. However, the fight scenes with Holmes deducting his next moves are as fun to watch now as ever before.

Film: ★★★
Fun: ★★★

Battleship
Director: Peter Berg

In the absence of a loud, rude and infantile Michael Bay summer toy movie, producers at Hasbro decided to go to the closest alternative. Basing a film on a licensed board game must be the stupidest thing to base a blockbuster on, so now Pirates of the Caribbean is excused. You don't even need Hasbro's game board to play, just a pencil, piece of paper and some imagination would do. But imagination isn't something that's big in Hollywood these days. So now there are aliens involved.

Alex Hopper (Taylor Kitsch) used to be a slacker, until his brother Stone (Alexander Skarsgård) convinced him to join the Navy. As a marine, he's a big screw-up (like one would imagine), and one war game away from getting kicked out. It doesn't help that he has fallen for the Admiral's (Liam Neeson) daughter Sam (swimsuit model Brooklyn Decker). Alex hopes to get dad's permission to marry her. But then, everything changes as Aliens navigate to Earth through a seabed homing beacon or something. The marine-based alien vessels begin a war with the Navy ships.

Having a kid-friendly Michael Bay Light product is all well and fair, but at least then the movie's length should be adjusted accordingly. As of now, there's far too much similar scenes of Aliens and the Navy taking turns in shooting each other. The lack of proper Bay-like exploitation, ruthlessness and sheer bad taste make the viewing go smoother, but there's a feeling that something is missing.

It's a loud, infantile movie with plenty of American flag-waving and AC/DC playing as ships sail into action. Explosions are pretty, but they tend to get boring after about an hour in. The script is at times dire or outright ludicrous. The salute to veterans is a particularly cheer-worthy scene in all its cheesiness. A lot on the quality of acting in the film can be summed by saying that Rihanna gives one of the best performances. She actually makes it seem as if she worked for a living. The pop star also gets all the best lines. Like "Boom".

Film: ★★
Fun: ★★★

The Expendables 2
Director: Simon West

A lot can be said about The Expendables 2, but at least it fixes up several of the first one's unforgivable problems. This time around, they don't have a Mickey Rourke crying scene to clinically insert some ham-fisted drama into a stupid boy's night out -movie. This time, the incomprihensible Jason Statham's romance plotline is sidelined to a few phone call-scenes. This time, the action is clearly shot, easier to follow and more explosive. There's blood! These are improvements you get when switching from the director of Rocky IV to the director of Con Air. Unfortunately, they should have also hired some screenwriters, not just apes in front of typewriters. And a proper cinematographer.

This movie looks really cheap for a multi-million dollar production.

The leader of the secret covert operations team Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone) is approached by the mysterious CIA man Church (Bruce Willis) to do a job to repay an old debt. The Expendables are sent to the former Soviet Union to retrieve something hidden inside a crashed plane. But it turns out that the ruthless Jean Vilain (Jean-Claude Van Damme) also wants the contents, and kills of one of Ross's team to gain it. The chase turns personal and Ross with his team will stop at no ends to have their vengeance on Vilain.

Shot mostly in a cold and barren landscape, The Expendables 2 looks like one of those cheapo straight-to-dvd Romanian-shot action films cast members like Dolph Lundgren excel in. Most of the money from the film's production has gone to the salaries of it's major stars. And once you hire Willis or Arnold Schwarzenegger, you have to have your monkeys say their famous lines. The cavalcade of worn-out one-liner clichés gets tired quite fast.

But there's also charm in the film's idiotism. Chuck Norris appearing out of nowhere, killing everyone around without breaking a sweat, is an internet joke so daft it turns back to being funny. Lundgren's grumbling and potentially dangerous guy, who is at the same time an chemistry genius and a total meat-head. The character is played by the Swedish muscleman with the necessary gravitas, with irony only hinted at the seams. As a cherry on the top, it is also funny to see Van Damme kick Stallone in the head. There should be more of this. So while the film isn't that good, it does offer some old circus tricks that the viewer actually does want to see.

Film: ★★ 1/2
Fun: ★★★ 1/2

The Avengers
Director: Joss Whedon

The most fun of the year's blockbusters was also such a big hit in the box office, it will change the game on movie releasing. Marvel's gambit of introducing characters in their individual films and bringing them all together to a major big brawl isn't that special in the realm of comics. But in the world of huge Hollywood movies such a thing had never been attempted before. And it payed in bucketloads. The film made more than a billion dollars, not counting all the merchandise, DVD's and the profit for the individual films.

