![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
THE GREAT AND POWERFUL MASTER PARKER
Mar. 28th, 2013 10:54 amAnd now, for yr pleasure, what I saw at the cinemas.
Oz The Great And Powerful
Part prequel, part reboot of The Wizard Of Oz, covering how The Wizard became what he is. And I’ll admit, if it wasn’t for Sam Raimi in the director’s seat, I wouldn’t have bothered in the first place.
But even that only gets the movie so far. Raimi has always toned down his specific style when working with other people’s franchise property (see: Spiderman), and he does the same here. Occasional flashes of his kinetic, idiosyncratic style pop up here and there, and Raimi has some great visual tricks up his sleeve, but mostly he’s delivering what you’d expect in a big-budget CGI blockbuster.
Which would be okay if the story was more impressive or less predictable. The latter can’t really be helped, of course, but there’s a little too many “are you the wizard prophesied to save us?” scenes, and while James Franco is game as Oscar Diggs, his transformation from con-man to willing wizard isn’t that convincing, writing-wise. The final act is a major payoff – I just wish they’d put that kind of effort into the first two acts.
The Master
Paul Thomas Anderson’s tale of Fred Quell, a WW2 vet who comes back from the war a drunk and a nervous wreck, and ends up a disciple of cult leader Lancaster Dodds, whose philosophy and teachings draws some obvious comparisons to L. Ron Hubbard.
In some ways, it’s an amazing film, thanks largely to performances from Joaquin Phoenix as Quell – who constantly looks as if he’s a bomb just waiting for an excuse to go off – and Hoffman as Dodd, who radiates the calm, self-assured charisma of someone who believes his own schtick. It’s also surprisingly contemporary as a tale of how hard it is for war vets to readjust to peacetime, and how susceptible people can be to anything that offers “the answer” to their problems.
That said, I felt the ending lacked something. It’s good that Anderson didn’t go for something melodramatic and obvious, but if there was any kind of resolution, I missed it. Or maybe that was the point. Anyway, it was something of an anti-climax for me. So in the end, it’s all about the acting.
Parker
Having read some of Richard Stark’s Parker novels (though not the one this film is based on), I went into this with fairly low expectations – as much as I like Jason Statham, he’s not someone I would have pegged to play the title character.
And maybe it’s because I didn’t expect much from this that I ended up liking it a lot. Statham makes a surprisingly good Parker, playing it tough and taciturn as the role requires, albeit with a slightly lighter touch. Meanwhile, Jennifer Lopez holds her own as the desperate real estate agent who gets roped into Parker’s plan (complete with gratuitous lingerie scene).
As for the film itself, well, it’s pretty standard as heist/revenge films go – so much so that it’s reminiscent of those 70s/80s action films that Burt Reynolds used to do. (I kept thinking of Stick in particular – possibly apropos as that was based on a novel by Elmore Leonard, who is a huge Stark/Parker fan.)
Whether that’s a good thing or not probably depends on how much you like those films, or indeed whether you like Statham as an action hero. I like both, so for me Parker is a worthy addition to the genre – gaping plotholes, occasionally dodgy voice dubbing, Jennifer Lopez’s backside, and all. All up, it's a film that doesn’t pretend to be anything other than what it is – Jason Statham stealing things and beating people up – so I was content to enjoy the ride.
How to steal a million,
This is dF
Oz The Great And Powerful
Part prequel, part reboot of The Wizard Of Oz, covering how The Wizard became what he is. And I’ll admit, if it wasn’t for Sam Raimi in the director’s seat, I wouldn’t have bothered in the first place.
But even that only gets the movie so far. Raimi has always toned down his specific style when working with other people’s franchise property (see: Spiderman), and he does the same here. Occasional flashes of his kinetic, idiosyncratic style pop up here and there, and Raimi has some great visual tricks up his sleeve, but mostly he’s delivering what you’d expect in a big-budget CGI blockbuster.
Which would be okay if the story was more impressive or less predictable. The latter can’t really be helped, of course, but there’s a little too many “are you the wizard prophesied to save us?” scenes, and while James Franco is game as Oscar Diggs, his transformation from con-man to willing wizard isn’t that convincing, writing-wise. The final act is a major payoff – I just wish they’d put that kind of effort into the first two acts.
The Master
Paul Thomas Anderson’s tale of Fred Quell, a WW2 vet who comes back from the war a drunk and a nervous wreck, and ends up a disciple of cult leader Lancaster Dodds, whose philosophy and teachings draws some obvious comparisons to L. Ron Hubbard.
In some ways, it’s an amazing film, thanks largely to performances from Joaquin Phoenix as Quell – who constantly looks as if he’s a bomb just waiting for an excuse to go off – and Hoffman as Dodd, who radiates the calm, self-assured charisma of someone who believes his own schtick. It’s also surprisingly contemporary as a tale of how hard it is for war vets to readjust to peacetime, and how susceptible people can be to anything that offers “the answer” to their problems.
That said, I felt the ending lacked something. It’s good that Anderson didn’t go for something melodramatic and obvious, but if there was any kind of resolution, I missed it. Or maybe that was the point. Anyway, it was something of an anti-climax for me. So in the end, it’s all about the acting.
Parker
Having read some of Richard Stark’s Parker novels (though not the one this film is based on), I went into this with fairly low expectations – as much as I like Jason Statham, he’s not someone I would have pegged to play the title character.
And maybe it’s because I didn’t expect much from this that I ended up liking it a lot. Statham makes a surprisingly good Parker, playing it tough and taciturn as the role requires, albeit with a slightly lighter touch. Meanwhile, Jennifer Lopez holds her own as the desperate real estate agent who gets roped into Parker’s plan (complete with gratuitous lingerie scene).
As for the film itself, well, it’s pretty standard as heist/revenge films go – so much so that it’s reminiscent of those 70s/80s action films that Burt Reynolds used to do. (I kept thinking of Stick in particular – possibly apropos as that was based on a novel by Elmore Leonard, who is a huge Stark/Parker fan.)
Whether that’s a good thing or not probably depends on how much you like those films, or indeed whether you like Statham as an action hero. I like both, so for me Parker is a worthy addition to the genre – gaping plotholes, occasionally dodgy voice dubbing, Jennifer Lopez’s backside, and all. All up, it's a film that doesn’t pretend to be anything other than what it is – Jason Statham stealing things and beating people up – so I was content to enjoy the ride.
How to steal a million,
This is dF
