The Internship

The Internship (2013)

Predicted Rating: 1.5 Stars

Directed by: Shawn Levy (Date Night). Starring: Vince Vaughn (Old School), Owen Wilson (Zoolander) and Rose Byrne (Insidious)

Two long time watch salesmen, Billy McMahon (Vaughn) and Nick Campbell (Wilson) find out in the middle of a sale that their company has closed down and they have lost their jobs. After hitting rock bottom, Billy's solution to their financial problems is that he and Nick get an internship at Google. The two find themselves up against a bunch of young geniuses fighting it out for five jobs. Teamed with a bunched of misfits, Billy and Nick must beat the odds as the winning team secures the available jobs. As well as fighting the odds, Nick finds himself attracted to middle management Google employee Dana (Byrne).

Well all I can say is that was downright terrible. I wasn't really expecting much after viewing the trailer but as with many movies these days, all of the good parts are packed into the trailer. It would have been good to have seen some more in the movie to at least keep me entertained. However, I was more entertained by the people in the audience. There was one guy who would laugh at the most inappropriate times at the top of his lungs. In the end I was laughing at him more that the actual movie. All the actual film did was make me angry. Essentially it made everyone from generation Y seem like they have no interest in social interaction and really makes us all look like assholes. There were obviously the characters that had a burst of personal development and by the end of the film seemed like good guys, however the damage was already done. Apart from the two main characters, i.e. the Gen X'ers Vaughn and Wilson, there are no lovable characters from the get-go putting a huge dent in the already tarnished reputation of generation Y.

Apart from showing a blatant disregard for an entire generation, The Internship was intended to be a giant advertisement on how good it is to work for Google. In my opinion this was a substantial risk that did not pay off. Yes they did display how fun it would be to work at Google with a constant reminder that all the food is free and their main modes of transport are funky looking bikes and slides. However, I think the inclusion of Google has been more detrimental than beneficial to both the company and the film. Having the focus as Google made the film seem tacky and commercial. It was also a bad move for Google as the script was terrible, there were very little likable characters and it was essentially a movie that went through the motions. Maybe it is me being cynical but I am at the stage where I have viewed so many films that for a comedy to be considered good it has to be quirky and different, where The Internship is far from these. Also I wonder if the people who enjoyed this film are exactly the people you would like to work for your company. These would be the same people who enjoy the comedy stylings of Dane Cook and find Two and a Half Men bearable. In the end I have come to the conclusion that I would not like to work for Google.

Despite its downfalls there is somethings I found, I was going to say enjoyable but I don't think that is right word, so I am going to say relatable. Even though on paper I am young and part of Gen Y, at heart I am more of an old man and should belong with either Gen X or the Baby Boomers. As a result I could relate with the two fish out of water characters Nick and Billy. I could see myself in the same situation as those two as I have the same method of thinking in the workplace, rather than those young go-getters. Even though they were just used as comedic filler I did have a chuckle at some of the cultural references that were  included. They were definitely overdone and just added in there so people would think hey I have seen that somewhere but I did enjoy some of them. If they were done in moderation the cultural references would have been more effective.

Overall: Essentially an ineffective advertisement for Google that was detrimental to both parties. 1 Star

Thumbs down: Don't go see this movie.

Star Trek Into Darkness

Star Trek Into Darkness

Predicted Rating: 4 Stars

Directed by: J.J. Abrams (Super 8). Starring: Chris Pine (Smokin' Aces), Zachary Quinto (Heroes) and Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock).

After an ill-fated mission, Captain Kirk (Pine) is demoted to first officer of the Starship Enterprise and Spock (Quinto) reassigned to another vessel. A terror attack in London prompts the Starfleet captains to hold a meeting, attended by both Spock and Kirk as well as the new captain of the Enterprise, Chris Pike (a very good Peter Weller). Rogue Starfleet agent John Harrison (Cumberbatch) proceeds to attack the meeting, gunning down Captain Pike. Harrison then flees to the Klingon homeland Kronos and it is up to Kirk and Spock to take back the Enterprise and capture Harrison.

As I cannot write this review without revealing something that essentially made me cream my pants, I will write two reviews; one for those who haven't watched the movie yet and one for those who have.

