Review - G.I. Joe Retaliation

I did watch this movie. But this movie was so weak and flawed and stupid it's not worth my time to properly review it. There's at least 100 things wrong in this film but even if they fixed every one of them I doubt I'd enjoy the film any better. If I see another reviewer compile a list maybe I'll share the link instead.

Next Movie.

Review - The Host

When I saw the trailer for this movie and did some research on the book, I developed some expectation for this film. Despite knowing that it is by the same author as the Twilight series, I thought this film had a shot of becoming something more than its source material. This film had a lot going for it; a visionary director Andrew Niccol (who directed Gattaca, The Truman Show, S1m0ne and The Terminal), an actually talented rising star Saoirse Ronan to play the title role, and a sci-fi story I honestly wanted to see done in a big budget film.

The idea of extraterrestrials invading Earth by possession of our bodies and minds is nothing new, but I really like this premise, and to me the defining work for this sub-genre was Invasion of the Body Snatchers. If you haven't seen the latter film I highly recommend you check it out from the video rentals (not sure if they'll stock it though). I loved this film though I only watched it 30 years after its release, and I really wanted to see this concept revived and explored in the psychological dimension I hoped this film would explore it while using the invasion aspect to keep me in suspense.

Well, the movie does try, and fail miserably. From a movie sense, I would argue that this was far worse  as entertainment than Twilight, and amongst the worst in terms of character driven stories I've seen on the big screen. But its biggest sin was not stupidity, plot holes or unconvincing character. It offended me the most because it took everything great about Sci-Fi films and sterilized the script till it became nothing more than a backdrop to present a soap opera played in slow motion.

A few people already warned me against seeing it but I really wanted to experience the film myself before I can dismiss it. I would say regardless of whether this film turned out good or bad or to my taste, I needed to see it anyway to end my curiousity.

An interesting world abandoned for uninteresting characters.

(spoilers alert...sort of)

As I type this I literally deleted 5 paragraphs of my draft because I couldn't elegantly explain what a betrayal this film was to the Sci-Fi genre. So lets try to do this as simply as possible.

Science Fiction genre films invite us to explore a world constructed from an author's creative interpretation of where science could one day take us, and placing characters in those worlds we hoped to see (or never see) become our reality, but has not yet come to pass. This is why Science Fiction has been saturated by ideas about our future, about the possible, the probable and the plausible. In the sub-genre of Apocalypse and post-Apocalypse, the stories are almost always about seeing how the human condition can endure in the harshest living conditions, against the mightiest and deadliest of foes, and come out on top through ingenuity, courage and sometimes, simple faith.

The Host invites us to enter a world where an alien race has invaded Earth by assimilating into humans, bringing with them their technologies far beyond that of Earth's, and providing an easy indicator of who is human and who is not. However the scenes showing a changed world counts for less than 20 minutes of the 2 hours we sat through, where the other 100 minutes we're trapped with Wanderer/Melanie in the desert cave and talking with other people and talking with herself.

The first 10 minutes where they spew out expositions and character back stories, and the last 10 minutes where you start seeing how Wanderer changes sides to help the humans, is probably the only "Sci-Fi" bit of the whole film. In between we get 1 car chase scene using Earth technology, we get a few small talks about Wanderer's background, and a small reveal about The Seeker's motivations for finding and subduing the human race. Then it's more sitting around, strolling in the cave, farming and avoiding detection from the helicopters overhead.

We are presented the opportunity to explore a post-invasion world where humanity has been bettered by the removal of humanity itself. And it is pushed aside so that we can have a 'character'-driven story. I say character quote unquote because there really isn't much character in this film. The interactions between Wanderer, Melanie and The Seeker has a few (very few) good moments, the rest of the humans and Souls are completely forgettable and unimportant to the story. The romance Wanderer/Melanie shares with Ian and Jared is unconvincing, the uncle is cool but he doesn't really develop much as a character, and the younger brother, well, he's not that bad an actor is the only positive I've got. 

Andrew Niccol manages to get his hand on a fairly decent cast and does almost nothing with them. Nothing substantial happens in most of this film. There really isn't much tension, there isn't much at stake, and even the climax lasted less than 2 minutes, then we drag on the resolution for another 20 minutes before the film ends on an unsatisfactory note. The scene where Melanie tries to kill herself at the beginning is arguably the most profound decision made by the character, perhaps the most effective scene in the whole film, and it was glossed over as a flashback just to get the story going. Seriously I think the trailer was a better film than the film itself.

And it is perhaps a worse offense for Sci-Fi films to be unsubstantial than to be filled with plot holes and inaccuracies. This film has no plot holes because its plot is very thin, and not much of the world it takes place in is explored, explained or even hinted at. We never learn where the Souls really come from, we never learn how they found or chose Earth, we can't really tell them apart from normal humans because of the 'personalities' we see in Wanderer and The Seeker, and the way Souls can be removed from the Host safely, is just plain weak. 

The Annoying Inner Voice

For the most part, you get a feeling that the aliens are very hygienic, orderly and sterile in both appearance and the way they interact. Perhaps it was designed for contrast, because Melanie's inner voice is so annoying and, for the most part, juvenile. I'm all for the concept of the resilient mind surviving in the occupied mind, but most of the time her vocal mannerism is so immature and simplistic, she behaves more like a parasite inside Wanderer than a duality of being. 

The way she talks and reacts to situations often removes any character depth built by her other half, who in my opinion wasn't done that badly, but it any atmosphere the choreographer tried to create through the set design, colors, lighting, soft lens and fairly effective use of angle shots is quickly killed once Melanie talks.

In a way this 'portrayal' of Melanie makes the film more realistic, but disrupts the tone (albeit a really slow, melancholic and empty tone) and reduces the film to sounding almost like a Saturday morning Disney show in a few dialogues, particularly as Wanderer humanizes.

Also it is kind of boring that we never 'see' the real Melanie talk with Wanderer the way people with multiple personality disorders might through the reflection of mirrors. Granted a visualisation of their dialogues wouldn't really improve the film much but as it stands, this film has been fairly lazy and budget conscious.

I think I'll just go to the nitpicks

I really don't like this film, but I realise that the more I try to think of reasons why I don't like it, the less I'm coming up with. Perhaps it's because this film is essentially a blank slate. It provides you with a shell, with underdeveloper characters, unclear rules and a larger universe that has yet to be shown. In a book this would be effective but again in film adaptations we expect the director to populate the world for us to some degree, so that whether we like it or not, at least we can see our ideas of the world realised in some form or another.

I think my main complaint for this film ultimately is lack of substance. The film was two hours, but I felt like I was fed maybe 20-30 minutes of actual content, yet it's so draggy in most scenes I felt like I've been watching for a thousand years. I learnt nothing, felt nothing, remembered almost nothing (especially the expository scenes), and now expect nothing of its sequels (if they ever get produced). And even the worst of Sci-Fi films like Battlefield Earth, as stupid and flawed as it is, at least was entertaining to laugh at. The Host, is not only complete failure as entertainment, it also fails in providing any thought-provoking ideas for Sci-Fi lovers, and I believe even for most of the general audience, they should be refunded.

The Nitpicks

Most of my nitpicks are related to things not explained in the film. Maybe they are in the book but I'm going by movie logic:

• The film says that Souls can only exist by bonding with another lifeform, and that they cannot survive without a host. So...where, when and how did Souls exist in the first place? Did they exist in another entity but then lost their physical form? Explanation wanted/needed!
  
• If the Souls' only purpose in invading was to survive by bonding with hosts, then shouldn't invading one world be enough? What's the point in invading every world? Are there that many Souls out there that need a home?
  
• It doesn't look hard to disguise yourself as a Human or a Soul; just need to wear contact lens! After all the only way both sides check your terrestriality is with a torch light.
  
• After Melanie tries to kill herself to avoid capture and assimilation, one of the Souls says that she is still alive despite all her critical bone and organ damages. Then he says that she must have a strong reason to live. Wouldn't she have a stronger reason to die? I don't know, in retrospect it seems like she might be weaker than the Souls think since she wanted to die but failed to commit to it.
  
