• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

'Oz The Great and Powerful' SPOILERS

hbenthow

Well-known member
Messages
1,600
Reaction score
170
Trophy Points
68

"Oz the Great and Powerful is a 2013 Disney movie, directed by Sam Raimi, which tells the story of carnival magician Oscar Zoroaster Phadrig Isaac Norman Henkel Emmannuel Ambroise Diggs (whose friends, or, should I say, acquaintances - considering that he's not good at making friends and worse at keeping them - call him Oz for short), who, upon fleeing his carnival in a hot-air balloon to escape the strongman husband of one of his illicit lovers, is whisked away by a tornado to a land, which whether by coincidence or design, is also called Oz. There, he embarks upon a grand adventure which leads to him becoming the legendary Wonderful Wizard of Oz, and a better man to boot.

I thought James Franco was good in the title role. Could someone else have played the part better? Possibly so. But he wasn't anywhere near bad, and it's refreshing to see someone other than Johnny Depp getting the lead role in this type of movie. The role of a conniving carnival magician fits Franco like a glove, and he had just the right balance of smarminess and likability. He seemed a bit awkward at times, but that worked, because Oz is out of his element in Oz. :p

Mila Kunis was very good as Theodora before and during her transformation, but afterward......not so much. She had the laugh down pat, but her screaming and facial expressions were more awkward than scary. It seems as if the Wicked Witch of the West was somewhat out of her acting range. She was perfect as the innocent, naive Theodora, and is most likely good at playing evil characters who are creepy in a subtle way. But as a hyperactive witch who screams every line at the top of her lungs, she seems embarrassingly out her element. Her shouting just isn't very scary. It's like the Wicked Witch equivalent of Christian Bale's Batman voice (not in sound, but in effect). Her makeup didn't do her any favors, either. There was some fear that if they made her makeup too scary, it would frighten children too much. So, several changes were made to tone down the creepiness. The end result looks like nothing more or less than a green Mila Kunis with arched eyebrows. In still pictures, she actually looks very impressive. The arched eyebrows and green contact lenses give her a subtle creepiness. But in motion, the eyebrows look stiff and inexpressive, the contact lenses don't make much of an impact one way or the other, and the overall minimalistic approach to the makeup doesn't work nearly as well for the pretty Mila Kunis as it did for the crone-like Margaret Hamilton. The makeup also seems to be hindering her facial expressions, as she looks as if she's acting with only her mouth and a small part of her face near her nose. I'm hoping that her performance might be the type that grows on one with rewatches, but I don't know....

Fortunately, Rachel Weisz was there to save the day. She portrayed Evanora with the kind of larger than life, deliciously evil zest that you rarely see these days. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that her performance turned Evanora into one of the best villainesses in Disney history. And since Evanora was the main antagonist of the movie, she managed to take a lot of the sting out of the disappointment caused by the lackluster portrayal of the Wicked Witch of the West. Interestingly, when Evanora becomes a wrinkled hag at the end, her makeup is very impressive. Why didn't they have the sense to make Mila Kunis' makeup that good?

Much of the rest of the cast was great as well. Michelle Williams did Glinda more than justice. She brought the character to life with a wonderfully sincere sweetness, and never came across as sappy. She also played Annie (Oz' true love back in Kansas) very well. China Girl was a great scene-stealer. The special effects used to create her were so good that she looked like she was made of real china. Her mannerisms and facial expressions were equally impressive, and the voice acting by Joey King (who was also great as the corresponding wheelchair girl character) was even better. I was afraid that Finley the flying monkey (voiced by Zach Braff) would be annoying, but he was actually pretty good. Braff also was good as Frank, Oz's assistant back in Kansas. Knuck (played by Tony Cox) was pretty annoying, though. He was less an actual character than he was shtick manifested in human form. Mercifully, he didn't have much screentime.

