Oz the Great and Powerful

In spite of all the reboots and remakes we’ve seen the last decade or so, I thought there were a handful of movies that were reboot-proof, movies that are so iconic and thoroughly ingrained in pop culture that people of all ages know them and no filmmaker would even attempt to do them again. I guess I was wrong: I would have named The Wizard of Oz as one of those films, but apparently even one of the most beloved classics in movie history isn’t immune to this trend.

Technically, Oz the Great and Powerful isn’t a reboot or remake; it’s a direct prequel to Victor Fleming’s 1939 film (as opposed to a more accurate adaptation of L. Frank Baum’s many novels). But the focus on making it bigger and better than the original is much the same. Well, it’s bigger maybe, but better (or even close to equal to) The Wizard of Oz is out of the question. Still, director Sam Raimi has made a picture that, in spite of a lot of things (reboot fatigue among them), is pretty…good.

The film, which gives the Wizard his Batman Begins moment, begins in black and white (one of many references to Fleming’s masterpiece strewn throughout) in Kansas in the early 20^th century. Here, the not-so-wonderful Oscar Diggs (James Franco), a carnival magician who spends more time conning people and wooing young farm girls, narrowly escapes an angry mob in a hot air balloon, only to be sucked up by a twister just like Dorothy (who doesn’t appear). Diggs is transported to the brightly colored fantastical Land of Oz, where he’s hailed as a wizard prophesized to rid the land of the evil witches who have taken over. Loving his new status, the selfish, arrogant, and decidedly un-magical con man accepts this role and sets off on the Yellow Brick Road to save Oz, not realizing what he’s getting himself into. Along the way, he meets some familiar faces, such as the Munchkins and Glinda the Good Witch (Michelle Williams), as well as a few new characters (and like Dorothy’s companions, they, too, eerily resemble people he knows from Kansas).

Despite having little in the way of special effects in 1939 (just being in color was a big achievement at the time), The Wizard of Oz created a sprawling fantasy world full of lush colors and magical characters, and is still a beautiful-looking film more than 70 years later. Things are different now, so the filmmakers seemed to have used everything at their disposal to give Great and Powerful a brighter, more magical Oz. This means the magnificent sets are replaced by special effects sequences that simply could not have been done in the era before CGI. It also means that some of the costumed characters are replaced by computer animation. Knowing that they’re made by computers, the effects aren’t quite as impressive as what was done by hand seven decades ago, but they still are quite cool to behold. The film was obviously made to be seen in 3D, as countless shots jump out at the camera, but it still looks great without it (the film begs to be seen on some sort of big screen, however).

Where the film kind of falters is with its human components. Franco is an enjoyable lead, not too likeable at first but smarmy and witty enough to keep the viewer interested. Williams is adequate as Glinda (though she was kind of a one note character in The Wizard of Oz, so Williams is arguably an improvement). Mila Kunis’ Wicked Witch of the West, however, seem more like just a jealous girlfriend stereotype, which doesn’t make for a very good villain (I did get an unintentional laugh, however, as the witch form she takes later in the movie vaguely resembles the post-makeover Gruntilda from the game over cutscene in Banjo-Kazooie). Rachel Weisz, as Kunis’ conniving sister, doesn’t seem very evil, or really to have any emotion at all; she’s just kind of there to fill in some plot points.

Ironically, the characters that are the liveliest are the ones that only exist as pixels, by which I mean CGI. The good flying monkey Finley (voiced by Zach Braff) plays off Franco very well and adds some comic relief, while China Girl (voiced by Joey King), the last surviving member of a race of living china dolls, surprisingly provides the emotional center to the narrative. The most effective antagonists are the evil flying monkeys, depicted as rabid winged baboons much more ferocious than their 1930s counterparts. I’m not sure if all this says something about how far computerized characters have come in movies, or if it just says very little for the live actors involved. But it works.

This film will never match the appeal, longevity, or sheer level of fun of its predecessor (and really, without the classic songs, it feels like something's missing), but it’s a good movie for family audiences, while older fans can have fun catching all the references to and origins of several elements we remember from The Wizard of Oz (even though honestly, I wasn’t exactly thinking about how a lot of the things revealed came to be). It’s certainly a more fun prequel than Wicked.

Link to my review of "Julius Caesar"

Here is a link to a review I wrote of Chicago Shakespeare Theater's production of Julius Caesar. Short version: It was awesome.

 

The show appears sold out through the remainder of its run, according to CST's website. Still, I highly recommend seeing anything by this company. I have now seen five of their productions, and they have all been very good.

DC Animated Adapatations I'd Like to See

DC Universe Animated Original Movies recently completed their two-part adaptation of one of the company’s most famous and revered comics: Frank Miller’s classic Batman: The Dark Knight Returns (read my reviews of Part 1 and 2). That makes 15 direct-to-video films adapted from popular arcs so far, and most of them have been pretty solid. Next up is an adaptation of Geoff Johns' “Brainiac" arc, and an adaptation of "Flashpoint" is alleged to be coming out in the future.

