Category Archives: Movie Reviews – O

“Olympus Has Fallen” – 4 STARS

by

22

Olympus posterLet me preface this review by saying I grew up on the action movies of the late 1980s and early 90s. In some ways I cut my movie watching teeth on the films of Schwarzenegger, Stallone, Willis, and company – the same movies that Antoine Fuqua’s “Olympus Has Fallen” undeniably and unashamedly pays homage to. From the bullets and body count to the plot holes and conveniences, “Olympus Has Fallen” mirrors those old-school action pictures. But there is another much more important thing that it has in common with the older films. It’s one heck of a fun and entertaining time. “Olympus Has Fallen” knows exactly what it wants to be. It sets its target, aims for it, and hits it dead center. I’ve always appreciated when a movie does that.

Throughout the reviews I’ve read, there seems to be two main criticisms hurled at this film. The first is that it’s nothing more than a “Die Hard” knockoff. Others blast the film for its blatant flag-waving American patriotism. I find it funny that people have gotten hung up on these two things the most. “Olympus Has Fallen” has its share of problems both structurally and narratively. But these two stumbling blocks for some didn’t hurt my experience in the least. As a matter of fact in some instances they actually helped it.

Look, the “Die Hard” gripe has some merit. In fact you could call this “Die Hard in the White House”. A mysterious terrorist group with North Korean ties attacks Washington DC in broad daylight. It starts with an air assault from a modified C130 followed by a violent ground attack which leaves many civilians dead and the city in chaos. But their prime target is the White House which they manage to take control of in 13 minutes. So much for our impenetrable national security, right? The terrorists seem to have the upper hand except for one small kink – U.S. Treasury desk jockey Mike Banning (Gerard Butler).

Now you know how this works, Banning is much more than a pencil pusher. He was at one time President Asher’s (Aaron Eckhart) Secret Service head honcho and close friend to the First Family, but an uncontrollable tragedy cost him his job. But you can’t be a one-man army just by doing Secret Service work. Just like Arnie, Sly, and Chuck in so many of their films, Banning is also a former Special Forces Ranger. Like John McClane in Nakatomi Plaza, Banning is the lone eyes, ears, and muscle inside the enemy-occupied White House. The “Die Hard” comparisons are unavoidable but is that really a bad thing? “Olympus Has Fallen” is a much better “Die Hard” film than either of the last two “Die Hard” movies. And while this doesn’t do much in terms of originality, it nicely uses several of the key ingredients that made that franchise so great.

olymp1

Then there’s the patriotism criticism. I guess I missed the announcement. When did patriotism become a liability or a weakness in a film. I can understand it becoming a problem when a movie beats you over the head with it, but that’s not the case here. There isn’t an ounce of subtlety in this movie’s pro-American spirit presentation but I don’t see why there has to be. As long as it doesn’t drown us in it. At one time there was an overload of ham-fisted patriotism in movies but that was a while ago. This was one area where the movie did feel surprisingly fresh. In other words the patriotic angle worked.

“Olympus Has Fallen” is helped by its nice supporting cast. Morgan Freeman is rock solid as always. He plays the Speaker of the House who is elevated to Commander in Chief after the President’s abduction. Melissa Leo was good as the Secretary of Defense even though she’s given a few pretty corny lines to wrestle with. I also loved seeing Robert Forster as a grumbling Army General and Angela Bassett as the head of the Secret Service.

But this is an action movie and the action is the film’s bread and butter. After a rather slow moving beginning which serves more as table setting, the action kicks in gear when the terrorists attack DC. Now I’ve heard a lot of criticism over the special effects but I don’t see it. With the exception of a few small hiccups, I thought the visuals were quite good. Maybe I got lucky but the DLP digital screen at my theater was ablaze with furious gunfire and massive explosions. The C130 attack, while preposterous, looked great and sucked me right in. There’s also a fantastic shootout on the front lawn of the White House that’s nothing more than old-school, bullet-riddled fun. Shootouts and hand-to-hand throwdowns continue throughout the rooms and halls of the White House with the percussion-heavy score amping up the macho intensity. Once the action starts you rarely have time to catch your breath.

OLYP2

In an action movie like this one has to know it’s violent. But it should be said it’s really violent. Bodies drop at an alarming rate per minute and there’s no shortage of the red stuff. A lot of blood splatters through a huge variety of violent deaths. Be prepared for the numerous neck snaps, knife stabs, and head shots. Explosions are everywhere from jets and helicopters to buses and garbage trucks. Everything is fair game for Fuqua’s explosive experts.

As I hinted at earlier, this type of movie mandatorily requires some suspension of disbelief. You also must be prepared to deal with certain gaps in logic, tons of action movie cliches, and a few gaping plot holes. These things didn’t take away from the fun I had with “Olympus Has Fallen” but they are the kinds of things that keep it from being a truly magnificent film. There are several head-scratching moments that will pull you out of the film if you allow yourself to dwell on them. Why would the entire White House security code system remain the same even though people with access to them have been fired for a year and a half? Why do these and most other action movie villains insist on dragging out their missions instead of quickly carrying them out before the heroes have time to get in their way? I could go on. There are several in this film but if you can put it aside you’ll have a good time.

For me “Olympus Has Fallen” was a trip back in time through both the film’s high-octane action as well as with its predictable shortcomings. This was the real key to my enjoyment. There was a genuine nostalgic satisfaction as well as an appreciation for a film that sets out to be a specific kind of movie and never deviates from that goal. Now those who find testosterone-driven action flicks with fast moving kill counters to be relics from an outdated genre will have a hard time digesting this film. I can understand that. But this movie really surprised me, certainly not for its perfection, but for its rousing fun factor. There are tons of bullets, loads of explosions, and pride in the American spirit. For me, that’s not necessarily a bad thing and at the end of the movie I left with a smile on my face. Mission accomplished Mr. Fuqua!

REVIEW: “Oz: The Great and Powerful”

by

31

Oz poster

Talk about a daunting task. You had to know at the outset that anyone attempting to make a prequel to the “The Wizard of Oz ” had to be prepared to face their share of analysis and scrutiny. The 1939 Victor Fleming film has long been revered as a timeless classic. So many hold dear the story of a homesick Dorothy and her little dog Toto who are whisked away to the magical land of Oz. So my big question going in was if “Oz: The Great and Powerful” could recapture the fantastical look and charm found in the original film? My biggest concern? Was this going to be another monotonous CGI-laden snoozer in the same vein as Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland”?

First off I think the approach taken by “Oz: The Great and Powerful” was a smart one. Director Sam Raimi and company didn’t try to reconnect with the beloved classic characters of the first film. Instead they focus on Oscar Diggs and how he went from a ragtag traveling circus magician to being Emerald City’s Wizard of Oz. That idea offered plenty of potential for me and eventually I found myself attracted to this film. But as I sat down in my comfy theater seat, bookended by my two excited young children, I was once again faced with the same creeping concerns. Could Raimi actually pull this off?

OZ3

Most of the reviews I’ve read have been positive but not really enthusiastic. To be honest I’ve struggled gauging my own enthusiasm as well as deciding how many passes to give the film for its shortcomings. But in the end I found myself appreciating a lot more of what the movie accomplishes and the measurement of fun I had outweighed any of the film’s flaws for me. I would never be silly enough to put it on par with the 1939 movie, but I can gladly say there’s more to this film than you may think.

James Franco plays Oscar Diggs, a struggling small-time magician for the Baum Brothers traveling circus (a fun tip of the hat to L. Frank Baum, the author of the original “Wizard of Oz” children’s book series). Oscar is a self-centered huckster who’s more focused on fame and his warped view of greatness than what really matters in life. We quickly see that the trail of deception he leaves in his real life mirrors that of his performances on stage. He’s a scoundrel and there’s not much to like about him. Of course considering the type of movie this is, it becomes pretty obvious that his redemption lies ahead. But the real interest is in following him on the journey he must take to get there.

la_ca_0226_oz

After some mischievous trickery during a stop in Kansas, Oscar ticks off the circus’ strongman and has to make a run for it. He hops in a hot air balloon and takes off but as luck would have it he’s sucked right into a tornado which transports him to the wonderful land of Oz. Sound familiar? Once there he finds out that Oz is facing a dark and dangerous threat. Oscar is perceived to be the fulfillment of a prophecy stating that a wizard would come to rid Oz of an evil wicked witch. It’s here that Oscar must choose whether to follow the path of his own self-indulgence or be willing to sacrifice for the greater good of the people. It’s a familiar struggle often seen in movies, but I love the way it works here especially considering this is a family film. It doesn’t bury or sugarcoat his moral dilemmas but it makes him face them in a way that’s satisfying for me as an adult as well as for my two kids.

Of course Oscar meets a variety of characters along the way including a winged monkey named Finley (Zach Braff) who becomes his comedic but tender sidekick and three witches, Theodora (Mila Kunis), Evanora (Rachel Weisz), and Glinda (Michelle Williams). His biggest challenge with them is figuring out who he can trust. Perhaps my favorite character he encounters is China Girl (Joey King), a china doll whose legs have been broken. It’s her story that I found to be the most moving of the entire picture. Oscar comes across her in the remains of her porcelain village. Everyone and everything is broken after a vicious attack by the wicked witch and she’s left alone. There’s a wonderful scene where Oscar fixes her legs with what he calls “magic in a bottle” (it’s simply glue). What makes the scene so good is that it mirrors an earlier scene at the circus where a young handicapped girl, a believer in Oscar’s magic, asks him to make her walk. Of course he can’t but this time he gets a chance to. It’s one of the first moments where we see a bit of the good in him.

OZ2

The story progresses and maintains a fairly predictable narrative. But it always provided an interesting turn and never allowed itself to get weighted down. But the story is just one component of the film. Many people were just as anxious to see how the film works visually. There are several techniques used to bring Oz to life. One of the best involves the shift from the black-and-white 4:3 ratio during the early circus scenes to the vibrant widescreen color we see when Oscar arrives in Oz. Both are extremely effective especially the earlier sequence which really captures the time period. But it’s in Oz where the visuals both wow and sputter.

Most of the time Oz looks tremendous with its profound colors and fantasy landscapes. But there were moments where the heavy coats of CGI were just too much. There were also a few CGI animations that were glaringly obvious. And then there’s the makeup. I was really anxious to see the wicked witch especially after being teased by her in the trailers. The first glimpse we get of her is a shadow on the wall. We get the classic hat, the pointy nose and protruding chin – everything I wanted. The problem is the shadow doesn’t match the face we get later on. During the close-ups she looks off. Her round face and silky-smooth green skin resembled something off of “The Mask”. On the other hand some of the effects were stunning. The best example is China Girl. From the way the light bounces off of her to her fluid motions, she’s a sight to behold. And for me that’s the case with most of this movie. It’s looks pretty amazing.

OZ4

I also have to mention the performances. I was pretty impressed with most of the work we see. James Franco was an interesting choice as Oscar but I think he does a good job. There were some scenes where he didn’t quite fit but there were others where I couldn’t imagine anyone handling them better. Overall I felt Franco was the glue that held everything together. If his performance fell short, so with that movie. Thankfully that wasn’t the case at all. Williams and Weisz were quite good and there are several fun familiar faces in smaller roles. But I have to admit I struggled with Kunis’ performance. I really felt she was all over the map and this was a role that was too big for her. Not big in terms of weighty, but it’s clearly something outside of her comfort zone and she’s unable to keep a level of consistency.

There are several other things I liked about the film from different nods to the 1939 movie to Sam Raimi’s own unique touches. For example his affection for horror is shown in a couple of scenes plucked straight out of “Evil Dead”. And of course there’s the great cameo by Raimi’s best buddy Bruce Campbell. All of these things help make this an enjoyable picture. It doesn’t completely cover up the movie’s predictability, Kunis’ sketchy performance, or the visual hiccups, but I was thoroughly entertained. Even better, “Oz: The Great and Powerful” is a rare family film that doesn’t strictly cater to one group or another and doesn’t fall into the trappings of so many of these movies. That alone makes it worth my money.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Thieves”

by

14

OSS 117 Poster

It may surprise some but the Oscar-winning juggernaut “The Artist” wasn’t the first collaboration between director Michel Hazanavicius and stars Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo. In 2006 the three came together to make the spy thriller spoof “OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies”. These two films couldn’t be any more different yet there is an interesting similarity. “The Artist” was a silent movie that paid tribute to an often forgotten era of moviemaking. “OSS 117” is a parody of the old 1950s and 1960s spy pictures particularly the early James Bond films. While quite different in production and intent, both have sharp eyes when it comes to the era of filmmaking they take place in.

Jean Dujardin plays OSS 117, a French secret agent who is a cross between Bond and Inspector Clouseau. He’s sent to Egypt to investigation the death and disappearance of fellow agent and friend Jack Jefferson, to stop all fighting between the Americans and Russians, and bring complete and total peace to the Middle East. To this ridiculously unreasonable task he simply replies “No problem”. In the first few scenes you get a good idea what kind of movie this is and what kind of character OSS 117 is. He has the suave and debonaire looks of Bond but the intelligence and deductive skills of Clouseau. As he was getting his assignment from his superior, I couldn’t figure out who the film was spoofing more, a nitwit secret agent or the French government for actually sending this guy. Perhaps a little of both I think.

oss 117

He lands in Egypt and meets with his contact, a beautiful local named Larmina (Bejo). It doesn’t take him any time to show her and us his utter stupidity as he tries to impress with his incorrect knowledge of the country and his offensive comments about it. That gets to one of my favorite things about this movie – it’s definitely politically incorrect. OSS 117 manages to unknowingly yet repeatedly put down the country, its people, and even its religion. Some of these scenes are hysterical and this is when his buffoonery stands out the most. We also quickly learn that he couldn’t recognize a clue if it were parked right behind him. There are so many leads and bits of evidence in plain sight that anyone other than our bumbling protagonist could see.

There are also several other hilarious running gags the go on throughout the film. There is his infatuation with a light switch and the effects it has in a chicken house (I’ll leave it at that), a reappearing spy who constantly calls in 117’s locations, and one gag that specifically focuses on 117’s always perfect hair. All of these worked for me. But there are scenes where the film goes a little over the top. For example, there’s an intense shootout later in the movie but not with guns and bullets. The weapons of choice? Chickens! Now I’ll be honest, I did chuckle a bit at that, but overall it felt a little too outlandish.

With the exception of the parody, this film looks and feels like it could have been made by the filmmakers of the late 1950s. It’s set in 1955 and Hazanavicius goes to great lengths to recreate that. He does so not just with the cars, clothing, and interior designs, but also by using the same style of special effects. I particular loved the driving sequences with the obvious rolling video screen behind them. There are also a couple of fight sequences that feel yanked right out of that period.

OSS 117 (2)

Another highlight was Dujardin. He really impressed me with his sharp sense for comedy. He’s completely believable and brings out the silly shallowness of this character who’s more interested in opportunities to wear his tuxedo and learning to smoke cigarettes. Dujardin’s wacky array of postures and facial expressions work perfectly and Bejo is a wonderful compliment. There are also several other side characters that bring in some really good laughs.

Considering the absence of good quality comedies, “OSS 117: Cairo, Nest of Spies” was a great find. I have to admit that Hazanavicius, Dujardin, and Bejo became known to me through “The Artist”. But because of the impression they made, I was immediately interested in this film just by seeing their names attached. It didn’t let me down. Now obviously this isn’t the type of comedy that everybody will respond to. But I loved the mix of subtle humor and over the top absurdity. And now I find out that Hazanavicius and Dujardin did a sequel? Sign me up!

VERDICT – 4 STARS

REVIEW: “O Brother, Where Art Thou?”

by

2

No one does off-the-wall, quirky comedy like Joel and Ethan Coen and “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” is another example of that. The brothers have written and directed a wide variety of movies including crime dramas, gangster pictures, and even a remake of a John Wayne western classic. But the Coens always find their way back to their unique and peculiar brand of humor. “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” was released in 2000 and features so much of the Coen’s signature style and presentation.

The movie is a depression-era film set in rural Mississippi. It follows Ulysses Everett McGill (George Clooney), Pete Hogwallup (John Turturro), and Delmar O’Donnell (Tim Blake Nelson), three prisoners who escape and set out to recover a “treasure” that Everett hid after knocking off an armored car. The three come across a blind man who begins prophesying about their quest saying that they will find a fortune but not the one they seek. Pay close attention to this early scene because it does come back into play later on in the film. They take off on an adventure where they encounter backwoods relatives, a crazy sheriff, George “Babyface” Nelson, seductive river sirens, the Ku Klux Klan, and more.

This is a movie that’s truly more about the journey than the destination. There are several familiar subtext and certainly an interesting ending that deals with a couple of common Coen themes. But it’s getting to that ending that offers the most enjoyment. Also, many Coen brothers films focus on specific regions of the country as well as incorporate clever usages of language. “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” is no different. The recreation of rural Mississippi during the 1930’s is fabulous. The three travel through period-perfect small towns, swampy yet beautiful bayous, and lush green forests. The film has an amazingly authentic look to it. The heightened accents and deep south lingo help give it more of a southern tang but also injects the movie with some of it funniest moments. The brothers’ almost poetic butchering of language is such fun and is just as regionally centered as several of their other films such as “Raising Arizona”, “Fargo”, and “No Country for Old Men”.

Music plays a big role in “O Brother, Where Art Thou?”. The film is filled with bluegrass, folk music, country gospel, and southern blues. One of the movies funnier turns is when the boys unwittingly create and record a smash hit song that becomes the hottest thing in the state. The song, titled “Man of Constant Sorrow”, won several awards including a Grammy. The music is spot on and adds so much to the picture. It’s clearly intended to be an important part of the storytelling and it really works regardless of whether you like that type of music or not.

The performances are strong throughout the film. Clooney really shows off his comedic side and perfectly subjects himself to the material. Nelson is great as a naive simpleton who you can’t help but love and Coen regular John Turturro is also quite good. We also get Coen favorites John Goodman as a loony one-eyed Bible salesman and Holly Hunter as Penny, Everett’s ex-wife. Ray McKinnon, one of my favorite character actors in the industry, has a small but fun role as a campaign manager and Penny’s “bona fide suitor”. Chris Thomas King, Charles Durning, Wayne Duvall, and Lee Weaver also give really good performances. The Coen’s are particular when it comes to casting and this film, like so many others, shows the benefits of that.

I’ve only scratched the surface of “O Brother, Where Art Thou?”. The movie also takes humorous looks at subjects ranging from southern politics to racism. It’s sharp dialogue and wacky antics may not appeal to everyone and they do occasionally feel a little overdone. But it’s still a remarkably well-crafted and well-written film, exactly what you would expect from Joel and Ethen Coen. The film is made with the same impressive stylistic technique that we’ve seen in other Coen films yet it creates its own unique look and feel. There’s a lot going on under the surface and the movie offers plenty of laughs. Unlike most of today’s comedies, “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” actually delivers.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS