Epic

I have officially reached my limit of dull computer animated films. There needs to be more than just pretty CGI to hold my attention. Epic is the latest from the “creative” minds at Blue Sky Studios who brought us Ice Age.  A questionable achievement, but a downright masterpiece when compared to this utterly nondescript piece. The plot concerns an ordinary-size teen girl who is magically shrunken down into a secret world when she grabs a hold of a magical leaf pod. She’s subsequently thrust into an ongoing environmental conflict amongst various forest creatures who struggle to see who can become the most forgettable. Sorry sarcasm.

An hour after watching Epic, it was already fading from memory. The cast is made up of famous actors that turn in vapid voice work in exchange for a paycheck. Colin Farrell and Beyoncé Knowles are major stars. They charm in real life, but their voices are so bland here. The leader of the Leaf-Men and Queen of the Forest should be captivating, but their personalities only cause drowsiness. Don’t drive or operate heavy machinery under the effects of this movie. Aziz Ansari and Chris O’Dowd are a slug and snail respectively, but they should’ve been listed as hackneyed sidekick characters #1 and #2. They’re the comic relief but I didn’t hear a single child laugh in my theater. I suppose the script is the actual culprit.

This generic tale of good vs. evil  has been done countless times with more innovation and appeal. The story is lackluster in the extreme. Couldn’t the screenwriters have tried a little harder to come up with something interesting? The best lesson they can come up with is: “Many leaves, one tree; we’re all individuals, but we’re still connected.” Zzzzzzzz. It’s a shame because what the film does have going for it is gorgeous computer graphics. The animators have done a beautiful job giving zest to a script that has none. Epic won’t entertain adults and will leave kids wanting more. Children know a quality adventure when they see one and this ain’t it. You cannot foist a subpar saga on them and expect a hit. Not surprisingly, out of 8 productions, this became Blue Sky’s worst performing feature by a wide margin. It didn’t even recoup its $100M production budget in the U.S. Epic is neither majestic nor grand. It’s about as far from the word’s connotation as you can get. The most glaringly mistitled movie since The LAST Exorcism Part II.

The Croods

The Croods are a family of Neanderthal cavemen. One day they are forced to leave the protective confines of their shelter when it’s destroyed.  Following an earthquake,  a falling stone is disrupted cleaving their cave in half. Now exposed out in the open they must contend with a strange unfamiliar world and its many inhabitants including a young nomadic cave boy.

Despite an opportunity to delve into some early primordial history given the ancient setting, the gags and attitudes are decidedly modern. The voice cast have conversations that would not be out of place for a family living in 2013. Father Grug (Nicolas Cage) and daughter Eep (Emma Stone) have district personalities, but the rest of the clan are nonentities. Grug hates his mother-in-law. Never saw that in a comedy. Even Guy, a Homo sapien, is like some teen dream out of a soap opera. Eep, the eldest daughter, is one of those stereotypical teens that butts heads with her overprotective father. She yearns to venture out and see the world. Get with the times, Dad! Or instead, why don’t you just, ya know, evolve! Indeed the tone of the script is that she is correct and that father Grug is reactionary and staid in his views. What the screenplay fails to acknowledge is that it’s those very ideals of his that have kept his family alive all these years while everyone else of their kind has been killed.

I couldn’t help but feel the moral of this comedy was a bit misguided. Surely it is ill-advised to encourage children to disregard their parent’s safety warnings, but that’s precisely this saga’s point of view. Your father is smothering you! Talk to strangers! Play in the street! I’m sure the script meant to inspire an adventurous spirit. Don’t be timid! Try new things! Seize the day! But that’s probably not what a 5 year old will understand. Especially when the father is a complete buffoon – an object of derision as he is consistently shown up by the more progressive and intelligent Guy. Ah but have no fear, parents. As expected, the father predictably redeems himself in the end. The Croods is acceptable. The animation is colorful, although the family is mildly grotesque. They are Neanderthals after all. There are some nice slapstick sequences that are enjoyable. There’s a variety of creatures that are nicely animated including a swarm of carnivorous birds that take only seconds to devour their prey, Guy’s pet sloth Belt is a really cute little creation given to singing “Da-da-daaaaaaaa!“ whenever he wants to stress impending doom. It’s funny every time he says it. Belt got the biggest laughs in the theater. While the jokes amuse, the story is primitive. The Croods is safe fun family entertainment with no surprises. It was pleasant. I guess for some that may be enough.