The secretitive world safety organization S.H.I.E.L.D. has the possession of the mythical Tesseract from Odin's treasure chamber (used by the Red Skull tp try to conquer the world in Captain America: The First Avenger™). The Tesseract allows to create worm holes from one point in the universe to another. Thor's vengeful brother Loki (played by Tom Hiddleston, banished from Asgard in Thor™) sees this as an opportunity to take over the world with the help of his intergalactic army. He starts by possessing the minds of several key S.H.I.E.L.D. agents, along with Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård), and blowing up the agency's facilities.

This makes S.H.I.E.L.D. leader Col. Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) assemble a team of superheroes. He calls his #1 field operative Natascha Romanova a.k.a. (Scarlett Johansson) and Agent Phil Coulson (Clark Gregg), specialized in super hero watching, to help out tracking them. From nervous, anger-controlling gamma radiation specialist Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), thawed out super soldier Steve Rogers a.k.a. Captain America (Chris Evans) to self-obsessed billionaire industrialist and robotic suit wielder Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.), all have to work together to stop Loki. But even Thor (Chris Hemsworth) has his own ideas on how to deal with his brother.

As in the comics, the superheroes presented here are deeply flawed characters. They do not work well together at first, and their larger-than-life personalities are on a crash course for course of the whole film. Thanks to Joss Whedon's script, the banter and teasing between the characters, as well as the tension-building works quite well. Mark Ruffalo in particular is the best screen version of the Incredible Hulk, with his good-humored responses hiding the fact he's struggling to control his immense raging id all the time. 

As a life-long fan of superheroes, both on comics and on screen, the critique requires a bit of trying to figure the film from an outsider's point of view. The film's pacing doesn't work as good as it should. The lengthy scenes of exposition still don't cover that much of what's going on (you need have seen at least Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America). Action scenes are even a bit rare until the final battle, which lasts forever. The hoardes of attacking Chitauri are quite boring as villains, and there would have been a lot of more interesting alien races from the comics to use.

The film balances the characters exceptionally well. The only exception is the case of Hawkeye, who is a somewhat wasted opportunity. In the comics, he's the hot-headed, smartassed player Tony Stark is in the movieverse. Jeremy Renner does the best he can to make him seem like a badass, but we learn the least about his character, and he spends most of the time being Loki's puppet.

But for all it's flaws, the film is dynamic, and seeing the Avengers finally learn to work together makes the viewer giddy. "Aw yeah!" action scenes are plentiful, but not overused. The stakes are high enough for there to be actual worrying whether all the heroes will survive intact. The main message in these Marvel superhero films is that heroism is winning over the major personality flaws you have. And this film does so also within itself.

Film: ★★★ 1/2
Fun: ★★★★

Stay tuned for the Best of 2012 soon!

A Tale of Three Tintins

 
For all of us who have grown up with the Tintin comic books, it's an exciting time. Steven Spielberg has been attempting to adapt the classic Belgian comic book series into a movie since the 80's, and finally his vision is ready. The new Tintin film utilizes modern motion-capture technology to create somewhat realistic animation where the facial expressions and bodily movements of actual actors are used. But this is not by far the first time Tintin has been on the big screen. Indeed, there has been two French live-action films of the adventures of Tintin. I take a look at the new blockbuster and its two predecessors.

The original cast of Hergé's comic book.

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn 3D (USA, 2011)
Director: Steven Spielberg

There really was no need to worry that Tintin's world would be sanitized for American audiences. Spielberg's Tintin is a funny, exciting and tremendously entertaining adventure movie. For all the fear of the uncanny valley on the character's faces, the caricaturic features are actually quite vivid and the viewer gets used to them after a while. No one complains that Pixar's characters look creepy, and altough they may have realistic skin an details, the characters here are clearly cartoonish in a way that doesn't emulate real people too intensily. The world feels like the one Hergé drew. Indeed the movie starts off with Hergé's CGI alter ego drawing a portrait of our young hero at a scrap meet.

