Oz is Neither Great nor Powerful.

Oz the Great and Powerful (1 1/2 out of 5 Stars)

Directed by Sam Raimi (Spiderman, Drag me to Hell, Evil Dead)

Written by Mitchel Kapner (The Whole Nine Yards, Romeo Must Die), David Lindsey-Abaire (Rabbit  Hole, Rise of the Guardians)

Starring: James Franco, Michelle Williams, Rachel Weisz, and Mila Kunis

As a young child The Wizard of Oz was one of my favorite films.  The film is still in fact one of my favorite movies of all time.  There is something about this young girl, named Dorothy singing about a better life 'somewhere over the rainbow.'  The film is timeless.  Over the years there have been several adaptations which provide different interpretations of the L. Frank Baum book, like the films The Wiz, Return to Oz, and of course the musical/book Wicked.  I have seen them all, and never hold the lore against them just love interesting new versions of the story and its characters.

In this version of the land of Oz, Oz or Oscar (James Franco) is a struggling magician trying to make a living on the carnival scene.  As a situation gets worse in Kansas Oz gets sucked into a tornado of all things and transported to the land of his namesake Oz.  Oz soon meets Theodora (Mila Kunis) a witch hoping to help Oz reclaim the throne to fulfill a prophecy.  Theodora's sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz) informs Oz that in order to claim the throne and the riches to go along with it he must kill the wicked witch.  Oz embarks on a journey with a flying monkey named Finley (Zach Braff) and China Girl (Joey King), where he soon meets Glinda (Michelle Williams) and explores the land further.

When it comes to one of the stronger elements of the film Sam Raimi's direction and use of the 3-D technology is one of the more effective elements of the film.  Raimi is master of the horror world with films like Evil Dead, and Drag me to Hell.  Within the horror genre Raimi knows how to craft the most intricate yet quirky stories.  Raimi moved toward a more family friendly genre with his comic book adaptation of the original Spider-Man series.  Raimi's direction with the action at the end of film makes things much more entertaining but not enough to save the experience.  Raimi tries his best with the script as written and succeeds in the smallest sense.

Poor Sam Raimi he has one of the most sub par screenplays.  Mitchel Kapner  (Romeo Must Die), David Lindsey-Abaire (Rabbit  Hole) make for interesting combination, and their work never captures the subtle wit and brilliance the world of Oz deserves.    If you look at the work of both of these screenwriters neither of their resumes say anything which would prove the capability of writing something could or should have been an important prequel to one of the most important films of all time.  This script loses the substance leaving the film with only minimal amounts of style namely the the 3-D.

If you are looking for substance, or even great performances you may at a loss with Oz.  The two main standouts within the film are Michelle Williams and Rachel Weisz.  These two women made this film more bearable allowing me to have more fun with this experience.  Although Williams may have be channelling her breathy Marilyn Monroe, but who doesn't love a bombshell.  Weisz is sinfully dark, and fantastic; she is one great actress, and sells every element of her role.

While these two leads succeed, Franco and Kunis are beyond miscast in two of the most important roles in this film.  Franco tries to be, and I emphasize tries to be this charming con man who fools people into thinking is something he isn't.  In this beginning in the traditional black and white Kansas he is meant to be a great magician and then he gets to Oz he is supposed to be this great wizard everyone has been waiting for to save them from the wicked witch.  Franco is not believable, nor is he able to make a convincing lead.  Kunis on the other hand has proven her acting abilities with her role in Black Swan, but loses ground, and is miscast as spoiler.... the green witch.  I felt as though Jackie from That 70's Show was yelling at Kelso with green make up, and her cackle was incredibly laughable.

In the land of Oz there is supposed to be a magical experience, and as the viewer you are meant to transported to this colorful/magical world.  Instead you have two sorely miscast actors, with a poorly written script, and ultimately a film that loses the heart of the original Oz experience.  Sorry Oz fans this may be the worst experience I have had walking the yellow brick road.

Zero Dark Thirty and Lincoln Dominate the 2012 New York Film Critics Circle (NYFCC) Awards

At the moment the New York Film Critics Circle (NYFCC) have started to announce their winners.  In the acting categories the supporting winners have been announced with one slight surprise and one not so surprising.

Sally Field is the winner in for Lincoln in the Supporting Actress category.  Field is on the track to be nominated for her third Oscar, and potentially third win.  Many were predicting Hathaway, but Field is another favorite here.

Matthew McConaughey is a little bit more of a surprise winner in the Supporting Actor category for both Bernie, and Magic Mike.  McConaughey has changed my opinion and many critics opinions of him this past year with many great roles, and some solid acting.  Along with these two roles McConaughey had great roles in The Paperboy, and Killer Joe.  While I am a bit surprised by his win; he was touted by critics a lot this year.  I am proud of him.

Updated 11 am (PST) : More and more surprises are being handed down from the critics.  While many bloggers/prognosticators have been predicting I think most thought the critics awards would try to lean more with the "popular" choice.  The Best Actress winner proves they are going for the true best, and bucking this trend.  While many thought the award would go to Jennifer Lawrence (I predicted Marion Cotillard), the eventual winner, is a bit of a surprise.  Rachel Weisz won for her great performance in The Deep Blue Sea.  Weisz's role has been touted also by critics but few bloggers have mentioned her as a true contender.  As a previous Oscar winner this helps boost her chances.  The serious problem is that very few have seen the film.

The least surprising win for the NYFCC is in the Best Actor category, Daniel Day Lewis for Lincoln.  Day Lewis is a clear favorite, and could be one of the first men to win a third Best Actor Oscar.  Look for Day Lewis to win numerous critics awards.  This is his fourth win in this category, his other wins came from My Left Foot, Gangs of New York, and There will be Blood.

Updated 11:40 am (PST):  Lincoln has now taken three top prizes, including Best Screenplay.  The screenwriter for the film is wonderful Tony Kushner.  At the eleventh hour Lincoln appears to be a huge favorite, but I still foresee a Zero Dark Thirty win.  At this stage in the game Lincoln is a massive Best Picture threat, and rightfully.

Updated 11:49 am (PST) Kathryn Bigelow (Zero Dark Thirty) wins the Best Director prize; she is a true force to reckoned with at the Academy Awards this year, and raw brutal direction will put her over the top.  Look for her film to win Best Picture.  Fun fact Spielberg has never won this award, while this is Bigelow's second win in 5 years!

Updated 12:10 pm (PST) Zero Dark Thirty wins Best Picture!!  As predicted within this post, this film looked to be the frontrunner.  Zero Dark Thirty wins the top two prizes along with Best Cinematography.

Along with these acting wins here is the rest of the winners listed below


Best Cinematographer

Greig Fraser-Zero Dark Thirty

Best Animated Feature-Frankenweenie

Best Non-Fiction Film (Documentary)

The Central Park Five

Best Foreign Film

Amour

Best First Film

David France-How to Survive a Plague 

'Bourne' does not live up to the Legacy

The Bourne Legacy (1 out of 5 Stars)

Directed by Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton, Duplicity)

Written by Tony Gilroy (The Bourne Ultimatum) Dan Gilory (Reel Steel)

Starring: Jeremy Renner, Rachel Weisz, and Edward Norton

While waiting for the movie with my friend, I had two headlines waiting in the wing 'Bourne' lives up to the legacy, and 'Bourne' does not live up to legacy.  I got to use the latter.  In today's world of reboots, and re-branding of franchises The Bourne Legacy takes the franchise down numerous pegs.

Batman Begins started the popularity of the trend.  Christopher Nolan's version of Batman was a solid start, and its sequels to follow were even better and have made massive amounts of money.  There have been other films, mostly super hero films, which have followed this trend: Superman Returns, X-Men: First Class, The Amazing Spider-Man, and even Casino Royale is proving that James Bond is trying to keep up with the Joneses.  Studios are playing things safe rebooting or re-imagining  franchises for popular characters so that they do not have to take a major financial risk.  Only one problem fan exhaustion is setting in, and people are not showing up in massive numbers to see these films.  Some of these films are better than the original, but Bourne is not one of those films.

Bourne centers on Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) who is one the projects along the line of Jason Bourne from the original series.  Cross has been sent off because he did follow protocol 100 percent, while in the wilderness he stumbles upon another guy who was part of the same experiment.  Aaron is curious about this experiment, but the man will not talk.  As Cross is proving his 'Bourne' like qualities climbing an impossible to climb mountain, the folks at Langley are realizing Jason Bourne has put them under a microscope.  Retired Colonel Eric Bayer (Edward Norton) decides to take control an terminate the project along with the agent; he also goes after the scientists within the lab one of whom is Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz).  Cross and Dr. Shearing manage to escape and somehow end up teaming up and go on the run from Langley.

The plot sounds somewhat interesting and there should be some semblance of a solid story, but this film is a massive misfire in the franchise.  Tony Gilroy the screenwriter of the first three Bourne movies is the culprit of the problem within this film.  Gilroy not only wrote but directed this film in the franchise.  The other films in the franchise were directed by Doug Liman and Paul Greengrass two visionary directors who utilized their script to not only create an action packed world, but a world full of emotional heft for Jason Bourne.  These two men's visionary direction helped catapult this series into more than just a mediocre action franchise.  Gilroy does not have the foresight within this film, especially with his direction; his action sequences prove he was not up to the task.  

Gilroy and his brother Dan Gilroy's script makes the problem even worse.  The script made me feel as though I was trying to prep for my AP Chemistry test from high school.  The film focuses on the technical more than any of the other films did trying to provide a backdrop to the story when all the pair do is convolute the history of the Bourne Legacy, which is something they do not seem to understand.  Who is Aaron Cross?  Why do we care about his past, what he has gone through, or about this project and the agents connect to him from Langley? In this film you do not, and the attempt the edit the story from the first three films into this film miserably.  The Gilroy's mention Jason Bourne several times, mentioning the chaos he has added to the world, but their shoe string connections never hold up to make you care about our protagonist, Aaron Cross.

Jeremy Renner and Rachel Weisz do their best in this poorly written film, but there is even a lack of chemistry between them, which could have almost saved this movie, but acts as another hinderance.  The characters in the film are one note, and Gilory banks on the cliche.  In the previous films Tony created complex characters, that even faded into the background of Bourne's life.  This film sidesteps explaining any character, especially the antagonists like Edward Norton's one note villain,  There is also an Asian man chasing Aaron and his lady at the end, the man has no name, does not speak, but Aaron Cross recognizes he is about the kill him. How?  Poor writing running a muck, that's how.

I was baffled by how poorly things were setup, and how the writer of the first three quality films in this series could mess up so bad. The Bourne Ultimatum even stunned Oscarologists by winning the Best Editing award at the Academy Awards, an honor typically reserved for Best Picture winners or nominees, but the editing is so poorly done within this film you notice the jarring movement during transitions.

I felt even more jarred when the credits rolled and the end scene Bourne music played signaling it was time to leave the theatre.  Did I just watch a movie connected with the rest of the franchise?  How did the person who wrote the first three construct this monstrosity?  Too many questions posed and no reasonable answers. This film challenged one of the longest running franchises, the James Bond franchise, the change things up, shaking the simplistic nature of the spy thriller action flick, and just ruined the legacy of its own dynasty.