Well, if Burt Winderstone doesn't make you believe in magic, will it make you believe in comedy? No, not at all. It's been 24 hours since I saw it and nothing sticks. Even the best element of the film, Jim Carey's shtick, runs cold and tired by the end.
Burt Wonderstone (Steve Carrell) is an aging magician who's a complete ass to everyone else and the film passionlessly chronicles his eventual redemption. This takes over an hour to do, and when it does happen Steve Carrell's shtick is a tired imitation of his character Andy from The 40 Year Old Virgin.
There are times where the film inches towards a pointed satire of Vegas show business and reality TV but quickly reverts to thick saccharine goop with a cloying score to make sure 'you're feel in' it too man!'
If 2013 mimics 2006 in the fact that there two magician themed films in wide release, let's hope Burt Wonderstone is The Illusionist while Now You See Me is The Prestige.
Well, if Burt Winderstone doesn't make you believe in magic, will it make you believe in comedy? No, not at all. It's been 24 hours since I saw it and nothing sticks. Even the best element of the film, Jim Carey's shtick, runs cold and tired by the end.
Burt Wonderstone (Steve Carrell) is an aging magician who's a complete ass to everyone else and the film passionlessly chronicles his eventual redemption. This takes over an hour to do, and when it does happen Steve Carrell's shtick is a tired imitation of his character Andy from The 40 Year Old Virgin.
There are times where the film inches towards a pointed satire of Vegas show business and reality TV but quickly reverts to thick saccharine goop with a cloying score to make sure 'you're feel in' it too man!'
If 2013 mimics 2006 in the fact that there two magician themed films in wide release, let's hope Burt Wonderstone is The Illusionist while Now You See Me is The Prestige.
2/5
Hey, there was nothing wrong with The Illusionist! It was a great film that had its release skewered by the fact that The Prestige was just a bit better (but not by much, in my opinion) and, therefore, more well-known. 'Twas the humble beginnings of the Nolan fanboy love that has well and truly blossomed.
Bad Motherf*cker (Insane Office Escape 2) (2013)
dir. Ilya Naishuller
The Good:GoPro + first-person shooter + parkour + insane stunt work + badass soundtrack + loads of energy = the most amazing thing ever (well, not really, but you can't deny this is some pretty impressive stuff).
The Bad:Nothing major.
The Bottom Line:Easily the best film I've seen this year. Somebody give this guy a major directing gig. He deserves it. Now, I need to go check out the original...
-blind buy. watched it twice before writing the review - the film seemed too enigmatic to write the review on one viewing
-there definietly seems to be 3 common threads between this and TWBB: (1) score, (2) alcoholism, and (3) spiritual fraudulence. I'm not sure about PTA's upbringing, but I wouldn't be surprised if his Dad was a drunken pastor
-there are a few critical scenes that seem to provide some clear meaning on themes. For example, there is the "animal v. man" dicohotomy in one of Dodd's speeches
[Show spoiler](when Freddy is hitting on one of the radio girls). Dodd discusses how his movement is aimed at "suppressing negative thoughts - something that animals are incapable of." And RIGHT WHEN he says "animals", what do we see? Freddy writing "I want to f&*k you" on a piece of paper and showing it to one of the radio girls. Dodd even calls Freddy an animal not once but TWICE - (1) when Freddy f@rts during questioning ("silly animal"), and (2) after hearing that Freddy beat up the dude who challenged Dodd ("Freddy, no! That is animal behavior. That is what animals do!"). Clearly, Dodd views Freddy as an "animal" - and thus the ideal subject for his "cause". Why? because if "the cause" can transform Freddy, it can transform anyone , and thus give Dodd maximum fuel for his fraud engine. And yet, we know Freddy is not an animal .Why? Because Dodd's daughter put her hand on his crotch and he pushed it away. Animals don't refuse free sex. After staying with Dodd for a while, Freddy seems to improve (not as wild/crazy), but he also seems more subdued/controlled/robot-like. This is where Clockwork Orange came to mind - he's become Dodd's Clockwork Orange - achieved outer improvement at the expense of inner freedom and dignity. Bad deal for anyone. I'd rather die on the streets than become a zombie like that. But what does all this have to do with the animal/human theme? After Freddy ran away (motorcycle), and tried to contact Doris (perhaps because of progress), Dodd realized that his primary asset was gone and doubled down on the manipulation of Freddy - threatening him that he'd never talk to him again if he left again, telling him that if they parted he would kill him in another life, etc etc = all to get the "animal" back into the zoo so he can use him for his fraud scheme of showing his new subjects how his "cause" worked from changing an "animal" into a "human" - the problem with Freddy (from Dodd's perspective) is that Freddy is already changed into a human and doesn't want to be caged up anymore & be put on display to further Dodd's fraud scheme. He's already achieved some level of progress (visiting Doris' house proves that) with or without the "cause" and his decision NOT to stay with Dodd is even further evidence of that progress. He's truly human. ONly an "animal" would stay caged up with Dodd
Last edited by surfdude12; 03-20-2013 at 04:15 PM.
