Witch What?

Review by Vives Anunciacion
March 16, 2009
Makati, Philippines
(unpublished)

Race to Witch Mountain
Directed by Andy Fickman

I thought I’d give this a try since it starred “The Rock” Dwayne Johnson. I thought it’d be funny – but nooo. Except for Taken, which was okay in its Bourne-esque attempts, nothing showing in theaters was worth seeing last weekend.

A note for readers to contemplate on the things they read online:

The synopsis according to IMDB is thus:

A UFO expert enlists the help of a cabbie to protect two siblings with paranormal powers from the clutches of an organization that wants to use the kids for their nefarious plans.

Now compare Rottentomatoes’ synopsis:

Disney restarts their beloved Witch Mountain franchise with this family-friendly adventure. Dwayne Johnson (THE GAME PLAN) stars as a taxi driver who gets more than get bargained for when he picks up two teen runaways (AnnaSophia Robb and Alexander Ludwig). Not only does the pair possess supernatural powers, but they’re also trying desperately to escape people who have made them their targets.

This is mine:

Reimagined from a 1975 family film about orphaned siblings with supernatural powers and dubious parentage (Escape to Witch Mountain), the new movie is about a couple of alien siblings (AnnaSophia Robb and Alexander Ludwig) who enlist the aid of former mafia-wheel-man-turned-cab-driver Jack Bruno (Johnson) to search for a device that will help the aliens heal their dying planet. Also in their aid is astrophysicist Alex Friedman (Carla Gugino).

The movie is about two teenagers who take a cab ride (Bruno’s) going into the middle of nowhere, where they retrieve a gadget thingy but chance upon an extraterrestrial assassin who runs after them with laser guns. They head back to Vegas, seeking the aid of Dr. Friedman (Gugino) to find their spaceship which was captured by pushy, gun-armed government men (led by Ciarán Hinds). The chase leads everyone to Witch Mountain.

While IMDB got the object-subject skewed (plus the fact that Gugino’s character isn’t a UFO “expert”), rottentomatoes has one word that makes their synopsis interesting: franchise.

OK. The Movie.

Some critic wrote that since it’s a chase film, therefore some violence, explosions and a lot of running is involved. True. I say a LOT of it. For a family-oriented film, this one has LOTS of gunfire, laser and regular kind, and a considerable bodycount (tell me those anonymous soldiers didn’t impliedly die).

This plot-oriented film has nothing – NOTHING – going on either amusing or endearing or emotionally engaging about the four main characters. Johnson tries to be kooky, his mannerisms different from his previous comedies (note the scene with Junkyard the dog asking to pee) that he seems to have been possessed by a different person. The mannerisms and his large frame don’t seem to match.

(Trivia: the Sheriff and the Waitress were the kids in the original movie)

But the most striking crime this caper committed is its narrow portrayal of scientists and UFO believers that they are either: A) evil manipulative heartless men (in the case of the federal men in gigantic black SUVs); or B) quirky, jumpy, half-crazy astrophysicists who seem to put their finger on every subject related to their field and not have a true specific specialization (established early in undergrad years, as in the case of this former scientist-turned-film critic); OR C) all-out nutjobs who attend UFO conventions. Dear sirs, some people take alien abductions seriously, and many of those are sane, logical, intelligent people. For a film about aliens, this portrays alien-belief as a laughing matter. Putting famous alien-abduction author Whitley Strieber in cameo and making references to all things sci-fi (“Trust no one?”) further highlights this movie as a mere gag show with a lot of laser lights.

Franchise? Skip the next one, please.

Wizards of Oz
Review by Vives Anunciacion
Inquirer Libre January 30, 2009

Australia
Directed by Baz Luhrmann

It reminded me of that old classic Gone with the Wind. It really did. Scarlett O’Hara, cowboys and lots of burning buildings. Not as good, but maybe just as huge. Australia is a big, bombastic throwback to grand ol’ Hollywood filmmaking, overflowing with everything Ozzie. If that’s a mouthful, wait till you see the rest of the movie. It’s 165 minutes long.

The most expensive movie ever made from Down Under is director Baz Luhrmann’s ambitious tribute to his beloved homeland, a tall tale that is both a sensational romance between an English aristocrat and a brutish cattle driver, and an over-the-top tour of Australia’s colorful past.

Film begins in 1939, the beginnings of World War II. Socialite Lady Sarah Ashley (Nicole Kidman) travels from London to Darwin to salvage her failing marriage and sell the cattle ranch owned by her husband. Her travel to the Northern Territories is facilitated by cattle driver Drover (Hugh Jackman) but on her arrival she finds her husband murdered, and the ranch, called Faraway Downs, in ruins.

Urged by the magical mysterious boy Nullah (Brandon Walters), Lady Sarah decides to revive Faraway Downs and enlists the help of Drover to manage the ranch. Lady Sarah has taken a liking for Nullah, who is the illegitimate son of an Aboriginal mother and a Caucasian father and has been in the hiding from the authorities who forcibly take half-breeds like him (called the Stolen Generation) to an isolated island run by missionary priests.

The film is an Ozzie version of a country Western where the sophisticate learns the severe conditions of the outbacks. Lady Sarah becomes a full-fledged rancher, even as she falls into the charms of hunky Drover as they drive 1,500 head of cattle to the port of Darwin across barren desert and deadly terrain. Before they can even sell their beef, their story has its enemies, they are King Carney (Bryan Brown) and his henchmen led by Fletcher (David Wenham), who run the largest cattle ranches that side of the world. Of course Carney won’t let Sarah bite on his heels that easily.

Just when you think that part of the story gets finished, the Japs come bombing Darwin. There’s still another 30 to 40 minutes before the movie ends.

It is a stretched narrative, maybe sprawling but not epic, full of melodramatic flourishes but uncomplicated, as expansive as the terrain captured by Luhrmann’s sweeping vistas. Kidman and Jackman share comfortable chemistry, most of the time comical, and yet the romance is acceptable. Sarah’s maternal attachment to Nullah is one of the cores of the film, and Walters provides that necessary magic to make us understand why Sarah cares for him.

Visually excessive yet narratively shallow, it is no different from “old” films our generation calls simplistic and melodramatic. This is Luhrmann’s physicalization of the metaphor of Oz, the reason that other classic The Wizard of Oz pops into Australia’s branchy story every now and then. If only Australia ended soon after they returned home.

Last notes: curiously, the final musical notes as Australia fades to black are from Edward Elgar’s 1899 classic orchestration Enigma Variation #9, called “Nimrod,” referring to Elgar’s best friend Augustus Jaeger. Jaeger and Nimrod both mean “hunter.”

(ADDENDA)

Even at 500 words, I still manage to miss mentioning a few points in the print version of the review. I must volunteer a few more observations.

The main reason I think that Australia is a throwback to old Hollywood is Kidman’s Lady Sarah. I believe Ms Kidman to be an intelligent and capable actress, and the impish, uncomfortable, singular-minded Sarah she puts onscreen can only be a reflection of Vivien Leigh’s Scarlett O’Hara or Katharine Hepburn’s Rose Sayer in The African Queen. Or any of the ladies from our old black-and-white Sampaguita or LVN pictures. It’s like that. Her Sarah is not entirely her own, half of it is dictated by Luhrmann’s tone. And it’s like that because the entire movie is like that – an old movie, but in gorgeous color.

I miss mentioning the other narrative of the film – Nullah’s struggle to find and assert his own identity, at the time other children like him are treated by the whites as aberrations of humanity that must be “corrected” and isolated from the rest of society. In the end, with the help of Sarah’s and Drover’s affections, Nullah embarks on his Walkabout. Newcomer Walters does his magical act more than just fine.

The first half of the film (right after they come back to Faraway Downs after driving the 1500 head of cattle to Darwin) is rousing cheesy romance, but still a romance. After that, the movie reverts to large doses of teledrama revenge storytelling, especially with Fletcher, performed by Wenham who feels unsure of how to tackle the role between caricature and character.

We often describe old film romances and cowboy adventures as “corny” or “melodramatic” or unsophisticated in today’s terms. Is Australia corny? Yes. Is it melodramatic? Absolutely. The same things can be said about Australia, because it is exacly that – an old-style film romance and cowboy adventure, with a little magic spice sprinkled inbetween. Seen in that perspective, Luhrmann was successful with his treatment. His grave excess was the long running time.

Yes we can
Rebyu ni Vives Anunciacion
Inquirer Libre January 22, 2009

Yes Man
Direksiyon ni Peyton Reed
Inspired by the memoirs of Danny Wallace

Presidente na si Barack Obama, kaya makisama na sa pagdiriwang ng mga Amerikano sa pagsambit ng, “Yes we can” para sa pagbabagong buhay, lalu na kung puros “no, no, no” ang sinasabi mo last year.

Sa Yes Man, kaka-divorce lang ng loan bank officer na si Carl (Jim Carrey) sa kaniyang asawang si Stephanie (Molly Simms) kaya buong araw siyang nagpapaka-killjoy, nagmumukmok sa bahay, sa opisina hanggang sa pag-uwi. Tuwing iimbitahin siya ng best friend niyang si Peter (Bradley Cooper) sa mga gimik nila, pahirapan pa. Sa lahat ng tanong, “no” ang sagot ni Carl, at mukhang hindi siya masaya sa buhay niya.

Sa pilit ng ilang kaibigan, isang trip sa self-help seminar ni New Age guru Terrence Bundley (Terrence Stamp, yung gumanap na General Zod sa Superman 2) ang magta-transform sa dating “no man” na Carl na maging “yes man” – yes sa lahat ng oportunidad na humarap sa kaniya.