Oz the Great and Powerful

Oscar Diggs, a magician/con man, leaves Kansas in a hot air balloon, gets sucked into a cyclone and winds up in the Land of Oz. Here he encounters various personalities, including Evanora who promises all the wealth of the king if he kills the Wicked Witch by destroying her wand, the source of her power. This sends our fearless hero on an odyssey where he meets a couple of characters who join him. The action is all well and good, but the plot merely apes the events of the Victor Fleming version with less inspired results.

L. Frank Baum’s introductory novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz is also the basis for this unofficial prequel. However the 1939 landmark film feels more like the real inspiration than that book. Director Sam Raimi was legally prohibited from replicating certain elements (i.e. ruby slippers) but he clearly references the 1939 classic with deferential respect. Raimi goes from black and white to color to highlight the transition to Oz and simulates the same environment in many scenes incorporating Munchkinland, the yellow brick road, and The Emerald City. The Winkie guards, flying monkeys and The Scarecrow are also among the many allusions. These are welcome touches, but the duplicated story is where the similarities become more problematic.

Ultimately Oz The Great and Powerful suffers in comparison. The human people here lack that same mythic sense of wonder. When Mila Kunis as Theodora first arrives, her modern ensemble appears like she time traveled back from 2013. Her floppy wide brimmed hat looks like something J.Lo would wear. Michelle Williams as Glinda the Good Witch is pretty but bland. She lacks the otherworldly charm (and distinctive voice) that Billie Burke had when she played the part. Rachel Weisz fares better as Evanora but only because we never really knew her in The Wizard of Oz. As Oscar the con man, James Franco relies on the actor’s insincere demeanor to play the role.  His trademark smirk is more than adequate, but less than enchanting. He certainly disappointed me in one scene. There’s a moment where Munchkins start to sing and dance in a lively musical number that got my feet a-tapping. Just as it was hitting its stride, Oscar puts his hand up and tells them to stop.

Oz the Great and Powerful has its moments. Visually it is a delight. The set design is first class with color and special effects combining in attractive displays. The film was shot in 3D, but I hardly think it demands to be seen in that format. It doesn’t contribute much to the already impressive spectacle. The frame is packed with gorgeous visuals that incorporate magical plants and bizarre creatures. A little porcelain China doll is a fragile creature that walks and talks with a cracked, reflective body. These demonstrations incite our fascination. The ending is particularly engaging too. The wizard’s impressive appearance to the people recalls his physical manifestation in the classic work. Oscar’s resourcefulness genuinely gets our emotions. Too bad you must wait to the end to see it. We’re constantly reminded with hints of the infinitely superior original. For most the production, the script simply isn’t unique enough. The narrative rings hollow although the smoke and mirrors just might be enough to entertain.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits

When the Academy Award nominations were announced for Best Animated Feature of 2012, I think 4 of the 5 selections were foregone conclusions. Most predicted that Rise of the Guardians would be the 5th nominee. When that film was snubbed, I think everyone was a bit surprised that The Pirates! Band of Misfits made the cut instead. It didn’t really make much of a splash at the box office in the U.S., barely earning over $30 million. Plus Aardman Animations wasn’t the marketing behemoth that DreamWorks is. I am happy to report Pirates is indeed a very worthy nomination.