nice review! I agree that there is so much here that it can't be fully digested in even one , two or three viewings. From that standpoint, it definietly meets the surf "bite off more than I can chew" litmus test
why do you think Dodd recruited Freddy?
[Show spoiler]was it because he felt a bond to him? The blu-ray.com reviewer suggested the film is about the connection between the two men. I recall Dodd constantly referring to "how did we meet?" and I kept thinking "you met him on your facking boat, you moron!" but that's obviously not what Dodd is referring to. Is this Dodd referring to them having some kind of connection in a past life? I remember him talking about how they were soldiers together in Prussia and communicated with balloons and "only lost 3"....but can't make sense out of that and its significance to the plot??
This is a major component to the story--Dodd using Quell's hopeless case as a vehicle toward his own self-approval.
[Show spoiler]His desperation to keep Quell under his wing is what reveals his insecurities about his own method.
The depth is there, but I'm right with you. It's difficult to care for the characters, it doesn't deliver its promising start, and the strong acting can't save it from falling flat.
I suppose I found it impossible not to care for Freddy
[Show spoiler]due to his PTSD. If he was a sane guy without any psychological issues, then heck yeah I'd dislike the guy for all his perverse crap. But PTSD for service during WW2 cuts a character lots of slack and then throw in the traumatic victimhood of emotional and spiritual fraudulence by Mr. Dodd? Double whammy sympathy! Maybe I have a soft heart
This may be Paul Thomas Anderson’s best film... and his worst.
Haha, classic DJMethod!!
Quote:
The film begins with the viewer looking at water escaping from the back of a traveling boat. It is a beautiful shot that lingers giving you a sense of motion and time--escapism. Eery orchestrations follow, reminiscient of There Will Be Blood’s disturbing score. Right from the start, I felt much more ambition from Anderson.
Great observation on the water shot. It was BEAUTIFUL. We see it several times. The score at the beginning instantly made me think of TWBB. Not so much for the rest of the film.
Quote:
However, ultimately, for a great movie to work, it has to come together. And this is where I find it lacking. The movie was too long, could have used better editing, and weak in its exploration of such thought-provoking and controversial subject material. Also, between Phoenix and his love interest,
[Show spoiler]the age range was too wide. Seeing a 40-year-old kiss a teenager was
.
do you think PTA should have explained "the cause" more?
