The Eclectic Choice: Return To Oz

Return To Oz (1985)
dir. Walter Murch


Man did this movie take a beating when it was first released. There was all kinds of flak over the fact that Disney was making a "sequel" to such a beloved film. Not to mention this one wasn't a musical. For shame. Never mind the fact that the original film was a perversion of a book by L. Frank Baum.

Return To Oz did exactly what it should have done. Go back to the original source material. By doing so, legendary editor and sound designer Walter Murch made his first and only foray into directing a memorable one. This isn't our parents Oz.

Darker, twisted and a lot of fun, Dorthy is sent to a hospital for delusions after she has talked up her first visit to Oz. The cure is going to be electroshock, but she is rescued by a mysterious patient and they escape into a storm that eventually leads a lone Dorthy back to Oz. There she discovers a destroyed Emerald City, A Gnome King who can move through solid rock and a Wicked Queen who has a variety of snap on heads to choose from.

She is also joined by a new cast of side kicks include a wind up robot, a living jack-o-lantern and a talking chicken. Together they seek to rescue the Scarecrow and return Oz to the pristine state it once was. It's a quest of the bizarre and a real cinematic treat.

Were this movie made in the franchise minded culture of today, it could be a big hit. Baum had written 14 Oz books, and the idea of a female protagonist running around a magical world could be a real hit amongst the Harry Potter lovers. Alas it was not meant to be. But we do have this adventure to enjoy and it's well worth the trip. I wouldn't recommend it for younger viewers, it does have a more macabre edginess to it and the effects, though good for the time, are showing their age.

This is another entry of a Disney struggling to find an audience. Along with other risks of the era like The Black Hole (1979), or Tron (1982), Oz was a failure at the box office, but now has more than a few aspects that make it an overlooked flick that's worth a second look.

POV: Good Ol' Days

I had moved from the small town to the medium city to start college. It was perfect timing. The popularity of independent film was starting to boon and no one had more of an influence on bringing the indies to the masses like Miramax. I was introduced to them through the breakout sex, lies and videotape (1990) and stuck with them through the amazing run of the 90's. The Crying Game (1992), The Piano (1993), and Pulp Fiction (1994) helped Miramax become a giant among production and distribution companies.

When the word came down that Disney was going to buy them up, it set off alarms. But Bob and Harvey Weinstein (despite reputations) were geniuses at getting what they wanted made and reinforced up the Miramax Brand. It wouldn't be until the new century that their Midas touch seemed to be hitting some bumps. Everyone does at one point in time, this doesn't mean they can't come back, but it caused a growing rift with their parent company. Then they left, forming the Weinstein Company which has been struggling to find it's feet.


So where did this leave Miramax? Well, unfortunately the name that helped define a generation of movies and movie goers has been relegated to the basement of Disney. They have announced they will only be releasing three films a year and let go of a majority of staff. What does it mean for the future of the once great indie champion? Probably a slow and painful death until the word Miramax sinks into history like AIP or Monogram. I hope it doesn't. They had such a mark of quality for so many years, it seems a waste to let it fuck off to hospice.

Maybe Disney will reevaluate at some point, bring in fresh blood that will be the new Harvey and Bob and resuscitate. Maybe the Weinsteins will see a banner year and bring back that old feeling of greatness to the movie screens. Or maybe, most probably likely, a new name will emerge from the ether and capture my heart.

Review: A Serious Man

A Serious Man (2009)
starring: Michael Stuhlbarg, Richard Kind, Fred Melamed, Sari Lennick, Adam Arkin, Fyvush Finkel
dir. Joel & Ethan Coen

The Coen brothers have been two of the more interesting filmmakers to watch evolve over the years and A Serious Man is another step in that evolution. It may feel like the distant cousin to Barton Fink(1991), or contain some of the same visual style as Blood Simple (1984) and Fargo (1996), but this is a film of a different beast that may deliver one of the more theologically debatable endings in recent years.