The Pirate Captain (yes that’s his name) yearns to win the Pirate of the Year competition. But he isn’t your typical pirate. He’s actually a rather affable chap and doesn’t possess the anti-social qualities of your average mercenary. He’s backed by an amateur group of clumsy pirates that are pretty unconventional too. I don’t think the word ‘swashbuckling’ is in their vocabulary. They don’t even have proper names. Pirate with a Scarf, Pirate Who Likes Sunsets and Kittens, Surprisingly Curvaceous Pirate are some examples. At least they’re very supportive of their captain. They understand that whoever can plunder the most will be deemed the winner and therein lies their dream. Outside the U.S., The picture was originally titled The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists! That makes sense because during his unsuccessful attempts to raid ships, the Pirate Captain meets Charles Darwin. The scientist spies his parrot “Polly” who is in reality a Dodo. The supposedly extinct bird is intriguing to Charles. This leads the gang to an escapade in the less welcoming atmosphere of London.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits! is a delight. The style is a cheerful throwback to classic stop-motion animation. Given the strong resurgence of titles like ParaNorman and Frankenweenie, audiences seem to be responding to its more organic, tangible quality. Of course the aesthetic beauty of the film would mean nothing without a good script. Indeed, Pirates is an intelligently written production. Witty jokes and funny sight gags abound for the careful viewer throughout the brisk 88 minute running time. The voice cast is wonderful but it’s telling that one of their most amusing doesn’t even speak at all. Mr. Darwin’s assistant is a highly trained chimp named Mister Bobo who communicates by holding up note cards. He’s hilarious, but the rest of the ensemble is quite good as well. Hugh Grant has the right amount of narcissism mixed with geniality as the Pirate Captain and Imelda Staunton is a hoot as the pirate hating Queen Victoria. With its hip soundtrack (The Clash, The English Beat, Jimmy Cliff, Supergrass) and occasional gags that little tykes won’t get, this is pitched more at older kids than the toddler set. Seeing as I am well over 8 year years old, that is just fine with me.

Parental Guidance

Billy Crystal and Bette Midler play Artie and Diane, grandparents that cling to the old guard of parenting. Artie isn’t above using the threat of a spanking. Marisa Tomei is Alice, their daughter. She and her husband Phil played by Tom Everett Scott, are new-agey parents in their 40s. Their kids are named Harper, Turner and Barker for goodness’ sake! They promote hip, contemporary child rearing ideas. Instead of acting up, they offer ‘use your words’. Rather than saying ‘no’ they try ‘consider the consequences’. Both parenting styles clash when Phil wins an award and the couple must travel out of town to accept it. Alice asks her mom and dad to watch their overly coddled kids and of course problems arise. I will admit that on paper, Parental Guidance sounds like a recipe for disaster and indeed the critical reviews would support this. However I had a much different reaction. This is a light hearted frolic concerning family that upholds traditional values in a refreshing and yes, very funny commentary about raising kids.

The nicest surprise is that everyone is extremely likable. Despite opposing points of view each individual comes across as a human being with valid concerns. No one is used as the butt of jokes, treated as buffoon to be ridiculed. The two older kids are a somewhat bland, but at least they’re not the typical precocious little brats that usually populate these types of pictures. Special mention should go to Kyle Harrison Breitkopf as Barker, the youngest child. He’s a red headed imp that wrings laughs simply from his goofy demeanor. He could stand some discipline. There’s a subplot of sorts involving the ultra modern “smart house” in which the younger parents live. Father Phil is a high-tech inventor and has created a prototype domicile with a command center that announces guests in a robotic voice. It also seems to have a personality with full rein of the various appliances. I legitimately laughed out loud when the house loudly inquires if Grandpa Artie would like to continue watching R rated horror movie Saw with little Turner just as Mom walks in the room.

