You're Next (2013) Review

You're Next

“You’re Next” has taken a long road in getting to theaters. It premiered at festivals two years ago to raves and then had to sit on the back burner until now because of messy distribution business. It’s been a long two years waiting for this to come out, especially since legitimately good horror movies are in short stock and the gems are sought after by horror fans (like myself) as if they were gold. Fear not though, because while long delays like that could also be a signal that the movie wasn’t actually as good as we were lead to believe, “You’re Next” lives up to its hype, and the reasons why are a little unexpected.

It’s the typical setup we’ve seen before in countless other home invasion horror movies: a family goes out to their home in the woods for a reunion dinner. Many of them haven’t seen each other in a long time, and internal resentments begin bubbling to the surface quickly. But they now have a bigger problem on their hands than petty squabbling, as multiple masked men lay siege to the house and take out the family one by one. This general outline, however, doesn’t begin to touch the little details that writer Simon Barrett and director Adam Wingard (“V/H/S”) employ to flesh things out and even turn some horror clichés on their heads.

That’s not to say that “You’re Next” is the next horror deconstruction like “Cabin in the Woods” or “Scream.” Rather, Wingard and Barrett start things out on familiar territory and then slowly begin twisting the little things that frustrate horror viewers. Don’t you hate how everyone’s cell phones in horror movies are always conveniently out of service? Well one character suggests they might be using a jammer. Isn’t it frustrating when a character just lays on the ground screaming in terror as the killer slowly raises his weapon? That isn’t like survivalist Erin, who will roll out of the way, kick the killer in the balls, grab the nearest weapon and begin wailing on him until there’s no possible way he’s alive.

Everything that is unexpectedly smart about this movie can be distilled into Erin, who takes the initiative when everyone else cowers in fear and transitions the movie from straight slasher into a more fun thriller territory. The second half becomes a game of cat-and-mouse where Erin, who must love “Home Alone” given the traps she sets up, and the killers attempt to outsmart each other around the house, often to very bloody ends. These are the kind of kills that inspire both shocks and applause in the audience in equal measure, and the darkly funny tone that emerges once Erin fights back is a delight.

Of course, it’s not all perfect. It’s clear that Wingard and Barrett have their heart more in the blood soaked laughs than in straight horror suspense. The first quarter or so is rather routine and uninspired, as if they felt an obligation to put in a “scary” section before turning the tables. The acting from some parties can be suspect too. Sure, horror movies don’t need great acting but when some of them are quite good then the lesser ones stand out more. Sharni Vinson is the obvious standout, whose physical performance and intensity plausibly sell Erin’s cunning will despite her waif-like stature. Horror veterans A.J. Bowen and Barbara Crampton show up for nice turns too, although a few of the other actors let them down with unconvincing reactions to situations.

Yet sometimes when watching a horror movie, the minor setbacks can be taken with a grain of salt when creativity and smarts shine through the cracks. “You’re Next” of one of those. The uneven acting and slow start eventually fade away when you’re having so much fun watching a character who actually fights back against the psychos rather than bend to their will in cowardice. This is the kind of horror movie best enjoyed with a big group of friends (and/or audience) for the full experience.

3/4

Pain and Gain (2013) Review

“Pain and Gain”

Michael Bay is tough to like. He makes the kinds of movies I like (crazy action movies), and yet with a few exceptions I don’t like most of his movies. I found the first “Bad Boys,” first “Transformers,” and “The Island” enjoyable, but the only one I could say was good was “The Rock.” All his other movies ranged from average (“Armageddon”) to painfully terrible (“Transformers 2”). With a stroke of luck though, his new movie, “Pain and Gain,” overcame the trepidation that comes with him and came out as easily his best movie since “The Rock.”

Much of this can be attributed to the fact that “Pain and Gain” is based on a true story, and one that proves to be an engagingly loopy one filled with muscle-bound protagonists and pitch-black comedy. Three bodybuilders, fed up with being on the outs, decide to rob a millionaire whom they believe doesn’t deserve his success. For the ringleader, Daniel Lugo, his rationale is that this man doesn’t care much about exercise while him and his cohorts Paul and Adrian do.