• Wanderer says she's at least 1000 Earth years old and have seen 8 different worlds, and she fell in love with Ian? It's not as creepy as Edward and Bella but still doesn't digest well. Also they have like no chemistry anyway.
  
• How does the Soul-occupied Earth operate economically? As far as I can see Souls get free medical care and can visit shops where you don't need to pay. If this is a moneyless society that actually works, I want to learn more! See what they are doing right that we can use. Not explained!
  
• Towards the end of the film, Wanderer teaches Doc that a Soul can be safely removed from a Human host, thus restoring the original Human mind without harming the Soul. But at the start of the film it is explained that most humans "fade away". So...what happens if you safely remove a soul from a Human who has faded away? Do they wake up like from a coma or do they stay faded away? No explanation either :(

Review - Oz The Great and Powerful

I did not enjoy this Oz prequel.

When I first saw the trailer for this movie, I was fairly hyped up. The colors and visuals looked outstanding, the idea for the story, while done to death, seemed like it would be a faithful and consistent prequel to the 1939 classic, while providing us a fun experience despite knowing what the ultimate fate of Oz is going to be going into the cinema.

But, while viewing the film tonight (yes I know it's already been out for like 3 weeks; been busy), I realized there's something else I didn't notice before (and probably should have before I chose to watch it). This is a G rated film, which means it is meant for kids. So I cannot really assess this film the same way I normally do with other adult-oriented films...or can I?

<Spoilers>

Sam Raimi, 1939 and Elphaba

The director of this film is Sam Raimi, who also directed the earlier Spiderman trilogy (not the current one). He also managed to drag along James Franco which, in my opinion, was a fairly good casting choice as the deceptive charmer that is Oscar Diggs. I find that Raimi's sense of humor has been hit and miss when it comes to blockbusters, and in this film he's wisely toned it down. If he didn't I would have really hated this film.

Now the reason I only partly hate this film is because there is content in this film which pays respect to its most famous predecessor, The 1939 Wizard of Oz. I imagine most children would never have had the privilege to be introduced this cinematic classic, except maybe occasionally hear someone sing "somewhere over the rainbow" at <Country>'s Got Talent, which is perhaps the most famous song from that film, and I dare say one of the most important songs to usher in 4 decades of musicals and films which followed its initial release.

When Oscar actually arrives in the land of Oz, his hot-air balloon does briefly fly over a rainbow, which I'm hoping is a subtle wink to the adult audience, who at least a percentage would've taken a glance of the 1939 film this film precedes and understood the reference. There are also a few gentle references littered throughout the movie of the origin of the tin man, the scarecrows and the cowardly lion (and apparently even Dorothy's mum makes a cameo).

Unfortunately, this origin story of Oz and the witches does undo some recent efforts in expanding the story and world of Oz, specifically the musical Wicked. If you have watched this musical you would have experienced a very different back story to the witches in Oz as well as the character of Oz himself. There is no Elphaba in this origin story, yet there is a Glinda, and based on this story Glinda knew Oz before he established himself as the Wizard, as opposed to having met Oz post-ordination.

Keeping in mind that there are dozens more adaptations of Wizard of Oz, including prequels, sequels, midquels and spin-offs, I guess I can't be too harsh when this doesn't fit nicely with the other two aforementioned productions. But it means that I need to throw away any prior knowledge of Oz and its inhabitants if I am to embrace the world this film introduces, which is hard when they do reference at least one other film related to this setting.

At least they're not abandoning this film to a dead-end?

3 D's: Distraction, Dizzying and Disappointment

I've never really been sold that movies should be filmed with stereoscopy in mind, which from the opening sequence I could already tell they were planning to reward the parents who paid the extra $3 to go see this in 3D. I did not see this in 3D, and I never do the first time I watch a film (unless it's a big group of friends and I'm not wearing my review hat). The last 3D film I watched was Wreck-It Ralph and surprise, the 3D added nothing to my experience of the film (it was a good film nonetheless).

