Movie Review: "Jack the Giant Slayer"/Rated PG-13/Warner Bros./Dir. by Bryan Singer/114 min.
"Oz: The Great and Powerful"/Rated PG/Walt Disney/Dir. by Sam Raimi/130 min.
In the past week and a half, there have been two big-budget period fantasy movies released. Both were directed by auteurs originally known for independent films, but who took over major Marvel comic book franchises in the early 2000's. Both of them directed two of the best-regarded superhero movies ever made and were looking to do something completely different. However, both of them came up with very different films.
Last week brought the first of the two films, "Jack the Giant Slayer", a movie with a troubled history of bloated budgets and changed release dates (it was originally supposed to reach theaters last summer, but was suddenly moved to a lower-profile spring release, which is rarely a good sign). It was clear from the commercials that Warner Bros. either didn't have much faith in the film or they didn't have the first inkling of how to market it, in spite of director Bryan Singer's triumph with the first two "X-Men" movies. If one was to believe the advertising, "Jack" was a wacky, chew-the-scenery action comedy with Ewan MacGregor and Stanley Tucci mugging at the camera at every opportunity. In actuality, it's a full-blooded adventure film with top-rate special effects, committed acting and multi-layered writing rarely found in this style of sword and sorcery flick.
"Jack" stars Nicholas Hoult ("About a Boy", "Warm Bodies") as, well, Jack, a noble, kind-hearted farm boy who was raised on stories of giants, beanstalks, and magic beans. Unbeknownst to him, Princess Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson) was raised on the same stories by her mother, who taught her to seek independent adventures as they will make her a more wise leader. Unfortunately, she's betrothed to the royal advisor, an older, shifty-eyed gentleman who is played by Stanley Tucci, so he's CLEARLY not villainous (Jafar from "Aladdin" was a more subtle traitor to the royal crown). The princess' thirst for adventure leads her to Jack, the magic beans, a beanstalk, and, of course, giants.
"Jack the Giant Slayer" does a good job making the story of "Jack and the Beanstalk" more grounded and believable. In fact, it addresses how the story gets changed through the ages into the more benign version we now know. Once the giants show up, the story becomes infused with a genuine danger and menace that leads to some surprisingly tense scenes, truly showing homage to its swashbuckling cinematic DNA. The special effects are quite effective, both when used to inspire awe and when used to repulse (the giants are pretty gross, with a particular love for biting the heads off of their enemies).
The second of the two fantasy films, "Oz: The Great and Powerful", has a far less troubled history. Lead by Sam Raimi with the same confidence he brought to the original "Spider-Man" films, and scheduled in March to take advantage of the release date that brought such huge success to Tim Burton's similar "Alice in Wonderland", "Oz" was exquisitely marketed by the super-geniuses at Disney. However, unlike "Jack", the finished product isn't as good as the commercials make it look.
"Oz" stars the woefully miscast James Franco as Oscar Diggs (nickname: Oz), a magician/flim-flam artist who gets sucked up into a twister and sent to the magical kingdom inexplicably named after him where he encounters three witch sisters, Theodora (the similarly miscast Mila Kunis), Evanora (Rachel Weisz, slipping in and out of accents so much that it's hard to tell which one she was really aiming for) and Glinda (Michelle Williams), the obviously good witch, but never shown to be much more than merely good. He is also given standard-issue sidekicks in the form of a servant flying monkey (voiced by Zach Braff) and an enchantingly animated and voiced China doll (voiced by Joey King). It's never a good thing when you find the sidekicks infinitely more interesting than both the protagonist and the antagonist, but such is the case here. I'd pay money to see an entire movie just about the fragile China girl and her teapot-themed city.
Franco simply doesn't have the range required in this film. Sure, he's believable as a lovable shyster, but not as show-stopping entertainer, and that's supposed to be his true talent. Every time he flips into P.T. Barnum mode, he's clearly out of his element. Plus, he struggles with anything that requires sincerity. In addition, Kunis, who is delightful in every other role in which I've seen her, simply comes across as whiny and annoying in her most dramatic scenes. In fact, I think that this movie would have been far more effective with and entirely new lead cast (not including Braff and King, who both do a great job with their voice work).
The one area where "Oz" excells is visual splendor. The special effects, the production design, and the visual direction are all enchanting and engaging. Every inch of the screen in every frame is cinematic beauty. If you're only interested in eye-candy, "Oz" delivers. It's one of the most beautiful looking films I've seen in years.
Unfortunately, "Oz" will make a lot more money than "Jack" will for two reasons: "The Wizard of Oz" is a more universally beloved story than "Jack and the Beanstalk" and Disney marketed their film WAY better than Warner Bros. did. However, in deciding which film you may make the splurge to see, let me give you the following thoughts to ponder: If you're looking for a good movie, "Jack the Giant Slayer" is an infinitely better film than "Oz: The Great and Powerful". If you're looking for a beautiful-looking and pleasant movie "Oz: The Great and Powerful" is infinitely more pretty than "Jack the Giant Slayer". Neither are perfect, but overall "Jack" is the better movie.
Grades: "Jack the Giant Slayer" - B+ , "Oz: The Great and Powerful" - C (but the production design and special effects get an A)
No comments:
Post a Comment