These Revisionist Fairy Tale Movies Must Stop!

You paid for something just like this a few years ago, so...

Now that Jack the Giant Slayer has officially sort of bombed, it would be nice if I could write the obituary for the revisionist fairy tale genre.  (Not sure if that is the title others are giving this recent slew of “okay at best” fairy tale movies, but that’s what I’m going with.)  But I can’t.  Not because great fairy tale movies are right around the corner, but because of the sheer fact that more are coming out.  It doesn’t seem to matter that no one is actually asking for these movies. 

 

Let’s begin with how this even happened.  I blame Johnny Depp.  No, wait, people (including me) like him.  Okay, I blame Avatar.  No, that won’t work, either.  The internet may have grown to hate that movie, but actual people apparently really liked it (once again, including me).  I’ve got it: 3D is to blame.  I can get behind that, and so can a decent amount of people.

 

Allow me to explain.  Avatar came out a few years ago and made all that money.  Some genius in Hollywood decided that it must have been because of the 3D.  That certainly explains why 3D has been a part of film world conversation ever since, but that doesn’t necessarily explain these new fairy tale movies.  Alice in Wonderland, a children’s fairy tale, just happened to be the next family friendly film to be released in glorious 3D, and it made far more money than it deserved.  It made over a billion dollars worldwide…ridiculous.  Is it any wonder that Oz the Great and Powerful looks more like a prequel to Alice than it does to The Wizard of Oz?  But more on that later…

 

The reason isn’t all that important, though.  At this point, the studios need to listen to the audiences.  In general, mass audiences hate revisionist fairy tales.  Let’s go through the list of recent films and their estimated domestic gross and budget (according to boxofficemojo.com):

 




Have they learned nothing from us?

The Brothers Grimm made $38 million and cost $88 million.

 

Red Riding Hood made $38 and cost $42.

 

Mirror Mirror made $65 and cost $85.

 

Snow White and the Huntsman made $155 and cost $170.

 

Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters made $54 and cost $50.

 

Jack the Giant Slayer has made $29 so far and reportedly cost $195.

 

 

There are no massive bombs listed here (Jack might eventually qualify), and all of the films that have finished their run ended up making more than their budget after worldwide grosses are applied.  None of these films were smash hits, either.  The only one getting a sequel is Snow White, but I’ll address that “hit” in a minute.  What is most frustrating about this list is that amount of money spent on these films that could be used elsewhere.  But back to the list itself. 

 

The Brothers Grimm stands out since it was released years before Alice and this whole fairy tale frenzy we’re dealing with at the moment.  I included this movie (which I actually like, by the way) because it is an example that shows audiences didn’t want this stuff back in 2005 and they still don’t want it in 2013.  I know that I said I enjoyed this film, but I’m glad it didn’t start a trend.  This film’s lackluster performance stopped the fairy tale movement before it began, then Alice came out and we’ve been force fed this fairy tale crap ever since. 

 

Things would have been fine if it had ended with Grimm.  The people who want to see an edgier version of a fairy tale would have their fix and we could be spared the rest of the crap.  Red Riding Hood was too mundane to even remember.  Mirror Mirror, despite being directed by Tarsem Singh, was family friendly drivel.  Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters…well, just say that title out loud and try not to laugh at the stupidity of it.  (I have not gotten around to seeing this one, and I will admit that it looks more promising than its name suggests.)  I never intended to watch Jack the Giant Slayer for multiple reasons.  The CG looked too fake, the human characters looked too goofy, and I never really liked the original story anyway.  Actually, you know what?  I can’t remember if I liked that story growing up, mainly because I was a small child when it was meant to appeal to me.  So why is this film being marketed as some grand action adventure for all ages when the source material is meant only for children? 

 

Most of these new fairy tales fall into this weird in-between zone.  They try so hard to be for everyone that they end up being for nearly no one.  The exception to this is Snow White and the Huntsman, which succeeded only because it ended up being just right for the Twilight crowd.  This film is being considered a success to the point that a sequel is in the works, but let’s put this in perspective.  The cartoon version of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs made (over years of re-releases) $185 million.  If you adjust that, it rockets up to $877 million.  You know why that made all the money?  Because it was marketed to the proper audience: children.

 

Familiar faces! Take my money!