When watching the 'visual' sequences in 2D, especially the hurricane into Oz, it was really hard to digest because of the overt clarity of each frame, which actually undermines the visually entrancing world the programmers worked hard in. Our brains can process 24 frames per second but not 24 photos per second. Evidently this wasn't an issue in the 3D version, but in 2D I found myself looking away from time to time to give my eyes a break from the overwhelming sharpness and surprisingly intense movement. The camera is just panning around the scenery but when those purple butterflies scatter on the screen it's more like having a thousand butterflies flying in front of my face pointing led lights at me.

I wouldn't say this causes major problems to following the story, because during the drama and dialogue scenes it's filmed normally. It is however disappointing because if we cut out those sequences only made for kids to enjoy in 3D, the film could be 30 minutes shorter.

You can also tell that they've designed the characters with visual association in mind. Why do the witches have elemental powers? Theodora with Fire, Evanora with Lightning and Glinda with Water I presume (since she can create mist, wind and bubbles). Are they like Pokemon? Then Evanora should be weak against Glinda, but then again she is in an evolved form so I guess she has a level advantage.

This decision to give each witch unique powers does not contribute much to the story. It is strictly a way to manipulate our emotions about each witch to more firmly associate them with a moral faction. Fire and Lightning are 'bad' powers, while Fog and Bubble are 'good' powers. Are they tied to the true nature of that person? Do the witches have to select their element when they first start training like you pick Bulbasaur, Squirtle or Charmander before leaving Pellet Town?

"You don't know much about witches do you?" ~Evanora

I'm probably reading into this a bit too much but drinking all that apple juice is making me want to crossover some of my childhood shows.

The 'almost' redemptive side characters

While I did say James Franco was a good casting choice for Oscar, I didn't like this portrayal of the character. His journey from despicable con man to good-natured con man was very clunky and even at the end when he decides saves Oz, it feels like his change of heart happened off screen. That scene with the China girl it seems like he already changed his mind about leaving even before tucking her into bed. So yeah, his character development is a fail in my books.

The witches were pretty one-dimensional. The bad witches you could tell immediately that they were bad, Glinda you could tell immediately that she were good.

The things I did like in this film were the two small guys: the winged monkey Finley and the China girl. Their character developments were had some scissor cutting and gluing, but Finley got a few chuckles out of me here and there (especially the banana joke), and the China girl did move me a bit when it was time for some drama.

Unfortunately, these moments were stripped of their power on us the audience too quickly. After the touching scene where the China girl gets fixed by Oscar while grieving the loss of her family, the next scene is the "annoying kids wants to follow along" cliche, which really takes you out of the film, almost like Sam Raimi said "okay, we can't make this movie too serious or the kids will get uncomfortable". I think there were a total of 4 scenes that had real emotions and stakes, but never lasted more than 1 minute each.

Well at least I did like the side characters. By the way, Finley to Oscar is eerily like Donkey to Shrek. Another theft from Dreamworks?

Now for the REAL hate

I haven't addressed the two biggest problems I had with this film, so lets talk about that for a bit.

Firstly, the lesson taught to kids is really messed up. While escaping the flying baboons in the middle of the movie, Oscar and Glinda fly in bubbles towards the 'safer' part of Oz, whereby they must pass through a wall which only those noble and good-natured will be able to pass through. That's basically God in the form of a bubble, and along with the ending of this movie, suggests that you are born to be good, or born to be evil, and that no matter what your current actions, thoughts and motives are, you are still what your underlying nature is. It is telling kids that "some people are just born to be evil". I thought the lesson should be "it's not what you are, but what you do that defines you".

In my opinion Oscar was a selfish, narcissistic, unethical and overall despicable womeniser in the first half of the film, and if he died during that hurricane he would've died an evil man. But he redeems himself by choosing to stay and do what he can to protect the people of Oz from the wicked witches, so that at the end of the film he becomes good, through his current actions and choices. Movies for kids need more effort than for adults because they have less experience in discerning what they are fed in films. I'm not saying they're sheep that will just believe anything given to them, but certainly they are more influenced by it. So in a way, filmmakers should put more effort and thought and heart into making children's films than for adult films, and so I think there wasn't enough effort in this one.

The other big problem for me was that freaking hot air balloon. I was going to save this for the nitpicks but it was too big a blunder for me. How in God's name did that balloon not be torn to shreds in that tornado, where debris is flying at speeds no less than 80kmph if it can lift up a carnival wagon. Statistically the balloon would've only survived maybe 15 seconds before popping and leaving Oscar helpless to an inevitable drop. Maybe magic from Oz protected it but it's never explained nor justified.

This is especially annoying because once he does land on a running stream in Oz, some rocks punches a hole in his basket pretty quickly, which if it's a 19th century hot air balloon, the balloon itself is probably made of sackcloth and paper, while the Basket is made of Wicker, which is many times stronger and more resilient to impact with other solid objects, especially sharp ones. Sackcloth and paper could easily be punctured by one splinter wood travelling at dart throwing speeds. I guess someone's magic must have protected the balloon, though no idea who was controlling it.

</Spoilers>

Prestidigitation!

To my slight embarrassment I had to google this word. Oscar mentions it with grandeur at least twice in the film, and apparently it's just a fancy word for "sleight of hand". I think the marketing team pulled off a sleight of hand trick and made me go see this film.

I can see how kids would enjoy this film, but there is not much in it for me.  The occasional jokes were insufficient to save the show. Too many times I had to look away, too easily I could predict how the story unfolds. There wasn't anything majorly bad, but also nothing majorly good. It's mediocre, and if it were one of those carnival sideshows I'd probably only put in my smallest change to commend them for the effort.

To paraphrase Theodora, like Oscar himself, the film is not so great or powerful.

4 / 10.

And finally, the nitpicks

1. There was a random Asian dude among the crowd in the second act, when Oscar was trying to decide how he should respond to the hopes and expectations of the good people of Oz. You can obviously tell he's Asian and stands out in a crowd of Anglo-saxons like a sore thumb. Why even put him there if he doesn't say anything or do anything? It's just random! Must be the new Hollywood quota. Like those poor Asian S.H.I.E.L.D. agents who die within the first two minutes of The Avengers and then we see no other Asians throughout the rest of the film. I wouldn't cry racist but I would caution that if you're going to fill a race quota in your film, give them something to do, like Hikaru Sulu in Star Trek.

2. How did this tornado transport Oscar to Oz? Was it a wormhole? Is Kansas really within Tornado-transportable distance from the Land of Oz? I want to know about the geography or physics of it! Three different movies I've watched about the Land of Oz and none of it explains how the two worlds are connected!

3. Who made that prophecy about the coming Wizard of Oz? Are we going to have another prequel to explain the motivation?

4. Now it is established that when witches cry their tear burns their face and leaves scars. This is the first thing the film teaches about witches, which it basically abandons when Glinda cries during the climax of the film, tears for the same reason, but no acid-burning effect? Hmm maybe only wicked witches have acid for tears.

5. Oscar, Finley and China Girl immediately believe Glinda isn't the wicked witch because she looks pretty and she tells them an alternative backstory with no substantial proof to back up her claims.

6. Citizens in Emerald City protest to Theodora and Evanora's public execution of Glinda despite everyone believing she is the Wicked Witch who killed her own father. There were no scenes that establish citizens doubting or questioning of the original rumors.

7. The "China town" sign after picking up the China girl for the journey, another pointless Asian joke...no idea why it was funny but I guess it's as good a cultural reference pun as they could think of.

8. Robert Downey Jr would have been a much more ideal casting choice for Oscar compared to James Franco, but I guess he's too busy working on Iron Man 3, which I am hyped about!

9. Mila Kunis' make up when she turns green is worse than the ones on Elphaba in a high school production. Apart from delivering one good witch laugh the rest of her portrayal as the new wicked witch is just unconvincing.

10. There were no songs I could singalong to. There was only one song briefly sung throughout the film (by the munchkins) but it's unbearable, forgettable and I wanted them to stop as much as Oscar did.

11. So Glinda is a witch, but her father was the King of Oz, which means he was the former Wizard. Does that mean Wizards give birth to Witches now? I swear something is missing or wrong here...or did my understanding of European folklore just get mangled up?

12. Who was Glinda's mum? God Disney movies and their dysfunctional families >.<