Delivery Man

An extreme under-achiever, David Wozniak (Vince Vaughn) is a truck driver in his father's meat business. 20 years ago, he was a sperm donor under the codename "Starbuck" and through a mistake at the clinic, fathered 533 children. 142 of them have filed a suit to find out who their father is. Now he must decide whether or not to come forward while trying to convince his girlfriend that he would make a good father to their unborn child.


Cast


Vince Vaughn as David Wozniak
Chris Pratt as Brett
Cobie Smulders as Emma
Andrzej Blumenfeld as Mikolaj Wozniak
Simon Delaney as Victor


Who will like this:

Watching the trailers for this movie, you may think to be a light-hearted comedy. If that is what you are looking for, you may be disappointed. Although there are comedic moments, it seems to be more of a pull-at-your-heart-strings feel good movie. It could probably fall under the category of "chick flick". It is a remake of a Canadian movie called "Starbuck". If you liked "The Five Year Engagement", you will probably like "Delivery Man".

Phantom Thoughts

Although they DO speak English in Canada, the translation gets lost between the Canadian "Starbuck" and this remake. This is a departure for Vince Vaughn's normal comedy movies, but not a successful one. With such talent as Vaughn, Cobie Smulders as his pregnant girlfriend and Chris Pratt as his friend/lawyer, "Delivery Man" fails to deliver the comedy it boasts in it's trailers.

I think the problem is that it doesn't know what it wants to be. Is it a comedy? A drama? A look at the pros and cons of being a parent? No. It falls short on all these things. In the beginning of this mess, we see Vince Vaughn's character as a total and complete screw up. I mean, over the top so. I'm not a proponent of suicide, but if I was David Wozniak, I would consider putting myself out of my misery permanently. He has more problems than Bill Murray's John Winger in "Stripes".

It's been a while since the Phantom has been to the movies unfortunately. And after seeing this....I wish I had stayed home and cleaned my bathroom.

Until next time, see you in the center seat.

Man of Steel

The story of the Man from Krypton who comes to Earth and must find out what his destiny on this strange planet is. The man who will become Superman finds that growing up with super powers is not as easy as we would think. His Father and his adopted parents try to lead young Kal-El (Clark Kent) to be a better man, but it's the threat of warriors from his doomed home world that force him to become the hero the World needs.

Cast

Henry Cavill as Clark Kent / Kal-El
Amy Adams as Lois Lane
Michael Shannon as General Zod
Kevin Costner and Diane Lane as Jonathan and Martha Kent
Laurence Fishburne as Perry White
Russell Crowe as Jor-El
Antje Traue as Faora

Who will like this:

Any fan of the Superman comics, movies or otherwise should be able to come away from this movie feeling satisfied in some way shape or form. This "re-telling" of the classic story does not stray to far or try to put it's own spin on what is known as an iconic figure and one of the oldest Superhero tales in modern times. It may not be suited for the very young, like the Christopher Reeves movies as it is just a bit more dark and violent. However, there were similarities to The Chronicles of Riddick and the Matrix Trilogy that fans of those movies will find appealing. 

Phantom Thoughts

I started this blog long after Superman Returns, but if I could just briefly say something about that movie, I would say that the reason it didn't do so well was because it didn't know what it wanted to be. By that I mean that it was funny in parts reminiscent to the Christopher Reeves movies and serious and drama filled in others, while giving Superman some kind of human element that just didn't work all together and patch worked together. THIS is not that movie. It is basically updating the story we all know and love and putting it into a time we all know instead of 1938, when Superman was first introduced in Action Comics.

The beginning of the film starts with the back story on Krypton. After that, most of the history of growing up on a farm in Smallville is told in flashbacks. Though some have said that it does not give a full enough description, I think that being such a well known character Man of Steel hits the important and necessary elements of his back story and gives the audience credit for filling in the "gaps".

Now let me explain why I referenced The Chronicles of Riddick and the Matrix movies above. In re-designing the famous Superman costume, Zack Snyder and Christopher Nolan provide an explanation for why he has it, where up until now, we assumed that it was something that Clark Kent came up with for his alter-ego. I was not a huge fan of what it looked like when I saw the first photos leaked, but during the movie, it didn't bother me as much (unlike Andrew Garfields hideous Spiderman costume! So glad they fixed that for the sequel) The skin tight garb is actually the under armor of classic Kryptonian warriors. Kal-El only uses this part of his home world's uniform and not the armor part because he is a man of peace, not war. But the whole first sequence of the movie set on Krypton, and that Kryptonian armor, were very similar to the look and feel of Riddick.