The story revolves around Larry Gopnik and his decent into chaos. His wife is leaving him for another man, his tenure may not be approved and a student is threatening to sue over a bad grade. Plus his brother is getting into trouble, his kids are fighting over money stolen from Larry's wallet and every Rabbi that Larry seeks consolation from can't deliver.

The film feels like the story of Job with a new ending that asks the audience to think about our own actions in life. Every scene seems to push Larry further and further into a spiritual hole that he just can't seem to dig himself out of.

The glue to this film is an amazing performance by Stuhlbarg as Larry. You feel the weight of his shoulders as he suffers emotional blow after emotional blow. He's so good if he doesn't get a best actor nomination then I'll have lost as much faith as Larry does in the film.

The one thing that also needs pointing out is the sound design. It's a knockout! Complex, precise, and it adds to the atmosphere more than it has in the brothers past films. Which is saying a lot since all of their films have amazing sound design.

The Coen's have delivered another piece of art that my cause some Barton Fink flashbacks, but feels emotionally like the flip side off the No country For Old Men (2007) coin. This isn't a film for everyone and challenges even the more devout Coen fans. But it's a remarkable and seemingly personal piece of work that comes from the mind of two brothers who do nothing but surprise us time and time again.

9 out of 10

Review: Paranormal Activity

Paranormal Activity (2009)
starring:Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat, Michael Bayouth
dir. Oren Peli

It was exactly 10 years ago the The Blair Witch Project (1999) opened up and became one of the summers biggest hits. It introduced the movie going public to what would grow into it's own sub-genre. These micro-budget horror films shot in a pseudo-documentary style have become a part of our popular culture and have ranged from a giant monster movie like Cloverfield (2008) to the annoying couple become fish food film Open Water (2003).

Paranormal Activity has had a long and strange journey. The word of mouth from Anne Thompson back in 2007 was great but it couldn't find distribution. There was an offer to remake it, but not release it in the original form. No matter how well test screening did, offers never came in.

They finally secured a deal, with midnight screenings and the opportunity to sign an online petition to have it released nation wide. I'm not sure if it is a publicity stunt, but it seems to be working. The tally is around eight-hundred thousand and rising by the minute. The goal is one million. So everyone will have an opportunity soon.

As for the movie it self, it will be looked at the same way as Blair Witch. Those who got in early before the hype grows out of control will love it. Those who see it after buzz hits the tipping point will hate it. Those who enjoy seeing the process of how a horror film works at manipulating the audience will find it very educational.

Here's the plot: Boyfriend buys video camera to capture strange things happening in the house at night. Camera starts catching weird stuff that slowly grows and grows until the final shot, which is designed to deliver a sharp shriek of fear and an uneasy feeling that all is not well in the world.

It's does contain some forced moments to try and tie the plot together , but Featherston and Sloat make a convincing couple with all of the quirks and idiosyncrasies that make couples lovable and annoying. They're fun to watch and you feel for them as they dig themselves deeper and deeper into the paranormal world.

This is a movie for folks who love horror that isn't about gore but the slow build. Outside of that, it is a fascinating experiment to see a potential model for distribution.

7.7 out of 10

POV: Flicker

Flicker (1991)
by Theodore Roszak

If you are a lover of movies, movie history and a shadow history of film that casts a dark, ominous shadow over the light of celluloid, then this book is for you.

I first picked up a paperback copy back around 1996. Like most things, I was first attracted by the cover. I'm known to pick up any book that features sprocket holes as part of the artwork. I assume it has something to do with movies, though most of the time, it doesn't. This time though, I hit pay dirt. It took about fifty pages for me to find the rhythm, but suddenly I was engrossed. It's so well written and thought out that I'm shocked it hasn't caught on to be a bigger work than it is.

This sucker is an onion, you keep pulling back layers and layers, idea upon metaphor upon theme. I'm always fascinated how I find new and deeper meanings with each read. It makes me wonder if it has to do with me growing older, learning more about film, or both. I'll say both.