These three are perhaps the most self-absorbed, narcissistic and dim-witted main characters to come by in a long time. The key difference here, and why this one works better than many of Bay’s previous movies, is that we aren’t supposed to like them. One of big problems I have with Bay’s movies is that we are supposed to like characters that are doing horrible/annoying things (the cheeriness that Marcus and Mike have while driving over dead bodies in “Bad Boys 2” for instance). Here, there isn’t that pretense. Daniel, Paul and Adrian are terrible people, and we laugh at their antics, not with them. When they cross the line from the already bad extortion and torture into flat-out murder, these guys have what’s coming to them.

Even with though their actions are reprehensible, “Pain and Gain” finds plenty to laugh at in their general boneheaded nature. In this regard, The Rock (sorry Dwayne, you will always be known as The Rock to me) completely steals the movie as the Jesus loving, coke-snorting maniac that is Paul. His mannerisms and ways of speaking, especially when coked out of his mind, frequently got some of the best laughs out of me.

Still, this not to disregard Mark Wahlberg and Anthony Mackie’s work as Daniel and Adrian respectively. Mackie unfortunately gets the shaft compared to Wahlberg and Johnson, although he gets his moments to shine every now and then. Wahlberg, meanwhile, is lucky enough to not only have good comedic timing, but also many of the scripts more memorable lines. In fact, surprisingly for a Michael Bay movie, the script by “Captain America” writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely is the best thing about it. I was shocked at how many hilarious quotes were sticking in my mind after the movie finished.

While “Pain and Gain” definitely contains more good than bad, its weaknesses are familiar to those in other Bay movies. The most obvious is that it is much too long. Bay still hasn’t learned that not every movie needs to push its way over the two-hour mark, especially when it’s a comedy with scenes that don’t add to the movie in any significant way. One where Wahlberg heads up a neighborhood watch could have easily been just an amusing Blu-ray deleted scene. Also, the multiple scenes of damaged millionaire Kershaw dealing with a diarrhea-prone patient mate in the hospital were not only unnecessary, but just plain gross when the movie didn’t need to rely on such low-brow material.

There’s also the matter of an overabundance of narration. It would have been fine had it only been used for Daniel, Paul and Adrian, but other minor characters get their own scenes too when they would have been better without it. Narration can be a useful storytelling tool, but an overreliance on it can be a cheap crutch, and giving it out to too many characters is erratic and jarring.

Still, even with this unevenness that is typical of Bay’s other movies also, “Pain and Gain” mostly succeeds because of the fine cast assembled here (I’ll give this to Bay, he knows how to put together a great cast of character actors, including Ed Harris and Tony Shalhoub) and the absurd story that provides it with so much material to mine. A word of warning, the trailer makes it look like an action comedy, whereas it really is just a super dark comedy with small bits of action. And as a no-boundaries type of comedy, it largely works, even some bloat and excess keeping it from totally soaring.

3/4

42 (2013) Review

42

Everyone has seen at least one inspirational sports movie in their lifetime. I mean, this entire last generation practically has “Remember the Titans” engrained in their heads from the numerous times they’ve seen it on TV (additionally in my case for all three years my middle school put it on in the auditorium). Sometimes with these movies, there is also a theme of racial prejudice that serves as the backbone of the story, such as “Glory Road” and the aforementioned “Titans.” With that in mind, it’s odd that it took this long for a biopic about Jackie Robinson, one of baseball’s most famous and important players, to come along, but it’s here at last with “42.”

Rather than take the birth-to-death route that many biopics do, “42” instead zeroes in on the start of Robinson’s career with the Brooklyn Dodgers thanks to executive Branch Rickey’s insistence on breaking the barrier for non-white baseball players in the M.L.B. Being the first African-American to play in the major leagues excites Robinson, even to the point of proposing to his girlfriend once he signs the contract, although the road to being accepted isn’t without its obstacles. Even without taking into account the opposing teams trying to rile up his short temper during games, Robinson has to deal with prejudice from his own teammates despite his skills on the diamond.

Truth be told, “42” doesn’t break any new ground in regards to the sports movie genre. Yet, the movie has just the right amount of earnest sentimentality and intense drama to make it work. There are certainly times where it threatens to overstep itself in the emotional manipulation, such as randomly switching a few times to the perspectives of young boys who look up to Robinson, but don’t have any bearing on the plot itself.

