Beauty and The Beast (2017) film review

Year: 2017
Running Time: 129 minutes
Director: Bill Condon
Writers: Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos
Cast: Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, Josh Gad, Kevin Kline, Ewan McGregor, Ian McKellen, Emma Thompson, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Stanley Tucci, Hattie Morahan

Beauty and The Beast is now showing everywhere and is distributed by Walt Disney Pictures.

Disney's second time round with Beauty and The Beast breathes spectacular new life into the much adored classic while always remaining lovingly respectful to the original fairy tale and animated original.

For a film that is so enchanting, whimsical and charming, it is incredible how much criticism and backlash Beauty and The Beast has received right through from it's initial announcement in June 2014 to it's recording breaking release in the United States last week and in Australia this week. While a film that has so far made over $460 million worldwide is clearly not being hurt by any criticism it has received, Bill Condon's Beauty and The Best certainly deserves to be defended from the unwarranted, meaningless and clueless backlash it has received.

While it is based on the original story written by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve and revised by Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont, the film is more so a live-action love letter to it's animated older sibling released by Disney in 1991. In the quaint French village of Villeneuve, Belle (portrayed by Emma Watson) is an outsider as even though she is beautiful, she is considered peculiar as she seems happier with her nose in a book than responding to Gaston's (Luke Evans) romantic advances. Her wishes for adventure are answered when her father (Kevin Kline) is captured by the terrifying Beast (Dan Stevens) in his castle and when Belle ventures to rescue him, she offers herself as prisoner in order for her father to be set free. During her period of stay, Belle finds herself strangely and increasingly drawn towards the Beast and she may be the one to set he and the enchanted members of his household free from their damning spell.

When Disney officially announced that it would be remaking one of it's own into a live action film, it was met with a great deal of scepticism. Since then, it has been met with the predictable backlash that occurs when a beloved family classic is remade. Much of the criticism has proved to have been unwarranted since the release of this film, but Beauty and The Beast has also attracted controversy for it's romanticising of Stockholm Syndrome (which is also completely predictable) and it's very brief "gay scene" (if you can even call it a scene). However, Disney deserves praise once again for overcoming the obstacles of the remake and also deserves defence against the controversy.

The inevitable question that had to be asked in June 2014 was "Why would Disney want to remake a near-perfect film?"

It's a valid question. When Beauty and The Beast was released in 1991, it became the first animated feature film to be nominated in the Best Picture category at the Academy Awards. It became an instant Disney classic and still remains a favourite Disney film for many, many people. Remakes are absolutely in fashion at the moment and it's not completely crazy to believe that Disney could have just fallen in step with this fad.

However, this is Disney we are talking about. The empire has had tremendous success turning their animations into live action (eg. Cinderella and The Jungle Book) and expanding the universe of their classics (eg. Maleficent and no doubt the upcoming Mary Poppins Returns). If there is one studio that could pull off this mammoth task of bringing Beauty and The Beast to the world of live action and coming away with a success, it is Disney...and they have delivered. That's not just in regards to the incredible box office earnings thus far either.

Beauty and The Beast is truly an exquisite piece of cinema that is absolutely beautiful to behold. Although it is not as grandly emotional, it is certainly touching and very family friendly. Did it need to be remade? Of course it didn't need to. However, Disney saw that the opportunity was there for it's 1991 film to be remade and use live action thanks to the advances in CGI to create something different and special. The CGI does incredible things for the film and helps to make memorable scenes from the original even more memorable and spectacular (including the pivotal dancing "Beauty and The Beast" scene and "Something There" in the snow). The CGI also brings such characters of Lumiere (Ewan McGregor) and Cogsworth (Ian McKellen) to life and gives them more refined and intriguing features than what we saw in the animation.

Whilst many will argue that this 2017 film is too much like the original, this is simply not true. One only needs to revisit the original to realise that there are many differences. There are many similarities there too, but with live action comes a whole set of new rules which need to be abided by which don't apply as much to animation. For example, character development is far more important in live action than it is in it's animated counterpart. This is a real treat for those who are fans of the 1991 original, as the characters of Belle, Beast and Gaston (to a lesser extent) are opened up. Although her singing voice may not be as powerful as one would hope for this role, Emma Watson does Belle great justice. She personifies what Belle is about and shows how her character truly is a modern girl in a time where she didn't belong. This does admittedly fit Watson's real life persona, but this character trait and her soft, but strong performance as Belle makes her a perfect Disney princess for these times.

The live action also obviously calls for a different mode of direction and bringing several of the musical numbers to life would have been no simple task. Bill Condon's direction of these Alan Menken, Howard Ashman and Tim Rice musical numbers (several of which were also adapted for this film) is superb and although animation can do a great deal with these songs, what live action gives the viewer is definitely more impressive, especially during "Belle" and "Gaston".

One issue that is always brought to light when Beauty and The Beast is spoken of is the presence of Stockholm Syndrome, which is the concept of the captured coming to feel empathy or developing strong feelings for their capturer through manipulation. It was only inevitable that this was going to arise with the release of this film. Also there is it predictable wrath of those who believe that Beauty and The Beast is dangerously sexist as it depicts a woman being captured and abused by a tyrannical beast. Both of these arguments are redundant here. Belle was never actually captured in this film nor in the original, as her father was captured and she demanded a switch. If there are similarities to Stockholm Syndrome (which there are very little when you look at the actual definition), that is the fault of the original story and not of the filmmakers. However, the condition wasn't even acknowledged until the 1970's so it is highly unlikely this was a theme on the intent in the original story. Beauty and The Beast has always been a romantic fairy tale about not judging a book by it's cover and this is the way it should be read.

Finally, the biggest and most controversial talking point in the past week has been the very brief acknowledgement of Gaston's sidekick, LeFou (played by Josh Gad) as homosexual. Several cinemas around the world have banned the film from being shown because of this inclusion. One can only imagine that the large majority of the outraged haven't actually seen the film, as what they are so up in arms about takes up only a matter of seconds in over two hours. There is absolutely nothing in these few seconds of screen time which is damaging, graphic or crude and all you would have to do is blink to miss it. This controversy is a massive overreaction and there are far more important things to be outraged about in this world rather than whether a Disney film has maybe 20 seconds where a man looks lovingly at another man.

Beauty and The Beast has overcome a great deal of scepticism to become a beautiful film that is an enjoyable and stunning companion piece to it's animated original. It's controversy is completely unfounded and should be enjoyed and praised for exactly what it is.

8/10

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 133 minutes
Director: David Yates
Writer: J.K. Rowling
Cast: Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, Dan Fogler, Alison Sudol, Colin Farrell, Ezra Miller, Samantha Morton

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed by Warner Bros Pictures and Roadshow Films in Australia.

J.K. Rowling's new story that exists within her Harry Potter universe, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them will undoubtedly delight fans of the wizarding world with it's originality and whimsical nature. However, despite it's lovely magical undertones, it is a much more mature film than the Harry Potter series and with that comes a new sense of intrigue and wonder.

1926, New York City. A young British wizard, Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) enters the city with a briefcase that looks deceptively normal to Muggles, but is filled with wondrous creatures that exist only to the knowledge the wizarding world. Some of the more mischievous creatures escape, which leads to Newt having chance encounters with No-Maj (the American word for non-magic folk), Jacob Kowalski (Dan Folger) and ex-Auror, Porpentina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston), who has been on his trail attempting to bring him to the Magical Council of the United States. However, there are more sinister things currently happening in New York as an invisible force is preying on No-Majs. The council believes Newt's creatures are behind this, so it is up to Newt, Jacob, Tina and her sister, Queenie (Alison Sudol) to find out what is really behind these deaths so to clear his name, save innocent people and keep New Yorkers unaware of the wizarding world. .

It goes without saying (as the masses of Harry Potter fans will already know) that Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is thankfully not a prequel or a sequel, but rather an extension of  the world in which Harry Potter years later exists. For this reason, the film will be instantly enjoyable for fans of the latter with its references to Hogwarts and the well known spells Harry, Hermione and Ron perform. However, even though these references will go over the heads of the few who haven't seen the Harry Potter films, there are not enough of them to deter people from seeing the film because they think they may not understand it.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is very much it's own film with an original screenplay by J.K. Rowling that takes small inspiration from her books, but ultimately could truly exist as a standalone film. However, it has just been announced that this film will be followed by another four films,  but this is not of any annoyance at all due to the fun, intriguing and nostalgic nature of what is now the first film in the new series. The four main characters, as touchingly portrayed by Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, Dan Folger and Alison Sudol, all have a great deal of uniqueness and character development, which makes the idea of more films involving the four of them rather exciting.

The only major fault of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them lies in the explanation of the newly introduced features of the wizarding world, such as the strange, but often very cute CGI creatures. Much of the information regarding their extraordinary features is held back until later in the scene where they are introduced and put on show, so that one is more confused than entertained about what is happening while it is happening. This feeling of confusion clouds over what should be being enjoyed.

Visually, the film is just stunning in every way. The production design of 1920's New York City teamed with the magic of the wizarding universe in which Newt's sanctuary for fantastic creatures exists makes for a world of tremendous beauty that is incredibly engaging on screen. At a time when so many filmmakers are tempted to prepare their films for 3D, this film proves how you can still have an experience of wonder in a high budget film without the need for 3D glasses. Colleen Atwood once again stuns with her amazing costume design and the musical score prepared by James Newton Howard is reminiscent of the previous David Yates/J.K. Rowling collaborations.

Again, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is a more mature film than the Harry Potter's so calls for a more grown-up sense of magic and set of emotions. The last few scenes are particularly heartfelt and rather unexpectedly so with the way the characters engage with one another. Redmayne, Waterston, Folger and Sudol all give wonderful performances and are relatable and likable. With this more mature context, the film is not so much for younger audience members as for older audiences and is rather dark and menacing at times.

It is welcomed news that there is more to come for Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. Here is a marvellous start to a new film franchise and while there isn't much that is left unanswered, there is just enough questions remaining to make us look forward to the second film.

7.5/10

Alice Through The Looking Glass (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 113 minutes
Director: James Bobin
Writers: Lewis Carroll (books), Linda Woolverton (screenplay)
Cast: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway, Sacha Baron Cohen, Alan Rickman, Rhys Ifans, Timothy Spall, Matt Lucas, Lindsay Duncan, Leo Bill

Alice Through The Looking Glass is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed by Walt Disney Motion Pictures

When one thinks about the thought process that must have taken place when deciding to do a sequel to the live action Alice in Wonderland, you could well imagine it would have been along the lines of
"Everyone else is doing it, why not?"

Alice Through The Looking Glass is a cross between a sequel and an en vogue origins film. Underneath it's somewhat monotonous yet very attractive abstract exterior, the film has some interesting and enjoyable character studies of those larger than life personalities made popular by Lewis Carroll in the 1800's. The Tim Burton directed 2010 film had people divided with many not enjoying the over the top spectacle created and the liberties that Disney took with the story and it's characters, while others were quite happy with the film's flamboyancy they felt it captured the true surreal nature of the original story itself.

In the second Disney live-action Alice film, James Bobin takes over the reins from Tim Burton who 's presence is still greatly felt throughout the film as he steps into the role as producer. Alice Through The Looking Glass does not have much in common with the book in which it is based on, "Through The Looking Glass and What Alice Found" by Lewis Carroll. In fact, the original Disney animated Alice in Wonderland in 1951 draws more inspiration from this book than this 2016 film does. Disney took great liberties with the 2010 film, which was not entirely a bad thing as it breathed new life into the story that has been adapted many times for film. These liberties continue into the new film which means that the only aspects of it that resemble the book are it's title and that Alice does, funnily enough, re-enter Wonderland through a looking glass.

Upon returning from her voyage as captain of the ship, the Wonder, Alice Kingsleigh (Mia Wasikowska) find herself still ridiculed for being a woman and is hardly taken seriously when trying to conduct business transactions. When she is starting to lose faith in herself and in the impossible, she is once again transported back to Wonderland through the looking glass and finds her friend, the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) in a terrible state. She is able to help him, but this requires going back in time and altering the past to stop Hatter falling into darkness in the future.

Once again, the great focus on the Mad Hatter in this film does feel as though the filmmakers are trying to maximise the use of Johnny Depp. This is not saying that Depp does a bad job, but it is not a particularly complicated performance either. The relationship with the Hatter that Alice has and had in the first film is far from what Lewis Carroll had in mind when he wrote the book and this is one of the things that audiences found and will find problematic. Had the Mad Hatter been played by anyone else besides Depp would his part in these two films been as large? Quite possibly not. Yet with Tim Burton at the helm in 2010 he was always the obvious choice for the role. Even without Burton, if one had to name the working actor who would make the best Hatter in a live-action Alice in Wonderland, Depp's name would have immediately sprung to mind. However, the right casting of an actor who is known for his quirky roles as one of literature's quirkiest characters still does not do much to ease the uncomfortable thought that the character was reimagined purely to suit him.

Had Alice Through The Looking Glass been purely an origins story about each of the characters and their backgrounds, it may have been a great deal more entertaining and enjoyable. The same can be said for if it was purely a sequel about what happened the next time Alice went to Wonderland. Yet it is the fact that it tries to do both of these things in one film that makes it weak as a whole. Bobin's film does try to be too many things which is where it's impact as a spectacle and as any type of emotional experience is lost. The flying back and forwards between time is not as much confusing as it is purely dizzying and irritating. However, the idea of Time being part man and part machine as portrayed by Sacha Baron Cohen is a clever one and is a great addition to the array of interesting characters that already exist in the film and makes the time travel bearable.

With the characters come many opportunities for emotion and depth, particularly with the Mad Hatter's inner torment and between sisters, the Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) and the White Queen (Anne Hathaway). However, Depp, Carter and Hathaway do give the right amount of emotion for what is written into the story and none give a bad performance by any means, but any more tears or affection would actually seem out of place considering the lack of intensity in the film.

It is a shame because visually Alice Through The Looking Glass is extraordinary and often quite intense, particularly in the opening ocean scenes and when Alice is using the Chronosphere to transport herself back and forward through time. The production design for inside the world that is Wonderland and especially that of Time's castle is extraordinary and the use of colour is magnificent. Yet it is here in the visuals that Alice Through The Looking Glass's power is and not in the screenplay. Although screenwriter Linda Woolverton has attempted to make a film that is intended to be character driven, Bobin has neglected to take the time to allow the audience to sympathize and relate to the characters.

However, Mia Wasikowska should be complimented on her obvious growth as an actress since her breakthrough role as Alice in the 2010 film. Even from the very first scene, she is a great deal more powerful in her delivery than in Alice in Wonderland and like all leading ladies should be, gives the best performance out of anybody in the film. One thing that both the earlier film and this one have tried to do is install a sense of independence into Alice and make her a good role model for young girls, which is something that Wasikowska has been able to accomplish.

Any type of "Alice in Wonderland" adaptation is met with a certain sense of magic and despite the weak and busy screenplay, Alice Through The Looking Glass still maintains a whimsical air.

5.5/10

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) film review

Year: 2015
Running Time: 135 minutes
Director: J.J. Abrams
Writers: George Lucas (characters), Lawrence Kasdan, J.J. Abrams and Michael Arndt (screenplay)
Cast: Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Adam Driver, Domhnall Gleeson, Andy Serkis, Gwendoline Christie, Lupita Nyong'o, Anthony Daniel, Max von Sydow, Peter Mayhew

Could Star Wars: The Force Awakens have been anything but a success both critically and at the box office? With any other film the answer would have been that failure is always possible, but failure was never an option as far as The Force Awakens was concerned. With the incredibly high expectations placed on the new film and after a set of prequels which divided opinions, it was hard to imagine that the film makers wouldn't do absolutely everything in their power to make Episode VII the best film it could possibly be. While breaking box office records all around the world, The Force Awakens is an extremely solid and impressive addition to the Star Wars universe that fans will rejoice in as it gives further excitement to the upcoming films in the saga and remains respectable to it's predecessors.

Three decades after Darth Vader and his empire were destroyed in Return of The Jedi, there is a new threat to the galaxy by the name of the First Order who are trying to wipe the existence of the Jedis. Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) has disappeared and his sister, Leia (Carrie Fisher) is desperate to find him. The missing piece of the map to where he can be found is hidden by the Resistance fighter, Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) in the droid, BB-8 just as the Resistance comes under attack by the First Order and the formidable Kylo Ren (Adam Driver). BB-8 comes across scavenger, Rey (Daisy Ridley) who together with the help of renegade stormtrooper, Finn (John Boyega) seek to escape those looking to harm them. The three find themselves caught up in a war with a family they have only heard rumours about, but find themselves involved in ways they could have never imagined.

In the best possible way, The Force Awakens is hugely glorified Star Wars fan fiction on the big screen and this is in no way an insult. J. J. Abrams has made no secret of his love for the franchise and has commented in the past on the way the first films shaped his film making. While there was early talk about how Abrams was too obvious a choice for director of Episode VII due to past projects, he was and still is the perfect choice due to his admitted inner passion for Star Wars which gives him invaluable knowledge about what is desired by the ever loyal fans and what is seen as respectful towards the past films. Yet, those who have not seen the previous six films are not ostracised by the story. However in saying this, it does help if one has seen at least one or two of the Star Wars films as there are references to the George Lucas told stories and of course to the characters themselves, especially Han Solo, Leia, Luke Skywalker and brief mentions of Darth Vader. There is also a feeling a deja vu of past Star Wars films (particularly A New Hope), which may be an annoyance for some.

The Force Awakens brings the intrigue back to the franchise with much discussion to be had afterwards that will continue till Episode VIII is released in 2017. Like Episodes IV and V, there are many questions left unanswered which is all tactical rather than careless. Unlike many other franchise films, Star Wars is not based on official existing literature where fans can read what will happen in the future films. So one can translate certain aspects of the film in numerous ways, but all will not be revealed until later films and therefore increases the intrigue of the film. The Force Awakens carries this intrigue throughout the whole film without any lulls or scenes which slow down the action or story. The value placed on every moment of the film and the anticipation of information this brings increases it;s suspense and unpredictability.

As is to be expected, The Force Awakens takes full advantage of what is available to films with spectacular budgets in 2015. The film launches straight into high intensity action and establishes itself early as a visually extravagant piece of work that admirers will be easily besotted by. The action sequences are extremely impressive with the combination of incredible CGI, powerful sound and expert cinematography. John Williams returns to provide the soundtrack once again for Episode VII and although his work is as strong as it consistently is, it doesn't have the same iconic feeling as his previous Star Wars work (yet).

The casting decisions made for The Force Awakens are seemingly safe choices as they cover all bases to make sure that they cannot be criticised for any reason. Yet here safety pays off with some stunning performances by all involved. They may not be Oscar winning performances, but each actor portrays their character to the very best of their ability and pulls everything from the role that they can. Daisy Ridley emerges from being a relative unknown to giving a wonderful and strong performance as Rey. The film itself had a tremendous opportunity with Rey, as movie lovers this year have been calling for more strong female characters in film and they have absolutely made the most of this opportunity. Rey is a young woman who does not rely on anybody else for anything (regardless of whether they are male or female) and has no hesitation fighting for what she wants. However, she is not a forced character in that she is not the typical action woman associated with strong females in film, particularly those in such a genre as Star Wars is in. Rey does possess the same strong will as Leia did in the previous films, but perhaps in a more physical sense than Carrie Fisher's Leia. However, while there is much love for the female power of Rey, it is a shame that Gwendoline Christie's Captain Phasma doesn't have the right amount of screen time to have the same sense of power in the film and is rather a wasted opportunity.

As for the male side of the Star Wars casting, there are solid performances all around. John Boyega makes his entrance into the Star Wars universe and feels particularly 2015 while doing so with a modern sense of humour and use of language. He works well with Ridley and Harrison Ford and easily liked among audiences. Adam Driver as Kylo Ren has a tremendous presence about him and Domhnall Gleeson also shines as General Hux, although one would love to see more of the formidable character during Episode VII. Harrison Ford is also as heroic as is remembered and his presence is adored.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a success in every way and not just in figures at the box office. It remains extremely respectful to it's older relatives and an absolute treat for those loyal fanatics, yet has the potential to attract new loyalists to the fandom.

8.5/10

Pan (2015) film review

Year: 2015
Running Time: 111 minutes
Director: Joe Wright
Writers: J.M. Barrie (characters), Jason Fuchs
Cast: Levi Miller, Hugh Jackman, Garrett Hedlund, Rooney Mara, Adeel Akhtar, Amanda Seyfried, Kathy Burke, Jimmy Vee, Cara Delevingne

Pan open in Australian cinemas on September 24 and is distributed by Roadshow Films. To be released in the United States on October 9 and the United Kingdom on October 16.

Pan comes in with the tidal wave of prequels and sequels to much loved family classics gracing our screens this year. J.M. Barrie's "Peter Pan" has already met it's sequel in 1991's Hook, but the idea of a prequel does spark interest as there are questions that need answering from the original. How did Peter Pan come to be the beloved warrior and leader of the Lost Boys? How does Peter Pan fly? Was he born in Neverland? What did become of his family?

There is a great deal of potential there for a strong origins story about the boy who never grows up, all it needed was a good screenplay that answered these questions. The questions are absolutely answered, but the screenplay encompassing the story is incredibly weak and bitterly disappointing. Joe Wright's direction of all things intriguing and beautiful does little to enhance the flat dialogue he is faced with and what results is a film that knows the story it is trying to tell, but isn't sure how to tell it.

During World War II, many children in London were orphaned and among them a rather mischievous small boy named Peter (Levi Miller), who was left on the step of an orphanage by his mother when he was a baby. He starts to notice that other boys have been disappearing at night and it is only a matter of time before he is one of the chosen ones who is shipped off to Neverland to serve the formidable pirate, Blackbeard (Hugh Jackman). Peter is one of the lucky ones who makes it out of Blackbeard's clutches alive and sets out on a journey across Neverland, as he is convinced that this is where the mother he has been searching for so long is living and waiting for him. What awaits for him is adventure like he never imagined and the realisation of how important he really is.

The original story of "Peter Pan" was a tale for all ages and over the years has inspired many remakes and variations. Pan will inevitably draw comparisons to several of these films and while the production design and special effects are particularly stunning and superior to the large majority of predecessors, what it lacks in comparison is being a film for families as a whole. It is true, the screenplay is extremely basic in both dialogue and story so it is easy for children to follow. However, the film is also quite dark and can also be quite intimidating for little children on the big screen. Despite beautiful production design, the film lacks a great deal of well deserved colour, which is something the film is screaming for. The only scene which does impress with it's colour through lovely costume design is with the tribes, but this is not an appropriate scene for children as it is quite violent.

On the other hand, Pan does come across as too basic for adults to fall in love with. The film is not an emotional experience nor are there any underlying themes to bring further meaning to it. There's also the especially strange inclusion of "Smells Like Teen Spirit" by Nirvana and "Hey Ho, Let's Go" by The Ramones which are sure to raise a few eyebrows due to their bizarre appearance in the film. Pan also presents one with frustrating unanswered questions in its final moments and inconsistencies between the film and the original story. No sequel for this film is on the cards, so one cannot help but feel cheated when a gap in story is left between Pan and when he meets Wendy, Michael and John in "Peter Pan". Another strange decision by writer, Jason Fuchs is to include hints of flirting between Hook (Garrett Hedlund) and Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara), which seems a lame attempt purely to include some romance in the film.

The characters themselves are also problematic. While Levi Miller is fine as Peter Pan and rather enjoyable, Blackbeard and Hook are badly constructed characters and Hook in particular is given some strange characteristics. Hugh Jackman's Blackbeard is not given much of a background story as to who he really is and how he came to be the evil man with no consideration for human life. Although Blackbeard does have some of the best lines in the film and it is Jackman's comedic timing that provides a source of entertainment. Garrett Hedlund's James Hook is incredibly exaggerated. Physically and vocally he resembles Indiana Jones more than the traditional idea of the man he is yet to become.

Pan is a disappointment to it's film relatives. It acts as an adolescent who is still not quite sure who they are, but is attempting to be everything to everyone...which ultimately never works when you are trying too hard.

4.5/10

Tinker Bell and the Legend of the Neverbeast (2015) film review

Year: 2015
Running Time: 76 minutes
Director: Steve Loter
Writers: Steve Loter (story), Tom Rogers (story and screenplay), Robert Schooley, Mark McCorkle and Kate Kondell (screenplay)
Cast: (voices) Ginnifer Goodwin, Mae Whitman, Rosario Dawson, Lucy Liu, Raven-Symone, Pamela Adlon, Anjelica Huston

Disney's Tinker Bell movies are traditionally aimed at the younger female audience and Tinker Bell and the Legend of the Neverbeast is no exception to this rule. With as much simplicity as can be, the beloved fairy and her group of friends return for a film which will delight youngers and at the same time, confuse older audiences for an unforseen reason. In Pixie Hollow, things are as they have always been, which means that animal fairy, Fawn (voiced by Ginnifer Goodwin) is up to mischief by transporting animals to and from where they shouldn't be. After promising to behave, Fawn meets the fabled Neverbeast which she affectionately names Gruff and finds that her heart can't listen to her head. She soon finds out that the Neverbeast is part of a prophecy that will result in the destruction of her and her friends home, but Fawn cannot bring herself to believe that her new friend is the evil everyone is making him out to be.

The first thing adults will notice about Tinker Bell and the Legend of the Neverbeast is that it's title is really quite deceiving. Tinker Bell is not the main character in the film, but it is her name which is included in the title and not Fawn's, who is undoubtedly the lead. However, one can understand why Disney have chosen not to name the film in honour of the lead character as Tinker Bell is still the main drawcard and nobody except people who had seen other Tinker Bell films would know what type of film it was had it been named Fawn and the Legend of the Neverbeast. Yet it is still an interesting decision for the storytellers to make, a Tinker Bell film that isn't about Tinker Bell. It is rather a Tinker Bell film about Tinker Bell's friend.

Yet, it is still a film that little girls will love, especially those who have seen and enjoyed the five previous Tinker Bell films. Tinker Bell (voiced by Mae Whitman) and all her fairy friends return and they are accompanied by cute and fluffy animal friends. The story is extremely simplistic, but does come with special messages for it's targeted audience which are not to judge a book by it's cover and always follow your heart. They aren't hard messages to decipher which is perfect for young children. While Tinker Bell and the Legend of the Neverbeast serves as an easy film to take children to in the school holidays, it does feel as though it has a better place as a DVD than a cinematic release. It does not have the spectacle of a Disney feature film classic, but one feels that it would be more at home on the small screen than big.

Tinker Bell and the Legend of the Neverbeast is little more than a holiday movie for children, but it certainly serves it's purpose. It is a sweet film with good morals, but little more than that.

5/10

Cinderella (2015) film review

Year: 2015
Running Time: 105 minutes
Director: Kenneth Branagh
Writer: Chris Weitz (screenplay)
Cast: Lily James, Richard Madden, Cate Blanchett, Helena Bonham Carter, Ben Chaplin, Hayley Atwell, Derek Jacobi, Holliday Grainger, Sophie McShera, Stellan Skarsgard, Nonso Anozie

Cinderella will open on Australian cinemas on March 26 and is distributed by Walt Disney Studios. Now showing in the United States and United Kingdom.

Disney's Cinderella is a lovely, charming adaptation of the beloved children's fairy tale. Rather than follow the trend of classic stories being retold with a difference, it stays true to the original story with many references to the 1950 animated film, which is ironically refreshing. Ella (Lily James) is a beautiful girl who lives in her family's country manor with her bereaved father (Ben Chaplin) in a faraway kingdom. In his last attempt of happiness and before his last fateful trip, he remarries and leaves Ella with an unloving stepmother (Cate Blanchett) and two horrid stepsisters (Holliday Grainger and Sophie McShera). Ella experiences only heartbreak and hardships at the hands of her new family, but a chance encounter with the kingdom's Prince (Richard Madden) brings her happiness and when the ball is announced, she dreams of attending although her stepmother will do everything in her power to prevent this from happening. With the arrival of her Fairy Godmother (Helena Bonham Carter), Ella does indeed become the belle of the ball.

Cinderella is Disney doing what Disney does best, putting the magic back into a story that deserves a little pinch of fairy dust to make it sparkle in the present. Even though the film doesn't bring too much new to the story, it is quite an exquisite adaptation which works as well in live action as it did animated over 60 years ago. It is a film that will delight families and lovers of fantasy. The thing is with a film like Cinderella is that one goes into the film knowing what to expect so there is no need for disappointment in the story or for the film being what it is. It is a light, simple story with classic themes which include courage and kindness.

Kenneth Branagh's retelling of the fairy tale stays true more than anything to the original Disney film from 1950. Much of the film is as though the characters have jumped out of the animation and into live action, with many of the colour schemes of the costumes in both films mirroring each other, the animals having the same names and the Fairy Godmother's magic words being "Bibbidi-bobbidi-boo" amongst other similarities. Yet Chris Weitz's screenplay does allow for background information on the characters which gives a greater understanding as to how and why things came to be. Ella was born a beautiful girl, but the reason she has such a beautiful nature is because she has abided by her mothers dying words everyday of her life which has moulded her into the person she is. These small differences to the traditional Cinderella flesh out the story and characters in a way which enhances the screenplay and keeps the story interesting while paying tribute to those that came before it.

Visually Cinderella is every bit the magical fairy tale. The production design of every location is absolutely exquisite and every part of the kingdom from the royal castle to the town markets are wonderfully designed. The costume design is incredible, particularly Ella's ball gown which is everything you would want it to be. Sandy Powell, who has been nominated for ten and has won two Academy Awards for her incredible talent in costume design, has once again done a phenomenal job. The pivotal moment in the film when Ella is transformed from simple into her ball-ready self is awe inspiring and so beautiful visually that is can bring at tear to one's eye. The cinematography and beautiful visuals of the film work perfectly together to create that magical atmosphere which is so craved in a fairy tale remake.

In what is surely a star making role for lead Lily James, she is physically everything one would hope Cinderella to be. Her performance is fine and is clearly what has been asked of her, but her character is somewhat troublesome. Despite the explanation of why she is so carefree and happy even in the most difficult of situations, Ella can sometimes lack the human quality she would need for one to truly connect with her. This isn't to say that she does not have emotional moments in the really moving scenes, but her passive and whimsical nature is on the exaggerated side where it becomes unbelievable. True this is a fairy tale where we should be leaving our sphere of reality behind, but belief should still lie in the characters emotions.

However, James works well on screen with her co-stars, particularly Cate Blanchett and Richard Madden who both give fine performances. Blanchett does exceptionally well as the Stepmother who's character could have been well overdone and exaggerated, but is more cold and ambitious rather than truly evil. Richard Madden as the Prince is actually a wonderful surprise. Not only do he and James have wonderful chemistry, but his character is one that is truly likable and also rather deep. He and Derek Jacobi share a truly beautiful scene of a father and son understanding each other for the first time. Helena Bonham Carter is also a charming treat as the Fairy Godmother who adds comic relief to the film, as does the hilarious cameo by Rob Brydon.

Cinderella is a exceptionally beautiful and charming retelling of the timeless classic. It does not attempt to change anything about the original, but rather flesh out the humanity behind the characters and remind people why they love this fairy tale so much. It will definitely be a favourite with little girls, but has plenty that other members of the family will appreciate.

7.5/10

Maleficent (2014)

 

Year: 2014
Running Time: 97 minutes
Director: Robert Stromberg
Writers: Linda Woolverton (screenplay), Charles Perrault (based on the story "La Belle au bois dormant" by), Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm (based on the story "Little Briar Rose" by), Joe Rinaldi, Winston Hibler, Erdman Penner, Bill Peet, Ted Sears , Ralph Wright and Milt Banta (based on the motion picture and screenplay "Sleeping Beauty" by)
Cast: Angelina Jolie, Sharlto Copley, Elle Fanning, Sam Riley, Imelda Staunton, Lesley Manville, Juno Temple, Brenton Thwaites

Maleficent is the unexpected tale of the infamous Disney villain. While it is not the dark or suspenseful film it could have been, it does tailor more towards the family audience that Disney traditionally caters for. The film is absolutely glorious in terms of it's production design, but it's true force lies with Angelina Jolie. Jolie is absolutely perfect in the title role and gives the film unsuspected depth. While the film is not particularly powerful, it is Angelina Jolie who provides all the power it needs.

When we first meet Maleficent (Angelina Jolie), she is s beautiful and adventurous fairy who lives in the moors outside the kingdom's castle. King Henry (Kenneth Cranham) wants to take the moors by force with his army, but Maleficent forms her own army from the creatures of the moors. It is her first love that betrays her in order to win the king's approval and the crown on his death, and Maleficent becomes cold and vengeful. When King Stefan (Sharlto Copley) becomes a father, Maleficent curses the child that she should fall into a sleep like death on her 16th birthday and the only way to wake her is with true love's kiss. As the years go by, Maleficent keeps close watch on Aurora (Elle Fanning) as she grows into a beautiful girl full of life and finds that there in an unexpected bond growing between the two of them.

Maleficent could have been a much darker and more powerful film if director Robert Stromberg had wanted it to be. Disney's Sleeping Beauty is a timeless classic and is loved by all, adults and children alike. While Maleficent may not be the classic which Sleeping Beauty is, it does attempt to appeal to the wider audience in the same way that the Disney animation does. It is true that Maleficent does have the potential to be a much darker film than what it is, especially considering it is dealing with one of the most evil and terrifying Disney villains to ever grace the screen. However, if it was to be a scarier experience, then it would be neglecting it's younger audience. Many may argue that as it is a film about a villain, it has the right to be terrifying and that the filmmakers shouldn't hold back on this for the sake of upsetting the unsuspecting children who go to see it. However, one must remember that Maleficent is a Disney film and Disney has always been about the family film. There are some scenes in the film, particularly those featuring the fairies, which come across as very light and silly, but these are the parts which children will find entertaining. Yet then there are scenes in which Maleficent unleashes her fury which children may find frightening, so the film does balance itself out in order to reach as large an audience as it possibly can.

Although Maleficent is assumed to be a retelling of the 1959 Sleeping Beauty as told from the viewpoint of the villain, there are several differences between this film and the original. The first half of the film is true to the original story, yet the second half is where the change-up takes place. The changes work well to achieve the type of film which Maleficent strives to be and at the end of the day it is a different version of the original story of Sleeping Beauty. Maleficent is more of a fairy tale and has more fantasy elements than the original film, as it comes with a great deal more mythical creatures which all live in the moors with Maleficent.

Robert Stromberg makes his directorial debut with Maleficent. His career up until now has primarily been in production design and visual effects, which shows in a huge way in this film. The production design for Maleficent is breathtaking. In particular, the construction of the moors are superb and the visual effects for the night shots are beautiful. The CGI to create the creatures of the moors and for Maleficent's shape-shifting servant, Diaval (Sam Riley) is incredibly lifelike and extremely impressive. The film is atmospheric, though not in an overpowering way. There is a great deal of beauty in the film, even when the moors are being shown as reflective of Maleficent's dark moods.

While the film itself may not be overly powerful, it is Angelina Jolie's performance which makes up for this. Jolie is absolutely brilliant as the misunderstood villain, as she completely embodies the character and makes her her own. Jolie is perfectly cast in this film, as a lesser actor would not have been to create such an enigmatic character who can be terrifying, but also endearing. In the pivotal scene in the castle when the curse is placed on baby Aurora, Maleficent is truly very scary. Her voice and villainous laugh are nightmare inducing. Yet, there is a surprising amount of depth to her character and she surprises everyone with the amount of emotion she evokes, particularly when she is faced with the sleeping Aurora. It is Jolie's performance which truly makes the film. She is absolutely superb.

The role of Aurora doesn't call for much, but Elle Fanning still does well as the princess. There is not a lot of substance to the role and not much of a character for Fanning to really sink her teeth into, but there is no denying she physically fits the role. The princess is supposed to be beautiful and always happy, and this comes across so naturally in Fanning. Her smile is completely genuine and lights up the screen. The scene where she meets Prince Phillip (played by Brenton Thwaites) for the first time is incredibly sweet and does not feel corny, the way it easily could have. Sharlto Copley does far better as the obsessed, angry king than he does as the quivering servant to his processor. He is far more convincing when there is a much more interesting character to play. 

Maleficent may be a little too easy a watch for many people, but achieves what Disney more than often sets out to do and that is to create a film for the whole family. Angelina Jolie gives a performance unlike any other she has previously taken one, and makes Maleficent a greater film for it.

7/10

The Mortal Instruments: City Of Bones (2013)

Year: 2013
Running Time: 130 minutes
Director: Harald Zwart
Writers: Cassandra Clare (novel), Jessica Postigo (screenplay)
Cast: Lily Collins, Jamie Campbell Bower, Robert Sheehan, Kevin Zegers, Jemima West, Lena Headey, Jonathan Rhys Meyers

The Mortal Instruments: City Of Bones is now showing in cinemas everywhere.

Well, what a disappointment.

Anybody who would have read The Mortal Instruments books by Cassandra Clare will be able to confirm with you that this film is not a good representation of the first novel in the series which it is based on, City Of Bones. Not only are there so many things which are changed for the film which clearly don't work, but the screenplay is atrocious. All the potential in the world hasn't been able to save The Mortal Instruments: City Of Bones from being little more than a less than impressive and not very clean cut mash up of every young adult fantasy/romance book to screen we have seen in recent times.

Clary Fray (Lily Collins) is a seemingly ordinary New York teenager, but it soon becomes obvious that there is nothing ordinary about her when she starts to see things that her best friend, Simon (Robert Sheehan) can't see, draws strange symbols subconsciously and her mother, Jocelyn (Lena Headey) goes missing in mysterious circumstances. She meets shadowhunter, Jace (Jamie Campbell Bower) who is the first to inform her that she also has shadowhunter blood and he and his friends, Alec (Kevin Zegers) and Isabelle (Jemima West) agree to help her find her mother. Clary and Simon enter into a world they never knew existed and neither of them will ever see anything in the same way again.

For how much potential there is here, The Mortal Instruments: City Of Bones is just ordinary no matter how hard it tries to be something special. And try it does. Director, Harald Zwart is fond of trying to give scenes importance when they really don't feel as though they are by means of slow motion and the aid of a wind machine for the character's hair to create dramatic effect. The film has no feeling of importance for the large majority of it and lacks suspense tremendously.

The only thing really saving the film is the fact that Cassandra Clare's story is interesting enough and this does make the film succeed in some way as you feel as though you simply must watch the next film to find out all the answers...even if you barely tolerated the first film. While Cassandra Clare's story provides a solid basis for the film, the adapted screenplay by Jessica Postigo is it's undoing. The changes made for screen just do not work at all and the dialogue spoken by the main characters is weak and bland. Even the lines which are obviously supposed to have comedic value are just a little too predictable and just not funny at all. Zwart's direction and Postigo's writing are individually the wrong choices for the film and the mixture of the two is the reason for the film's failure. It is not strong enough a film to break through the mould and be seen as just another teen supernatural flick.

Visually, The Mortal Instruments: City Of Bones is not a complete failure. Some of the CGI does not seem completely realistic, such as when Isabelle pulls down the chandelier in the vampire attack scene, but for the most part it is convincing. As previously stated, it does try to enhance the atmosphere and emotion of it's scenes using particular filming techniques and musical scores. Perhaps the scene that does benefit from this the most is again the vampire attack when because of it's editing and entertaining battle choreography. However, for the most part, many of these scenes just feel overdone with the aid of it's cinematography. Yet, sometimes it does pose as a reminder that the scene MAY be important, but more often than not still doesn't achieve this and the scene still doesn't feel special.

The Mortal Instruments has assembled a fine cast for the beginning of it's series of films (if it does make it past the second film, as only the second film has been announced). It is just a shame that they really have not been given much for them to exhibit their talents. Lily Collins' Clary Fray is very different from the one in the books, who is quite a strong female character. The way she has been written for the film is not that. Collins' does well enough with the role that is given to her and she is likable, but hasn't got enough character to make her relatable. Jamie Campbell Bower is indeed charismatic and very well suited to the role, but it is a role that doesn't have a great deal of emotional range. Collins and Bower do have on screen chemistry, which is a saving grace for the film.

Jonathan Rhys Meyers does not have much screen time and his character isn't written very well, but his performance is still quite chilling and he does evil very well. Lena Headey also doesn't have a great deal of screen time, but does do well with what is given to her.

It is such a shame to see a film with so much potential fall dramatically short of what it could really be. The scariest thing about this supernatural film, is that no matter how unfortunate the film is, you are still interested to see the next one to find out exactly what happens to Clary and Jace.

4/10


You may have also seen Lily Collins in....
The Blind Side as Collins

You may have also seen Jamie Campbell Bower in.....
Anonymous as Young Edward De Vere/ Earl of Oxford

Jack The Giant Slayer (2013)

Year: 2013

Director: Bryan Singer

Cast: Nicholas Hoult, Stanley Tucci, Ewan McGregor, Eleanor Tomlinson, Ian McShane

Before I begin my review…

I know this has got hardly anything to do with the movie, but how good is the name Jack?

Jack will never go out of style. The name suits a little boy, a young man and an older man. It is such a distinguished and strong name. A Jack is not to be taken lightly. A Jack will do many great things. The fairy tale which Jack The Giant Slayer is based on, Jack And The Beanstalk does not have a Jack has the protagonist for no reason.  With a strong name comes a strong will.

I may be of a slightly bias opinion considering I did name my son Jack.

It is unfortunate that one of the most famous Jack’s in history is Jack The Ripper, but I think we can all get past the fact that it is highly unlikely the notorious serial killer’s name was actually Jack. I think it is safe to assume that whoever it was was a strong person, as well as being insane (we hope).

 I can assure you he is not the Jack I named my Jack after.

As he gets older, I am sure my Jack will love the fact that there is a film called Jack The Giant Slayer. I’m sure I will be watching this on DVD in years to come with my budding little film critic.

Review

Why not make a film based on the fairy tale Jack and The Beanstalk? It seems like everything has to be made into a movie, so why not?

It’s not necessarily a bad thing either, especially in the case of Jack The Giant Slayer. This is one fairy tale that could only be made in a time like now with the amazing cinematic techniques we have in recent times. Could you imagine how ridiculous the giants and the beanstalk reaching to the sky would have looked if made any time before the 1990’s? Animation probably would not have made the film too bad, but real life action would have meant complete B grade, and also maybe cult favourite status.

Jack the Giant Slayer is everything you would expect a fairy tale film to be. It is corny in the way that most fairy tales are, but is still entertaining enough and has some incredible special effects and cinematography.

Our hero, Jack (Nicholas Hoult)is a young farmhand who experiences a twist of fate when he visits the town market in order to sell his horse. He sells his horse to a desperate monk in need of transportation out of the city in exchange for a handful of beans. It is only when a terrible rainstorm occurs, that he realises that these beans are what grows beanstalks that reach high up to the land between Heaven and Earth where giants roam. Jack becomes a key part in the rescue of the Princess Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson), who has been taken prisoner by the giants and he also must stop Roderick (Stanley Tucci) from achieving his goal which could threaten the kingdom.

The bad things about fairy tales and other well known stories being made into films is that unless the film makers have put their own spin on it, the film is predictable and very rarely has any suspense. This is no surprise and just something we must accept. Sometimes this can be a bore, but Jack The Giant Slayer isn’t that.

As one would expect from director Bryan Singer, the film is very well directed and very entertaining. It is just a fun film and at times, it is more like watching a historical film rather than a fairy tale. The film travels along at a steady pace, but the end seems quite sudden and then almost a little confusing. This in itself is confusing as a story which is quite simple to understand shouldn’t have an ending which confuses people.

Fairy tales are in general entertaining to watch on the big screen, but visually Jack The Giant Slayer is better than most. A great thing about this version of the fairy tale, is that the giants are made to truly look terrifying. They are not just big men, but are all deformed and evil. The beanstalk is also an amazing creation. The CGI of even the tiniest detail of the stalk is incredible. The landscape of each of the two kingdoms are just magnificent.

The time period is very well recreated and quite a pleasure to see. The battle scenes are very well orchestrated and have a slightly Lord of the Rings touch to them.

Nicholas Holt does well as Jack. With his career currently on the up, Hoult shows here that he has no problem being able to carry a film. Ewan McGregor gives a steady performance and his character is extremely likable. Eleanor Tomlinson’s performance is not a huge stand out, but she does do well.

Jack The Giant Slayer is entertaining and well made. It is a visual delight that shows you just how far films have come in regards to special effects and cinematography,

7/10

You may have also seen Nicholas Hoult in....
X-Men: First Class as Hank McCoy/ Beast

You may have also seen Ewan McGregor in....
The Men Who Stare At Goats as Bob Wilton
The Impossible as Henry

You may have seen Stanley Tucci in.....
The Lovely Bones as George Harvey
Easy A as Gill
Captain America: The First Avenger as Dr Abraham Erskine

Oz the Great and Powerful (2013)

Year: 2013
Director: Sam Raimi
Cast: James Franco, Michelle Williams, Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz, Zach Braff, Joey King

Before I begin my review....
"It's not as good as The Wizard of Oz"

This is what I got told someone I know said after seeing Oz the Great and Powerful, and the first thing I thought after hearing this "Did you really go in expecting it to be a complete and utter classic that people are going to be in awe of for at least another 70 years and want to share with their children and grandchildren?"

That's called setting yourself up for disappointment.

When it comes to a prequel or a sequel of a film, I believe the best thing to do before you see it is just hope to enjoy it. Very rarely is the follow up as good as the first film, so don't set the bar too high. The good thing about a sequel or prequel to a film you love, is that it adds to your knowledge about the characters you loved and situations you enjoyed watching in the first film. If anything, you get to take this away from the film and you are not let down, because you enjoy seeing these characters again and learning more.

I myself are a bit of a Wizard of Oz fanatic and I know that people, like me, will enjoy Oz the Great and Powerful because it stays true to the 1939 classic. There are very little inconsistencies between the two and you really do believe you have learnt more about the original film by watching it. I was also a fan of 1985's Return To Oz, which is the sequel. However, both the prequel and the sequel are not as good as the original, but no one expects them to be. The Wizard of Oz was completely before it's time and there will never be another film like it.

By the way, if anybody was like me and wondered why there was no mention of the ruby slippers in Oz the Great and Powerful, I did a bit of research and found out why. Warner Bros own the rights to the elements of the original MGM film and as Oz the Great and Powerful is a Disney film, the studio cannot legally include mention of or images of the slippers in the film.

Studio politics.

Review

Oz the Great and Powerful does it's predecessor proud by continuing on The Wizard of Oz tradition with respect and beauty, something Disney have a knack of doing. 

It is hard not to compare and liken Oz the Great and Powerful to the 1939 classic as it is a prequel to it, but it would be unrealistic to expect it to be as good as it. However, all those who are fans of and enjoyed The Wizard of Oz (which would be the large majority of those who have seen it) will enjoy this film as it stays true to the original as well as being accompanied by extraordinarily beautiful visuals and amazing special effects. 

Oscar "Oz" Diggs (James Franco) is a Kansas sideshow magician when we meet him, who has dreams of being a man of greatness, but is struggling just to be a good man for the time being. He escapes the sideshow in a hot air balloon and gets caught in a classic Kansas twister. He lands in a beautiful land and meets the beautiful witch, Theodora (Mila Kunis) who tells him that he is in Oz. The coming of Oz to the land seems to fit the description of the prophecy in which a wizard will land and save the good people of Oz from the evil witch. Oz is not convinced that he is the wizard from the prophecy, but everyone believes otherwise. 

The story of Oz the Great and Powerful is easy to watch. It doesn't evoke too many emotions, but it is a whole lot of fun. The screenplay isn't exceptional and it is a very light film. It is not powerful by any means, except visually. However, it is what it is meant to be and that is a family film. It is just very entertaining and enjoyable.

The film has such a magical feel to it and is very easy on the eye. There are some incredible images and some of breathtaking beauty. Oz's landscapes are beautiful and cityscapes such as the broken China Town and the Emerald City are exquisite. If you have seen Disney's latest version of  Alice in Wonderland , may feel there is a Wonderland feeling about Oz. It will probably not surprise you to find out that the producer of Alice in Wonderland , Joe Roth, is also the producer of Oz the Great and Powerful.

Again, it is hard to look at Oz the Great and Powerful as a stand alone film as it does have so many references to The Wizard of Oz. The film starts off in sepia and then turns into colour when Oz arrives in Oz, just like in the original. There is also the appearance of characters in Oz who resemble or mirror those who were in Kansas, again what happened to Dorothy in 1939. Prior knowledge of The Wizard of Oz is almost essential so that you know the meaning of several little things throughout the film, but that isn't a problem as you'd be so hard pressed to find someone you know who hasn't seen the film. It is a joy to see the original being honoured in so many ways in this new film, and director of The Wizard of Oz, Victor Fleming would have been proud. 

James Franco completely personifies Oz. In the original, you get the feeling that once Dorothy and her friends discover him behind the curtain, he comes across a bit ashamed of himself that he isn't all that he pretends to be. Franco plays on this and shows how the wizard over does certain things he does to try and convince others how wonderful he is. Franco is perfectly cast and wonderful to watch. 

The three witches are all very well cast and are played by three of the most beautiful women in Hollywood. Michelle Williams is just gorgeous on screen as Glinda and is so likable, just as her character is supposed to be. Strong, but so very sweet. Rachel Weisz plays subtle evil very well and Mila Kunis becomes terrifying through the film and watching her change is excellent.

Joey King, who plays the little girl in the side show and the China Girl in Oz is wonderful. King, at 14, is one to watch. She has been in various films and glows in each of her roles and outshines many of her older co-stars. She is definitely a star to watch as she progresses.

Oz the Great and Powerful does The Wizard of Oz proud. It is a film lover's eye candy and is sure to become a guilty pleasure to many. 

7/10

Beasts Of The Southern Wild (2012)

Year: 2012

Director: Benh Zeitlin

Cast: Quvenzhane Wallis, Dwight Henry, Levy Easterly

Before I begin my review….

On the eve of the 85^th Academy Awards nominations announcement (when being in Australia I stayed up until 12:30am to find them out), a friend of mine asked if I had any predictions for the nominations.

My prediction was that some nominations are pretty predictable and don’t vary too much from the Golden Globe nominations, but there is usually one film that people consider a surprise because it didn’t really have a representation in the Golden Globes. Beasts Of The Southern Wild is that film for 2012/13.

In all honestly, I can’t say I was particularly surprised that Beasts Of The Southern Wild, director Benh Zeitlin and it’s gorgeous lead star, Quvenzhane Wallis have been nominated. With the bucket load of awards it has won at film festivals and the buzz it created, there was plenty of talk floating around on the net that this film could well be an Oscar contender.

The Golden Globe nominations were released and there was no sign of Beasts Of The Southern Wild. Now this isn’t the first time the Globes’ have ignored a film which made an impact on the nominations at the Oscars. There are many examples, but let’s look at more recent example in the Coen brothers, True Grit. The film got nominated for no Golden Globes at all, yet got nominated for a massive 10 Academy Awards including Motion Picture of The Year, Best Achievement in Directing, Best Performance by an Actor In A Leading Role and Best Performance by an Actress In A Supporting Role. Again, I wouldn’t call it a surprise in my eyes when the Academy Award nominations were released as True Grit is a fantastic film and one of my all-time favourites.

Anyway, so my verdict about this movie as far as actually winning the awards goes. Well, I can’t actually see it winning any of the four awards it is up for. Not because this isn’t a very good film, but it is a tough competition at the top.

Quvenzhane Wallis may have the biggest chance of winning and, at her nine years of age, she will go down in history as being the youngest person ever to win a competitive Oscar if she does. It is truly amazing for someone as young as her to almost carry the whole movie herself and give such an amazing performance at such a young age.

Is there any chance of the academy bring back the Juvenile Award which Judy Garland won back in 1940?

It was worth a try anyway…..

Review

Beasts Of The Southern Wild has a rare type of beauty not often seen in films.

Told through the eyes of a beautiful, young and innocent soul, Beasts Of The Southern Wild combines harsh realities of life with fantasy and makes you start to see the true beauty in life that we sometimes miss. There is nothing better than seeing movie that just happens to be one of those things of true beauty.

Six year old Hushpuppy (Quvenzhane Wallis) lives in a bayou on the edge of the world with her hot-headed father, Wink (Dwight Henry). When he father disappears and then returns with an illness, the world starts to crumble around her with storms raging and icecaps melting, which releases the mystical aurochs. In order to survive, Hushpuppy learns about how life is not always kind, but that in order to survive you need courage and love for those around you.

Beasts Of The Southern Wild is such an original film and has you entranced from the first few minutes when you see that beautiful scene of Hushpuppy with her sparklers. A completely fitting opening to the film by showing the youth and innocence of Hushpuppy running around with her sparklers without a care in the world.  This is just the beginning of some extraordinary cinematography in the film.

Another great thing about this film is that it is party fantasy, but very rarely does it seem like that. There is a magical quality to it, but nothing is done in an exaggerated fashion to suggest that it is unlike real life. Of course there is the aurochs, but they don’t seem entirely out of place in the surroundings.

The score is also beautiful and adds to the overall beauty of the film. The southern wild is visually very interesting to watch. The bayou in which Hushpuppy lives in, Bathtub is full of quirkiness. Her household is like a mini museum.

It is incredible how well Quvenzhane Wallis carries the film. Her age is not an issue when it comes to being the lead and being in almost every scene. The way her character develops throughout the film is incredible. She starts off as being a little girl, but when her father leaves, she steps into the shoes of being the head of her “house”. How much her character develops is completely evident in the scene when they have taken her into the hospital. She stands there in a little girl’s pink dress, but through your eyes, you are seeing a grown woman in little girl’s clothes not able to communicate with the other children as she far too advanced for them.

It is a wonderful film debut by Wallis and she has a very bright future ahead of her.

By the end of Beasts Of The Southern Wild, you are feeling full of love and you know that if a little girl can be so courageous, we all have the same strength inside us.

A thing of true beauty.

9/10