[Show spoiler] we don't know too much about it, other than (a) it suppresses negative feelings/thoughts, (b) time travels you back to past lives, so you can mend/heal those memories, (c) involves silly repetitious exercises like walking from a wall to a window 1000x
. That is one approach. Its tough though. It seems that PTA only had 2 choices:
[Show spoiler]focus on the characters, or focus on "the cause". If he focuses on "the cause" and gives us lots on that, then the bond between Hoffman and Phoenix is put on the back burner. Its no longer about them, their connection, how they "met" (past lives), etc. Its then about doctrine, beliefs, chicken or the egg, etc. I suppose you can end up with an "enigmatic" PTA film either way - focusing on "the cause" or the characters, but I know what you mean about wanting it more tied up. TWBB was definietly tied up more. We didn't see Plainview and Eli with vague character interactions like here with Dodd and Freddy - Plainveiw and Eli were always interacting in a conventional, intelligble manner. Perhaps PTA is just making the character interaction more subliminal here, so we have to do more footwork. Part of me wanted to know more about "the cause" or characters, while the bigger part of me doesn't want to know more & enjoyed trying to "solve the riddle" (as with all my favorite flicks).
oh and about your spoiler:
[Show spoiler]I suppose I didn't notice it until you said something. He's 38 and she's 18. Yeah, that's a bit big of a gap. Although she first kissed him on the cheek (no big deal), and they kissed in the dark (hopefully it was a double! )
.
Quote:
Towards the beginning, there is a brilliant scene where Phoenix is forced to avoid blinking during a barrage of personal questions as we learn revelations about his character in less than a minute. It is overwhelming and captivating. I just wish the rest of the film kept up that momentum, but it falls flat.
That was a great scene. Seems hard to keep up with that momentum though, as it
[Show spoiler]divulged everything about Freddy in one swoop. We've learned everything there is to learn. We do have other intense scenes like the "excuse me" argument scene, jail scene, the dancing (naked) scene, and the wall-window walking scene, not to mention the "sink scene" (where adams "takes care" of HOffman ), that were all pretty intense.
. It seems that PTA likes to achieve some kind of dynamics in his films, where he has intense scenes, separated by slow/calm scenes. We saw this in TWBB with
[Show spoiler]oil explosion scene followed by long slow scene showing a pipeline across the country, or church yelling scene followed by quiet slow dialogue
.
Last edited by surfdude12; 03-20-2013 at 03:10 PM.
Bad Motherf*cker (Insane Office Escape 2) (2013)
dir. Ilya Naishuller
The Good:GoPro + first-person shooter + parkour + insane stunt work + badass soundtrack + loads of energy = the most amazing thing ever (well, not really, but you can't deny this is some pretty impressive stuff).
The Bad:Nothing major.
The Bottom Line:Easily the best film I've seen this year. Somebody give this guy a major directing gig. He deserves it. Now, I need to go check out the original...
Last couple of nights, I dug into the ever-awesome Alfred Hitchcock Masterpiece Collection and look at some movies I had never seen before.
One was Marnie, and the other was Topaz.
I'm going to give them a bulk rating, sorta. It's apparent to me that everything after The Birds just isn't going to stick as well with me as the man's earlier work. I've grown to love everything beforehand, but Marnie, Topaz, and Torn Curtain (viewed earlier in the month) just aren't doing much for me personally.
The biggest thrill I see out of Marnie is in watching Sean Connery, cool as ever, not too far off from the early 007 swagger. Topaz resonates a little bit more, with all the Cuban stuff and some really rough-looking settings.
In both cases, I can tell that these films are still very well-made, with plenty of condfidence and attention. They're colorful, they strive for a certain charm, and they are distinctly Hitchcockian in nature. For whatever reason, however, I feel they're missing a certain something. I suspect that the biggest thing is that they're deprived of any one scene that stands out. Sure, it's hard to top the Psycho shower scene, the North by Northwest airplane scene, or the Birdemic in The Birds, but even the lower-level works like Strangers on a Train, Rope, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Shadow of a Doubt, Saboteur, etc all had great scenes that kept me going and made the films stand out. These two? Nothing.
So, bottom line: good films, won't remember them after a few weeks, nothing compared to Hitch's earlier works.
3.5/5 for both.
Transfers for both Marnie and Topaz are not without issues; looks like some rather gaudy amounts of DNR and noise. However, they're still really bright and colorful, really sharp and clean, and they might be the best they'll get.
