I feel luckier than most of those who’ve been disappointed by this one by the fact that my interest in it lay pretty much solely in AnnaSophia Robb’s appearance in it, and I found out how small her role was when I saw the trailer months ago. It’s smaller still than that, in fact … but at least I was prepared. The worrying thing to me about her presence here was how young she looked – like, just how long ago was this thing shot?! ‘cos right now, even around the time Bridge to Terabithia shot, I’m sure she could almost quite easily have played the older, more prominent, Millie. (this article suggests they shot August 2006 … I guess AS is just good at dressing older more recently, lol).

As to the movie – well, it’s as slick as the trailer looked, and I think the key lies in realising the rather dreary thing the movie is saying, and it’s something we’ve all wondered from time to time if we’ve ever thought about having a superpower and which one we’d choose etc; would we really use it to help people like Superman etc? Or would we just keep it to ourselves and peep on people in the shower (ahem)? But while this would seem to be a unique and pertinent, especially at this point in time, subject for a movie, it turns out to be pretty unexciting in the end.

I think the only thing that could maybe have made it better is if they cut out the time lag and cast a younger guy as the hero, keeping AnnaSophia in the Millie part (really, this is not just the AnnaSophia fan in me saying this lol). You can imagine younger teenagers acting this way, even as far as “acting older” like Leonardo DiCaprio in Catch Me If You Can. When it’s Hayden Christensen and Rachel Bilson … it’s just kinda pathetic. Also nobody should ever let Jamie Bell use his regular voice in a movie, ever again. I figured it might’ve worked here in the short clips I’d seen, being as it almost makes sense if he’s never stayed in one place most his life … but basically, the movie’s just not good enough for me to be that considerate over it.

The scene where Christensen finally reveals to Bilson his little quirk is quite the ultimate case in point as to why this movie is so far from realising its potential. He dances around the issue in a stupidly comic way, Samuel Jackson right outside the front door seconds away from killing them both; and when he finally shows her, her acting ability is revealed in all its hopeless glory as she “reacts” to seeing a human being defy the laws of time and space before her very eyes.

Having only seen 3 movies so far from this year (including this), I really thought this would be the one that made it feel like the year had begun. As it is, though the other two (Rambo and Day of the Dead) were no masterpieces either, I’d certainly watch them again much sooner than this one, which told me all I needed to know in one go and left me simply wanting to shout, “Next?”

On the plus side the visuals are good (Egypt in particular – Bucket List losers take note lol) as are the exotic locations. I guess they make up for the criminal underuse of AnnaSophia. But we’re still left with a gaping hole of a movie. That it ends an hour too soon (not that I’d want another hour; but seriously, no ending in movies has ever made me think “That’s it?!” so loudly) is just insult to injury … and that Christensen doesn’t even learn anything by the movie’s close is just … grr, can you just tell that I’d rant about this for days if I had the time? I guess there’ll be a sequel … I mean god, if White Noise got one … I won’t even be rushing to download that … unless it’s AnnaSophia.

Lawd. I started watching this the other night but I was too tired in the end. I came to it today truly wanting to like it. I love the concept – I love the normality of the opening with Dorothy at the family get-together, it’s just so beautifully down-to-earth and the music is great there too (“Don’t know what I’m made of / Why am I afraid of … feeling?”)

But then Dorothy goes to Oz. Now, ever since Meet the Robinsons, I’m pretty careful about first impressions, and the “look” of Oz here certainly had the same effect as the future did there. The make-up (by Stan Winston no less) is hideous, the costumes wild but pretty lazy in all (like someone just went into a thrift store or a school’s theatre wardrobe and grabbed anything wild-looking)

My head just got buried more and more in my hands as the music got more indigestible and the Sesame Street quality just devoured the thing entirely. I don’t want to compare it to the 1939 movie – pretty much anything looks bad by comparison – but even coming to it with the highest desire to work with it and find the goodness with in it, I struggled painfully. I nearly died laughing when the lion lets rip with, “I’m a lion!” ROFL … I just kept feeling like Homer Simpson in the “Homer’s Phobia” episode of The Simpsons in the steelworks … “oh my god, what’s happening now?!” lol. Then it goes absurdly dark at the end! Then they all get naked? lol. It’s just a maddening mess.

I’m inclined to say it could be the worst film I’ve ever seen – but there are a lot of plus points that make me understand where its fans are coming from. The sets in themselves are often stunning. Some of the music is catchy, even in the case of “Can I Go On?” slightly moving. The rainbow in the sprinklers at the end is simply inspired, and Richard Pryor completely steals the movie when he finally appears. I’m interested in a review I read on the IMDb that says how the Broadway show was pretty spectacularly different. Whatever … it’s certainly a curio, worth watching if you’re a fan of cinema, musicals, or just plain Oz … but I personally found it pretty damn excruciating, in a geniuinely “Make it stop!” kind of way. I think the credits say it all – written by Joel Schumacher, produced by Rob Cohen, and directed by Sidney Lumet. Too many cooks spoil the broth indeed … especially when they’re that differently minded.