As far as the Matrix goes, well...let's just put aside a moment that two of the main actors, Laurence Fishburne and Harry Lennix from The Matrix also had roles in this movie. Let's put aside for a moment the fact that Harry Lennix plays basically the EXACT SAME CHARACTER in both movies. What's left is Clark Kent, realizing who he is and learning his abilities. It reflects Neo so much it's scary, right down to the first time he takes flight.

Overall, the film was great. It was well paced, told a good story and the fight scenes were really good. I mean, besides pretty much leveling two different cities, which I thought being who he was, Superman would have tried to take the fight to a less populated area. There were a lot of nods to the old movies as well as TV shows and comic books for the enthusiasts to catch. I had fun with it and I am anticipating the 2015 sequel which has been confirmed to have Batman in it.

Until Next time, see you in the center seat.

Oblivion

It is the year 2077, and Tech 49 Jack Harper is one of the last people on Earth. There has been an alien invasion by the mysterious"Scavs", and although humans won the war, the Earth was ruined. So most of humanity is on a colony on Titan, powered by giant machines in what's left of the oceans that convert sea water into fusion power. Jack and his partner Victoria are a maintenance team who keep drone robots running to guard the machines against the few remaining "Scav" bandits left. They report to Sally, the mission controller who is aboard the "Tet": a giant tetrahedral orbiting the Earth.
    Jack and Victoria's memories have been wiped out 5 years ago for security reasons, but Jack is having dreams he thinks are memories from before the war. They only have 2 more weeks before they are to leave, but Jack is not as enthusiastic to leave. But when a pre-war NASA ship crashes to Earth, and Jack saves a crew member named Julia, all Hell breaks loose. It starts a series of events that makes Jack question what he thinks he knows and starts him on a journey to find the truth.

Cast

Tom Cruise as Commander Jack Harper
Andrea Riseborough as Victoria Olsen
Morgan Freeman as Malcolm Beech
Olga Kurylenko as Julia Rusakova


Who will like this:

I describe this movie as an adult Wall-E mixed with The Matrix, Independence Day and Total Recall (the original). Confused? I know. This is a very intricate movie plot that cannot be summed up very easily. It watches like more of a series than a stand alone movie. The reason for this may be because it is based on an unpublished graphic novel by the same name from Joseph Kosinski, who wrote, produced and directed this film. It's part sci-fi, part romance drama and part action film.

Phantom Thoughts

Strap yourself in. This is going to be a long one. No. I'm not talking about my thoughts, I'm talking about this movie. It's over two and a half hours and it FEELS like it. It's not that it was boring...it's that there is a LOT going on. Maybe too much, which is why it didn't do as well as it could have.
     I kinda liked it though. Some of it was a bit predictable, but for the most part it kept my interest. It may be a slow start, but getting a feel of the backstory was a necessary element to moving forward. But let's talk about why I used the movie references I did in the above section:

    An adult Wall-E? Yeah. The drones that Jack is in charge of fixing are very reminiscent of the white robots from the Pixar movie. I can't be sure, but this may be left over from when Disney had the rights to this movie. They later dropped it and Universal picked it up.

     The Matrix. Here's some SPOILER for the rest of the review. The same way that Neo is living in a dream world and finds out what reality REALLY is, Jack finds out that the humans didn't really win the war. In the Matrix, humans scorched the sky as a last ditch effort/ after the Moon is destroyed and causes havoc on the environment  humans use their nukes as a last ditch effort. Neo finds out that he was not the first "One"/ Jack finds out that he is one of thousands of clones the aliens are using to harvest the Earth's resources.

Independence Day. This is mostly referring to the end sequence of each movie. Jeff Goldblum and Will Smith take an alien spaceship into the mothership of the aliens and blow them up with a nuke. Tom Cruise and Morgan Freeman fly their ship into the "Tet" (which looks a LOT like the mothership in ID) and blow it up with a bomb of their own.

     Total Recall. Quaid finds out that the woman he thought was his wife is actually a spy that tries to kill him once he finds out the truth. He then turns to the underworld of Mars who help him. Jack finds that his wife is actually the crash survivor Julia who has been in cryogenic sleep for 60 years. When his partner/girlfriend finds out, she tries to kill him as well. Jack turns to the humans who are masquerading as aliens to show him the truth and he helps them defeat the real aliens.