But the DC Universe is full of stories yet to be tapped for a film. Here are a few I’d like to see get a DVD release of their own someday:

Batman: The Killing Joke

It’s a shame the great Alan Moore never did a major run on a character like Batman or Superman (check out his classic run on Swamp Thing; I’d rank it higher than even Watchmen). The few stories he did write had a tremendous impact on the characters’ history, none more so than The Killing Joke. The book gave us a peek (not a full look, but enough) inside the Joker’s warped psyche, telling the origin (or rather, a possible origin) of Batman’s greatest foe. Brian Bolland and John Higgins’ artwork featured some frightening images, but an animated adaptation could be a truly dark, disturbing (and definitely R-rated) work for mature Bat fans. 

Batman: The Long Halloween

Set early in the Batman mythos, this miniseries follows the Dark Knight and his allies James Gordon and Harvey Dent as they track down a serial killer who strikes against mobsters on holidays. This whodunit is an entertaining and addicting mystery, featuring popcorn mob movie tropes as well as several members of Batman’s Rogues Gallery (plus a retelling of the origin of one famous face). Like a good crime novel, this one is hard to put down, and is a perfect candidate for an adaptation. Its sequel Dark Victory is pretty good, too.

Superman: Red Son

This Elseworlds story presents an interesting idea: How would the world be different if Superman were fighting not for the American Way, but the Soviet way? As the Man of Steel uses his powers to spread world communism, America's only hope is none other than Lex Luthor. The story also features alternate versions of Wonder Woman, Batman, and Green Lantern, but it explores a theme applicable to all versions of the Superman mythos: What gives him, an alien with powers far beyond those of humans, the moral authority to interfere in mankind’s affairs? At three issues, the arc could easily fit into the 70-75 minute length of one of these movies.

Sandman

Why not take a dip into DC's adult-oriented Vertigo line? There have been rumors for years that Neil Gaiman’s highly acclaimed title is slated for a movie or TV series, but I have my doubts about a live action adaptation. My fear is that it will end up just being actors swimming in a mess of CGI. But an animated adaptation could bring all the fantastic imagery of the comics to life without it looking fake, and there are several arcs in the 75-issue run that can stand alone as individual movies (my favorite: “Season of Mists”). Who knows: maybe Gaiman himself can be recruited to write an original story for a film.

 

A proper Hellblazer

John Constantine has been around nearly three decades, and his series was one of the first books in the Vertigo line. He deserves way better than that awful Keanu Reeves vehicle. A big-screen reboot seems unlikely, but DC could make things right with an animated film, featuring a British Constantine and all the black humor, sociopolitical commentary, and macabre sensibilities of the comic. And since the sly occultist exists within the greater DC continuity, appearances by characters like The Justice League and others (Swamp Thing?) aren’t out of the question.

 

 

Alright, comic fans. What stories would YOU like to see DC adapt?

The Dark Knight Returns, Part 2

**My review of Part 1**

When I heard that DC’s animated adaptation of Frank Miller’s classic Batman story The Dark Knight Returns would be split into two movies, I wondered why they don’t just make one longer movie. But then Part 1, released last fall, stood very well on its own as a movie.

Well, after seeing Part 2, I’m sticking with my original opinion. Many sequels (the good ones, anyway) require the viewer to see the previous installments to understand the story, but the movies themselves can stand alone as complete works. That’s not so in this case.

The movie picks up right where Part 1 left off. At the end of Part 1 (SPOILER!), the aging Batman (perfectly voiced by Robocop himself Peter Weller) defeated the savage leader of the violent gang known as the Mutants. Now, the Mutants have splintered into several gangs (one of whom have dubbed themselves the Sons of Batman and see the Dark Knight as their new messiah), and on top of this, Batman faces some new challenges. His greatest ally, Gotham City Police Commissioner James Gordon (David Selby), is retiring, and while the new police force sees him as a threat, two figures from the past remerge: the Joker (Michael Emerson), who’s been in a catatonic state for ten years in the absence of his arch-nemesis, and Superman (Mark Valley), now a tool for the American government in fighting the Soviets (the comic was published during the Cold War, and instead of trying to rewrite the story or adapt it to modern geopolitical issues, the filmmakers just left it).

Part 1 was a pretty close adaptation of the comic, though it made appropriate changes accounting for the differences between a still panel and a moving picture (for example, Miller’s long patches of internal narration are eliminated or adapted into regular dialogue). Part 2 similarly adapts to the movie form, but this time, some more stuff got left out.

The comic explored themes of vigilantism and demagoguery regarding superheroes; Batman’s return may have brought hope to Gotham in a dark time, but it also inspired more violence in those who see him as an idol. It makes the reader really think about whether Batman is actually doing the right thing. You don’t get that opportunity with the movie because these themes didn’t make it, and the Sons of Batman are mostly left by the wayside until the finale (meanwhile, the swastika-pastied thug, a prime example of Miller's warped and gratuitous sensibilities, made it onscreen). Another casualty of the adaptation is the development of certain characters. For instance, in the comic, Superman’s loyalty to his country, to the point where he's doing the government's dirty work, is clearly a result of his righteousness and patriotism extended to too far a degree. That isn’t explored here, so he just seems like a jerk, the stereotypical brainless grunt but with a cape.

Basically, all the film leaves time for is the fights, specifically two big ones, and in this respect the feature is entertaining. The first fight is Batman’s final confrontation with the Joker, while the evil clown massacres a talk show audience (Fun fact: Conan O’Brien voices the unfortunate talk show host, who was modeled after David Letterman in the comic) and county fair. This is one of the most violent stretches ever shown in a Batman production, quite bloody for a PG-13 film, even an animated one. Emerson makes for a very good Joker, less darkly funny than most versions but more evil and just unabashedly cruel. Heath Ledger’s take in The Dark Knight is still the definitive portrayal, but between this film and John DiMaggio's portrayal in Under the Red Hood, DC Universe Animated Original Movies have produced two of the better Jokers onscreen.

The second is the climactic showdown between Superman and the Dark Knight on the streets of Gotham. It’s a little bit ridiculous to see a robotic exoskeleton-wearing Batman tear objects out of the ground and pummel the Man of Steel, and some of the internal dialogue from the comic is changed into dopey spoken words. Still, it’s very enjoyable, and certainly adapts the epic fight from the comic (which gives you an adrenaline rush despite consisting solely of still drawings) as well as it could for a motion picture (and it sure beats the anticlimactic final fight between Batman and Bane in The Dark Knight Rises). And after all, it’s a cartoon, so it seems a little silly to complain about it not being realistic.

Despite some changes, the movie isn’t bad, but it doesn’t seem like a full film. While Part 1 is a complete work, Part 2 just seems like an extension of the first part. Watching it by itself is like catching the second half of a movie. But put both parts together, and this is one of the best animated adaptations DC has yet produced.

A Good Day to Die Hard

It’s been 25 years since the original Die Hard. The movie still holds up as a classic of the action film genre, and also produced some high-quality sequels (I even liked 2007’s Live Free or Die Hard, despite the fact that it went PG-13 and had a few jump-the-shark moments like that jet sequence). But even the best series reach a point where they just run out of gas. Most franchises that have been around this long (or even less time) would just start over, but Die Hard seems to be one that’s reboot-proof (I mean, can any anyone really replace Bruce Willis as John McClane?). So instead, we get another sequel, A Good Day to Die Hard.

This time around, the series leaves America for Russia, as John McClane travels to Moscow to help his estranged son Jack (Jai Courtney), who has gotten mixed up in a plot involving Russian criminals and politics. Almost immediately, some bad guys try to ambush the detained Jack, and the truth is revealed: Jack is really a CIA agent tasked with protecting Yuri Komarov (Sebastian Koch), a former Soviet arms dealer targeted by corrupt politicians. So when Komarov is captured, father and son McClane battle from Moscow to Chernobyl (yeah, that Chernobyl) to rescue him.

The problem with the movie isn’t that the formula is stale. It’s that it’s not there at all. Despite having the same characters, it doesn’t seem like a Die Hard film. Notably absent is the humor, Willis’ gruff, sarcastic wit and one-liners that made the past pictures so much fun (even McClane’s famous profane catchphrase seems misused here). Also missing is the everyman quality that made the character so appealing: in the earlier entries, McClane seemed like a regular guy who just happened to get caught in the middle of terrorists’ evil plans. He was always way outmatched by his enemies, and even though he’d save the day, he’d be beaten and bloody when the credits rolled. By Live Free or Die Hard, however, he became the prototypical near-indestructible action hero who barely looked fazed by his circumstances and even expected them. I could give it a pass then because the movie still had the humor, but A Good Day to Die Hard doesn’t even have much of that. And it’s hard to believe that a guy can walk away from so many explosions, shootouts, and falls from high places through things more unscathed than he could a quarter-century ago.

Another hallmark of the series has always been strong supporting roles, as Willis has had some effective allies (Dennis Franz, Samuel L. Jackson, and Urkel’s neighbor among them) and great villains (Alan Rickman, Jeremy Irons, Timothy Olyphant) to play off of. This time, Jai Courtney is effective as the younger McClane. At times, he arguably even seems more like the leading man in the action at hand, with Willis playing sidekick. Otherwise, though, there are no real memorable characters good or bad, with the lack of a strong villain really draining any conflict from the story (as does a mediocre plot twist late in the film).

The only thing the movie gets right is the action, which is quite well done. There's a nice balance of real (or at least real-looking) stunt work and computer-generated effects that are edited very efficiently, and none of it drifts off into the indecipherable muddle of so many modern action films (I’ll avoid the clichéd dig at Michael Bay). Diehard fans of the series will also catch an obvious homage to the first film in one scene, complete with the original’s score. This element of the movie keeps it from being a terrible experience.

All in all, this one's pretty average: not bad, not great. It’s only a letdown because it has the Die Hard name on it; if it had a different title, it’d just be your typical shoot ‘em up action flick starring Bruce Willis.