Snow White and the Huntsman’s success is a product of casting, good timing, and not-being-that-bad-ness.  It had Kristen Stewart (whose mass appeal I will never understand), Chris Hemsworth (Thor!), and Charlize Theron (who doesn’t necessarily bring in big audiences, but her performance was noted).  And I remember when this came out.  It was the only major release that weekend and The Avengers had already been out for a month and Men in Black 3 was under performing in its second weekend.  And, most importantly, this one is not all that bad.  In fact, the worst parts about the film are the forced Snow White moments.  You know, like any awful scene with the dwarfs.  If this had simply been an adventure movie without the Snow White part, it might have been truly good.  Because that fairy tale crap is for children. 

 

The primary definition of a fairy tale (according to Merriam-Webster.com) is “a story (as for children) involving fantastic forces and beings.”  The key word in that definition is “children.”  Sure, definitions differ and some don’t claim that a fairy tale is exclusively for children.  But look at the plots of these films and tell me that they aren’t more at home in a Disney animated feature.  I’m not saying let’s put an end to all fairy tales.  I’m just saying let’s keep them where they belong: animated and rated G. 

This is for...kids?  Teens?  Adults?  Anyone...?

 

This brings me back to Oz.  To be fair, this one is not exactly a revisionist fairy tale because it is a prequel to The Wizard of Oz and isn’t attempting to be a gritty new take on it.  But it is being marketed (down to the nearly identical release date) very much like Alice in Wonderland.  I am afraid that it will make an immense amount of money and there will be another influx of crappy to mediocre revisions of children’s classics for the next few years.  I fear that this brutal cycle could go on indefinitely…and in 3D. 

 

What’s the point of all this griping?  I want the talent that has been involved in some of this mediocre crap to be used for more original and entertaining work.  Johnny Depp and Tim Burton once made Ed Wood.  Sam Raimi is responsible for the Evil Dead franchise.  Tarsem Singh made The Fall (check that out if you want to see a childhood fairy tale presented in a mature and entertaining way).  Gary Oldman (Red Riding Hood) made (insert one of his dozen-plus awesome roles here).  Tommy Wirkola (Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters) made Dead Snow.  You get the idea. 

 

Hollywood can still make fairy tale movies and make more money doing it without wasting the talent of these people.  They could just make them as animated features meant for children.  They can even mess with the formula and modernize it a bit.  The audience won’t mind, or won’t remember it later on anyway.  I’m not suggesting, by the way, that there is no talent in the animated world; quite the opposite, in fact.  It’s just that the animated folk know what to do with fairy tales and the people behind most these films don’t. 

 

Of course, maybe I’m wrong and Oz the Great and Powerful will turn out to be the beginning of a golden era of Hollywood.  But I doubt it.  There’s just something wrong about Sam Raimi directing a PG rated fairy tale…

"Alice in Wonderland" / Mini-Reviews: "Hunger" / "The Invention of Lying" / "The Damned United"

Alice in Wonderland - Directed by Tim Burton, starring Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, and Helena Bonham Carter - Rated PG

The Kurgan digs the Mad Hatter...he just wishes he was a little evil.

Alice in Wonderland, Tim Burton and Johnny Depp’s latest collaboration, is equal parts strange and goofy. This is not a bad thing, I was just hoping for something a bit darker. The film is still enjoyable and it certainly held my interest.

This version of the classic story by Lewis Carroll is really a combination/reimagining of both “Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland” and “Through the Looking Glass.” So you get the usual cast of characters (the Mad Hatter, the Red Queen, the White Queen, the White Rabbit, the Cheshire Cat), but with a more traditional, linear plot. I am not a Lewis Carroll scholar or anything, but the books, from the skimming I did, came across as more of a random series of crazy events. To be honest, I was happy to see a linear plot added. I suppose a purist might have problems, though.

The linear story I mentioned above starts off simply enough. Young Alice has just awoken from a nightmare involving the above cast of characters. Her father let’s her know that even if she is a little crazy, it’s okay (lesson to all little girls: it’s okay to be yourself). Cut to eleven years later, Alice (Mia Wasikowska) is now a young lady, expected to marry a lord and lead a very boring life. Instead, she chases after the White Rabbit and falls down the rabbit hole. And this is, of course, where the story picks up a bit. Alice quickly learns that she is foretold to be a great champion who will slay the Jabberwocky with the vorpal sword and help bring peace back to Wonderland. She and the inhabitants of Wonderland, however, are not sure if she’s the right Alice for the job.

I’ve summarized the story enough. Suffice it to say that all of the expected encounters have a point behind them and they all lead up to the showdown between the Red Queen and the White Queen. I enjoyed the story of the film, especially since it gave the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) a back story and a purpose. Still, though, do not expect this to be a Mad Hatter movie just because Depp’s face is plastered all over the marketing. The Hatter is still a side character, though Depp’s scenes were the most enjoyable in the film. You really can’t go wrong when Depp is given free rein to crazy up the screen.