So now do you get it? I hope so. With everything I have described, there's STILL a lot more I haven't even gotten into here.

Until next time, see you in the center seat.

Star Trek Into Darkness

The Enterprise crew is expecting to receive a five year exploration mission. However, instead Kirk has the Enterprise taken away from him due to his inability to follow orders and violation of the Prime Directive. That decision is short lived as deadly terrorist John Harrison attacks Starfleet and then hides on a Planet the Federation cannot go. Kirk is sent to destroy him, but when he catches up to Harrison, the mysterious man causes Kirk to doubt which side he is actually on.

Cast

Chris Pine - Commander/Captain James T. Kirk
Zachary Quinto - First Officer Spock
Zoe Saldana - Lieutenant Nyota Uhura
Anton Yelchin - Ensign Pavel Chekov
Karl Urban - Lieutenant Commander Dr. Leonard "Bones" McCoy
Simon Pegg - Lieutenant Commander Montgomery "Scotty" Scott
John Cho - Lieutenant Hikaru Sulu
Benedict Cumberbatch - Commander John Harrison
Bruce Greenwood - Rear Admiral Christopher Pike
 Peter Weller - Starfleet Admiral Alexander Marcus

Who will like this movie

With the original cast and crew returning from the 2009 Star Trek movie, fans who liked that one will like this one. Some "original" Trek fans may actually enjoy this one more as it is filled with nods to the original series. Especially after the last Star trek movie totally wiped out the existence of the original series altogether.
Good for 'tweeners and above due to some racey scenes and intense action.

Phantom Thoughts

Let me first say right off the bat that I am not a "Trekkie". I'm more of a Star Wars fan, although I did get into Star Trek: The Next Generation back when it was on and have seen all of the Star Trek films. That being said, I was a bit surprised at the lack of backlash from the last film. As I said above, the last one pretty much made the original series, and all the movies after....non-existent. Perfect for this film franchise going forward as to not have to worry about lining up events or storylines to the TV show. I wasn't as upset about this as I felt die hard fans should have been.

Seeing as you have gotten past that little speed bump in the story telling, we move on to Star Trek Into Darkness. (No colon, please. The writers spent a lot of time trying to come up with the title and didn't want any ties to the old Star Trek titles like Star Trek: First Contact.) We find our new cast still together and Zachary Quinto and Simon Pegg once again steal the show as Spock and Scotty respectively. Seriously. Without these two, and the few points I will bring up momentarily, then on it's own, the movie was just nothing special. No more than a Redbox selection on a weekday night. Now although Benedict Cumberbatch played a great villain, his portrayal of the worst kept secret in Hollywood (but for the sake of argument, I'll put the word SPOILER here) as Khan he just didn't measure up to the original, brought to life brilliantly by Ricardo Montalban. Here's the REAL SPOILER: Khan was not the main villain. In fact it was Peter Weller. Which should not be a surprise to Trekkies as he has played a villain in the series "Enterprise" twice before. But the thing is, that shouldn't have been necessary. Khan is a strong enough character to work on his own. The addition of this "twist" was just a waste.

But Phantom, you say....what if they wanted something that was different from the original series and movies? Well, after seeing this movie, you'll realize how ridiculous that statement is. I'm gonna just go ahead and write SPOILER for this entire paragraph. If you haven't seen it yet, skip to the next one. For those still reading, I actually liked the blatant references to the original series such as the Tribble, the "red shirt" joke, and the lines taken directly from the TV show like Bones' "Shut up, Spock. We're trying to rescue you!" But even those were not as direct as the use of the final scenes from "Wrath of Kahn" that were used almost scene for scene and line for line where Spock saves the ship and dies. Only this time reversing the Kirk and Spock roles and having Kirk die. These things made the movie, in my opinion, worth seeing in the theater.

But that's not the only thing. The 3-D was amazing. In a movie going world where EVERYTHING is now seen through digital sunglasses, this one was well worth it. The amazing thing about this is that it was not shot with a 3-D camera. In fact, this is the first film shot in IMAX with the 3-D done entirely in post production. That fact alone is pretty impressive.

A question I've heard is "Why did it take so long to make a sequel?". I found the answer to this and to be honest...I'm not surprised. Damon Lindelof, the man who single-handedly ruined the most anticipated movie last summer "Prometheus" is a producer of this movie. I found out that he also took the script THAT WAS DONE and then made his own changes to it. There was a re-working of the script back and forth with J.J. Abrams for some time after that. Although I have no proof, it is my belief that Lindelof is the reason for that ridiculous "twist" in the movie I spoke of earlier. I honestly don't know why anyone in Hollywood hires this man who just fucks up everything he touches.