For those who are yet to watch Star Trek Into Darkness

Go and see this movie!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5 Stars

For those who have watched Star Trek Into Darkness

All I can say is well done Paramount Pictures. As an avid Trekkie, I did a fair amount of research on this film before it was released, in particular on the villain, John Harrison, played by Benedict Cumberbatch. There were absolutely no hints about the true identity of Harrison, which of course is the one and only Khan Noonien Singh. The regular readers of this blog would know that Star Trek II: Wrath of Khan is one of my favourite movies ever and my close friends will know how much a talk about this film. Heading into Star Trek Into Darkness I was hoping that there would just be a mention of Khan, allowing the set up of him as the villain in a sequel. When it was revealed that Harrison was in fact Khan, essentially all my dreams came true. In my opinion, Khan is one of the greatest movie villains of all time and I have been counting down the days until his return. As a result of my love for Khan, it was important that the new movie did his legacy justice.In my opinion this was achieved. Cumberbatch's performance was simply sublime. Given he didn't have the pectoral muscles possessed by Ricardo Moltalban but what he lacked in muscle mass he most certainly made up in pure evil. My only criticism was that there needed to be more Khan, really exploring his back story and really bringing out his pure evil. On occasions he was almost pushed aside by the special effects. Even though they were amazing, this is reflective of the path modern cinema has taken. However, hopefully Khan will return for a sequel, allowing his true genius to blossom.

The recent Star Trek reboot is an interesting series. They are supposed to be the Star Trek movies that aren't Star Trek movies. There is a certain social stigma involved with Star Trek. People assume that only the super nerdy enjoy the series and being seen enjoying something Star Trek related is essentially social suicide. This is extremely unfortunate because the Star Trek universe is something that should be enjoyed by young and old. The original series was ground breaking television and despite a few anomalies, it is still extremely scientifically accurate. Many common pieces of technology used today, such as the mobile phone and tablet, were inspired by Star Trek. Also, despite a couple of poor attempts, the movies are amazing. I believe that Wrath of Khan is one of the greatest movies ever made. So in the end I am a huge supporter of what J.J. Abrams is attempting to do and open up Star Trek to a wider audience and now hopefully more people will appreciate Star Trek for what it actually is.

I was going to write a concluding paragraph further enhancing how much I enjoyed this film but I will just end with this: KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Overall: I would love to give this film a million stars because I loved it so much but I should tone it down. 5 Stars

The Hangover Part III

The Hangover Part III

Predicted Rating: 4 Stars

Directed by: Todd Phillips (Old School). Starring: Bradley Cooper (Silver Linings Playbook), Ed Helms (The Office) and Zach Galifianakis (The Campaign)

The third and final instalment of the Hangover trilogy sees Alan (Galifianakis) go off the rails after the death of his father (Jeffrey Trambor). As a result, the remaining members of the wolf pack, Phil (Cooper), Stu (Helms) and Doug (Justin Bartha), decide to give Alan an intervention and send him to rehab. On their way to the centre, they are kidnapped by drug lord Marshall (John Goodman). It is revealed that Marshall was robbed by the gang's old friend Leslie Chow of $21 million in gold. It is now up to the wolf pack (minus Doug who was taken by Marshall as insurance) to track down Chow and return the gold.

The Hangover franchise is an interesting one. The original is the definition of a sleeper hit. Filmed on a relatively low budget ($35 million), there was minimal advertising related to the films release. As a result, it had a fairly modest taking on the opening weekend but through word of mouth, the film took off by week three making it one of the most successful comedies of all times. Faced with what could be a massively popular franchise but left with an original that appeared to be a one trick pony, the studio must become inventive in order to sustain the popularity of the original. For the sequel, essentially the same format was kept, i.e. the search for a missing person after a severe bout of amnesia, but to seem different, it tried to push the line of what was acceptable. On occasions the film was funny but in my opinion, instead of pushing the line, Part II jumped over the line and urinated on the line's cold dead corpse. Here I am really referring to the affair between Stu and the Ladyboy.

The third instalment takes a huge turn in the opposite direction. Like many other parts 3's in a trilogy, The Hangover Part III, takes a much more serious and dark approach in an attempt to seem original and essentially round out the series. This was something I am not really a fan of because it didn't really feel like a Hangover film. They are supposed to be fun and lighthearted whilst still being vulgar, however Part III took itself way too seriously. Don't get me wrong, there were many funny occasions during the film, however they seemed masked behind the seriousness of the action scenes. In the end Part III is no match for the original. It was obvious before watching that Part III would not be as good as Part I, in fact it will be difficult for any other movie to match it, but I thought it would be closer in quality. As a result, Part III is probably closer to Part II, a reasonable movie but there was that slight sense of disappointment after watching them.  

Another interesting point to study in the Hangover series is the character development, or the lack there of. In the first two instalments, the three main character's personal development seemed to stagnate. They often appear to learn from their mistakes but quickly forget what they have learned and make the same mistake over and over. However, this is something I like because the characters, especially Alan, are so unique to start off, it would be a shame to see them change. It is their flaws that make them so lovable and seeing the characters develop would see them lose their charm and essentially rob the movies of so many good moments. Part III is the first in the series that attempts to develop a character, in particular forming a relationship between Alan and a woman. This change was effective because he remained the same old love-to-hate-to-love Alan but we got to see a different side of him. The disappointing part was that the same principle was not applied to the other characters. I would have liked to see some focus applied to the development of Phil and Stu because they seemed to stagnate and almost become boring.

I would like to end with a quick theory, Stu is in fact Wolverine. Not because he has an adamantium skeleton, but because of his ridiculous healing abilities. In Part 1, he recovers extremely quickly from the removal of his own tooth. In Part II, his face tattoo heals almost instantly with no infection even after it was administered in a back alley Thai tattoo studio. I won't specify what it is because it is supposed to be the "shock ending" but in Part III, Stu undergoes a fairly elaborate procedure with absolutely no bruising or scaring the next day. So either he is unconscious for a significantly longer period of time or Stu is in fact Wolverine.

Overall: Takes it self way to seriously and doesn't really feel like a Hangover Film, however I still recommend seeing this film if you have any questions remaining from the first two instalments. 3 Stars.

Oblivion

Oblivion (2013)

Predicted Rating: 2.5 stars

Directed by: Joseph Kosinski (Tron Legacy). Starring: Tom Cruise (Mission: Impossible), Morgan Freeman (The Shawshank Redemption), and Olga Kurylenko (Quantum of Solace)

Set in the year 2077, 60 years after the Earth was invaded by a race of aliens known as Scavengers (Scavs), Oblivion sees the Earth left a deserted wasteland. After the moon is destroyed, the human race is forced to flee to the moon Titan even though the human race had defeated the Scavs. After having their memory wiped, Jack Harper (Cruise) and his communications officer, Victoria (Andrea Riseborough), are stationed on the planet to maintain the machines designed to harness energy from the Earth's ocean and repair the drones that are use to patrol the area and destroy the remaining Scavs. Jack is constantly haunted by a woman in his dreams that appears to have some link to his past (Kurylenko). After a mysterious object crashes nearby, Jack discovers that it is a human space ship inhabited by the woman from his dreams. From this point forward, the events from the past are revealed...

Well tie me down and call me Sally, I did not expect that at all. Going into the movie I expected a mundane Sci-Fi movie and even twenty minutes in I just expected Oblivion to go through the motions and end in the same direction it started. It actually did everything but. It had more twists and turns that Chubby Checker in a blender. Maybe I enjoyed it more because I wasn't expecting a monumental plot twist (and I am sorry I have just ruined the mystery for everyone now). I don't mean to brag but I am reasonably good at picking plot twists when I know there is one coming. I picked maybe the three most infamous plot twists, The Sixth Sense, Fight Club, and Sleepaway Camp, during the movie on the basis that there was going to be one. As I was not expecting one in Oblivion, it hit me in the face like a rogue salmon. This made this film an intellectual thrill ride as you had no idea what was going to happen next and just as you thought you worked everything out, it completely changed direction once more.

One word I was reluctant in using in the above accolade was original. On the surface, Oblivion appears an innovative and ground breaking piece of Sci-Fi folklore. However, when you dig down further you find out it is essentially a mash-up of themes and story lines from other Sci-Fi classics. Jack having a recurring dream about a woman from his past is very similar to what is explored in Brazil. The lone man fighting against a unknown army on a post-apocalyptic Earth is the same story line as The Omega Man. This one is being a bit pedantic but during the film there was an image of the Statue of Liberty shown which is a firm reminder that if the world does end, stay away from the statue as the image has been used in countless disaster movies including Cloverfield, The Day After Tomorrow, Escape from New York, and most infamously, Planet of the Apes. There are also two glaringly obvious plots that are borrowed but I will not reveal them as they will give away the ending. I know it is hard to be original in today's Sci-Fi, well in any genre really, but Oblivion pushes the line of blatant plagiarism at times.

After finishing the movie, I was unsure whether this movie would, excuse the pun, fade into oblivion like so many other Sci-Fi's. Many Sci-Fi's, such as Star Wars, Star Trek and Blade Runner, stay in movie folklore for a long time and are enjoyed by generations to come. Other films, such as Dune, Lifeforce, and Cocoon, whilst being good films, seem to come and go like the bus. Oblivion appears to be stuck in the middle. It is to commercial to become a cult classic and it is too intellectual to become a commercial success. Unfortunately, the formula seems to be that if your Sci-Fi has a one word title it will be long forgotten. Oblivion appears to be destined for the same fate as its one word predecessors.

Overall: A highly enjoyable intellectual thrill ride that pays homage to many Sci-Fi classics, 3.5 stars. Thumbs up - go and see this movie.

Next Time: Unfortunately I will be on a six week hiatus meaning that I miss out on such movies as The Hangover III, Fast and the Furious 6, The Great Gatsby, Iron Man 3 and most disappointingly The Evil Dead and Star Trek Into Darkness. Hopefully I can watch these when I return.

Jurassic Park 3D

Jurassic Park (1993)

Directed by: Steven Spielberg (Jaws, Schindler's List). Starring: Sam Neill (The Hunt for Red October), Laura Dern (Blue Velvet) and Jeff Goldblum (The Fly).

Slightly kooky businessman John Hammond (Richard Attenborough) discovers how to clone dinosaurs from fossilised mosquitoes and decides that it is a good idea to make a theme park featuring them. In order to keep some pesky lawyers off his back, Hammond employs the help of paleontologist Dr. Alan Grant (Neill), paleobotanist Dr. Ellie Sattler (Dern), and wise talking chaos theorist Dr. Ian Malcolm (Goldblum) to endorse his park. In a freak tropical storm, computer programmer Dennis Nedry (a very funny Wayne Knight) shuts down the park's security system to steal the dinosaur embryos. Meanwhile Grant, Sattler and Malcolm along with Hammond's two grandchildren, Lex and Tim, are stuck outside the T-Rex enclosure. As the security system is shut down, the T-Rex escapes causing Malcolm to become injured and child hating Grant, Lex, and Tim to be stuck inside the park. It is now a race against time to restart the security system, rescue Grant and the kids, and fight off the T-Rex, Velociraptors and friends.

Now we should all know by now that Jurassic Park is one of the greatest movies ever made so there is no point me reviewing the actual movie. As a result I will look at how well the film transferred to 3-D, whether the special effects still hold up today, and the overall viewing experience.

Those devoted readers of this blog will know that I am not a fan of 3D movies. They are well and truly overdone, they seem tacky most of the time, and wearing those glasses for two hours straight is damn-well annoying. So you may ask, why would I spend an exuberant amount of money to potentially ruin one of my favourite movies of all time as opposed to watching it one more time on DVD in the comfort of my bedroom? I will answer that question with another question, can you think of any other classic movie that would be more suited to a 3D conversion? The only other film that could be considered would be Independence Day.  As a result, this was the most enjoyable 3D experience I have had. The transfer wasn't perfect as there were occasions when I had to adjust my glasses because there were two Richard Attenboroughs on the screen. Other than that I was pleasantly surprised. The question is, does the 3D add anything to the experience? I am going to say yes for once. If you are as a big of a fan of Jurassic Park as I am, you will have a massive smile on your face the entire viewing even though you have seen the movie several times before. It is well worth a viewing on the big screen just to hear the T-Rex roar at an ear splitting volume.

It is hard to believe that this movie is 20 years old, so the question is, do the special effects still hold up today? Some movies, such as Blade Runner, have special effects that will still wow you today, whilst other movies, such as Tron and Escape from New York, while still are fantastic movies, have aged terribly. It is fortunate to say that Jurassic Park would not look out of place if it was released today. Twenty years ago, Jurassic Park was a technological marvel. Even though the performances of Goldblum and Knight are marvellous, it is the dinosaurs that are the star of the show. It took the genius of Spielberg to bring them to life but my word do they steal the spotlight. I have recently watched this movie at home on my relatively small TV but the tough question is whether Jurassic Park holds it's own on a big 10 m by 10 m screen. Fortunately the answer is yes.

I would like to share something with you all that I saw when leaving the cinema. Upon exiting, I realised that there was a blind woman at the screening. This got me thinking, Jurassic Park would be an amazing film to sit through if you couldn't see. You could make anything of the scene when you hear people panicking when the power goes down to it finally culminating into the roar from the T-Rex. The lady was probably scared out of her mind but it would have been a fantastic experience for her.

Unfortunately, I think this cinematic run lasts for only a week so you will not be able to go see Jurassic Park in the cinema, otherwise I would strongly recommend you do. As an alternative, I propose grabbing the Blu-Ray, finding the biggest TV you can, turn up the volume as loud as you can, and enjoy a fantastic movie.

Film: Top 100 ever made
Transfer: 4 Stars

Next Time: Tom Cruise still thinking he is in his 20's, Oblivion

 

G.I. Joe: Retaliation

G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2012)

Predicted Rating: 1.5 Stars

Directed by: Jon M. Chu. Starring: Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson (Walking Tall), kind of Channing Tatum (21 Jump Street) and sort of Bruce Willis (Die Hard).

Set after the events of the 2009 shamble, G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra, G.I. Joe: Retaliation sees the Joes, now lead by Duke (Tatum) and his deputy, Roadblock (Johnson), infiltrate a military base in Pakistan with their mission to seize their nuclear weapons. The Joes are then framed for the murder of the Pakistan President and are attacked immediately after the mission, ultimately ending in the death of Duke. It is revealed that the President of the USA has been captured and impersonated by master of disguise, Zartan. He sets out to free Cobra Commander and Sir Not Appearing in this Film, i.e. Destro, from a maximum security prison to fulfil the ultimate goal of destroying the world. Roadblock enlists the help of former Joe, General Joseph Colton (Willis), to destroy Cobra Commander and save the world.

If you are looking for a film to challenge your mind and break boundaries, this is not the film for you. It is about as intelligent as the cast from the Jersey Shore. Well that was a bit harsh but it was the only analogy I could think of. The plot is as easy to follow as a fat guy who is running away with your stuff and the dialect appeared to be written by a two year old. However, the thing that was most disconcerting about this film was the insistence of constantly repeating the characters name. It is not just a repetition though, it is a pure emphasis. Don't you agree ROADBLOCK. Yes I do SNAKE EYES. Yes I remembered your name the first time you mentioned it.

After the disappointment of the first instalment of this series, it was definitely time to call in the cavalry and there are no two bigger names in action movies that The Rock and Bruce Willis. The Rock is starting to develop a habit for answering the call to save franchises. He almost single handily resurrected the Fast and the Furious by appearing in Fast 5. He then essentially added some renewed interest for the hillbillies in WWE. Then there is Bruce Willis. His appearance could add some credibility to even the worst of movie franchises, that's right his appearance would even make me consider watching a Twilight film. So the question is, do they make G.I. Joe: Retaliation a good film? The answer is probably no. However, without their appearance, it would be even more of a shamozle than it already is, causing it to lose a heap of money. So in the end, this was a very, very wise move by the producers.

When I was watching the film, I knew that there was something slightly wrong with the direction but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. There were some very good action scenes, such as the one where they are fighting on the mountainside, that would look fantastic on paper, but didn't really translate onto the screen. As a normal part of my review, I consult the very reliable source of Wikipedia to determine what other films our director has been involved in. Upon reading the profile of Jon M. Chu, I soon realised why I was slightly put off. His credits contained not one, but two Step Up movies and what was even worse, he directed the Justin Bieber movie. Really! Allowing those to appear on your Wikipedia page is like completing a Chemistry degree at uni and putting on your resume that you worked at the strippers to fund your way through uni. What was even worse was that I found out he is slated to direct a new Masters of the Universe film. The only thing that could save that now is that Dolph Lundgren reprises his role as He-Man.

In the end this is a reasonably dull and standard action film. It really just goes through the motions and adds nothing new to the genre. Even the additions of Bruce Willis and The Rock seem to obvious and cliche'. Something that would have added a bit of spice to the film would be including the dubbed G.I. Joe public service announcements that have been around on the interwebs for a while. If you haven't seen them before make sure you look them up, they are a good laugh.

Overall: Things blow up, people get shot. 2 Stars

Next Time: I am super excited about Jurassic Park, one of the best movies ever made, being re-released in cinemas so I am watching that just to hear the T-Rex roar in surround sound.

Oz the Great and Powerful

Oz the Great and Powerful (2013)

Predicted Rating: 3.5 Stars

Directed by Sam Raimi (The Evil Dead, Spiderman). Starring James Franco (127 Hours), Mila Kunis (Black Swan), Rachael Weisz (The Mummy) and Michelle Williams (My Week with Marylin)

Set 20 years before the 1939 classic The Wizard of Oz, Oz the Great and Powerful tells the story of how Oz became the Wizard of Oz. After escaping from a Kansas fair in his hot air balloon, illusionist Oz (James Franco) is sucked into a tornado and finds himself in the land of Oz. He is rescued by Theodora (Kunis) aka the Wicked Witch of the West who takes Oz to the Emerald City to meet her sister, Evanora (Weisz) aka the Wicked Witch of the East. They immediately identify him as the one who is to fulfill the prophecy and kill the wicked witch and rule Oz. On his journey along the yellow brick road, Oz meets with Finley the flying monkey (Zach Braff) and the little china girl (Joey King) who all quickly discover that who they think is the wicked witch is in fact Glinda (Williams), the Good Witch of the North. They all must return to the Emerald City and overthrow the two evil witches.

There were three things I was looking forward to in Oz the Great and Powerful. The music of Danny Elman, the direction of Sam Raimi and the three leading ladies, Mila Kunis, Michelle Williams and Rachael Weisz. Since the music of Danny Elfman was solid as normal, I will start with the direction of Sam Raimi. Raimi rose to fame with his skills in the Evil Dead series, the second installment of which I think is the best directed movie ever. He then went mainstream with the Spiderman series whilst still being able to maintain his Raimi-esque techniques. He then returned to horror with the very underrated Drag Me to Hell. Even though he once again returns to the mainstream with Oz the Great and Powerful, he loses none of his magic. It is his fast paced, almost surreal style of direction that makes this film. However, there are times where the actors, particularly Kunis and Franco, appear to struggle to keep up with Raimi. This is probably me just being pedantic but it was something I noticed. If you want to get an idea of what the typical Sam Raimi directorial style is, watch the scene in Spiderman 2 when they try to operate on Doc Ock after the accident, it is on youtube.

The final thing I was looking forward to was the three leading ladies, Michelle, Mila and Rachael. In this situation, you really expect one of them to steal the show and dominate the movie. If you were to set up a betting market on who would steal the show before the movie would be released, I would say Mila Kunis would be the favourite at about $1.70, next would be Rachael Weisz at $3 and then Michelle Williams the outsider at $4.30. All of them threaten to take the bull by the horns throughout the movie. Rachael is prominent at the start but is overshadowed by the other two later in the film. Mila is great as the Wicked Witch of the West, however, she needed a lot more prosthetics. Even when she is supposed to become hiddeous, you can still tell it is Mila so you think even with the green face and big nose, you are still pretty hot. I am tempted to give the award to Michelle purely on how attractive she is. Seriously I had no idea, I was breath-taken the entire time. Based on this, in the end, the award goes to... Joey King. What, wait, who? That's right the little china girl sweeps the rug out from everyone's feet. From her little cameo at the start which breaks your heart to her cute antics throughout the movies that makes you wish you had a doll just like her. That's why the little china girl takes the award for best female lead.

Going into the movie, I was worried that that Oz would be too childish, something that would turn off the majority of the target audience. This fact was enhanced by the previews before the film started for new kids movies such as Zambezia, The Croods and Epic, three movies I will definitely not be seeing. By the way Zambezia looks like the cheapest movie ever made. For 60 odd years, The Wizard of Oz was the most beloved children's movie ever, you would be hard pressed to find a kid who had not seen the film. However, then came a long Harry Potter, now you would be hard pressed to find a kid who had seen the Wizard of Oz. However, thanks to Sam Raimi, Oz the Great and Powerful is a movie that can be enjoyed by all. It is definitely something I would take the kids to see but it is tailored to an adult audience. However, as a result, it seems to lose the charm of the original. This maybe due to it not being a musical but it is my thinking that it won't have the longevity of popularity of the original. On a side note, I went in thinking it would be awesome if the beginning was in 4:3 ration black and white, and it was, and it was awesome!

Overall: In the end, this is actually quite a good movie. I was thoroughly entertained. It had big shoes to fill, excuse the pun, and it does it admirably. 4 Stars

Thumbs Up/Thumbs Down: On review of some of my reviews, they are often confusing. As a result I am doing a system where thumbs up is go watch this movie, thumbs down is avoid it. For Oz the Great and Powerful it is a big old Thumbs Up.

Next time: Either A Good Day to Die Hard or Jack the Giant Killer