Tintin (Jamie Bell) is a young reporter who happens to buy a beautiful model ship (of a vessel called The Unicorn) from a scrap meet. As his purchase arouses all sorts of hubbub from shady people, the curious newspaperman starts to investigate further, believing that there's a good story behind the mystery. When he gets shanghai'd to a ship run by smugglers', he meets the ship's captive Captain, Archibald Haddock (Andy Serkis). Haddock's a pure-hearted old drunk, who has lost all control over the shady business going on at his ship. He also has information on a great treasure, told as a legend in his family for generations. He just needs to get sober enough to remember it.

The adventure takes the pair to the Atlantic, Sahara, Morocco and finally back home. Like any good buddy picture, the characters don't get along at first, but learn to like and respect each other by the end. True to the comics, Tintin himself doesn't really have any strong characteristics. So it stands to reason that the film's minor characters steal the film again and again. Captain Haddock's alcoholism may not be suitable for the younger children, but it provides some of the film's most hilarious jokes. Almost as funny are Nick Frost and Simon Pegg as bumbling Interpol detectives Thompson and Thomson. Familiar faces from the comics pop up now and then, but don't overcrowd the film. The focus is still on the main characters.

Tintin lives in an unmentioned European city that could be Brussels, London or any other one that has a sea port, really. The film is based on two comic books, The Secret of the Unicorn and The Crab with the Golden Claws, that came out in the 1940's. Thus the world also seems to be stuck during the olden times, judging by the car models, carter ships, aeroplanes and such. However, the strength of Tintin is that it works in any possible part of the world, any possible time and by any possible reader. It's an adventure for all ages.

The film deals a lot with reflections, mirages and daydreams. Many times something important is spotted through a reflection in a glass. It is after all, fitting, seeing as Spielberg is covering his actors with non-existent features, attempting to recreate visuals from a comic book. The film is a real dream within a dream within a dream. So it's funny that none of Hergé's patented surrealistic dream sequences show up. The same quality can, however be seen in the Catch Me If You Can-esque animated opening sequence that gives out nods to nearly every one of the Tintin books. These easter eggs are confidently spread in the film as well.

Even the film's 3D isn't just a distraction, as Spielberg has truly gone off his way to make use for the technology. Action scenes are shot with a long single shot, where the camera goes around to wild angles. There's a strong sense of being in on the action and forgetting you even are wearing a pair of painful glasses. The film takes a while to pick off steam at first, but after that the action varies from pirate battles to crane fights. The most outstanding scene is the motorcycle chase near the end, which would give Indiana Jones a run for his money.

The film's story is faithful to the comic book, and thus ends promising more. I hope there will be, because I was willing to follow Tintin and Haddock on new adventures straight away! I'd say it's among the best, the most innovative comic-book films with Sin City and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. The film is excellent escapism from the dreary day-to-day life. It actually managed to do something very few films do, and made me happy, smiling for the rest of the day. Good Show!

★★★★

Tintin and the Golden Fleece (Tintin et le mystére de la Toison d'Or, France/Belgium 1961)
Director: Jean-Jacques Vierne

If you're wondering why I didn't use a chronological order to discuss these movies, the reason is simple. Americans aren't too familiar with Tintin, and thus Spielberg's film works well as an introduction to the character and his world. The two films produced in the 60's already assume that the viewer is familiar with the characters and thus doesn't attempt to introduce them one bit. You're whisked into their world straight away.

French fits into these character's mouths a lot better than English. So I'm about to use the French names of the characters and places as well. Captain Haddock is spending his life peacefully at the Moulinsart Castle. When his old friend passes away and leaves a ship for him in his will, he reclutantly agrees to accompany Tintin and Professor Tournesol (Calculus) to Istanbul, Turkey. It is revealed that Haddock's new ship, The Golden Fleece is a worthless piece of old junk, yet it brings about buyout bids from shady businessmen. The sentimental Haddock refuses to sell because of his loyalty to his old friend, but it soon brings Tintin and himself in mortal peril.