Mismong pagkatapos ng seminar, domino effect ang swerte na darating kay Carl. Ang highlight ay nang makilala niya ang kakaibang si Allison (Zooey Deschanel), at hindi magtatagal ay mahuhulog ang kanilang damdamin sa isa’t isa. Siyempre may catch – eventually Carl will realize na may katumbas na halaga at responsibilidad ang lahat ng bagay na sagutin ni Carl ng “yes,” lalu na yung mga bagay na may kinalaman kay Allison.

Nakatatawa pa rin si Jim Carrey kahit na medyo gasgas na ang mga gags ng Yes Man. Hindi na ito naiba sa mga dating niyang komedya na Liar, Liar at Bruce Almighty, kung saan malalagay ang karakter niya sa isang sitwasiyong hindi niya malusutan kung hindi niya lalampasan ang ilang test. In fairness walang toilet humor sa Yes Man, at naroon pa rin yung brand ni Carrey ng physical humor na nagpasikat sa kaniya. Pinakanakakatawa ang eksena sa building na nag-gitara si Carl. Alam niyo na yun pag pinanood niyo ang pelikula.

Wala akong feelings sa message ng pelikula na live life to the fullest – siguro dahil ilang beses ko na itong narinig. Hindi ko sinasabing mali iyon, sinasabi ko lang na gasgas na ang mensahe. Pero ang nakabawi sa kakornihan ng mga joke sa Yes Man ay yung mellow romance sa pagitan nina Carl at Allison, na mas naging heart-warming sa warmth ng pagkaganap ni Deschanel. Pasado ang pelikula if we consider it a romantic comedy instead of just a comedy. Agaw eksena rin ang veteran kontrabidang si Stamp, who’s amusing to watch making a fun of himself. Kung si General Zod ang self-help guru mo, makakatanggi ka ba sa kaniya?

May kaunti pang katatawanan hanggang sa gitna ng end credits, kaya huwag kaagad aalis ng sinehan. Kung alam mong maiinip ka lang this coming weekend, you have the option of saying yes to Yes Man, but you can also say yes to other things. The important thing is that you do something, rather than nothing.

Handicapping the Oscar noms is a professional imperative, even if it actually means nothing this side of the world (unless we Flips land that first nod). While my few predictions don’t see print, the process is still undertaken online, for the online readers of my reviews. (Full list of Nominees at moviecitynews.com here.)

As I wrote a few weeks ago (Oscar Watching, January 6), I was handicapping the Oscar noms after seeing Benjamin Button. I made particular mentions, among them

Wall E is locked to win Animation, while Man on Wire, the electrifying story of French high-wire artist Philippe Petit’s attempt to walk between the two towers of the World Trade Center back in the ’70s, is likely to win Documentary.

Looks like this remains the case. Even as I hoped for Wall-E to get that BP nod, Pixar’s best ever received 6 noms – for Animation, Original Score, Original Song, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing and Original Screenplay. It will most likely win one for Animation, but it has a good chance for two others – Sound Editing and Sound Mixing. Man on Wire for Documentary, unless Herzog’s Encounters at the End of the World nabs the gold.

Waltz with Bashir is a foreign-language (from Israel) Documentary presented in Animation. It will likely be nominated in Foreign Language, maybe even win it.

It did get the Nom. I’m sure of it, Foreign Language is a lock. If there’s anything that I wanted to predict, it was the slate of surprises. At the time I wrote the predictions, The Reader was only slowly getting the buzz and recognitions. It was there, but not quite as The Wrestler or Happy go Lucky.  I wrote this back then:

While I recognize TDK as one of 2008’s best, it is definitely not the best, and I would rather see another film included in the 5 nominees instead of TDK. It should be Wall-E but Disney seems to have quit its campaign. If it’s true that the PGA gets 4/5 against the Oscars, either Frost/Nixon or TDK is replaced by The Wrestler, Doubt or a surprise from Rachel Getting Married or Happy Go Lucky.

Surprise! The Reader for TDK, and Kate Winslet gets an Actress nom for it and a snub for Revolutionary Road.

Three films will surely get the lion’s share of nominations. Milk, Slumdog Millionaire and Benjamin Button, with the last getting the most nominations…

This brings a total of 11 possible nominations for BB, give or take 2 (Support Acting and Sound). BB is a technical marvel, even if it doesn’t win Picture, it will likely win a number of technicals.

BB got 13, Slumdog received 10, and Milk tied TDK with 8, although TDK’s noms were mostly technicals. BB will likely win the two categories which made it a cinematic wonder, and each won’t have been successfull without the other (in fact they worked seamlessly) – Visual Effects and Make-Up.

 MARK MY WORDS: the results will be mostly predictable by now, but I sense a MAJOR UPSET.

The Oscars air locally Live on the Velvet Channel Feb 23, 7am.