So how well does it work when you take an American classic and try to give it an origin story decades later? Oh yeah, and there might be some spoilers in it, but...well, if you really think about it, you already know what the characters look like in the movie it's based on, so how big can the spoilers be?
I was nervous going in to see Oz: The Great and Powerful. Disregarding mixed reviews, what I was most concerned with was its history. After all, we all remember the transition from black and white to color as Dorothy faced down flying monkeys, witches, and .... well, poppy fields in order to get back home. But it's surrounded by failure, which boggles my mind.
I mean, The Wizard Of Oz is the most-watched movie of all time, according to the Library of Congress. Surely SOMEONE can do something with it.
Now, to be fair, it's easy to see why someone would want to take the story and twist it around. After all, The Wizard Of Oz barely touches on the world that was created by L. Frank Baum. He wrote an entire series of books that took place in that world, and Wizard doesn't even crack the surface of it.
But, that wasn't even the first attempt to make a movie version. You had a silent film version (going by the same name) in 1929 version which bombed. There were a half dozen versions of the film that came out before Judy Garland showed up. And since then? You had The Wiz. You had Return To Oz. Even the Muppets tried to do a version of it. And while they had memorable moments (Dorothy being sent to an insane asylum and given electroshock therapy? Really?), none really did well.
So, let's look at the latest version while we wait for Hollywood to wise up and finally make a movie rendition of Wicked now that Les Miserables did so well.
The Hero:
I'm going to be honest here, James Franco was great...and James Franco was terrible. I loved the early scene in the movie, when he seemed to be trying to channel a younger, more smarmy version of Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark. He was expressive, he was immature, and he was a troublemaker who could never handle confrontation very well, and there's one poignant scene where he seems to recognize the dangers of the act he's performing for people when they believe too much. For the black and white part, I was convinced that James Franco was going to be great.
And then, when he gets to Oz, it all goes away. The moment he sets foot in Oz the man seems to have no realization that things have gone completely insane around him. Plants play music, mountains rise up out of nowhere (you started in Kansas, dude, you should be able to realize you shouldn't see mountains no matter how big a tornado it was), and strange creatures abound. And yet, when Mila Kunis shows up, it seems the only thing he can think about is "man, how quickly can I have sex with this girl?"
Granted, when it's Mila Kunis (and later Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams (but especially Rachel Weisz)), having an initial "huh-doy" moment might not be too far out of the way.
But then he gets attacked by sprites, flying monkeys, saves a talking monkey from a lion, discovers a people made out of delicate china...and he never seems overwhelmed. He just seems to accept everything that happens to him with a "oh, this again?" expression that made me want to reach through the screen and slap him.
Part of what I liked best about Dorothy was that everything was both amazing and terrifying to this girl all at the same time. A talking scarecrow almost made her drop a brick in that pretty blue dress, you'd think your first encounter with Oz being it has creatures actively trying to kill you would have the main character at least ask "how the heck did I get here, and how is any of this possible?"
Granted, he does well in the final moments, pulling one last con that, granted, I saw coming a mile away, but he does sell it well. It had that touch of the early film that I enjoyed, but an entire middle section of the film I could just tolerate.
The Supporting Cast:
Where James Franco faltered, his supporting cast was quite good. Zach Braff, Joey King, Michelle Williams, and even minor supporting characters (hello, Bruce Campbell!) all had their own great roles to play, but a few were better than others.
I, for one, though Zach Braff was brilliant as a monkey, but then again it's not that different from his character a lot of the time in Scrubs. How he talked, his tone, and expressiveness were all spot-on, and you could sense a real sense he was torn since he was so loyal to Oz but had to hide the truth from other people. Far and away, he was one of the stand-out characters of the film. His appearance in the black and white part of the film, though, seemed a little off. I'm not really sure why, but he didn't hit that fine line between "bumbling assistant" and "capable con assistant."
Joey King was also good in her dual roles in the film, and I think she was more solid in both performances, even if she didn't quite meet "talking monkey" levels. Her rendition as a tiny girl made out of china was both heartbreaking and heartwarming, and what I initially thought was going to be an annoying, defenseless character wound up having enough personality to carry the character forward.
Michelle Williams, honestly, I'm not sure what to think about her. Her original role in the film is the woman who dumps Oz for never trying to be anything more than what he currently is. In the magical world, she plays a fairy who seems to know right from the start that Oz is a sham, and really only expects him to be a symbol so that everybody else can do it. When Oz does finally step up to the plate, she seems just as surprised as anybody, initially. I mean, she was good, but...not really memorable. And having her be involved in a huge magical duel at the end of the film seemed a bit out of nowhere considering how passive she had been throughout the rest of the film. Sure, she made a huge magical shield and made some flying bubbles, but no real offensive magic.