This film is clearly aimed at children, which explains the colorful imagery and the easygoing athmosphere. The central mystery is a lot more stupid and simple than it was on the comic book The Secret Of The Unicorn, which it more or less replicates. But the look and the sound of the characters is maintained pretty accuratelly. Georges Wilson in particular is a perfect Haddock, grumpy and hot-headed by surface, but sentimental, loyal and good-hearted by nature. It helps that he can swear as well, too. Jean-Pierre Talbot is an OK Tintin, but seems a bit creepily old. He seems more like a scout-master than a boy scout. The film's jokes are no match for Hergé, but as we'll soon see, they could be a lot worse. There's money in the budget for gadgets, gizmos and animnal extras. Even Tintin's dog Milou (Snowy) seems to be well-trained and for once, he actually has something to do in the film. The film's pace is leisurely, but it works well as entertainment for a sunday afternoon. 

★★★

Tintin and the Blue Oranges (Tintin et les oranges bleues, France/Spain 1964)
Director: Philippe Condroyer

Once the swingin' 60's got really rolling, we got some far-out stories for even our children's entertainment. Pity the premise is clearly the best thing about the next (and so far, last) live action Tintin movie. Professor Tournesol's colleague Professor Zalamea sends him a package which contains weird, blue oranges. Before the Professor has a chance to study them (or Haddock has the chance to eat them), a burglar steals them. Tournesol, Haddock, Tintin and Milou decide to go to Valencia, Spain to meet the Professor in person. But little do they know that he's been kidnapped, and the same fate awaits also Tournesol (really, when isn't he kidnapped?). Tintin must get to the bottom of the mystery.

I do love how oranges bleues sounds in French. Luckily it's repeated all the time.

While the previous Tintin at least attempted to do a film for all ages, The Blue Oranges is merely for children, and is almost unbearable for an adult. More than Tintin or Haddock, the film's heroes are a group of violent Spanish children, brandishing bludgeoning weapons. They start out by beating Haddock and in the end save Tintin with violence. Way to teach the kids not to beat each other up, Tintin. Talbot (as Tintin again) has grown even more creepily old, while Haddock has been replaced with Jean Bouise, who brandishes an unconvincing fake beard and acts like a total idiot or a douchebag the whole time. This isn't my beloved Captain!

The film has little action (altough the few scenes are kind of okay). Moreover, it has plenty of attempts to comedy, which are, simply put, dreadful. Captain Haddock's dancing and even the bumbling antics of Dupond and Dupont (Thompson and Thomson) only manage to raise shame in the viewer. Unbelievably the comic book genius René Goscinny himself was one of the film's four writers. None of the magnificent wit from Asterix, Iznogoud or Lucky Luke is apparent on the screen. The film moves at a glacier pace and doesn't really go anywhere. The bad guy is just the kind of racial stereotype the real Hergé attempted to avoid (but didn't always succeed). To top it off, the film has a horrible, repetitive Spanish soundtrack. This is the Hercules in New York of Tintin movies!

★★

Berlinale 2011

 
I recently visited one of Europe's biggest film festivals for the first time. I probably should've made a habit of going to Berlinale a little earlier, as I heard a lot of grumbling from veteran festivalgoers that things just weren't as good as they used to anymore. Ticket prices had gone soaring up, and getting the tickets to the screening you wanted proved to be tricky to say the least. Also the programme didn't seem as high-quality as it had been on previous years. But I've got no beef as I got to see the one film I eagerly awaited, and got a lot of information about interesting films which will probably crop up later on in interesting places. Thus, after a few reviews, I also have a MIWS section at the end of this post.

The Devil's Double
Director: Lee Tamahori

Since his most acclaimed film, Once Were Warriors, director Lee Tamahori has made a career in Hollywood directing shitty action films. His latest, The Devil's Double, is at least a little more ambitious, although it's by no means a masterpiece itself. The film tells the story of iraqi Latif Yahia, a man who was forced to act as Uday Hussein's doppelganger. Uday, son of Saddam, was a person who was directed by his impulses. He could brutally murder on a whim, pick up underage schoolgirls from the street for just feeling horny, and generally acted like a threatening lunatic. It's no wonder Latif starts to develop a plan to escape from him in one piece.