Finally...can J.J. just stop with the lens flare already? I know he loves it and it's his "thing" but after the last Star Trek, I thought he had listened to the fans who complained about it. I had heard that he was cutting back on it, which would have been fine. After all, I'm not expecting him to give it up completely  but there was so much of it, that it was just plain distracting. Not to mention the lens flare was even more pronounced with the great 3-D this movie had, which was the only downside to an otherwise awesome effect.

I found out that Michael Dorn, who played Worf in TNG as well as a Klingon (supposedly a relative of Worf) in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country was cast as an officer. But he was cut out of the film because the film makers "didn't want to mix the old and the new". Christopher Doohan, son of James Doohan who played the original Scotty, plays a transport officer and is seen alongside Simon Pegg, the current Scotty.

Until next time, see you in the center seat.

Iron Man 3

Iron Man 3 takes place some time after the Avengers Movie and the events of New York. Events that have left Tony Stark shaken and prone to panic attacks. That has put a strain on his relationship with girlfriend Pepper Potts. Tony Stark has made some major improvements to his suit, but when terrorist threat in the form of the unknown "Mandarin" injures someone close to him, Iron Man seeks revenge. His problems get worse when he is forced to go back to basics and the terrorist plot takes an interesting turn.

Cast

Robert Downey Jr. - Tony Stark
Gwyneth Paltrow -  Pepper Potts
Don Cheadle  -    Colonel James Rhodes
Guy Pearce -   Aldrich Killian
Rebecca Hall -   Maya Hansen
Jon Favreau -   Happy Hogan
Ben Kingsley -   The Mandarin

Who will like this movie

This is not your kids comic book movie. Geared to an older crowd, it's not for the fans that likes the fast paced action of the previous Iron Man and Avengers movies. But if you're looking for a correlation to a comic book movie, this has a similarity to the Christopher Nolan Batman trilogy of the past few years. Shane Black who took the director chair from Jon Favereau on this one describes it as "more of a Tom Clancy Thriller" than the previous movies.

Phantom Thoughts

     They said it would be different, and they were right. I have to admit, I was not aware that Jon Favreau was not directing this one. (Maybe he spent too much time buying up all the Twinkies he could when he heard Hostess was going out of business? Someone get that guy a diet coke, for Christ sake!) As much as I love the movies and try to read up on what's coming down the pipe, I don't always get the info on everything. Which is a good thing, as I'm not a big fan of major spoilers. (Yes, I know I have given a few on this blog. Irony?) Look, one of the reasons that the Batman Trilogy worked so well was that they were able to keep the same director and (for the most part) all the major players throughout the arc. It's not the only reason, but a big part of it. So while doing my research after seeing the movie and seeing things like "they wanted to do something different", I understood why I didn't like this one as much. I'm all for not re-hashing the same movie over and over again (Hangover 2, anyone?) But you can't ignore what got you there. After 3 successful movies, you have to give the people what they have come to see. For me, that didn't happen.

     I'm also not saying they made a bad decision in trying something different. Hell, I liked what they were trying to do. I don't think it was executed right. While Shane Black admittedly took tips and advice from Favreau, it wasn't enough. After the larger than life Avengers took on aliens from another dimension, Tony Stark was stripped down to the bare essentials, and knocked off his superhero high horse and given human frailty. He had to rely more on his intelligence than his tech for most of the movie. Although he showed flashes of the smug, wise-cracking billionaire we got to know (I especially liked the "Westworld" reference) he was too far removed  from who I got to like over the last few years.

     I'm not giving anything away by saying that the villain in this movie has been reported to be "The Mandarin" played by Ben Kingsley. I'm also not giving anything away by saying that the character in this movie is different from the one in the comic book. Where the Mandarin has 10 rings that give him his supernatural alien powers, here he is portrayed as a non-superpower terrorist. However, that's not the twist. Ready for it? HUGE SPOILER: He's not even the villain in this movie! They took some minor characters and a story from the "Extremis" story arc to serve as the main foes of Iron Man in this movie.
 *Phantom Note: I liked Guy Pearce's character better when Jim Carey did it in "Batman Forever".