PQ: 3.5/5, AQ: 3.5/5
Still have Frenzy and Family Plot to check out. Aside from Torn Curtain, Marnie, and Topaz, I love every other film in the set.
The Stampede (Insane Office Escape) (2011)
dir. Ilya Naishuller
The Good:Where it all began. Great stunt work. Inspired and well-executed.
The Bad:Not quite on the same level as the sequel.
The Bottom Line:Might first-person POV action flicks be a future Hollywood fad?
It's still undeniably impressive, but just unfortunate that it isn't as great as the sequel.
It's an amazing concept and I can definitely see legs in it; it might not go as far as spawning a whole genre in Hollywood, but certainly could create some memorable films.
nice review! I agree that there is so much here that it can't be fully digested in even one , two or three viewings. From that standpoint, it definietly meets the surf "bite off more than I can chew" litmus test
why do you think Dodd recruited Freddy?
[Show spoiler]was it because he felt a bond to him? The blu-ray.com reviewer suggested the film is about the connection between the two men. I recall Dodd constantly referring to "how did we meet?" and I kept thinking "you met him on your facking boat, you moron!" but that's obviously not what Dodd is referring to. Is this Dodd referring to them having some kind of connection in a past life? I remember him talking about how they were soldiers together in Prussia and communicated with balloons and "only lost 3"....but can't make sense out of that and its significance to the plot??
I think it really does reshape every time you watch it.
I think there was an element of pity in the decision to recruit Freddy,
[Show spoiler] the idea that the two crossed paths so conveniently drew him to write about his methods. At the end the pity has flipped and Freddy leaves Dodd to become swallowed whole by his work and his beliefs. The past life story just cements Dodd's charismatic yet lied fuelled life has driven and possibly misguided Freddy, and even consumed Dodd to a certain degree.
The deleted scene compilation adds a little more to this, but not a whole lot, it's still an interesting feature though.
Next greatest movie seen in the cinema: Oz: The Great and Powerful
One key thing the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz proved is that movie magic and magic in movies go hand-in-hand. This might be a mild spoiler, but most of us know by now that the actual wizard of Oz was never a real wizard, but a con-artist who used machines and gimmicks to wow the inhabitants of Oz into submission. It's also an interestingly insightful reflection on filmmaking itself, with the filmmakers fulfilling the exact same role as the wizard; they use camera tricks, elaborate sets, costumes, and special effects to bring the fantasy to life before the audience, and trick us all into believing that Oz can be a real place with real people. Even though the film is incredibly fake-looking and laughably cheesy, it's become cemented as an endearing classic in American cinema; it's an impressive feat that this 70+ year old classic still captures audiences' imaginations.
Obviously, nothing can top the 1939 Wizard of Oz. The 2013 prequel, Oz: The Great and Powerful, follows into the modern trend of taking classic fairy tales and given them an epic-scale treatment (along the same lines as Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland and yesteryear's Snow White and the Huntsman). It is on that level that O:TGAP should be evaluated; it's a big, large-scale remix of the classic Wizard of Oz elements with a massive CGI spectacle.
The most critical of audiences probably won't be impressed, but I personally felt that this film is decently entertaining. It has action and peril, especially in the last act; the final battle in Emerald City offers a satisfying climax with plenty of spectacle, but without overdoing things that much. I was thrilled to see the witches fighting, and it was pretty cool. Even though CGI is dispensed liberally throughout the feature with mixed results, it is a visually striking experience at times. There is a lot of silly humor thrown about as well, which may come off as a hit or a miss. Overall, it is a whimsical adventure that made me smile at times, and kept my interest all the way through.