The main thing I got from the film was interest in the actual historical facts, upon which the film is based on. I wonder if there really had been so many double-crossings and all-round spy stuff surrounding the court of Saddam. In the case of Uday Hussein, I'm willing to accept any kind of mad ramblings as being actually true. Dominic Cooper does a terrific dual role as both Uday and Latif. The film obviously portrays Uday as a stone-cold psychopath, like he really was. This is balanced by Latif being shown as almost inhumanely virtuous and righteous. I get that the film tries to create the Freudian analogy of Id and Ego running around personified. But I would just feel a little more morally dubious main character would've been more interesting. As the real-life Latif has been closely tied to the filming of the movie and was present at the screening himself, they wouldn't do this to taint his reputation, of course. This is why biographies should be made only after the subject has died, or as thinly-veiled analogies.

★★★

Griff the Invisible
Director: Leon Ford

The director-screenwriter Leon Ford was also present at the screening of this symphatetic drama-comedy. He explained that the idea for the film became from observing a 5-year-old acting out his superhero fantasies. The film itself is a study on what would happen if an adult would never abandon these fantasies, but would go on playing a hero in his everyday life. Griff (Ryan Kwanten) is a timid and shy young man, teased by his co-workers. His friend is worried that he doesn't go out enough, and intoduces him to a young girl, Melody (Maeve Dermody). Melody becomes intrigued by Griff's fantasies and wants to start participating in them. But is it really healthy to live in one's own world or is growing up required for everyone?

Griff the film is a little hard to get a grip on. Parodying the modern superhero films, it has a dark colour pallette and athmosphere, which makes Griff's loneliness seem crushing. But one really can't think of him as a pure victim, as he fights secretly back to his office bullies and creates nasty ways to mess with them. In theory I like that such a silly premise is played so seriously. Yet, the film made me laugh very scarcely, but ponder the relationships adults have on their daydreams and their values all the more. It's a good thing, I suppose, but a whole different kind of film than I was expecting.

★★★

The Black Power Mixtape 1967-1975
Director: Göran Olsson

Sweden, about as white-bread as countries get, had a strange fascination on the Black Panther movement in the USA in the late 60's and early 70's. Many reporters were working in the country shooting the everyday life in Harlem, interviewing movement leaders and of course reporting on the most important events. Director Göran Olsson has recently found these tapes and cut them together as a movie that tells a story about the Civil Rights Movement from a little different perspective than usual.

The material's strength is in the multiple interview tapes of important Civil Rights protesters that were not that well known outside America. As Olsson said in the film's Q&A, the media in the US was more interested in the violence and other concrete acts the Movement was able to do. They never asked too many questions about their ideology, unlike the Swedes. The political viewpoint is nicely formed in the various interviews of the film. Olsson has also peppered his film also with modern interviews with people linked to the movement. As he's out to create an image of the past times, he only uses the modern interviews in audio, letting the contemporary images tell another half of the story. This is a stylish idea and works incredibly well. The only quarrel with the film is that one must know the main details about the American history in those years beforehand. The most important leaders such as Martin Luther King and Malcolm X are ever-present in the background, but their basic ideas and means are dealt with only briefly in the film.

★★★★

The Cave of Forgotten Dreams
Director: Werner Herzog

My most awaited film of the festival was somehow also the easiest to get tickets for, too. So, I got to walk the red carpet to my favorite director's latest documentary's world premiere. Herzog has decided to shoot a film about the oldest cave-paintings found on this Earth, at Cave Chauvet in Southern France. This is the cradle of our culture, yet it's not available for just everyone to see nowadays. Thus, it makes sense that Herzog's film has been converted in 3D as the paintings have been made to a certain uneven canvas and make good use of the varying depths. Other mediums wouldn't be able to recreate the paintings as accurately. The paintings themselves are marvelously beautiful, deeply mysterious and they do feed one's imagination quite a bit. I almost dropped from my seat as Herzog revealed a painting of a half-bull half-naked woman - the same kind of themes Pablo Picasso used in his work. The Human Culture certainly carries similar themes along it through the ages. It's miraculous to think how old these paintings are, ranging from 26,000 to 32,000 years.

The only fears I had towards this film beforehand were whether Werner would be able to fill up 1,5 hours of running time by just shooting cave walls. But one needn't worry. Herzog has again found his trademark eccentrics to interview about the subject. There's a computer expert that used to be a circus performer, an ancient weapon-maker who demonstrates ancient spears and a fellow who feels he should dress in the same kind of furs the stone-age people had. Herzog also allows himself to have some poetic monologues of himself. Only at the very last scene does this go a little over the top, but otherwise the questions he raises on the dreams that create culture and whether it is possible to have a relationship with the past are very relevant.