     The thing I keep going back to was the last line of the first movie. "I am Iron Man." That's the premise of the whole story of Iron Man. In this one, I was given the impression that Tony Stark was not Iron Man, but just Tony Stark. And that anyone (SPOILER: and at times...no one) could be Iron Man. That didn't sit well with me.
*Phantom Note: The 3-D in this was not anything special at all. If you want to save a few bucks, don't bother with the upgrade.

    Robert Downey Jr.'s contract is up after this movie. The studio has already said that on the strong possibility there is an Iron Man 4, they are prepared to make it without him. There is a kind of closure that could wrap up this arc if they wanted to, but we all know that there will be an Avengers sequel as well as more Tony Stark. I have a feeling RDJ will be back for at least the Avengers 2, but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Until next time, see you in the center seat.

The Host

The Host starts at the last half hour of most Sci-Fi movies. In the future, Earth has been inhabited by an alien race. That is, almost all the humans here have. There are a few people left whose bodies have not been taken over, and they are fighting back. Melanie is part of the resistance who throws herself out a window instead of being captured. However, she lives and has an Alien called "Wanderer" implanted into her body. But Melanie's mind refuses to give in and so Wanderer now has a voice in her head of the girl who was fighting their race. She convinces Wanderer to find her family while the other aliens try to track "them" down.

Cast

Saoirse Ronan as Melanie Stryder/Wanderer
Jake Abel as Ian O'Shea
Max Irons as Jared Howe
Chandler Canterbury as Jamie Stryder
Frances Fisher as Maggie Stryder
Diane Kruger as The Seeker
William Hurt as Jeb Stryder

Who will like this:

This is what Fred Savage's character in The Princess Bride would describe as a "kissing movie". It is an obvious move to scoop up some left over Twilight fans. There is not so much a love triangle, as it is a love rectangle. There are two personalities in one body, which puts a damper on your love life if they are each attracted to two different people. As a space invasion movie, the most obvious reference would be Invasion of the Body Snatchers. But I found similarities to The Arrival with Charlie Sheen as well.

Phantom Thoughts

There is a lot going on here, which gives me the feeling that it is the pilot episode of a new Sy-Fy channel series rather than a movie. It is most definitely geared toward the teen audience trying to fill the void left by the end of the Twilight series, as I stated before. In fact, there is an appearance of Emily Browning in this movie, who was originally picked for the role of Bella.
    There is a lot of kissing in this movie. A LOT. I hope Saoirse Ronan invested in Chapstick before taking on this role. She plays the girl with two beings in one body, and as the alien "Wanderer" starts to fall for a human boy, Melanie's heart belongs to a boy who she met while on the run with her little brother. The kissing is not only done out of romance, but to invoke feelings in the other personality as well. Like I said, there is a lot.
    But it's not all as ridiculous as it sounds. The alien race are jellyfish like creatures that can only live in the bodies of other beings. They are not aware that what they are doing is wrong. There is a group of "police" that are trying to find the remaining humans left in the world to give them hosts as well. When Wanderer/Melanie refuses to help find them and then escapes to look for them herself, one of these police agents called The Seeker makes it her personal mission to find her. At points, she expresses emotions and actions that are more human than alien, and is relentless in her hunt.
   So what exactly ARE the Phantom's thoughts? Well, if it actually WAS a pilot episode for a series, I would probably watch it. It was alright, but it's not gonna be a blockbuster or win any awards or anything.

*Post review edit: This was the last movie famed film critic Roger Ebert reviewed before passing away April 4th 2013. He gave it 2.5 stars out of 4.

Until next time, see you in the center seat.

Life of Pi

An Indian man named Piscine Molitor Patel tells a young writer an adventure in his life that is said to make him believe in God. It starts when he is a little boy and is being brought up Hindu, but soon starts to learn and follow Christianity and Islam. The story picks up when his Father is forced to sell the family zoo and move his family to Canada, bringing many of the animals along on a Japanese freighter on the journey. In the middle of the night, the ship sinks, leaving Pi and some of the animals alone in a lifeboat. This fantastic tale is made up mostly of how he survives in the middle of the ocean with a Bengal Tiger...named Richard Parker.

Cast

Suraj Sharma       Pi Patel

Irrfan Khan          Adult Pi Patel

Ayush Tandon      Pi Patel (11 / 12 Years)

Gautam Belur       Pi Patel (5 Years)

Adil Hussain         Santosh Patel

Tabu                  Gita Patel

Rafe Spall           Writer

Gérard Depardieu  Cook

Who will like this movie:

While there are several scary moments in "Life of Pi", I believe that this is a story that can be enjoyed by just about all ages. However, it also has some slow-moving parts that may not keep very young viewers attention. My suggestion would be that it is not a movie for toddlers. Some of the visual splendor actually reminds me of "2001: A Space Odyssey".  And although the message is different, those who liked Tom Hanks "Castaway" should like this one as well. It almost has a feel of a M. Night Shyamalan movie (which is ironic in the fact that he was attached to write and direct the movie early on).

Phantom Thoughts

I am a little late on this movie, but seeing as how I saw it on March 14th (Pi Day) I thought it only fitting.  Watching it in 3-D is really the only way to go. The visual aspect is just to magnificent to put into words. As you may have guessed, there is a ton of CGI in it, but it done so remarkably, that you don't notice it at all. One of the main characters is Richard Parker, the name of the tiger who takes this journey with young Pi. I really could not tell where the CGI tiger began and the live action tiger ended, and THAT is an amazing accomplishment in itself.

The story of survival on the Pacific ocean is a bit fantastic and unbelievable, while being totally believable at the same time. But when taken in context of the story he's telling and why he's telling it, it all makes perfect sense.

I thought the story of how he changed his name, in fact re-inventing himself, was fun to watch. Pi makes a personal and spiritual adventure in finding out who he is and what his relationship with God is. The fact that he keeps his mind open to pretty much all religions makes anyone watching inclusive into it. This blends beautifully into the plot of Pi and Richard Parker alone and the survival of the two of them.

Although I don't think it deserved all of the accolades it received and certainly believe that there are more directors worthy of the Oscar this year than Ang Lee, I can't put up too much of an argument against them. The story was intriguing and complete. The technical execution of the special effects were flawless. And the splendor of color and brilliance that was masterfully projected upon these eyes were indescribable.

Until next time, see you in the center seat.

Oz the Great and Powerful

A small time circus magician/con-artist gets whisked away in a hot air balloon into a tornado where he lands in the mystical land of Oz. He is found by a young witch named Theodora who thinks he is the Wizard who is prophetized to be the savior of the land. The magician, who is also named Oz, meets a colorful cast of characters in his mission to figure out who is evil and who is not. Once he does, the battle is on to save the land of Oz...and to find out what kind of man he really is. 

Cast: 

James Franco as Oscar Diggs / Wizard of Oz
Mila Kunis as Theodora / The Wicked Witch of the West
Rachel Weisz as Evanora / The Wicked Witch of the East
Michelle Williams as Glinda the Good Witch / Annie
Zach Braff as the voice of Finley the Flying Monkey / Frank, Oscar's circus assistant
Joey King as the voice of China Girl/Girl In Wheelchair
Bill Cobbs as Master Tinkerer
Tony Cox as Knuck the Fanfare Player
Bruce Campbell as a Winkie guard

Who will like this

It's easy to say that anyone who has seen the 1939 film "The Wizard of Oz" will find this an interesting option. There can be a case made that even those who liked the Broadway musical "Wicked" will be drawn to "Oz the Great and Powerful" as well. However, if you're looking for the story lines from those two to match up with this new version, you will be in for a disappointment  It is more of a visually stunning and fun movie that kids of all ages will like. A warning to parents of very young or easily frightened children, this has some scary moments, especially if seen in 3-D. 

Phantom Thoughts

Let me put things into perspective for you on where I was going in to see this movie. I have always said there are 3 movies made for children of all ages that you don't mess with: "Mary Poppins", "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory", and "The Wizard of Oz". That point was already proven with the Johnny Depp/Tim Burton 2005 version of "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". 

Another problem right from the start is the legal battle in making the film. You see, while the L. Frank Baum book "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" is public domain and from which Disney said it takes this movie from, Warner Brothers actually owns the rights to the 1939 movie "The Wizard of Oz". That means that characters, items and designs were not allowed to be used or copied in this movie. So the Ruby slippers were not allowed to be used, the design of Munchkinland and the Emerald City were off limits, even the mole at the end of the Wicked Witch of the West's chin made famous by Margret Hamilton could not be copied. They even had to make a different shade of green make-up to not get into legal trouble! Glinda the Good witch is from the South, where she is from the North in the original.  That did not stop them, however from taking some elements from the famous film. The bubble Glinda flies in, the smoke broom, yellow brick road and the Wizard Throne room and effects he uses are all taken directly from "The Wizard of Oz". 

So if you take all those things into consideration, what do you have left? Not really that much, actually. I did like certain nods they gave to both the book and the original movie. For instance, in the beginning of the film, you see a sign for the circus that Oz is working in: Baum Brothers Circus. A reference to L. Frank Baum, the author of the book. I also was impressed with the fact that when Theodora cried, her tears left scar tracks down her face, giving credence to her eventual downfall by Dorothy by throwing a bucket of water at her. And although they started the movie in black and white and changing to color when entering Oz (as well as going from the 4:3 Academy aspect ratio and then changing to widescreen) the change itself was less dramatic than Dorothy literally opening the door to a new world. One similarity that was not welcome was the fact that in the "Wizard of Oz", Buddy Ebsen was the original Tin Man, but had to drop out due to the Mercury poisoning he suffered from the silver make-up he had on. Mila Kunis had to take 2 months off from the removal of her make-up and prosthetics used in this movie. 

The 3-D is alright even if they used that cheap "pop out" element that I hate so much. The movie is visually fantastic and a lot of the CGI was done really well. Unfortunately, James Franco erases some of the great work those computer animators accomplished with his bad interaction with those characters. My question is this: if they put all that time and effort to make the CGI characters look real, why couldn't they computer animate Franco's hands when he is "touching" them to make it look more believable or at least not take you out of the moment? They did it on "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones" when Lucas decided in post production he wanted Anikin's hand to move toward Padme before he kissed her. And no one could tell the difference. You may have not even known that until I said it just now! 

Sam Raimi also takes a page out of his own book when he uses an "Army of Darkness" approach to the Oz montage leading up to the big battle. Just like Ash who is an average guy stuck in a place where modern technology does not exist, who then with a few simple books becomes a master inventor/chemist/ engineer; Oz is a small time magician who becomes a master of illusion/electrician/chemist to pull off his fight against the Evil Witches. 

James Franco's work with the CGI was not his only fault. His performance as the Wizard was mild at best. Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz, Michelle Williams all were very good in the film as the Witches, however as much as I love Mila Kunis, her portrayal of the Wicked Witch of the East (once she turned into the green baddie) was just lacking in some way. Whether it was just the make-up and costume or if was that she didn't channel Margret Hamilton enough to be believable, I'm not quite sure. 

There's no doubt that this will be a huge success (my indifference to watching it is not enough to stop me from seeing it again with my daughter) and Disney is so sure it will be that they already have plans for a second movie. I can't imagine that it will be much better than this one, in fact I'm pretty sure it will be worse.

Until next time, see you in the center seat.

A Good Day to Die Hard

The fifth installment in the Die Hard franchise, John McClane travels to Russia  on "vacation" to get his now grown up son out of some trouble he's gotten into. But when there's a McClane involved, he's bound to get himself into the wrong place at the wrong time. Multiply that by two, and it's double trouble.

Cast:

Bruce Willis as John McClane
Jai Courtney as John "Jack" McClane, Jr.
Sebastian Koch as Yuri Komarov
Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Lucy McClane
Yuliya Snigir as Irina

Who will like this movie:

Explosions, guns, and car chases. If I got your attention with these simple words, this is a good movie for you. Have you seen all the other Die Hard movies and your life will not be complete without completing the set? Then buy your ticket. I liken this to the Nicholas Cage flick "Con Air". This is a light show for your senses that doesn't require too much thinking.

Phantom Thoughts

A Good Day to Die Hard was a bad day to go to the movies. In my pursuit to stay neutral in my description and suggestions on who would like this movie, I found it my most difficult venture to date. Considering that I also reviewed the horrendous "John Carter" and "Battleship", that's saying something. I can't say anything good about the latest Die Hard attempt...at all. This is coming from a Die Hard fan. (pun intended) I liked all the previous movies, to varying degrees. The second and fourth ones were among my least favorites, but this one was so pedestrian, it could have been a hostage at Nakatomi Plaza. 

I laughed out loud at several moments while sitting in the theater, however they were not for any comedic quotes or situations, of which they tried to force in there throughout. No...I was laughing at how ridiculous this was. It was like watching a video game of Black Ops. Not playing it....watching someone else play it. First off, they must be trying to convince the movie going public that Mercedes Benz G-Class is a tank you can own. After John McClane carjacks one (Yes...I said carjack. Because he's in Russia and has no authority of any kind, but stops a guy and takes off in his car anyway. Speeding away yelling at the guy he just stole the car from like HE'S the asshole.). He then proceeds to do a Monster Truck style car crushing run that would put Grave Digger in the grave...and come out without a scratch. He then rams into and basically takes out an ACTUAL tank like truck...and then walks away with a few boo-boos.

That's the other thing that makes this like watching a video game...in the first Die Hard, John McClane walks over  broken glass and pretty much drags himself into a bathroom in excruciating pain. In this one, he goes through 2 car crashes, a few falls from at least a 5 story building, not to mention a few explosions. The God-like Thor would not have fared as well as "regular Joe" McClane did. 

There was evidently a story and plot twist in there somewhere, but I wouldn't even entertain a spoiler to try to explain what they were supposed to be. I am really upset that Bruce Willis would even agree to be seen on screen in this garbage. Look, I understand that you like playing the character, but any remnants of John McClane were no where to be found...even when saying the now cliche "Yippie-Ki-Yay..." line. Not even the father/son team up, double the McClane angle added any element of enjoyment. 

They should have called this "A Good Day to kill a Die Hard Franchise."

Until next time, I'll see you in the center seat....Mother-F#@%er.

Warm Bodies

Warm Bodies = The Walking Dead + Romeo and Juliet...almost literally. As told from the perspective of a 20 something zombie, who falls in love with a human girl. His love starts to change him and also change how she sees the undead. It is a relationship that can change the world in a post zombie apocalyptic era.

Cast

 Nicholas Hoult as R
 Teresa Palmer as Julie Grigio
 Rob Corddry as M / Marcus
 Dave Franco as Perry Kelvin
 Analeigh Tipton as Nora
 Cory Hardrict as Kevin
 John Malkovich as Colonel Grigio

Who will like this:

This is the perfect date movie for your Walking Dead fans, nerds or cos players. (You know who you are). It's an undead Rom Com. It has aspects of Shaun of the Dead, mixed with Twilight. It takes several liberties with classic zombie mythology that zombie fans may take umbrage with, but when taken in the light-hearted way it was written, it is enjoyable. If you are looking for a movie that's a little bit funny, a little bit scary and a bit of a romance, it's a good one to catch.

Phantom Thoughts

When I said this was the Walking Dead + Romeo and Juliet, it wasn't just a clever description. (Although it really was, if I do say so myself) It is has taken the plot directly from ol' Willie Shakes classic love story, right down to the famous balcony scene. Teresa Palmer plays Julie (Juliet) while Nicholas Hoult's zombie main character can't remember his name, but thinks it begins with "R" (Romeo...see? Get it?) 

But how does a character express his love to a girl who is fighting against him and all others like him when he can hardly even speak? This is the point in which I have to give credit to Nicholas Hoult. There are a lot of voice over through out the movie to tell R's story by what he's thinking to the audience. And this is where a lot of the humor comes from as it's cleverly written. But for an actor to express this through just the eyes and facial expressions was done very well by Hoult. Anyone who has played a zombie around Halloween (and really, haven't we all at some point?) knows that it's pretty easy to do...just become void of emotion and shuffle along as if it's a struggle to move. But to take that and emote emotion and communication at the same time is not that easy, or believable. Hoult does it. 

The other obstacle I see in making this movie is, how do you make a disgusting, rotting flesh eating zombie, a likable romantic lead in a movie? Well, first is the make-up. Which is done by mildly altering the actor to look more of just dead than a rotting corpse. Then give him the ability to speak...just a few words, and thoughts and feelings. All of which is uncharacteristic of what we know to be zombies. Next you have to have a villain  Normally this would obviously be the zombies themselves. So to solve this, they made another level of zombie called "Bonies". These mummy-like creatures are more animalistic and vicious. They are the soulless undead that other zombies eventually turn into. They are all CGI and at times, not really well done. But you can forgive that since it's not really a horror or sci-fi movie.

John Malkovich plays Julie's Father, and the leader of the human army against the zombies. I felt his role as the bad-ass military like leader didn't suit him very well. Maybe all his work as a villain in other films as well as his bad-ass character in "Red" made him a good candidate, but it didn't work for me.

SPOILER: The love that R has for Julie starts to change him, in fact "cure" him of being a zombie. This change spreads like the virus that caused the zombie apocalypse in the first place and other zombies begin to follow his example. This leads to a battle between Zombies and Bonies that is pretty funny to watch.

Was the timing of this movie planned? Hmmmm...let's see: we are at the height of The Walking Dead craze, this Summer one of the most anticipated movies is World War Z (which there is a preview for  for before Warm Bodies) and it came out just before Valentine's Day. Yeah. I would have to say that it is perfectly timed. 

Until next time, see you in the center seat.