The main thread is about Jonathan Gates, a young college bound kid in the late fifties who stumbles upon a small movie theater run by cineaste Clare and her stoned out projectionist, Sharkey. Gates and Clare begin an affair that will lead to the discovery and appreciation of a lost filmmaker named Max Castle. But Castle's films are much more than just b-movies, there is an under-hold, a flicker, a mysterious something that hides underneath his images.

The book is a gothic thriller that uses real movie history as the building blocks for a religious cult that is out to destroy the world. However cheesy it sounds, the book works incredibly well.

I remember trying to track down the rights to it and there was a big legal battle at the time. They ended up at Regency Productions and for a while Darren Aronofsky was attached. The only outcome of that was the most recent printing in 2005 which states Aronofsky's involvement. He has since left the project.

Only time will tell if a great movie will be made from this. There is a great movie in the book, it just depends on who ends up making it. But for now we have the perfection that is the novel and as soon as you've finished the latest political biography, or Stephen King paperback, pick this up and give it a read. You wont be disappointed.

The Eclectic Choice: Family Plot

Family Plot (1976)
dir. Alfred Hitchcock

This isn't Rear Window (1954), Psycho (1960), Vertigo (1958) or Strangers On A Train (1951). Hitchcock has a list of classics a football field long, and sure, this isn't one of them. Sure it may be flawed, silly, fluffy fun, but it is Hitch's last film and there is a lot more to it than you might expect.

The main plot circles around a fake, or is she, psychic who along with her cab driving boyfriend decide to hunt down an heir to a fortune. These characters are played with charisma and some real genuine chemistry by Bruce Dern and Barbara Harris. It's a blast to watch these two together. they have this rhythm that feels like a couple in love, even through the minor bickering of everyday life. Dern is a very different character than we are used to seeing. Sure he's quirky, but far from the nut-ball borderline psychos hat he is famous for. It is a real shame Barbara Harris was dealing with personal problems that stifled her career. Between this, Nashville (1975) and Freaky Friday (1968), it's impossible not to notice her incredible range and the cute-as-a-button looks this lady has. I really wish she was able to do more.

The weakness of the movie is William Devane who is always dependable, but is always William Devane. The character is weak and his subplot to kidnap people and ransom them for diamonds never really takes off. Karen Black plays Devane's accomplice, but isn't given much to do.

It's fun and frothier then most of Hitchcock's work, but it also includes a lot of the masters touches that made him such a great filmmaker. Does it stand up to his best films? Of course not, but few movies can or ever will be able to hold up such standards. Hitch may have not gone out with a bang, but as he literally ends his cinematic career with a wink at the camera, it reminds us that the man was never about delivering the normal set of expectations.

R.I.P. Henry Gibson

Henry Gibson (1935-2009)

Henry Gibson will be remembered for two major things. The first is a regular on Laugh In and the second was as the leader of the Nazi's in The Blues Brothers (1980). But for me there are three roles that really single him out as a major talent. The first two are for Robert Altman films.

His portrayal of Haven Hamilton in Nashville (1975) is great stuff. He captured all of the hypocrisy of Christianity and the entertainment world. All smiles and glad handing in public and just a royal judgmental prick in private. It's a stroke of genius in a movie that has genius at every turn.

The second was his take on Dr. Verringer in The Long Goodbye (1973). It's a tough thing to make intimidating Sterling Hayden look legit and Gibson did it with flying colors. Cold, steely eyes and the delivery of "Sign the check Roger!" You actually think he could kill Hayden with that look. Fantastic.

The third is in Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia (1999), as the snobbish barfly Thurston Howell. He takes down a crumbling William H. Macy with his one-liners and wandering eyebrows with the creepy grace and elegance of a serial killer. Plus his name is Thurston Howell, which is awesome.

There is also his work in Innerspace (1987), The Wedding Crashers (2005) and several episodes of King Of The Hill to take into account. The man worked rigorously and brought a touch of humor and ingenuity to every character he performed. It was an excellent career and one that will stand the test of time.