In a similar vain, sportswriter Wendell Smith, who seemed like he would be used as a framing device as he follows Robinson on this journey, is mostly window dressing in the grand scheme of things and isn’t developed beyond sidekick tag-along. He felt like a part that writer/director Brian Helgeland saw more as a historical checkbox than an integral part of the story being told aside from his initial actions that get it all started.

With that said, it’s hard not to be swept up in the events that categorized this year in Robinson’s life. When Phillies manager Ben Chapmen (played against type by the usually affable Alan Tudyk) berates him nonstop during a game, we really feel the anger and frustration bubbling within Robinson. When he goes back into the dugout and releases it all in a fit of bat-breaking rage, it’s an emotionally powerful moment to witness, all the more impressive given this is Chadwick Boseman’s first major acting role. An episode of “Law and Order” and “ C.S.I.” isn’t exactly the calling card for undertaking a part as daunting as Jackie Robinson, but the decision paid off greatly as Boseman steals the movie from his more experienced costars with inner turmoil and charisma to spare.

It can understandably take a few minutes to get used to Harrison Ford’s heightened performance as Branch Rickey. With the rest of the movie and actors being played with earnest seriousness, he might seem like a caricature. As time goes on and the relationship Rickey and Robinson is given some screen time, the character settles into a groove and shows some of Ford’s more inspired acting after recent years of phoning it in for a paycheck.

Big star Ford aside, Helgeland was wise to fill out the rest of the roles with recognizable character actors. While he isn’t in the movie for too long, Christopher Meloni gets one of the more memorable parts as trainer Leo Durocher, who satisfying puts the rest of the team in its place when they create a petition to stop playing as long as Robinson is there. John C. McGinley gets an amusing bit as broadcaster Red Barber, and Lucas Black has a nice part as Pee Wee Reese, one of the few team players who openly sticks up for Robinson. One of the neat and more fulfilling things about the movie is that although Robinson is certainly the central focus, the supporting characters get enough dimension and definition to make them stand out and the movie feel more complete.

That’s why “42” works as well as it does. On the outside, it looks and unfolds like many other inspirational sports movies, hitting the right audience pleasing notes of rousing excitement without really taking risks with the material. If this can be overlooked, the movie yields very gratifying results, and the breakout performance from Boseman will most likely win you over even if the rest of the movie doesn’t. In this age of darkly cynical movies, having one come along that is unabashedly feel-good and made so well is quite refreshing.

3/4

Evil Dead (2013) Review

Evil Dead (2013)

The “Evil Dead” trilogy from “Spider-Man” director Sam Raimi is one of the more famous in the horror genre, not the least of which is because each installment is so different from the last. While the starter is a straightforward brutal horror movie, its sequels would play up comedy in increasing amounts until the concluder “Army of Darkness” contained very little traces of horror anymore. Now, as much as I love the first one, and it is still a great little B-movie, the crudeness of its appearance makes it riper for a reimagining than many other hallowed horror classics. With that in mind, the prospect of young blood coming in to rejuvenate the original in remake form had me excited, particularly because newcomer Fede Alvarez was determined to return to the horror elements that begin the trilogy.

After a prologue that establishes the grim mood, Alaverz and his co-writer Rodo Sayagues admirably avoid the cliché of kids going to a cabin in the woods to party. There is a real reason for this group to go there: their friend Mia is attempting to kick a drug habit cold turkey with the help of them and her estranged brother David. This provides a bit more of a backbone to the characters than I expected, and I appreciated that there was an attempt at creating actual characters we can care for.

From there, as is expected in an “Evil Dead” movie, they find the book of the dead, someone reads it, and then it all hits the fan. Or at least it should have. The largest problem here, and one that looms over the whole movie once the demons are unleashed, is that every time the movie feels like its gearing up to the next level by building momentum it stops dead in its tracks. There is a pervasive start-stop-start-stop feeling to the pacing that often kills the excitement and tension that previously looked like it was building, leaving only the dread-induced atmosphere to carry it along when the thrust lets up.

Taken as individual parts and scenes, the set pieces are fairly impressive on their own. If there is one thing that is unquestionably great about this remake, and boy is it incredible, is the gore factor. Raimi’s first two “Evil Dead” movies certainly let the blood flow liberally (to put it mildly), but they look restrained in comparison to the torrent of violence and gore on display here. Alvarez achieves all of this almost entirely through practical effects, and the hard work put into them pays off with their startling shock value and cringe inducing moments. Once the climax draws closer, it only gets more and more over-the-top until reaching a final kill that is spectacular in its gleeful abandon.

Alvarez’s heart is in the right place, and his intentions to diversify his iteration from the 1981 original (when he isn’t referencing or recreating specific bits) are mostly successful, although even he can’t escape many of the tired tropes of the genre. Some of the more effectively done jump scares are often overshadowed by hackneyed ones, and the movie has a couple look-away-look-back scares too many, as well as another predictable bit with a mirror. Also, and skip to the next paragraph if you want to avoid a minor spoiler, the black character is once again the first to die. Come on, this is 2013, we should be over this by now.

Even with these issues, this remake of “Evil Dead” can be enjoyed if entered with the right mindset. There are certainly many callbacks to the originals, although this definitely feels more like Alvarez’s “Evil Dead” than Raimi’s “Evil Dead.” The gore and violence is very extreme, so the faint of heart (and stomach) will want to skip out. Additionally, the tone is one of dark horror, so don’t go in expecting the slapstick humor that was injected into “Evil Dead 2.” This is a hardcore effort in mainstream horror, where horror movies are usually toned down for mass audiences, that is often fairly entertaining even though it doesn’t all come together into an unrelenting stream of suspense.

2.5/4

Trance (2013) Review

Trance

The thing about director Danny Boyle is that he never ties himself down to one particular genre. Every single one of his films is vastly different from the last, whether it is drug addiction in “Trainspotting,” zombie horror in “28 Days Later,” science fiction in “Sunshine,” etc. After going through a short phase of (great) award winning films with “Slumdog Millionaire” and “127 Hours,” Boyle’s new film “Trance” is a return of sorts to the pulpier material found in his early films, but it eventually begins to feel more like a step backwards than a fun throwback.

Simon (James McAvoy) is an art auctioneer pulled into a group of thieves concocting a heist to steal the Francisco Goya painting “Witches in the Air” at the latest auction. The heist goes off fairly well, with the exception of a moment where Simon pulls a taser on ringleader Frank (Vincent Cassel) to make it look more genuine when he gives over the painting. In retaliation for the unplanned act, Frank knocks Simon out with his gun before making off with the art…or so he thinks. It turns out Simon hid the painting for himself, but because Frank knocked him out he can’t remember where he put it. In order to get the information out of Simon, he sends him to hypnotherapist Elizabeth (Rosario Dawson), which complicates things in more ways than one.

Viewers expecting another feel-good inspirational Boyle film will want to turn away now, as “Trance” is much more in line with the mean and lean “Shallow Grave” than “Slumdog Millionaire.” Completing the cycle is the return of his old screenwriter John Hodge, whose blend of twists and shocking violence comes back in full force here. Unfortunately, his storytelling is more like the messy “The Beach” than the well-oiled thrills of “Grave.” Everything starts out very well, pulled together with entertaining snap and ease. And once Elizabeth is introduced, the hypnotherapy scenes have a uniquely soothing effect as she peels back the layers in Simon’s mind.

What makes these scenes so interesting to watch is that they actually feel like how dreams really are: small in scale but often filled with details and occurrences that can’t be explained. There are no massive special effects like snow mountains or folding cities, just seemingly normal yet unexplainable events that play with the audience’s perception and hold on the film’s established reality. Guiding them through the dreamlike happenings is the talented trio of actors carrying it all on their own. McAvoy and Cassel are as good as they’ve ever been, but this is really Dawson’s film to shine as she navigates the tricky role handed to her. She is successfully able to play the part of innocent outsider while at the same time showing a level of command and control when interacting with these thugs.

It’s a shame then that even with such an intriguing setup and follow-through, the film slowly begins to succumb to it’s illusive intentions, where the mysterious soon shifts to muddled. Reality and imagination become intertwined, but not in that compelling way that others like “Inception” and “A Nightmare on Elm Street” are. And as with other heist films, there are plot turns that reveal the trick behind the magic, and neither of them are particularly well done.

They represent a complete tonal shift that suddenly turns the film into something it was not before (kind of like a few other Boyle films). The intention is to flip the plot on its head, and instead it feels abrupt and misguided. There are clues to them placed throughout the beginning and middle, so it’s not like they weren’t planned out with that in mind, but the end result just feels like a jumble. There was actually a point near the end when things turn very grim regarding a tertiary character that I asked myself, “I thought this was about a painting?”

As the years go by, I can see “Trance” becoming an interesting curiosity simply on the fact that it is a Danny Boyle film. From a technical standpoint, from the cinematography to the visual palette, it’s impeccably done. The sleek, shapely and colorful set design adds to the entrancing mood and atmosphere, and the film moves at an entertaining enough pace even as it steamrolls into very over-the-top territory. “Trance” is much like a dream itself, when it’s done you’re not sure what to make of it, and it will most likely fizzle away quickly, but it held your attention even as it lost your comprehension.

2.5/4

The Incredible Burt Wonderstone (2013) Review

“The Incredible Burt Wonderstone”

A cavalcade of talented people does not necessarily make a good movie. All of those elements need to come together in a way that gels, and has creative inspiration behind it. The new comedy full of talented people, “The Incredible Burt Wonderstone,” certainly has the ingredients and the premise ripe for comedic potential. Using magicians and illusionists as the backbone for a crazy comedy is a sound one, and I can see someone running with that concept in a hilarious way. Unfortunately, “Burt Wonderstone” is not that movie I would have hoped for.

As a child, bullies harassed Burt, and his single mother often stayed at work late. But one year for his birthday, she gave him a magic set that entranced and encouraged him to practice it. He soon befriends another outcast at school, Anton, and the two of them work together to form a magic act. Flash-forward decades later, and the two of them have become successful Las Vegas magicians, only now their popularity is waning after years of tedious tricks. Soon Burt’s ego gets the best of him, and with a new rival stealing the spotlight he must get over himself and work together with Anton on a comeback.

There are two simple ways of describing “Burt Wonderstone:” wasted potential and one-note. I would also add not too funny. There are certainly a bunch of laugh-out-loud moments, although they are frequently drowned by long stretches of flat jokes. Most of this has to do with the characterization of Burt, who is so egotistical and shallow that he becomes an annoying and tiresome protagonist. Even though a clueless and aloof buffoon would seem like a perfect fit for Steve Carell, the actor never manages to go behind the same vain shtick. When his personality turnaround comes, it is hard to care because the material wasn’t funny enough to make the jerk persona entertaining.

It doesn’t help that with so much focus on Burt, the (many) supporting characters often feel pushed to the sidelines. Steve Buscemi (Anton) leaves the movie for a long period of time, and having him around longer could have given more heart to the movie. Olivia Wilde’s love interest is there just to be the butt of Burt’s antics, and Alan Arkin (as Burt’s magician role model) shines in the few scenes he has. Only Jim Carrey, arguably the funniest part of the movie, makes a real impression. As the rival Steve Gray, Carrey plays a faux Criss Angel type who puts himself through endurance tests rather than traditional magic acts, and I would love to have seen a movie based around him instead.

On the surface level, “Burt Wonderstone” has the feel of a Will Ferrell man-child movie a la “Blades of Glory” and “Anchorman.” But “Wonderstone” lacks the comedic energy and sense of absurdity that those movies had. It feels reigned in, and often hits the same beats seen shortly before: Burt is shallow, Burt is sexist, and Steve might be psychotic. For a movie that features people performing seemingly impossible acts, only on rare occasions does it feel like it harnesses that silly liveliness. Most of those moments come near the end, and to its credit, the final punch line to the climax was absolutely hysterical, so the movie went out on a high note. Even before that, when Carell and Carrey square off against each other at a birthday party, the interplay between the “Bruce Almighty” costars is frequently funny.

The same cannot be said for the rest of the movie though. Beyond not being very funny, the annoying nature of the main character is a hindrance rather than being hilarious, and his one-note nature becomes tiring before long. Even with other capable actors such as James Gandolfini, Gillian Jacobs, and Brad Garrett, as well as “Horrible Bosses” writers John Francis Daley and Jonathon Goldstein, “The Incredible Burt Wonderstone” remains in the safe middle ground for comedies. It is never horrendously bad and it is never consistently outrageously funny, merely standing as blandly forgettable.

2/4

Oz: The Great and Powerful (2013) Review

“Oz: The Great and Powerful”

Prequels to classic movies are all the rage these days. There is plenty of them out there, but the problem is that few of them are complete successes. For every unquestionably good one, like “Rise of the Planet of the Apes,” there are at least a few less-than-fully-satisfying ones like “Hannibal Rising” and the new “Star Wars” entries. This is understandable, as it is much harder to create the buildup to an already existing movie than it is to continue off said movie in a sequel. Still, Hollywood keeps on trying, which leads us to the most recent inclusion in the craze, “Oz: The Great and Powerful.”

Positioned as a prequel to “The Wizard of Oz,” “Great and Powerful” follows the story of how the wizard himself came to power in the eternally green land. It turns out he was not really a wizard, but rather a magician at a traveling circus. His womanizing ways get him in trouble with the other circus mates, and in the midst of chase, a tornado arrives to pull him away in a hot air balloon. Once the storm dies down, he finds himself in the strange fantasy land of Oz (which is also his name), where he is greeted by the witch Theodora. She reveals that a great wizard was prophesized to save the land from destruction, and that he must be that very wizard. Reluctant as he is, Oz plays along with this, until he soon realizes that he will have to step up and be the hero of Oz everyone hopes him to be.

The basic storyline is nothing new; prophecies in fantasy plots, especially ones with witches, have been done to death. The real thrill is in the details that update the famous world for the 21^st century. The Oz land presented here is much more detailed than the one imagined for Dorothy Gale in 1939, and while plenty of it is done with (impressive) computer effects, the use of real sets and props whenever possible grounds the movie in its established reality. From a technical standpoint, between the special effects, costumes, and art design, “Oz” is near perfect.

When it comes to the casting, things get a little uneven. All of the supporting players are great in their roles, notably Rachel Weisz as the evil witch Evanora and Michelle Williams as Glinda the Good Witch. Williams arguably has the tougher job, since she has to compete with Billie Burke’s portrayal in the ’39 movie. She acquits herself well though, displaying both innate sweetness and wit as Glinda sees through Oz’s sham attitude. For Weisz, given that her character is not in the original film, she is able to act free of expectation and provides a sense of seething menace.

This a slight heads up, as the next paragraph will have some spoilers, so if you want to go into the movie completely blind then you can skip to the end of this review. I’m thankful that Weisz was present on villain duty, as Mila Kunis (Theodora) is not able to convey the same evil presence. She is fine at first, where her wide-eyed persona fits Theodora’s naïve nature very well, but once her character transforms into the Wicked Witch (yes, THAT Wicked Witch), her performance is less than convincing. Even without unfavorably stacking her against Margaret Hamilton’s iconic iteration of the character, Kunis is simply miscast for this part. She never quite finds the right tone in her voice to be a considerable threat, and the post-transformation makeup is less than great.

Meanwhile, James Franco, as the titular Oz, is the opposite of Kunis. Oz is meant to start out as a fake and a put-on, but Franco overplays the smarminess to a degree where it is hard to get into the character. Although as the movie and Oz’s character arc moves on, Franco settles into the role with his easy charm and humor. As good he gets, he is often upstaged by the sidekick characters, who are perhaps the best part of the movie. They may not be as memorable as the Scarecrow, Tin Man, or Cowardly Lion, yet Zach Braff’s flying monkey Finley is a consistently funny comic relief and Joey King’s China Girl provides an emotional backbone to the grandly surreal visuals.

Speaking of flying monkeys, the evil ones make a return here, and will most likely terrify children even more so than before. They also signify another successful part of this prequel, which are the references to the classic film. While most prequels crowbar in references as pure fan service simply to get reaction out of the audience, director Sam Raimi and writers David Lindsay-Abaire and Mitchell Kapner manage to successfully integrate them into the story without feeling forced. The sleeping poppy field is neatly incorporated into the third act conflict, the yellow brick road is ever-present without a character awkwardly pointing it out to the audience, and the wizard’s smoke illusion has a clever setup along with many more Easter eggs to find.

All in all, even with a couple acting issues, few prequels are as good as “Oz: The Great and Powerful.” It manages to both avoid the trap of predictably linking up perfectly with the original and at the same time setting up many of the elements that will come into play later in the story of Oz. Although it has the impossible task of living up to an untouchable piece of cinema, “Great and Powerful” is a competent follow-up that finds the right tone to appeal to both audiences young and old. It is certainly better than 1985’s disturbingly traumatic “Return to Oz.”

3/4