★★★★  1/2

The Advocate For Fagdom
Director: Angélique Bosio

The films of Bruce La Bruce are always fun to see at various film festivals because they at least stir controversy and it's fun to see when other people walk out of the theatre. They like to mix hardcore gay sex with gory subjects, such as zombies and skinheads. At core, they are simple romantic love stories. In the end, his films are not that good, alas. They are made pretty cheaply and keep the fucking around with genres as the most important thing rather than a story or a multi-dimensional message. It's still a lot of fun to see La Bruce talk about his own work and his peers on his merits in this documentary film. Like one would guess, John Waters pops by to praise La Bruce from the earth to the sky. The man should make a truly shocking trash movie after a while himself, instead of always just encouraging others. But mostly the interviews are poignant enough and it's interesting to see La Bruce's orgins as one of the first people to embrace a gay punk scene. It's also respectable that to this day he makes his own kind of films and has never sold out to make more easily distributable films, like so many of his peers.

What I would've hoped for this film would've been to pin La Bruce's part in the American underground filmmaking a bit more precise. For instance, we don't hear a lot from his influences, besides the general American drive-in -culture. I wonder what kind of influence the Kuchar brothers and Kurt McDowell must've had on him, as their earlier work, such as Thundercrack, already has a mixture of horror themes and outrageous hardcore sex, like is evident in La Bruce's films as well.

★★★  1/2

Mishen - Target
Director: Alexandr Zeldovich

I closed my festival with its most difficult film. Mishen is a Russian sci-fi film set in the near future. It uses elements from such Russian classics as Stalker and Anna Karenina to create something entirely different. In its world, the rich are even more priveledged than today. The women use age-constraining masks every morning and stay looking like 19-year-olds long after their prime. But it can't be maintained forever. A group of these snobs travel to a mysterious target that supposedly has the ability to give immortality as well. But of course this comes with a price of one's humanity for good.

Most clearly the film is an attack on the new-found upper class running rampant in Russia. In the satirical film, the rich really have almost no limits, and are able to treat poorer people, especially immigrants, as they please. Yet fortune is not consistent. People are willing to gamble and in weird TV shows they might lose their entire fortune by losing one crucial bet. Hilariously the same logic is applied also to elections which are handled by advocates shouting their policies in the middle of a cooking match. Politics is reduced to nothing, the real value in Mishen's world is found in business.  China is the country to suck up to and a lot of effort is being put to please the Chinese businessmen, because a deal with them can resolve a lot from one's future.

The rich people in the film may have strong passions, but in the end, they have problems coming up with real emotions. When everything is handed to you on a platter for all eternity, it is hard to act humane at the point of defeat. The rich do try to act as if they act by their emotions as hard as possible. Sometimes they must go to extremities to accomplish this. That makes it so chilling when the tables are inevitably turned and all the coldness gets to shine out. Mishen doesn't spell everything out and it's scenes can sometimes feel inconsistant. It is a mammoth of bitterness, a fight against the unfair modern world. And that's what I got from it from a single screening. It would deserve to be seen again as there is so much more going on.

★★★★

Missed, but eagerly awaited:

Like I said, I missed a lot of interesting films in the festival, but would like to list them here so you'll remember where you first heard about these when they come to the cinema near you.

Tropa de Elite 2 - The Elite Squad 2

The sequel to the southamerican drug film that goes a little like The Wire times City of God. The drug business has roots in almost every major part of the society, and thus is almost undefeatable. Familiar characters are put on a surprising bend on the sequel. I haven't seen the first one, so I missed the sequel on purpose. Nearly everyone who saw it hailed is as one of the best of the festival. As soon as I returned home, I put the first one on order and eagerly await a new chance to see this.

Submarine

I hear it's a fantastic romantic drama, like Scott Pilgrim but a little more down to earth. It also won the main award at Sundance earlier this year.

Viva Riva! 

This Congoan thriller reportedly has a strange, upbeat feeling in it. It was a sure hit with the audience, with huge lines flocking to see it.

Khodorowsky

One of the most talked-about films of the festival, this is a documentary about the Russian billionaire, who dared to face up against Vladimir Putin. Sure enough, he's now in prison, but this controversial film tells his story about fighting the Russian windmills.

Pina

Wim Wenders directed a 3D ballet movie about the dancer Pina Bausch. This attracted a lot of older dames that didn't seem to go to the movie often. Oh, well. Even though I was intrigued by the director and the 3D, I wasn't that interested in the subject matter.

Gandu - Asshole

This Indian avantgarde film has cult already written on it. Directed by a fellow named Q, it seems to channel a lot of the nightmarish surrealism like the Tetsuo films. I heard it wasn't that good as a whole, but some strange scenes were definately worth watching.

Kampf die Königinnen (The Fight of the Queens)

Having witnessed the cow-fights in the Lausanne region in western Switzerland, I would've been interested in seeing the documentary made about this brutal sport. Each year, the cows fight to find out who's the Queen that will lead the others to the summer herds. The Swiss have made this into a sport, betting on different cows and having a true festival around the happening. Alas, I wasn't present on the viewing days and I fear my chances of seeing this elsewhere are pretty slim.

Arrietty

I really had no idea that this was even playing at the festival. Yet it is a new Studio Ghibli movie and thus a must-see in my books. This one is a remake of The Borrowers, a story about tiny pixies, who tend come out at night to borrow stuff. Doesn't sound that cool, but I bet the Japanese studio can pull off a charming tale out of that.

Spider-Man: A Brand New Day

Is Spider-Man actually in any sort of danger?

Andrew Garfield was just selected to play Peter Parker and his alter-ego, The Amazing Spider-Man. The future movie will feature Parker still in high school and will be directed by (500) Days of Summer's Marc Webb. I have been surprised how much the whole of internet has been s opposed to this whole project. One reason must be that beloved director of the previous three, Sam Raimi, was so suddenly given the sack while developing Part 4.

As I am a huge nerd, I have spent way too much time thinking about the next Spider-Man movie. It's the one franchise I know through and through (although I have tried to catch up with the Marvel universe - I refuse to go to the 90's). Although I have planned out pretty good sequels in my head (Harry Osborn helps create The Scorpion in 3, Kraven hunts the Lizard in 4), I have been pretty easy to please with Sam Raimi's films. Yes, even the treequel. I recognize however, that none of them are perfect Spider-Man movies.

First, Tobey Maguire wasn't probably the best possible actor to play Spider-Man. He's just too serious and part of Spidey's charm is that he hides his nervousness with constant insulting and joking. And while Kirsten Dunst was okay as MJ, the girl next door, she was a far cry (gettit?) from the strong bombshell of the comics. She would've been better as Gwen Stacy, Spidey's great love who was killed by the Green Goblin. But we never got to see that tragic turning point on the big screen because Gobby was disposed in the first movie already.

I recognize the reason Marvel has suddenly decided to reboot the franchise not even 10 years old. Raimi was moving too fast with Spidey's life story. Rumours had been circling around that the fourth movie would've circled around Parker's wedding to Mary Jane Watson . As most people who love Spider-Man are either teenagers or can relate to him as a teenager, this makes him a bit too old for our tastes. Marriage drama isn't as interesting to the focus group as teenage love woes. Marvel recently rebooted the character in comic books from a married teacher to a college student via him having to make a deal with the devil. Let's be glad in the land of movies we can just start fresh without having to resort to that sort of plot gimmicks.

What I especially liked in Raimi's films is his knack for creating symphatetic villains. Although the Vulture isn't one of my favorite villains I would've loved to see what he and John Malkovich would've gotten out of the character. In fact, as a huge fan of Con Air, I would love to still see Malkovich as Webb's film's villain.

There has been some fear over the choosing of Webb as the film's director as he hasn't showed his action chops. Brother, I got news for you. In a production this big in Hollywood it has no importance whatsoever how good a director can direct action. They will hire the best fight choreographers, CGI artists, cinematographers etc. anyway. What is needed is an understanding of the characters, the skill to create believable romances, and a sense of humour. And Webb proved he has all of these in (500) Days of Summer. I also approve the casting decision of Garfield. I liked him in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, although he didn't actually get much to work with there.