Again, we should really count ourselves lucky these sequels were made in the Seventies ‘cos the Eighties would’ve left us with genuine horrors. And again … why no girls? How can writer Bill Lancaster have stayed true to the spirit of the original film two times over yet missed completely one of its most unique and memorable components? I’m sure I’m not just being my cutie-obsessed self on this, lol – I really think they would’ve been 10 times the sequels they are with another Amanda Whurlitzer type in the mix to keep the boys in check. Anyway, this one’s even more forgettable than the first sequel, more an oddity being as it stars Tony Curtis than anything else.

I was really impressed by Rocky Balboa ... and I guess it was a little dumb of me to expect Sylvester Stallone to do the same here as he did there; part because, in a sense, I guess he has done the same as he did there, only, not in the way I expected. Rather than instill the franchise with something more than the basic high concept formulaic nonsense as he did with “Balboa”, he’s really made here the definitive Rambo movie, just as he made the definitive Rocky movie in “Balboa”. I think the best review of this I’ve read recently said something along the lines of, it would probably feel more at home and play better on a crappy VCR, pan-and-scan and tracking problems included lol. He’s been that faithful to the general feel of the series.

Which is a shame – I figured especially with the titling of the installment, he was going for the same thing as Rocky Balboa ... reclaiming the franchise and showing ‘em how it’s done after being disappointed for years with how the sequels to his greatest successes were being treated. The last half hour of violence here goes some way towards making it worth watching … but it’s really mostly a letdown all the way. He had a gift here in that the title hadn’t even yet been used in the series (“First Blood” having been the title of part one) ... boy does he squander it.

I figured this would all hinge on how well I took the moment of the bee talking to the human. So I was surprised by how well I took that scene. Though the minor giggles continue to come throughout, it gets very stupid, very annoying, very fast – the kind of movie where I could see the stars dropping off the rating with almost precision timing. The celebrity name checks are particularly half-assed (“I can’t fly a plane!” “Isn’t John Travolta a pilot? How hard can it be?!” ugh, and I thought Scary Movie 4 was simple) I was a little weirded out by the message too, in a similar way I overthunk The Incredibles – like, this movie seems to be just saying “get in your place and do what you’re supposed to do.” I’m overly aware of both sides of everything, hence the domain I live at, so it pains me that I can see there’s a point in this message somewhere … but, ugh, really, leave it alone, especially in a kids’ movie. They really deserve better, and I’m even more glad now that this wasn’t nominated for an Oscar than I was before I saw it.

Another that I’d been looking forward to for a long time – in this case, I’m pretty sure damn near a year since it was announced? But here the disappointment was even more tremendous. This looked so great as the trailer and clips started coming out … and I can’t believe that I’m saying this but to me it seems it all comes down to Harold Pinter’s adaptation. It feels so much like somebody felt that the play had to be really adapted for the screen, that it had to be made cinematic etc. This would’ve been fine had it not been done before, and proven then that there was no need – the more theatrical the 1972 movie gets, the more fun it is.

Caine and Law are both fine as expected, though neither approach their best work so even to suggest it’s worth watching “just for them” would be misleading. The production design, all that slick blue, was one of the many things that looked wonderful in the trailers but even over the brief 90 minute running time it gets a little tired. The whole thing is just so drab – there’s but one spark of the original’s merriment when Law rips off his disguise, his hair straggled out, I’m sure deliberately to resemble Caine in the same moment of the original. If you’ve not seen the original yet and are considering this, spare yourself the extra time and do yourself a favour by going straight to the classic.

I wouldn’t have guessed in a million years that this would be the least interesting of the Boaz Yakin double bill tonight, but yikes … I appreciate Uptown Girls even more now, lol. This reminded me a little of the Barbra Streisand movie Up the Sandbox minus all the surreal stuff that made that movie so much fun. If this one had been made in the 70s and starred Streisand with say Mandy Patinkin in the Christopher Eccleston role – that said, the one positive I can give it is how startlingly convincing he is – then and only then might it have been anything worth recommending. One of the quotes on the DVD cover says, “Highly entertaining” ... I have no idea what movie they were watching.

I’m gonna come clean here and say, I actually watched this last week but I really couldn’t bring myself to review it because my response was so utterly non-existent compared to what I’d heard about it over the years. It’s directed by Bob Clark, who made A Christmas Story years later, a movie I was similarly underwhelmed by compared to its reputation.

So, I’ve seen it twice now. I get that it was 1974, it preceded all the slashers we all think defined the genre etc, like it even has the POV thing 4 years before Halloween. But, y’know, I’d always pegged Psycho and Night of the Living Dead and Peeping Tom for doing many of these things anyway. It’s better than the remake, I’ll give it that, but, having given it the second chance I give few movies that disappoint me, I’m really still just as I was after the first watch. It gets a little creepy just as they’re realising the killer is in the house, etc, but really, I was close to falling asleep both times. Very disappointing indeed.