The film's most redeeming quality will be it story. The actual plot is somewhat derivative - it's pretty much the exact same formula as the 2010 Alice in Wonderland - and the story is predictable, especially if you know what happens in the classic Oz film. Still, long-time fans will geek out at all the Wizard of Oz references, and this film does a fine job of establishing the characters and concepts that would ultimately lead up to the original movie. The film has a number of one-dimensional side characters who could have benefited from more development. However, the wizard takes the spotlight throughout, and the film does a great job of establishing his character, showing his growth and development, and ultimately tying in the classic themes of magic, imagination, and belief with the story's pathos. It's not the same meta-theme that went into the old film, but this film uses it in a fashion that supports the story, and makes it just as interesting.
This film features pretty solid and distinctive photography. You can bet that the opening scenes are black-and-white, and rest is color, just like the original film. It even uses a smaller, square aspect ration, until the actual Oz scenes, where the screen expands magically. Some shots are pretty wild, a few shots swung pretty heavily side-to-side, and plenty of other shots reminded me a lot of the Peter Jackson Middle Earth films, thanks to the frequent sweeping and movements. Editing is not bad. Acting is generally satisfying: James Franco won't impress everyone, but I felt his portrayal was appropriately showy and boisterous, and fit the character very well. Mila Kunis is regarded as the odd one out, and I'll admit that she did seem out of place at first, but I enjoyed her performances in the second half. Rachel Weisz is as great as ever, and it's hard not to love Michelle Williams. Writing is not too bad. This production has fine and dandy sets, props, and costumes, which mostly match up well with the original Oz film. Special effects look great in some spots, not so great in others. Music has its moments too.
As expected from a Sam Raimi film, Oz: The Great and Powerful is a bright, colorful, humorous adventure with whimsey and zeal. It comes best recommended to non-discerning popcorn flick fans, families, and Wizard of Oz fans.
4/5 (Entertainment: Good | Story: Good | Film: Good)
Recommendation: Sure, why not?
Last edited by Al_The_Strange; 03-21-2013 at 08:19 PM.
"Acting is generally satisfying: James Franco won't impress everyone, but I felt his portrayal was appropriately showy and boisterous, and fit the character very well"
I felt he really phoned it in. Basically, all he does is that annoying self satisfied grin throughout. That's not enough and that's not acting. There was no reason for me to care a stitch about him. I know he was written to be that way and eventually he's gonna have a change of heart, but that's so predictable and Franco doesn't have the gravitas for me to overlook the uninspired writing.
I loved the opening B&W credit sequence and intro, really liked the guiding force behind that last "battle" sequence, but I was left with a soggy middle that was a chore to get through. It didn't help that the CGI held me back from being totally transported to the world of Oz.
"Acting is generally satisfying: James Franco won't impress everyone, but I felt his portrayal was appropriately showy and boisterous, and fit the character very well"
I felt he really phoned it in. Basically, all he does is that annoying self satisfied grin throughout. That's not enough and that's not acting. There was no reason for me to care a stitch about him. I know he was written to be that way and eventually he's gonna have a change of heart, but that's so predictable and Franco doesn't have the gravitas for me to overlook the uninspired writing.
Yeah, I saw that as the main complaint, and was really expecting to see the guy from Spiderman popping in there. Was surprised to find myself looking at a mostly-convincing Oz, so I was happy.
I won't deny that the character arc is quite predictable though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abdrewes
I loved the opening B&W credit sequence and intro, really liked the guiding force behind that last "battle" sequence, but I was left with a soggy middle that was a chore to get through. It didn't help that the CGI held me back from being totally transported to the world of Oz.
I can see what you mean. The pacing did slow down a bit in the middle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abdrewes
By the way Al, have you seen Cloud Atlas yet?
No.
If I don't see it before May, it will be a total blind-buy.
This film is one of the most quintessential classics of cinema. Chances are that you've seen it aired every Thanksgiving, or you've seen clips of it all over the place, of you've heard the songs sung and resung, or you've seen parodies. The Wizard of Oz has become so ingrained in American culture that the film, its scenes, its characters, its music, its dialogue, and just about everything is instantly recognizable and endearing.
To be perfectly honest, this is a really short and silly film. The comedy, especially with so many silly lines, is still hilarious to this day. There is peril and adventure in short bursts, and such scenes have become seriously iconic. Frequently catchy musical numbers add to the overall whimsey of the picture. There's hardly a dull moment in this film, and most moments are memorable and fun.
The story is a short and simple affair. It takes a stretch to believe something this fantastic, but the film plays things so straight that it successfully immerses the audience. Characters aren't terribly deep or fleshed-out, but they stand out really well. In the end, it's the themes that count. On one hand, it's a fundamental fantasy adventure: the classic there-and-back-again tale, in which the characters embark on their journey and come back stronger and wiser. With the film's ending, such themes are made even stronger, when it's revealed that it may have all been in Dorothy's dream. The big reveal for the actual wizard of Oz is also a thematically strong moment, as it underscores a key theme regarding magic and imagination; it's a theme that not only extends to the characters of the story, but also reaches beyond the screen and demonstrates movie-making magic on a fundamental level. If there's any thematic weakness, it's purely in the very very end, when Dorothy concludes that it's much better to stay at home than it is to have an adventure (she almost makes it sound like she'll be a recluse from then on, which kinda defeats the purpose of everything, in my opinion).
This film is well-filmed with steady and solid photography. It's most distinctive for utilizing both black-and-white and color photography together, to create a stark contrast between reality and fantasy. Acting is extremely goofy and over-the-top, but it all works for the film's benefit. It's always a hoot to watch Margaret Hamilton as the iconic villain, while Judy Garland and the rest of the cast provide much zeal and spirit to their roles. Writing is pretty silly, but it builds the story really well and features some very memorable lines. This production uses some rather limited sets, props, and costumes, many of which are outlandish and very fake-looking, but provide enough of an illusion to craft a vibrant spectacle with limited resources. Music is catchy and memorable.
This movie is a must-see, if for no other reason than for its prestige and popularity throughout the decades. Highly recommended!
4.5/5 (Entertainment: Very Good | Story: Good | Film: Very Good)
Recommendation: Highly.
The Blu-Ray for this looks and sounds darn near perfect!
Bad Motherf*cker (Insane Office Escape 2) (2013)
dir. Ilya Naishuller
[Show spoiler]
The Good:GoPro + first-person shooter + parkour + insane stunt work + badass soundtrack + loads of energy = the most amazing thing ever (well, not really, but you can't deny this is some pretty impressive stuff).
The Bad:Nothing major.
The Bottom Line:Easily the best film I've seen this year. Somebody give this guy a major directing gig. He deserves it. Now, I need to go check out the original...
The Stampede (Insane Office Escape) (2011)
dir. Ilya Naishuller
[Show spoiler]
The Good:Where it all began. Great stunt work. Inspired and well-executed.
The Bad:Not quite on the same level as the sequel.
The Bottom Line:Might first-person POV action flicks be a future Hollywood fad?
Those were really cool. I don't know if it would work well as a feature length film but It would be cool If a movie shot all it's action sequences that way.
Bad Motherf*cker (Insane Office Escape 2) (2013)
dir. Ilya Naishuller
The Good:GoPro + first-person shooter + parkour + insane stunt work + badass soundtrack + loads of energy = the most amazing thing ever (well, not really, but you can't deny this is some pretty impressive stuff).
The Bad:Nothing major.
The Bottom Line:Easily the best film I've seen this year. Somebody give this guy a major directing gig. He deserves it. Now, I need to go check out the original...
Wow, that was a rush...very well executed! Thanks for sharing these shorts jvince, I'm really diggin' em, especially since I haven't had time for many full length films these days.
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
It was a great film that had its release skewered by the fact that The Prestige was just a bit better (but not by much, in my opinion) and, therefore, more well-known. 'Twas the humble beginnings of the Nolan fanboy love that has well and truly blossomed.
Linear Mode