Parental Guidance is a sweet, warm family friendly comedy. Director Andy Fickman has built a solid career on directing these kinds of films. Like The Game Plan and Race to Witch Mountain, Parental Guidance has been successful with audiences, if not the critics. Granted it isn’t innovative. If you’re looking for Hitchcockian twists and turns, I’d have to challenge why you’d choose a PG rated comedy from Walden Media in the first place. You sort of know that the assorted contrivances will predictably work out in the end. But the journey in getting there is amusing and therein lies the fun. The story mines humor from the generation gap. The subject of parenting is explored in a humorous and delightful way. The tone is cheerful and comforting. I was surprised at how balanced the screenplay is too. The evenhanded script goes to great lengths to present an objective view of each adult with faults as well as virtues. They all are united in the fact that they want what’s best for the kids. There’s a genuine respect for these characters that rarely panders to the lowest common denominator. Alright when Billy Crystal’s crotch meets a child’s baseball bat, that’s kind of an exception.

Rise of the Guardians

Rise of the Guardians involves four characters from fairy tales: Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and the Sandman who appeal to Jack Frost to stop the Boogeyman from engulfing the world in darkness. It’s kind of a pan-holiday movie that takes place in the days leading up to Easter. It specifically concerns whether children still believe in these individuals. Anyone concerned that they might actually be confronted with something vaguely religious given, you know, the themes of faith in a higher power that this deals with, need not worry. The script has been purged of God or anything remotely theological. We do get the mysterious moon as sort of this inanimate object, however who has chosen Jack Frost to be a new Guardian. They each look to it for direction and guidance, the moon that is. Jack also wrestles with his greatest fear – that children won’t believe in him. Gee whiz. Self obsessed much?

I think the biggest problem with the Rise of the Guardians is that it flounders from a storytelling perspective. The plot throws these four fictional people together because, hey why not? One would’ve been enough, but four makes the narrative needlessly complex and overstuffed with backstories. There is no sense or charm to these oddballs. They’re recognizable portrayals, but then they aren’t. Jack Frost, our main protagonist, is a whiny teen consumed by the fear that people don’t affirm his existence. He sports a hoody and sounds like one of the kids on Wizards of Waverly Place. Santa has a Russian accent and is built like a bodybuilder with “naughty” and “nice” tattoos on his forearms. Huh? The tooth fairy flits around hummingbird-style, but talks akin to some over-enthusiastic mom. The Easter Bunny is a six-foot-one Australian and master of Tai Chi, as he’s quick to explain. Doesn’t seem to be helping because he’s a rather cantankerous fellow at that. Then there’s the Sandman. He was actually my favorite. He doesn’t speak at all.

Rise of the Guardians fails as an interesting story. Characters pop up at random times, do their thing then disappear. There isn’t any rhyme or reason to this mess. The dialogue is full of bland pronouncements that are so boring they don’t even register: “It is our job to protect the children of the world.  For as long as they believe in us, we will guard them with our lives,” says Santa at one point.  Zzzzzzzz. “Why me?” Jack asks when they select him. “You have something special inside. I can feel it… ” says Santa. That’s about as deep as it gets. There’s some breathtaking visuals to be sure and there are a few chuckles here and there, but the action is way too cluttered and frantic to truly appreciate the animated details. There’s lots of dazzling displays that the latest 3-D computer technology can muster, but it does nothing for the story other than to show how much money DreamWorks has to spend. I’ve always been a fan of Disney’s Sleeping Beauty. Pitch Black, the Boogeyman, kind of recalls a male version of Maleficent, the evil sorceress from that film (and the best Disney villain ever incidentally). I was really rooting for him in fact. There’s even a climatic battle featuring a sand glitter vs. black dust face-off between the Boogeyman and the Sandman. It was pretty at least.

Wreck-It Ralph

Colorful computer animated fantasy concerns Wreck-It Ralph, the heavy in a video game called Fix-It Felix Jr. The fictional game is similar to Donkey Kong. His job is to smash buildings while Felix, the protagonist, is entrusted with the task of repairing what he damages. After years of losing to this beloved adversary, Wreck-It Ralph aspires to be a hero.

When I first saw the trailer for Wreck-It Ralph, I got excited. The vision of the various villains from Pac Man, Super Mario Bros., Sonic the Hedgehog, Street Fighter, etc. sitting around in an AA type circle lamenting their lesser status was an appealingly original concept. The incongruous vibe masterfully balanced adult angst with a visually appealing (and humorous) presentation for kids. What Who Framed Roger Rabbit was to classic cartoons, this would be to video games. I appreciated the humor and thought the story appeared to cross adult intellectualism with joyful cuteness to appeal to literally every segment of the population. Oh how wrong I was.  While the animation of Wreck-It Ralph is certainly dazzling with a smattering of belly laughs for all ages, the overall cutesy tone is clearly directed at youngsters. That’s not necessarily a bad thing. It’s absolutely a fun time at the movies, it’s just that this could’ve been so much more.

The family friendly comedy’s biggest asset is the inventive mix of video game history. Wreck-It Ralph the game appears to be a simple 8 bit game for the user. However when the camera shifts into their world, the pixilated cast become three-dimensional . Experiencing their environment was a giddy delight for this reviewer. The detail is incredible.  Even the method in which the characters are brought to life with the sharp jerky motions that mimic the movement of an old arcade game. The aesthetics are vivid and lively. They’re even able to leave the confines of their arcade boxes and journey to other games via electrical cords. Of course this all happens when the lights go out and no one is around. Shades of Toy Story (minus the emotional depth).  John C. Reilly does excellent work voicing “bad guy” Ralph and articulating his depression. He‘s incredibly likable and that goes a long way into making the audience care about his plight.  Ralph’s desire to earn a medal initially leads him into another game, Hero’s Duty. A violent, bug-infested nightmare, seemingly based on Call of Duty, Halo, and possibly others. The captivating exercise that follows is an unholy mashup up of 8 bit video games and first person shooters. But this is merely the beginning.

The screenwriters have stuffed the script with a dizzying amount of plot threads. Too numerous to detail, it can get a little unfocused. Ralph’s mission ultimately takes us into another video game called Sugar Rush where most of the action takes place. Think Mario Kart goes to Candy Land. It’s here where the chronicle takes a somewhat unexpected turn into kid oriented shenanigans. Actor Alan Tudyk (TV’s Firefly) who does a spot on impression of Ed Wynn, is quite memorable as King Candy, the kingdom’s ruler.  We’re also introduced to a so-called “glitch” named Vanellope von Schweetz (Sarah Silverman), a sassy imp that has become a sarcastic and insolent child after years of rejection from her fellow racers. Even after Ralph scares some bullies away, she remains ungrateful.  Naturally this changes as the two work together to achieve a common goal that will mean happiness and joy for everyone.  The saccharine trope of “It’s OK to Be Yourself” is hammered into our heads to the point where it gets a bit tedious. Even the youngest moviegoer will surely remember Shrek taught them this first. It all climaxes in, what else, a chase sequence that is as vibrant as it is predictable.

Wreck-It Ralph is the 52nd film in the Disney animated features canon. It follows other such recent titles as Tangled and Bolt. Like those films, the subject matter doesn’t get very deep.  “Be Yourself” is a moral as established as Disney itself, but it’s agreeable fun. The tale is sort of an enjoyable amalgamation of video games like Donkey Kong, Call of Duty and Mario Kart with assorted allusions that most aging gamers will recognize. If just the sight of characters like Q*bert and Pac Man send your geek impulses racing, then you’ll be handsomely rewarded. There’s a lot of bright eye popping animation and the absurdity of it all will entertain the kiddies. While there are cursory computer game references and sight gags only an adult would truly understand, the silliness of the adventure is aimed at young kids.   The story doesn’t offer anything profound.  This “fun for all ages” is like the hyperactive sugar buzz you get from eating too many bowls of Cap’n Crunch on a Saturday morning.

Frankenweenie

Simple, childlike drama about an intelligent young boy that tames the benefits of electrical power to bring his beloved dog Sparky back to life. As the title suggests, the story is a kiddie version of the vintage Frankenstein tale. Frankenweenie was originally a live action short starring Shelley Duvall and Daniel Stern released back in 1984. In its current incarnation, the 30 minute anecdote has been expanded to an 87 minute animated fantasy.

First the good. It’s one of Tim Burton’s most sweetly accessible family friendly films since Corpse Bride. It certainly looks fantastic. I don’t think anyone questions the director’s fetching macabre style. There’s a welcome purity in the visuals that actually benefit the modest tale. The movie is photographed in black in white as a tribute to the horror classics of the 1930s. The cast is fittingly quirky with four of his previous collaborators that include Catherine O’Hara, Martin Short, and Winona Ryder. Their new substitute science teacher, Mr. Rzykruski, a particular standout. He is a ghastly joy, delightfully voiced by Martin Landau but with features that almost recall Vincent Price. There’s a magnificently uncontrolled climax that utilizes the idea of a science fair gone amok.

Now the bad. The whole affair has Tim Burton just coasting on the fumes of his earlier successes. The plot is slight in the extreme. Very little of it is innovative or original. The frequent allusions to other people’s works including Bride of Frankenstein or Godzilla feels more like lazy borrowing than the homage I think they’re meant to be. The few attempts at humor are weak and aimed strictly at young children.

Frankenweenie has the mark of quality. It’s a beautifully mounted stop-motion animation that will entertain an undemanding audience. The chronicle of a boy’s love for his dog by way of Frankenstein isn’t particularly fresh. I’ll admit, however, the visual feast is a retro production designer’s dream. The narrative is marked by a tranquil restraint that has been lacking in the director’s recent big budget creations as of late. Yes, this science-fiction comedy horror is pleasant enough, but it’s no classic.

We Bought a Zoo

Matt Damon is Benjamin, a widower who is grieving over the loss of his wife. He struggles to nurture a happy family with his two kids: perky and precocious 7-year-old daughter, Rosie and moody, 14-year-old son Dylan who registers one emotion, annoyance. Benjamin looks for a fresh start in a new home by purchasing one in the country with 18 acres. Additionally it happens to house a zoo that comes complete with its own staff. The agreement stipulates the owners must care for all of the animals on the property. If only Matt and his family can return the neglected zoo to its former glory, then perhaps they can all be happy again. I know that doesn’t follow, but just go with it.

Much of the story involves our sweet kindly, dear old Dad, trying to get the zoo open and ready for business on time. It’s a setup so manipulative, you’d swear it was a screenwriter’s device. But We Bought a Zoo is actually adapted from the autobiographical memoirs of writer Benjamin Mee. The based on fact undoubtedly adds some credibility to the events. Unfortunately the production is so annoyingly twee. The swelling melodies that hammer the emotional cues of every scene doesn‘t help. Apparently the director thinks the audience needs assistance in understanding that when positive things happen, it’s a good thing. This is the mistake of a rookie, not an established talent like Cameron Crowe who was once a rock journalist for Rolling Stone during his teen years. His knack for meaningful song selections is well-established which makes the overbearing musical numbers even more depressing. There’s also mean old Walter Ferris, the zoo inspector, who’s responsible for administering a strict zoo inspection before they can open to the public. The costume designer forgot to give him a handlebar moustache to twirl each time he does something nasty. And let’s not forget that cute moppet of a daughter who cheerfully chirps “We Bought a Zoo!” like she knew it would be the title for this film.

Cameron Crowe is a respected director of renown. I’ve seen his engaging best work: Say Anything, Jerry Maguire and Almost Famous and then I behold something like We Bought a Zoo.  I’m shocked this is the creation of the same filmmaker, the narrative steeped in cliché and mediocrity. It’s exceptionally cloying and sentimental.  I suppose if you insist on adding a few heaping teaspoons of sugar to your maple syrup pancakes, the script might not seem so overly sweet.   We Bought a Zoo isn’t a horrible picture. It’s heart s in the right place as it seeks to entertain through a schmaltzy family friendly PG film. But it falters in even doing that, The movie could’ve easily been rated G, but at one point his 7 year-old daughter tells the inspector “You know, everybody here thinks you’re a d—.” Out of the mouths of babes.

The Wizard of Oz

The complementary Blu-ray that Warner Brothers sent to me of this beloved classic is a treasured gift. The print is so clear, the color so vibrant, I feel as though I have re-discovered a new version. I’ve mentioned it before on this blog. Blu-ray discs are often promoted for science fiction spectaculars with lots of special effects. That’s a valid genre, but to me, the most convincing benefits concerning the Blu-ray format is re-visiting the past and watching these masterpieces in a way not appreciated since the original release. I cannot overstate how beautiful this film looks.

If ever there was a movie that was better than the book, The Wizard of Oz is it. I have nothing against the 1900 children’s novel, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz by L. Frank Baum. It’s a classic in it’s own right, but this dramatic adaptation is simply one of the greatest movies ever made. It’s difficult for me to independently assess its merits because, like the rest of us, I first watched it when I was very very young and continued to watch it throughout the years. As much a part of my childhood as Bugs Bunny cartoons, the Cub Scouts and school. But right there is a validation of the picture’s virtue. No other production save for perhaps It’s a Wonderful Life, The Ten Commandments or The Sound of Music, represents such a defining example of movies shown regularly on TV. It’s pretty much a shared reality as humans on planet Earth. Virtually everyone has seen this film.

As with any fantasy, the visual displays are important, but would be nothing without a cast that can engage the emotions. Judy Garland is perfection and it’s hard to imagine anyone else as the character. Sorry Shirley Temple. Garland had an incredibly successful career in Hollywood as she was recognized for many roles. For the rest of the actors, these are the parts for which they are primarily known to modern audiences: Frank Morgan, Ray Bolger, Bert Lahr, Jack Haley, and Billie Burke are memorable. If I have a quibble with anything, I’d have to say that Bert Lahr plays the cowardly Lion almost like he’s the 4th stooge. He’s likable. I don’t begrudge him that, but his song “If I Were King of the Forest” is my least favorite in a musical score full of winners. Preceding their introduction to the Wizard, it’s a bit of a drag on the narrative at a point where we are on the edge of our seat. The Munchkins are a captivating delight, the flying monkeys give me the creeps, but I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the villain. Along the way Dorothy encounters a particularly nasty individual known as The Wicked Witch of the West. Margaret Hamilton’s portrayal is so iconic I believe we underestimate the brilliance of her performance. I still have trouble believing that the sum of her appearances only amount to 12 minutes of screen time. She is the very definition of what it means to be a witch.

The story is as familiar as your own name. A young girl from Kansas, bored with her life, yearns for a more exciting one “over the rainbow.” A horrific tornado, which continues to amaze, hits her cherished farm and whisks her, house and all, to the wonderful world of Oz where she meets a scarecrow, a tin man and a lion. They join forces to help her get back to Kansas by visiting the Wizard who they’ve heard can reunite her with her family. The spectacle was expensive for its time and it shows. Even though it was a success, it did not show a large profit until the 1949 re-release. Regardless it was obviously money well spent. The production design is beyond compare. That early shot where she steps out of her black and white sepia toned existence into a land of color is practically a religious experience the way it’s presented here. You’ve seen it before but think back to when you first witnessed the transformation and it’s one of the most exhilarating moments in movies. Seven decades later, everything continues to dazzle: the performances, the sets, the costumes, the music. It is such a force of goodness. There may very well be people who dislike this film, but I have no desire to meet them.