Depp is great and he is backed up by some other fun performances, both live action and voice. Helena Bonham Carter and Crispin Glover (as the Red Queen and Stayne, Knave of Hearts, respectively) work very well together. Carter handles the famous “Off with their heads!” outbursts quite well and Glover is a creepy guy no matter what he does so his presence alone made his character work. Among the voice actors, I enjoyed Alan Rickman as the hookah-smoking Caterpillar and Stephen Fry as the Cheshire Cat the most. They both seemed to embody each character perfectly.

Since there are voice actors, that obviously means that a good portion of this film is done with computer animated effects, and they are quite well done. The world created for the screen looks great. I found myself just looking around the screen picking up the little details here and there (of course it was easy to pick up the smaller elements since I was watching it in IMAX). Wonderland might not be Pandora or anything, but it is still interesting enough to keep your eyes busy throughout the film.

Inevitably, Alice in Wonderland is going to be compared to Avatar since this is the first IMAX/3D release since that blockbuster came out. First off, the 3D is not as impressive as it was with Avatar. This may be because Alice wasn’t shot in 3D; it was converted to 3D later. This is becoming a common practice since Avatar started breaking records and I’m not sure I like it. Don’t get me wrong, the 3D is still impressive at times and it helps you feel like you’re in Wonderland along with Alice. I just wish they would’ve have actually filmed it with 3D cameras instead of converting it later.

Alice in Wonderland still looks good, it just could have looked so much better. I enjoyed the story more than the visuals, if for no other reason than it was quite different than I expected it to be. It may have been a bit goofier than I would have liked (the Mad Hatter’s little dance at the end was quite stupid), but it has some great moments as well (Alice’s showdown with the Jabberwocky was my favorite). The film makes for a decent family film. I don’t think it’s going to go down as a beloved classic or anything, but I certainly think Alice in Wonderland is worth checking out.

Mini-Reviews

Hunger - Co-written and directed by Steve McQueen, starring Michael Fassbender - Not Rated
This film, which seemed to take forever to get a video release, is best known for Fassbender's performance and for good reason. Fassbender plays Bobby Sands, an Irish political prisoner who died during a hunger strike in prison. Fassbender deserves every bit of praise he gets. He's actually not on screen as much as you would think, but his moments are extremely effective. It's not only his physical transformation (which I found even more shocking than Christian Bale's weight loss in The Machinist) that is impressive. I found the lengthy dialogue scene with a priest to be just as effective. And that is really saying something for this movie in general: I found a twenty-plus minute dialogue scene in which the camera never moves to be completely enthralling, not to mention impressive, as it was one continuous take. That scene alone makes this film worth watching. That doesn't mean the rest of it isn't good, though. Steve McQueen did a great job of putting the viewer in prison. It's not pleasant and it shouldn't be. And it is very effective.

The Invention of Lying - Written and directed by Ricky Gervais and Matthew Robinson, starring Ricky Gervais, Jennifer Garner, and Louis C.K. - Rated PG-13

This high concept comedy takes place in a world where lying hasn't been invented yet. Although, technically that's not correct. Characters in the film just blurt out what they are thinking sometimes. So it's not that people can't lie, it's also that they cannot stop themselves from telling people what is on their mind. Of course, this factor makes character interactions much funnier so I'm okay with it. I'm not going to ruin any of the gags for you, just rest assured that you'll laugh at least a few times during this one. I found it quite funny, but I could see some people getting tired of the joke halfway through. Oh, and some people will definitely be turned away by the film's treatment of religion, so if you're easily offended when it comes to religious matters, you may want to skip this one. If you're not easily offended, give this one a try.

The Damned United - Directed by Tom Hooper, starring Michael Sheen, Colm Meaney, and Timothy Spall - Rated R

I wasn't expecting much from this film. Mainly due to the fact that it's about a soccer (sorry, rest of the world, I mean football) coach rivalry during the 1970's between Brian Clough (Sheen) and Don Revie (Meaney). But it turns out that it is actually a character study of Clough. He is ambitious to the point of obsession, but it's hard not to like the guy because Sheen plays him so well. But what really hooked me with this one was the way the story was told. It jumps around a bit and that makes things much more interesting than if it was in order. I was worried about having to watch a lot of soccer scenes but that turned out to be a complete non-issue as well. This simply is not a sports movie. I know nothing about the sport of soccer and my lack of knowledge did not affect my viewing at all. So if you were put off by the subject matter with this one you might want to think again because The Damned United is much more than a soccer movie.