Change Your Image
amb0120
Reviews
Emerald City (2016)
c'est la vie!
The first question that comes to mind is does Baum's classic need yet another reboot/update, even if it is just a modern re-imagining of the stories that led to 'The Wizard of Oz'? Past attempts have been, at best, lame, but Emerald City is, by far, the worst of the bunch. From an obviously weak concept, to poor acting (I've experienced much better acting at community theaters), anemic directing and amateur writing, Emerald City fails. (If a show airs on NBC, it's a good bet [99.9%] that it sinks. Even the best of NBC shows are tedious.) One review I read referred to Baum's tale as a beloved children's story, which, of course, it is on one level. But the story has a much more interesting, deeper, level for adults enjoy and ponder. If an adult and you've missed this level, c'est la vie!
The Lone Ranger (2013)
Too Bad
This one is a puzzle: with screen writing treatments by Terry Rossio, Ted Elloitt and Justin Haythe it would be almost a given for success, based on their track records, but the script comes off uneven and just does not satisfy. The director, Gore Verbinski, is also at fault. He seems not to understand the genre. The museum scenes just don't work for me at all and are out of place. The acting itself is good, but far from great. The Lone Ranger comes off a bit of a buffoon, while Tonto can't seem to make up his mind as to whether he's a comedian or philosopher. Just because something is funny does not mean it works for a story, but no one seems to understand this in this production. Carving out new ground in any genre, and especially a Western, is not easy. To accomplish this, one must have a clear vision of what needs to be done. The idea of telling the story of the Lone Ranger from Tonto's point of view is, in itself, fine, but Tonto doesn't seems lost. If, what I've read, Depp wanted to portray Tonto as an equal to the Lone ranger, as much as I like him, he failed. Too bad this crew didn't take at least a few clues from the folks who did Tombstone, which lacked depth, but was an entertaining retelling of Wyatt Earp. Film is a collective effort, so there is no one person who should receive the accolade or blame. But, maybe Disney should just stick to animated kids films and movies that appeal to ten year-old audiences .
The Sea of Grass (1947)
It's the script, silly!
Why do I get the feeling some folks know little about Spencer Tracy? For example, Kazan's alleged quote of "Tracy did not like horses and horses did not like Tracy either" (per Ciment's book). Excuse me, but how could a man who loved to play polo, which Tracy did and did a lot in his younger days and against studio wishes, not like horses? I've played polo and if you don't like horses (and they don't like you) you won't be playing the game more than once or twice. Maybe the quote was made for the more obvious reason: to justify Kazan turning out a movie that was below his abilities? If true that one of Kazan's excuses for the painful experience of directing the movie was not filming on location, I can't totally disagree, but then again a good many great films were not filmed on location, so this excuse only holds so much water. And how can one think that the movie is a "cattlemen vs. homesteaders" film? That's the setting, and it is the trigger of the conflict between the main characters, which leads to the betrayal, which is the center piece of the story, but that certainly isn't the movie. I grant you, it's not one of Tracy's best, but he does the best he can with the lame Marguerite Roberts' script. Even if this movie had been shot on location, it doesn't change the glaring fact that a bad script is still a bad script. If you believe Tracy was sleepwalking, then you have to also believe Kazan was on life support and Roberts was dead, from the neck up, while scripting this one. If Tracy's at fault for anything, it's for trying to save the film, which is more than it deserved.