Change Your Image
arothmanmusic
Reviews
Tin Man (2007)
Watchable, but disappointingly unoriginal.
"Tin Man" is a fantasy drama set in modern-day OZ, decades after the original story. It melds variants of the original Baum characters with plot lines that are almost directly stolen from other fantasies like "The 10th Kingdom" and "Star Wars". It's an interesting concept, and the production design is good for a medium-budget made-for-TV film, but the script is mostly trite and predictable with a lot of forced references to the 1939 film as well as a number of devices that bend logic just to move the story along. It almost feels like a film adaptation of a book where they've left out a lot of depth just to get to the important plot points. Speaking of books, if you want a serious drama based around OZ, you might be more interested in Gregory Maguire's "Wicked" novel (or if you're into spectacle more than substance, the fine musical that shares its name and little else is also worth checking out).
The cast of "Tin Man" does a reasonable job with the mediocre text they're given, but Zooey Deschanel's deadpan acting style is particularly unsuited to it and it doesn't help to make her a sympathetic leading lady. Neal McDonough is far better served by the title role, although even he is given some really clunky lines to deliver. The usually brilliant Alan Cumming is reduced to mere comic relief in his role as 'Glitch' (an homage to the Scarecrow).
In fact, the one character I actually wanted to see more of was 'The Magic Man' (aka The Wizard) played superbly by Richard Dreyfus, but he wasn't given any back story or screen time at all before he was gone from the story. And that seems to be the overall problem with "Tin Man": provocative ideas are presented and then allowed to languish or disappear without exploration. The characters are either paper-thin, or overwrought, leaving otherwise capable actors little to work with on their way to an ending that's so flat you're almost caught off guard by the credits.
Overall I wouldn't call "Tin Man" unwatchable. It's fair entertainment, but might be enjoyed by someone perhaps age 10. It had the potential to be a strong drama, but ended up short of its potential and generally stale.
King Kong (2005)
Jackson tries to create an epic, but ends up with just another overdone blockbuster.
Well, I can't say that I'm either disappointed or thrilled by the film. It has all the hallmarks of a Peter Jackson flick... it's long (3 hours), the script is a little too melodramatic at times, there is plenty of stopmotion-like digital blur in the action scenes, plenty of brain twisting camera angles and impossible sweeping vistas, an lots and lots of eye poppingly cool digital work by the kids at WETA. The movie has all the digital creatures (and human stunt doubles) you'd expect, with enough creepy crawlies and scary monsters to give anyone a serious case of the jibblies. There's a wide range of thoroughly improbable escapes, as well as plenty of gruesome deaths. And of course there's Kong himself, who is an amazingly believable creature, brought to life again by Andy Serkis and the motion capture folks at WETA.
The cast, including the oddball trio of Brody, Black and Watts, all are surprisingly fit for their roles, although only Watts really manages to grip the audience... usually in her scenes with Kong. In fact, the scenes with Watts and Kong are really the best parts of the film (watch for Kong's showstealing battle with a carnivorous dinosaur). The movie really plays like an "extended cut"... I imagine that it'd be a really enjoyable blockbuster if it was about 45 minutes shorter. They could have chucked 3 out of the 4 subplots and focused more on the main story... I wonder how the same people who turned thousands of pages of Tolkein into a workable storyline managed to blow a simple plot like King Kong's into a multi-threaded epic with so little dramatic substance? Overall, an enjoyable film, and certainly another marvel of artistic and technical wizardry, but in the end it probably won't leave much more of a mark on the world of film than any other 'big movie' of recent years. See it while it's on the big screen though... the size of the film is part of its power... and I suspect that what flaws exist will seem larger as the screen gets smaller.
Hope and Glory (1987)
Better the first time
I don't have anything terribly deep to say here other than that I absolutely loved this movie when I saw it in the theater at age 11, but having re-watched it now at 29 I don't like it as much. The film is a series of sometimes funny, sometimes touching, sometimes sad vignettes, but there's no "story" to it... it seems to be 100% character study and no plot. In fact, most of the characters show little or no change at all throughout the movie. While it does have some entertaining and sweet moments, in general I'd say it's not the amazing film I thought it was when I was a kid. Perhaps I'd appreciate it more if I was English.
The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (2003)
Very disappointing
Jessica Biel in tight jeans and t-shirt was about the only thing worth watching in this snorefest. Sure, there were a couple of your average grisly deaths and some "make you jump" moments... standard slasher flick stuff that we've all seen before. But in between the decent action sequences were long stretches where characters who were alternately annoying and yawn-inducing just walked around, sat around, or ran around doing very little of interest... just screaming, whining and crying until someone else got killed.
The characters often did things that made no sense at all... why does Leatherface throw Erin down into the basement and then leave her to wander around and escape instead of maiming her on the spot like the others? Why does Erin use a giant knife to put a friend out of his misery, and then not take the knife with her as she goes wandering in the house? There were gaping holes and inconsistencies throughout the "plot."
Overall, this movie didn't scare me or entertain me. In fact, the DVD special features about Ed Gein and serial killer movies were more engaging than the main feature itself. Even the surround audio mix was lackluster. Perhaps I'll track down a copy of the original and see if I like that any better.
The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
The best is saved for last...
Another superb film from Mr. Jackson. His judicious editing keeps this final installment from ever dragging at all, as the first two did for brief moments. Each character is given enough screen time to shine, and the battle scenes are kept just long enough to satisfy without growing boring. If any drawbacks could be pointed out, there are still a few 'very CGI' looking moments (e.g. Legolas attacking the Olifant), and some less than stellar blue-screen matting for hobbit scale effects, but these are minor flaws on an otherwise stunning film. Fans of the book may take offense to the omission of Saruman and the 'Scourin of the Shire', but they are not really necessary in the grand scheme of the film. Of course, the soft-focus, slo-mo shots of the reuinion of the Fellowship at Frodo's bedside aren't necessary either... but I'll take the cheese with the wine any day. A really magnificent movie. Can't wait to see the extended DVD.