Bruce Campbell, of course, was awesome.
The Villain:
Now, it shouldn't be any big surprise to people that the bad guys are witches. I mean, sure, this might be a spoiler, but we know that there were three witches in The Wizard of Oz. One was a blonde, one had dark hair and green skin, and one was a fan of terrible socks. So when you look at our three actresses playing the roles, who do you think is going to wind up being Glinda? That doesn't leave much hope for the other two actresses.
And they did better than I expected. Mila Kunis' transition from good girl to wicked witch was actually rather potent (just sped along in one scene with a bit of magic), and I felt bad because, in a way, she was genuinely wronged by the hero. Sure, she was manipulated a bit, but James Franco seemed to do just as manipulating of her as anybody else. One of the final scenes, when Oz attempts one last time to touch the humanity he knew was in her before, and there's no trace of it left inside her was quite good.
Rachel Weisz was also quite good as a background manipulator, keeping an entire kingdom terrorized while having it turn to her for safety. Her plans are big and grand, and in the world she exists in, they really do turn out in her favor. Her only failing seems to be a general unwillingness to get her own hands dirty (even though she is quite powerful), which leads to her having to rely on forces that are, quite simply, a bit bumbling and easily outsmarted.
If James Franco was weak, these two almost made up for it with their own presence.
The Plot:
I don''t really think I need to talk much about the plot. It had its ups and downs and we all get a real sense from the trailers what it's about ("guy shows up to free the kingdom from evil, and we get to see a wicked witch"), so I'm going to just focus on a few points.
The way the movie links back to The Wizard of Oz is both very well done, and very puzzling. Someone I saw the movie with pointed out "wait, if he stays in Oz, and if it's all real, then how did he meet Dorothy back in Kansas before she came to Oz? Can he travel back and forth?" However, I did like the explanation of the origin of how a guy who was just good tinkering with machinery and movie technology was able to not just chase away evil witches, but also make them terrified to ever attack again.
The introduction to the different peoples of Oz was a bit jarring. I get that they like to celebrate important people arriving and doing important things like, say, crushing witches under houses, but at that point James Franco hadn't really done anything. Sure, there's a prophecy, but surely someone else had come along and claimed to be the Wizard by that point, right? They seemed a bit too willing to accept small-time magic as proof of power.
Oh, and one thing that bothered me was the fact that the actual good witch, who knows that evil is going to send soldiers and flying monkeys to kill her at any time, would wander outside a protective bubble
Overall, the plot was solid, if a bit predictable in places. It wrapped up cleanly with just a few minor "wait, if this is supposed to be a prequel, then how- why are they- huh?" moments.
I will say, I'm glad they avoided having three random companions who all needed things found within themselves. Having it be needs at a much larger level was a very nice touch.
The Setting:
Considering the movie was made to be seen in 3D, I might have hurt myself watching it in 2D. There were some obvious moments you were supposed to have glasses on to see things leap out at you, but as far as 2D goes, it was still pretty amazing. Obviously taking hints from Alice In Wonderland, everything seemed grander and more magical, but without the real dark twist in a lot of places. The scary woods were, of course, scary, but where nature still ran wild it felt like a more domestic version of a tropical rain forest, where any corner you turn might hide something amazing.
The city of Oz was both ridiculously grand in scale, but also portrayed how real characters would probably live. After all, you can't really survive in a giant castle that seems to be made entirely from green...whatever it was (was it actually emeralds, or was that just the name?).
However, I want to give a special spotlight to the circus at the beginning of the movie. I've never been to a circus like that, so I don't know if it's common to have the performer's wagons located where the general public can see people getting in and out, but it carried a powerful sense of desperation as well as desperation. The populace needed to be entertained, but everybody doing the performing would be the first to admit it wasn't a very big or impressive set-up. The fact that they just happened to have a hot air balloon there seemed a bit out of place, but I was willing to accept it.
I actually recommend watching this movie in 2D. I can't really see spending a few dollars more for glasses and expecting to be blown away (unlike, say, Life of Pi). It's not a huge recommendation, but to pick out the detail of the landscape, and to truly get a sense of the film's transformation from the real world to the colorful world, I think a large screen is effective. It's not really great, but as far as Oz film productions go, it's one of the better ones. And it didn't have to rely on Kermit, Michael Jackson, or Liza Minelli to get there.
If The Wizard of Oz earned the A+, I'd give this one a mid-B, perhaps a high B-.
I mean, The Wizard Of Oz is the most-watched movie of all time, according to the Library of Congress. Surely SOMEONE can do something with it.
Now, to be fair, it's easy to see why someone would want to take the story and twist it around. After all, The Wizard Of Oz barely touches on the world that was created by L. Frank Baum. He wrote an entire series of books that took place in that world, and Wizard doesn't even crack the surface of it.
But, that wasn't even the first attempt to make a movie version. You had a silent film version (going by the same name) in 1929 version which bombed. There were a half dozen versions of the film that came out before Judy Garland showed up. And since then? You had The Wiz. You had Return To Oz. Even the Muppets tried to do a version of it. And while they had memorable moments (Dorothy being sent to an insane asylum and given electroshock therapy? Really?), none really did well.
So, let's look at the latest version while we wait for Hollywood to wise up and finally make a movie rendition of Wicked now that Les Miserables did so well.
The Hero:
I'm going to be honest here, James Franco was great...and James Franco was terrible. I loved the early scene in the movie, when he seemed to be trying to channel a younger, more smarmy version of Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark. He was expressive, he was immature, and he was a troublemaker who could never handle confrontation very well, and there's one poignant scene where he seems to recognize the dangers of the act he's performing for people when they believe too much. For the black and white part, I was convinced that James Franco was going to be great.
And then, when he gets to Oz, it all goes away. The moment he sets foot in Oz the man seems to have no realization that things have gone completely insane around him. Plants play music, mountains rise up out of nowhere (you started in Kansas, dude, you should be able to realize you shouldn't see mountains no matter how big a tornado it was), and strange creatures abound. And yet, when Mila Kunis shows up, it seems the only thing he can think about is "man, how quickly can I have sex with this girl?"
Granted, when it's Mila Kunis (and later Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams (but especially Rachel Weisz)), having an initial "huh-doy" moment might not be too far out of the way.
But then he gets attacked by sprites, flying monkeys, saves a talking monkey from a lion, discovers a people made out of delicate china...and he never seems overwhelmed. He just seems to accept everything that happens to him with a "oh, this again?" expression that made me want to reach through the screen and slap him.
Part of what I liked best about Dorothy was that everything was both amazing and terrifying to this girl all at the same time. A talking scarecrow almost made her drop a brick in that pretty blue dress, you'd think your first encounter with Oz being it has creatures actively trying to kill you would have the main character at least ask "how the heck did I get here, and how is any of this possible?"
Granted, he does well in the final moments, pulling one last con that, granted, I saw coming a mile away, but he does sell it well. It had that touch of the early film that I enjoyed, but an entire middle section of the film I could just tolerate.
The Supporting Cast:
Where James Franco faltered, his supporting cast was quite good. Zach Braff, Joey King, Michelle Williams, and even minor supporting characters (hello, Bruce Campbell!) all had their own great roles to play, but a few were better than others.
I, for one, though Zach Braff was brilliant as a monkey, but then again it's not that different from his character a lot of the time in Scrubs. How he talked, his tone, and expressiveness were all spot-on, and you could sense a real sense he was torn since he was so loyal to Oz but had to hide the truth from other people. Far and away, he was one of the stand-out characters of the film. His appearance in the black and white part of the film, though, seemed a little off. I'm not really sure why, but he didn't hit that fine line between "bumbling assistant" and "capable con assistant."
Joey King was also good in her dual roles in the film, and I think she was more solid in both performances, even if she didn't quite meet "talking monkey" levels. Her rendition as a tiny girl made out of china was both heartbreaking and heartwarming, and what I initially thought was going to be an annoying, defenseless character wound up having enough personality to carry the character forward.
Michelle Williams, honestly, I'm not sure what to think about her. Her original role in the film is the woman who dumps Oz for never trying to be anything more than what he currently is. In the magical world, she plays a fairy who seems to know right from the start that Oz is a sham, and really only expects him to be a symbol so that everybody else can do it. When Oz does finally step up to the plate, she seems just as surprised as anybody, initially. I mean, she was good, but...not really memorable. And having her be involved in a huge magical duel at the end of the film seemed a bit out of nowhere considering how passive she had been throughout the rest of the film. Sure, she made a huge magical shield and made some flying bubbles, but no real offensive magic.
Bruce Campbell, of course, was awesome.
The Villain:
Now, it shouldn't be any big surprise to people that the bad guys are witches. I mean, sure, this might be a spoiler, but we know that there were three witches in The Wizard of Oz. One was a blonde, one had dark hair and green skin, and one was a fan of terrible socks. So when you look at our three actresses playing the roles, who do you think is going to wind up being Glinda? That doesn't leave much hope for the other two actresses.
And they did better than I expected. Mila Kunis' transition from good girl to wicked witch was actually rather potent (just sped along in one scene with a bit of magic), and I felt bad because, in a way, she was genuinely wronged by the hero. Sure, she was manipulated a bit, but James Franco seemed to do just as manipulating of her as anybody else. One of the final scenes, when Oz attempts one last time to touch the humanity he knew was in her before, and there's no trace of it left inside her was quite good.
Rachel Weisz was also quite good as a background manipulator, keeping an entire kingdom terrorized while having it turn to her for safety. Her plans are big and grand, and in the world she exists in, they really do turn out in her favor. Her only failing seems to be a general unwillingness to get her own hands dirty (even though she is quite powerful), which leads to her having to rely on forces that are, quite simply, a bit bumbling and easily outsmarted.
If James Franco was weak, these two almost made up for it with their own presence.
The Plot:
I don''t really think I need to talk much about the plot. It had its ups and downs and we all get a real sense from the trailers what it's about ("guy shows up to free the kingdom from evil, and we get to see a wicked witch"), so I'm going to just focus on a few points.
The way the movie links back to The Wizard of Oz is both very well done, and very puzzling. Someone I saw the movie with pointed out "wait, if he stays in Oz, and if it's all real, then how did he meet Dorothy back in Kansas before she came to Oz? Can he travel back and forth?" However, I did like the explanation of the origin of how a guy who was just good tinkering with machinery and movie technology was able to not just chase away evil witches, but also make them terrified to ever attack again.
The introduction to the different peoples of Oz was a bit jarring. I get that they like to celebrate important people arriving and doing important things like, say, crushing witches under houses, but at that point James Franco hadn't really done anything. Sure, there's a prophecy, but surely someone else had come along and claimed to be the Wizard by that point, right? They seemed a bit too willing to accept small-time magic as proof of power.
Oh, and one thing that bothered me was the fact that the actual good witch, who knows that evil is going to send soldiers and flying monkeys to kill her at any time, would wander outside a protective bubble
Overall, the plot was solid, if a bit predictable in places. It wrapped up cleanly with just a few minor "wait, if this is supposed to be a prequel, then how- why are they- huh?" moments.
I will say, I'm glad they avoided having three random companions who all needed things found within themselves. Having it be needs at a much larger level was a very nice touch.
The Setting:
Considering the movie was made to be seen in 3D, I might have hurt myself watching it in 2D. There were some obvious moments you were supposed to have glasses on to see things leap out at you, but as far as 2D goes, it was still pretty amazing. Obviously taking hints from Alice In Wonderland, everything seemed grander and more magical, but without the real dark twist in a lot of places. The scary woods were, of course, scary, but where nature still ran wild it felt like a more domestic version of a tropical rain forest, where any corner you turn might hide something amazing.
The city of Oz was both ridiculously grand in scale, but also portrayed how real characters would probably live. After all, you can't really survive in a giant castle that seems to be made entirely from green...whatever it was (was it actually emeralds, or was that just the name?).
However, I want to give a special spotlight to the circus at the beginning of the movie. I've never been to a circus like that, so I don't know if it's common to have the performer's wagons located where the general public can see people getting in and out, but it carried a powerful sense of desperation as well as desperation. The populace needed to be entertained, but everybody doing the performing would be the first to admit it wasn't a very big or impressive set-up. The fact that they just happened to have a hot air balloon there seemed a bit out of place, but I was willing to accept it.
I actually recommend watching this movie in 2D. I can't really see spending a few dollars more for glasses and expecting to be blown away (unlike, say, Life of Pi). It's not a huge recommendation, but to pick out the detail of the landscape, and to truly get a sense of the film's transformation from the real world to the colorful world, I think a large screen is effective. It's not really great, but as far as Oz film productions go, it's one of the better ones. And it didn't have to rely on Kermit, Michael Jackson, or Liza Minelli to get there.
If The Wizard of Oz earned the A+, I'd give this one a mid-B, perhaps a high B-.
The movie looks nice, the acting is good, and I liked the adventure and the characters. It didn’t always work, but it kept me entertained for the most part. Nice review Erik.
ReplyDelete