However, there are a couple of worrying things, too. I don't know where the "gritty" reboot rumour originates but I hope it is just a rumour. Darkness doesn't fit to a movie about a guy in tights who shoots webbing at people made of sand and mad scientists. The other worrying part about the film is that James Cameron is a consultant in the film. I hope that only means him giving tips to Webb of how to use the 3D film camera. He obviously doesn't know anything about believable romances and the Spider-Man script he wrote in the 90's is reportedly laughably bad. His script has Spider-Man shouting to Electro "I'm gonna kill you, you motherfucker!" Hardly kid's movie stuff.

Finally, I won't believe we will be given anything that has already been made good. So I'm guessing no origins or Uncle Ben in the next one. They didn't go all the way to the start in the other Marvel reboot, the Incredible Hulk either, remember. So here's putting my hope to Webb. You will do whatever a spider can.

Pixar's sequels

I noticed the page has gotten quite slow, which is probably due to it having too much YouTube videos. Thus, I will have to start posting more posts which don't have any videos whatsoever. I think I will try to get a free press photo to illustrate these from now on.



One of this summer's biggest blockbusters is surely Toy Story 3, which continues the ...um, Story after ten years absence. Everyone in the world with the right mind loves Toy Story 2. And I as well. But although it is very good, it's still to me one of the lesser Pixars. Basically, it's A Bug's Life for me. And this new sequel makes me a bit nervous, as it deals with the toys getting abandoned, which is something that was dealt with in the first sequel already.

Toy Story 2 came to life as Disney was in its direct-to video-sequel spitting phase at the time. Instead of letting hacks make the cheapo sequel, Pixar took the matter into its own hands and created something vastly better. While I prefer the first one, you can not say that TS2 doesn't expand the world into new directions and also dealing with some pretty deep themes. Such as being immortal vs. being loved. It does everything a sequel should.

But also it feels a bit bloated. The cast of toys was already quite big, and as everything in sequels should be bigger and shinier, so a lot of new toys are introduced. Toy Story 3 brings us even more new toys, including Michael Keaton's Ken and Timothy Dalton's Mr. Pricklepants. This would imply that there will be a lot of fighting for screen time in an hour-and-a-half movie.

The only Pixar film I flat-out don't like is Cars. It was one of those films that had too many characters, an obvious plot, too much speed for ADD kids, and as a cherry on the top, a very unappealing main character. It seemed to fit DreamWorks's movie-churning plan better than Pixar's. Little boys obviously loved it and I suppose its merchandise is the strongest of all Pixar flicks, as I still see some Cars crap everywhere all the time. They don't have many Ratatouille-themed childrens parties any more, I can tell you that.

So, next year's Pixar movie is a sequel again, Cars 2. And that I probably won't see, as opposed to TS3. OK, so one can imagine that when Pixar's and Disney's relationship was in a crisis, and the last scheduled Disney/Pixar movie (Cars) was bringing dough, Disney greenlighted the sequels to keep the brands it owns still poignant. Whereas Pixar greenlighted independently three of its very best films, Ratatouille, Wall-E and Up. All Oscar-winners, all universally appealing, all hugely original. They felt like new stuff, not just re-hashing old ones.

As Pixar has a much bigger saying on Disney animation now, one would think that they would carry on on the same track, creating some brand new, innovative, great movies. But as it happens, a while ago there was an announcement that made me very fearful for this future. Pixar cancelled its upcoming original movie Newt, and opted for Monsters Inc. 2 instead. While I love Monsters, Inc. it is one of those movies I would want to just be left alone. The storyline ended just on the right place. I don't want to see little Boo all grown up and forgetting her monster friends and have that be the sequel's conflict to be solved.

I suppose designing new monsters is fun and the merchandising will be huge. Still, it feels a little like Pixar is taking the Shrek route. And if Shrek has shown us anything, it is that the law of diminishing sequels is well and true. It is sad to see something original to be scrapped because of this. Currently, the only original animation to be released by Pixar is the Bear and the Bow, which itself sounds a little too close to DreamWorks's Shrek and How to Train Your Dragon ground, as it's a medieval hero knight story with a twist.

So I will probably wait for Toy Story 3 before I will make any lasting judgements. Everyone seems to trust Pixar a lot, and rightly so. But there is still a threat that all the success will eventually turn it into a soulless animation studio among others. I just hope it will be later rather than sooner.

REMEMBER: