Fog's Movie Reviews Need Your Support.

The nominations for the 2013 are about to open. My request for your consideration.

My favorite place to go to talk about movies with snipping limited to having a good time. Please support Dan's site and vote on the Lambs.

Stoker

When I first saw the trailer for this film it seemed like a horror film with suspense elements and an upscale cast.  Many who see it might describe it that way but after viewing it my impression is quite a bit different. There are very few horror elements, I don't think it is very suspenseful, and some of the cast is underutilized. Stoker turns out to be a film that holds us at a distance, sometimes wanting us to empathize with the lead character, and other times striving to have us repulsed by her. We never get a very clear handle on how she feels about the events that are over taking her life, and even at the end of the film, the story is ambigious concerning motivations and actions.

Many times during my screening I considered how much like an episode of the Twilight Zone or Alfred Hitchcock presents this reminded me of. We have a young girl, still in high school, who suffers the loss of her father but seems to be handling it by detaching herself from everyone else she is connected with. Because we come into the story at this point, it is difficult to understand if her reaction is shock or if she is one of those people that we all are learning to watch out for. You know the ones with no friends or social skills who plan elaborate killing sprees for no discernible reason? "India" is the name of the character, and there is not really any reason for her name to be exotic, except that it creates an aura without having to generate any story to go with it. There is another character named "Whip" and it seems that everyone is fine with the names but the personalities are not reflected by those names. It is simply an affectation and it was a little irritating when the two main male characters names are "Richard" and "Charlie". The story is hyper stylized in the way it is shot, and that is another thing that draws attention to the film instead of the characters. The story has a flashback structure and begins with a ponderous and thick headed piece of narration that almost sounds like poetry. It is "Art" not a story that is going to make this work if anything can.

There are a lot of beautiful shots in the film. Nicole Kidman's character appears in some scenes only in the mirror that our lead is looking into. There is another shot where "India" and her Uncle Charlie (Matthew Goode) are conversing, but he only exists as a shadow on the wall while she is speaking. A phone booth is fogged up for no barometric reason at all, it just makes the scene a little more unique to look at. The dead father was an architect and I guess that explains the easy availability of  five foot wide stone spheres that are perfectly round on the property. It's one of those movies where you feel like you are in someones dreams the whole time that you are watching events unfold. The two leads speak in a style that is hyper mundane, which sounds like an oxymoron but accurately describe the lack of passion that either of them exhibits until the last quarter of the movie. When emotions do begin to surface, they appear only on one characters face, the other remains bored and indifferent, as if continuing to live out a dream they have had before.

In a couple of instances, there are some flashes of emotion but since they occur in flashback scenes that give us different interpretations of what took place and seem to be entirely in the mind of only one character, those moments seem untrustworthy. Is "India" washing herself to get rid of blood, semen or is she simply masturbating for the first time? Each variation of the scene drives us further from anything that makes much sense. When the story plays out the revelations that are supposed to clarify what is going on, we can't really trust it, despite the fact that it appears we are supposed to know that this section is "true". Nicole Kidman's character is either a grief motivated zombie, a slut or an indifferent and distant parent. She sometimes accepts the things that are being said and at other times ignores them. When she gets her final scenes with Goode, I wondered how she could be so smart and so gullible at the same time. The end of the movie comes with a totally unnecessary act by "India" after a totally necessary action. Like I said earlier, the tone of the movie is a bit bi-polar when it comes to her character.

There are some disturbing moments in the background story, and some pretty gruesome moments of violence during the rest of the tale. The Hitchcock reference to "Shadow of a Doubt " is clear enough but the story stays so ambiguous and mystical at times that I mostly did not care. Mia Wasikowska was solid in "Lawless" last year, but is playing it so low key in this film that I could not tell if it was a performance or narcolepsy. She is supposed to be smart but there are no signs of that, she is supposed to be a proficient hunter, but that is told to us rather than shown to us. That she has some special way of seeing the world that she shares with her Uncle Charlie is put into background narration but not really demonstrated. The fact that a spider crawls between her legs into her crotch is creepy, but not because of anything happening during the story, just because it is creepy. I just failed to connect with this movie on so many points and I am disappointed as a result. I can't recommend it, but I would not pull you away from it if it interests you. In the end it did not move me as much as it irritated me.

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone

This is the second week in a row, that a magician is featured in a big movie opening. I doubt that this will have the box office that "Oz the Great and Powerful" had, but it is an entertaining film that should go down pretty well with most audiences. There are some risque elements that might prevent it from being a family film, but it does have that kind of sensibility. It feels like a movie that could be enjoyed by family members together (except for the penis and sex jokes). The story is straightforward fall and redemption, with quite a few funny bits along the way. There are no real surprises in the story except for some of the pretty good laughs that many might be surprised they are experiencing.

I do want you to know that I come at this from the perspective of someone familiar with this area of show business. My Dad could have played the Alan Arkin character, without having to do a lot of acting. While he never sold Magic Kits, he did sell plenty of tricks and effects. There was one effect call "It" that could have been the illusion that launches the young Burt on his journey to magic fame. I do think there is the usual stereotyping of magicians as socially awkward outsiders, so it seems a bit much to have the poor kid burdened with bullies, a lack of friends and a absentee mother all at the same time. I do think that the motivation for a lot of kids is to be more the center of attention and to build friendships, but the sad sack loser moniker feels a bit obvious. I do remember the Marshal Brodin magic kits that did sell on television.



I bet lots of kids got inspired by this sort of thing but very few of them followed through. The idea of entertaining your friends requires that you have friends first. The most realistic part of the film comes at a kids birthday party, where we get a chance to see how real kids respond to the idea of the impossible.Let me get to the story and film issues first and then I will come back to some of the magic points.

After the two kids become friends in magic at the beginning of the movie, they grow up to be tandem magicians like Siegfried and Roy. If you pay any attention to the time lines this movie will not make much sense. The lead actors are playing nearly twenty years younger than they actually are and the legacy of big time magic on the Vegas strip is twenty years later than it makes much sense for it to be. What isn't clear is why Carell's Burt has become estranged from his friend and partner, Buscemi's Anton. Their act is shown to be intricately plotted and practiced, and maybe the boredom is enough to drive a wedge between them, but it feels like there is some back-story missing. The show they do is corny but entertaining, and they are a success. Despite the fact that young Burt was the initiator of their work together, it appears that his character has lost all interest in new things and listening to his partner. Anton turns into the driving creative force and Burt appears to be the pompous front man. Buscemi seems to have accepted that he is going to be the butt of ugly jokes, but it does seem a little painful at times to watch them being said.This might make sense in the world of Rock and Roll, but it feels like a shortcut in the storytelling here. There is some nice humor built into the Vegas style Magic act, and the Hangman's routine is not the only thing that it appears they got from David Copperfield. When Burt requires his lovers to sign a release form, it has some of the creepy shadow of Copperfield's island seduction story hanging over it.

The introduction of Jim Carey as Steve Gray, a Criss Angel clone is a good plot development. Every generation of performers looks at the next and shakes their head in disbelief at how far the world has changed on them. Carey is both a  magician and a street freak. There are elements of magic in what he does but there are so many things about the style of his act that scream "carnival geek" that I started to look for a chicken every time he was on screen. The fascination with the morbid seems to have become an obsession and part of the movie focuses on how this has changed the nature of entertainment. Carey plays it just right and manages to mock the paranormal pretensions and stupid gross out effects of the "mind-freaks".  After a convoluted but perfectly understandable series of movie plot techniques puts Burt into a position where he has to accept a booking as a kids entertainer, we get a chance to see some of the real elements of performing take place. Everyone likes money and fame, but magicians like entertaining even more. Carey's lunatic performer has some impressive illusions, the question becomes, is it entertainment? As the two engage in a battle of magic performance for a group of ten year olds, we get to see that the nuts, is not always as entertaining as we might think it is. Olivia Wilde is the wanna be magician, working as an assistant, who sees this early on. She originally worshiped Burt as a kid, loathed him as an employer, and finally respected him again as an entertainer when it is all about the audience. When the oldsters at the retirement home get the attention they need and the kids at the birthday party get the fun they should have, then you can see why someone would become a magician.

The stuff with the loser magicians in the magic bar is fun but it repeats the same joke at the beginning of the movie, that people drawn to this field have something wrong with them. Arkin adds some much needed humanity to the whole film. He is light and funny while also managing to refocus on the ultimate theme of the film. In the end, we see that there is some merit in what the performers do. When we go back to the competing magician theme to finish the movie, there is a little bit of a betrayal of that theme. In order to pull off the trick that will win them the gig, they have to return to a kind of contempt for the audience. Here we get some of the funniest stuff with the "Vanishing Audience" illusion, but we also betray the theme that made the middle part of the story work. I was also a little surprised we did not get a joke that this is what got them into this situation in the first place, making the audience disappear.

After the fantastic credit sequences and end cards we got in last week's "Oz", it was a little bit of a let down to not have some clever graphics and jokes during the exit. This was another example of how conventional the movie was. It feels like it is trapped in the 1980s in tone and style, just like Burt and Anton were. The theater that they perform in during their Vegas shows doesn't look like a Vegas showroom. It is the most conventional theater setting you can imagine, this is another element of the simplified nature of the movie.

As I look back over some of the things I wrote here it seems like I did not care for the movie, but in truth I enjoyed it immneselly. There are a lot of jokes that are subtle and funny and several that are not subtle but also very funny. You will have a good time but it won't be something that will last for long in your memory. There are two or three vulgar bits, and a couple of gross visuals, but it is all in keeping with a PG-13 time at the show. 

If you are interested in seeing some real old time magic, click the poster to the left and visit with a stage performer who always loved his audience and his work.

The World According To Dick Cheney

Cheney is probably the most reviled political figure in recent history, at least by those on the left. There are legitimate issues about his role in the War on Terror and the wisdom of his advice. Most of the criticism though comes with the burden of conspiracy fantasies and name calling that simply makes the critics seem like petulant children. The meme of Dick Cheney as the Darth Vader behind the Emperor, might raise angry voices and dollars for the Democratic Party, but it does little to let us understand the reasoning, the means and the results of Cheney's world view. This documentary actually gives a pretty fair view of both points of view on Cheney. His critics will suggest that it is too lenient on him and that he should be dragged through the streets and hung like Mussolini. His supporters will probably complain that the editing and sequencing of music and interviews and pictures, are a bit selective in pushing the theme that he was a manipulator of information.

The best aspect of this work is that there is an extensive interview with the Vice President, where he explains in his own voice the decisions he made and the point of view that he supports. I suspect that many will be infuriated by his indifference to the criticism he has received. After all the sound and fury of their attacks, he seems completely unruffled by those voices. That is just the thing to stir a hornet's nest. What I found so disheartening is how different he comes across than the current Vice President. Anyone who disagrees with Cheney would still have a hard time arguing that he expresses himself so much more effectively than Joe Biden. Joe is a amiable buffoon in comparison to the reserved gravitas of Cheney. His confidence in what he believes comes across very effectively and when he is disappointed in the actions of Congress or President Bush, it comes through in a resigned smile and a more level tone. The deliberate way in which he expresses himself might be convincing to even hardened leftists if we were simply comparing styles.

Of course it is not about style but about policy that Cheney is most severely judged by. The second half of the documentary focuses on the controversies concerning the case for WMDs,   the prosecution of the war in Iraq, and the case against Scooter Libby. Cheney was a consequential player in the Bush administration, not simply a figure head to be rolled out for fund raising and funerals. The first hour of the film shows why Cheney had the influence that he did. From a very early age he was part of the highest echelons of government. he was an insider on National Security issues from his time in the White House as Chief of Staff to Gerald Ford, and Secretary of Defense under George H.W. Bush. He was not a neophyte but a politically savvy insider. I found his personal history interesting because in part I was not familiar with all of it. In twelve years he went from two time Yale reject to Chief of Staff to the President of the United States. He went from being a serial DUI offender, to experienced and intelligent adviser to  the head of state. The foamers out there will probably argue that his role in the Halliburton Company was not explored in any depth here, but it seems more likely that instead of him operating on behalf of that company, he largely functioned based on his long political career and that the economic exigencies of Iraq and Halliburton are coincidental.

It was very clear at the end of the film that Cheney was on the outside at the end of the Bush administration. His advice was largely ignored in the last two years in office and the ascendency of Condi Rice marked the decline of the Cheney  as  Bush's go to on security issues. The documentary does not try to answer whether this was a good or a bad thing but simply show that a shift in the administration had occurred. His impotence is shown as he recounts that there were no hands raised when Bush asked at a meeting of National Security advisers, who supported the Vice President' suggestion to attack the Syrian Nuclear Processing site. Cheney is respectful of the President as the film finishes but you can tell by his tone that he was disappointed in Bush, especially for his failure to pardon Scooter Libby.

Like all documentaries, "The World According to Dick Cheney" has an abundance of political agenda to push. Neither side will feel like it has been fair in the way the subject has been presented, and that may be the best proof that the film makers tried to be historians rather than advocates. Both critics and supporters of the Vice President are given voice in this piece, and both voices are modulated to a pretty reasonable tone. Regardless of whether you think Cheney is evil incarnate or an heroic figure of determined intelligence, I think you will find this film rewarding. It treats the subject seriously and tries to allow the viewer to sort out the information and arrive at an informed rather than impassioned conclusion.

KICK ASS 2, YaHoo

Get More:
Movie Trailers, Movies Blog

King Kong/King Kong/King Kong

One of the best things I have enjoyed in the last few years is finding others who like sharing their opinions about films. The whole process of using social media and blogging has connected me to several writers on line that I follow regularly. Most are not film professionals nor do they aspire to be. They are passionate enthusiasts of a medium I have loved all my life. They have opinions and ideas that they feel compelled to share with others, and I am usually happy to read them. While I occasionally disagree on some level with them on a particular film or genre, most of the writers I follow are committed to having a friendly dialogue about movies. I am not shy about getting into an argument, but a dispute over opinions is just that, and does not necessitate a flame war. I much prefer to be inspired by the voices out there in a positive way as I am with this post.

My movie memories are a big part of why I write about films. I like to think I understand a little about story telling thru film, but more than that, this is an opportunity to document my feelings and impressions. I suppose that is a little narcissistic, but all good conversations start with some sense of narcissism,  we think others might give a damn about what we think. So I am inspired to write about the three King Kong films because one of the writers I follow devoted three posts to King Kong movies in the last few days and I want to piggyback on the idea. He stuck to the movies he saw on Thanksgiving marathons on the East Coast. Out here on the West Coast, Thanksgiving Day Marathons were devoted to the Twilight Zone, but I could easily have settled in for a Kong Thon before my turkey and dressing.

For someone devoted to movies like I am I must confess it is hard for me to remember my first film. I know my parents took me to 101 Dalmatians right before my brother was born and I have a vague recollection of the experience, thought I would not yet have been four. I do know that by the time I was six, I had seen King Kong, the 1933 classic. I know because we went to the World's Fair in New York in 1964. It was my first time to the Big Apple and I kept looking for Kong on the Empire State building whenever we went out. I remember my mother pointing out the World's Tallest Building (at least I think it was at the time) and telling me to look for Kong. A kid of six takes such advice seriously and I was disappointed that he never showed up, even when we went to the top to check it out. The image of the giant ape climbing the skyscraper is one of the iconic moments in cinema history. It has been lampooned and appropriated for a thousand ads, sketches and performances. At the end of "The Rocky Horror Picture Show", as Rocky climbs the RKO Antenna tower with Frankenfurter on his back, the defiant fist pump is a salute to the 1933 original.

I have written before about my desire for emotionalism in movies. I don't need the irony and coldness of most modern motion pictures.  I can take it and enjoy it for what it is, but I like a movie that thrills me, frightens me, makes me laugh or cry. King Kong did all of those things for me when I was a kid. I remember having a nightmare about Kong reaching in his big paw and pulling me out the window. I know I sat on the edge of my seat with a pillow over my face as a kid, watching Kong fight the T-Rex on Skull Island or roll dozens of men off of the giant log that spanned a crevice over which they were pursuing him and then escaping him. I remember two vivid emotions of anticipation in the film before they ever reached the island. Carl Denham is in New York, at the depths of the depression, seeking a woman to take to the island to film his movie. He meets Ann Darrow and gets carried away in recruiting her. " It's money and adventure and fame. It's the thrill of a lifetime and a long sea voyage that starts at six o'clock tomorrow morning", he nearly shouts at her in the diner. That over the top moment thrills me to this day. He is a grown man, excited beyond his ability to contain himself and throwing his whole heart into the adventure. At that moment, I knew I could never resist the siren call of King Kong. The acting style must be thought of as quaint now a days, but to me it has the heart that drives the picture in it. Later on the boat, when he is testing her for photographing and costume, he gives her this direction "Throw your arms across your eyes and scream, Ann. Scream for your life", and that is probably when I learned of foreshadowing in movie story telling.

 

As a kid I always loved the movies of Ray Harryhausen, stop motion is the most amazing special effect because you can see all the work that goes into it. Willis O'Brien was chiefly responsible for Kong, and the effects while dated still work if you are willing to watch without the jaundiced eyes of a hipper than thou modernist. Just as the dialogue, and set design and treatment of primitive people  is of it's time, so are the effects. Films had only had sound for six years when this came out. I can just imagine how audiences of the time were thrilled by it. I once saw what was purported to be the original armature of Kong at a museum exhibit, it looks like it was probably not the main piece but I am still happy to have had a chance to see the detail that went into producing the greatest special effects character of the first half of movie history.

 The horror of Kong breaking through the giant gate on Skull Island is still pretty vivid. The native child screaming and the mother rushing to grab him before Kong crushes them. Others are torn to bits and chewed up and spit out. Later when Kong arrives in New York and breaks free, I saw the terror in the eyes of the passengers on the elevated train as Kong smashes the track they are riding on. Who can forget the image of the bi-planes attacking Kong, who has become a sympathetic creature due to his love of Ann? The slow motion collapse of the mighty ape on the Empire State building brings a gasp of pity for the creature that previously inspired terror. That is great movie making.

Forty plus years later, someone got it in their head that a remake of the classic would be a good idea. To be honest, the idea is nearly a sure thing because the story is so easy to relate to . Beauty and the Beast, with a giant ape in Manhattan, it practically writes itself. The year I started college, while home during the Christmas break, my family came across a full page ad in the newspaper, announcing the "Most Exciting Original Motion Picture of All Time" to be released one year from the day. My Dad and I were transfixed by the image of Kong astride the twin skyscrapers of the World Trade Center, battling jet aircraft. There was a poster premium we could order. I don't remember if it was cereal box tops or coupons from   some other product, but we immediately sent off for the poster reproduction of that Newspaper ad. We got two mini posters a few weeks later and that poster stayed on my bedroom door until after I was married and moved out of the house. I wish I had remembered it before my Mom cleaned out my old room. I could go and look for it in the garage but I know I will never be lucky enough to find it.




Many disparage the 1976 version of Kong, but I think it is perfectly serviceable and it has a few extras that were missing from the original. Mostly that consists of Jessica Lange being fondled and disrobed by Kong but what the heck. As a film it was quite successful financially if not always artistically. My hometown paper the L.A. Times gave it a very positive review and when my family saw it together that Christmas it came out, we all enjoyed it. The special effects to me are a step backwards. Despite spending a fortune on a full sized mechanical Kong, they had to rely on the old Japanese standby of a man in a suit. Of course the man was Rick Baker, who invented modern effects makeup, and the suit was not some cheap guerrilla costume from Hollywood Magic, but a nicely designed costume with an elaborate set of mechanical effects for facial expressions. The giant mechanical hand and the detailed facial expressions of Kong in this movie are the selling points. There is not really much in the oil plot line, and the New York sequences don't have quite the thrill of 1933. While I have seen the film from time to time since then, it is not a version that I own and it has been a few years since I revisited it. As much as I did enjoy it, I do remember that I stayed away from the sequel a couple of years later, "King Kong Lives", it just did not have the romance that the original story evoked in me.


Peter Jackson's King Kong from 2005 is a movie that I anticipated almost as much as the Lord of the Rings films. Jackson is a bit of a nut on King Kong and he wanted to bring all the technical innovations of the last twenty years to bear on the object of his affection. I watched the web videos and followed the progress of the movie with great care. When the trailer appeared in theaters, I fell in love with the tone and the vision of the movie.

It was a throwback to the 1933 film, a period piece with romanticism and adventure galore. I still love the movie but it is easy to see it's flaws through the rearview mirror. The movie is epic in scale and it takes it's time to tell the story. Jackson can't stop adding material in the second act, and the first was more elaborate than necessary. I do think that the final act is really strong and Naomi Watts lives up to the spell cast by Fay Ray and Jessica Lange before her. The park sequence on the frozen pond is a sweet moment that makes the sacrifice at the end even more bitter for us. For all it's excess, the 2005 version of Kong has it's heart in the right place, on it's sleeve for all of us to see. Nothing can ever top the original, but that's because it is so perfect. All three of the movies do their best to show us the eighth wonder of the world. They are all hyper emotional and romantic in different ways. I dragged my family to a midnight screening of Peter Jackson's Kong and it is a memory that we will all be able to share, regardless of evolving opinions of the film itself. My kids will recall the foggy eyed moment of walking out of the theater at 3:30 in the morning, just as I remember searching for Kong through the back window of our station wagon driving into NYC in 1964, or staring at the mini poster on the wall that my Dad and I so much wanted to get when we saw the ad in the paper. The promo for that film could apply to all three versions. "The Most Exciting Original Motion Picture Event of All Time", OK, of all three times.

Oz The Great and Powerful

So this morning I strolled down the Yellow Brick Road and revisited the enchanting land of Oz. Much as it was in 1939, the skies are blue, the forests dark and the promise of Emerald City is boundless. While Dorthy and Toto are nowhere to be found, several  original characters including the Wizard, Glinda, and the Wicked Witch of the West have joined us on our new journey. And while there are not really any glorious songs to sing, there is magic and adventure and heart all around. The technology of 2013 has managed to imitate the craftsmanship of 1939, and the view from here is most satisfying.

As a child, I owned a set of the Oz books and read several of them, but I have very little recall of them. I don't think this film is based on a specific story from Frank L. Baum, instead it is a bridge from his work to the story told seventy four years ago. This story tells the tale of the Wizard and the witches of Oz in an entertaining variation of the musical version. We learn the Wizards origins in the opening section of the movie, done in homage to the MGM classic by starting in black and white in old Kansas, and widening to a broad screen with a vivid color palate once we reach the land of Oz. Many might criticize modern Hollywood for following the lead of Baum in returning to the world of his imagination. It is often said that Hollywood is bereft of new ideas and is thus destined to strip-mine the past for material. That would be a harsh judgement to render here because the story is in fact original and the characters that we encounter simply operate in a world we think we know but for which the imagination continues to invent background.

We knew that the original wizard was a fraud, at least when it comes to the magic of Oz. Yet how does a fake wizard manage to become Oz the first, and wield power for years and be beloved by the citizens of the Emerald City? That's what this movie is all about. It does nothing to step on the lore we knew from Dorothy's visit, it fills in some blank spaces and paints a vivid adventure in the background of what we learned before. The scenes in Kansas create a real sense of place and time, where a carnival performer with big dreams might very well be launched into a giant adventure. Oz knows the kind of magic that men of his time learned to entertain the audience. He knows misdirection and story telling and pyrotechnics. He is a con man but not a malicious one. Women fall for his line but most of them seem to know in the long run that it is a line. I liked that the set up includes some elements that bring about the tragic parts of the story that come later. Oz himself is not blameless in the way wickedness grows in the Land of Oz. Yet it takes an evil twist to produce the outcome that drives the second half of the story. James Franco's Kansas showman and Lothario, has to grow in the course of the story. His shallowness must be revealed to be swept away. It is this arc of the story that makes the film work.

There are four distinct characters that move his progress along. Theodora the witch who discovers and falls for Oz, represents the future without Oz growing. The beautiful Mila Kunis is a little young and not given much chance to show any depth in her character. In the long run, we will feel deeply for the impact the wizard ends up having on her. Finley, the talking and flying monkey, represents the need that Oz has to grow as a human being; loyalty and sacrifice demand from Oz, something he is reluctant to give. Many years later we will hear this echoed in the words that Oz bestows on the Tin Man when he wants a heart. This was a really effective CGI character that adds immensely to the entertainment value of the picture. The China Doll is the opportunity for Oz to act on the impulses he has always had, decency and caring, but that he has dismissed as impractical. He knows that he can't do real magic but he can do a world of good if he gives himself a chance. If you don't eventually fall in love with this ceramic CGI creation, there is something wrong with your heart and you better go see the Wizard yourself.  Finally, Glinda the Good Witch, is his opportunity to stop being a good time Charley and instead be the good man that he despairs of being at the beginning of the story. Michelle Williams was deft and light in this part. She doesn't sound like Billie Burke, but she comes across as sweet and loving as anyone could want.

Franco gets a lot of the notes wrong, but many more of them right. The director allows him to use his smile a bit too often when he could try another expression to convey his change. Sometimes the body movement is a little over the top, but it is forgivable because it is at heart a children's story and things do get exaggerated there. When the Wicked Witch of the West appears, we get excellent foreshadowing of the elements that made her a nightmare for the last six generations of movie lovers. The face, the cackle and the broomstick will leave most viewers glad that we know it will only take a little water to save ourselves. While the effects are contemporary, the style is classic from 1939. This is the stuff I think makes it all work in the long run. We get characters that are true to the world we know, and a story we don't know. The modern wizardry of computers is bent to the classic means of story telling.  The movie is marvelous in appearance and manages to evoke the musical without making itself a duplicate. We don't live in the world of 1939 anymore, and kids today grow up so much faster than they once did.This film tries to straddle the gulf between our age and the more innocent times of three quarters of a century ago. I am personally delighted that whenever they had to lean one way or another to stay balanced in that divide, they usually drift to the classical form. The battle at the end reminds us of the real wizards we had in our world, while still allowing the modern magicians to show off their craft. Just in case you need one more incentive to go, remember it hardly seems like a Sam Rami film without a little Bruce Campbell somewhere.