Director Sam Raimi brought a great sense of style to the movie. From the creative opening titles sequence onward, "Oz The Great and Powerful" is full of stylistic flair, plenty of heart, and just enough brains to make it all come together beautifully.

The 3-strip Technicolor-inspired color palette and Robert Stromberg's production design are eye-popping. While there is indeed a ton of (almost all well-done) CGI, there were, in total, nearly 30 actual sets built for the movie. This brings a refreshing sense of realness to many scenes. For example, when China Girl begs Oz to let her come along on his witch hunt, the Yellow Brick Road, the stalks of corn, and the wooden sign are all real. Only China Girl, Finley, and the sky are CGI. A few scenes had no CGI whatsoever. And even in the CGI-heavy scenes, the foreground is almost always a practical set. As a result, there aren't any moments where the actors look as if they are confused as to where they are or what is in front of them. They always seem perfectly integrated into the world, because they were rarely ever in an empty blue-screen room.

Danny Elfman's score is excellent. From the eerily beautiful theme used for the music box and Theodora's waltz, to the Wizard's heroic fanfare, memorable melodies abound.

As a whole, I find "Oz The Great and Powerful" very enjoyable. While the Wicked Witch of the West is disappointing and a few bits of humor come across as annoying, the other elements of the movie more than make up for it. It has a great sense of fun, is sometimes surprisingly touching, and unlike Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland", the story, although simple and a bit silly (and what Oz story has ever not been a little silly), works well.

Well, that's my take on "Oz The Great and Powerful". Have any of you seen it? If so, what are your thoughts on it?[FONT=&amp]
rCXOYXaen79+f+DdExYy3FTY9BAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC

[/FONT]
 

Sunarep

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
2,634
Reaction score
2
Trophy Points
46
Other than some lecturing moments - which were to be expected because of the target audience - i found this to be surprisingly entertaining. It was not a disaster like alice in wonderland but a harmless kids movie

i don't care about the wizard of oz, don't like the movie at all so i never feared that it would destroy something sacred. to me the movie could only improve on the wizard of oz which it did imo.
still it was nowhere near as good as wicked - hope that some day someone will turn that into a movie to give us a really cool elphaba (wicked witch)
 

emanswfan

Well-known member
Messages
744
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
21
Saw this movie opening weekend. When I heard about this film being made about 3 years ago, I just knew it was going to be terrible. And even as I watched the trailers, I doubted the film. IMO, Alice In Wonderland was horrible and I though this was going to be the same. But to my surprise, after reading a few favorable reviews, I decided to go see it. I was not diaspointed. Was it a perfect movie? No. But I enjoyed it alot. It was obviously aimed towards kids, but I didn't see that as a negative. The film made me want to be a kid again. And really, I'd put this as a modern day "Wizard Of Oz". The physical sets were great and added so much more realism. The CGI was really good compared to other films with CGI. The China Doll Girl looked especially amazing and so real. Even the monkey's facial expressions were nailed head on and created some great emotional moments. The 3D was even better. The opening credits contained the most spectacular 3D I had ever seen in my life. The great thing was that the 3D was certainly not an afterthought and there was and equal amount of content before and beyond the window. James Franco also did a great job as Oz, and his character's development throughout the film was well written. I could go on and on with the positives.

What were the negatives? Well, I'd put it as the wicked witch of the west. Mila Kunis wasn't entirely great here and could've been a bit scarier. Other wise, Theodora was well played.

In short, a great and entertaining family film.
 

njvc

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
2,009
Reaction score
2
Trophy Points
51
Agree entirely with the sentiments already mentioned. Went in with very low expectations, but ended up enjoying it a great deal. The movie is streets ahead of Tim Burton's efforts in the same genre (large scale cgi laden kid's movies).
 

geminigod

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
2,389
Reaction score
1
Trophy Points
46
Haven't seen it but have faith in Sam Raimi, despite Spiderman 3.
 

Gaith

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
5,785
Reaction score
291
Trophy Points
123
Not tempting: 2+ hours of non-Your Highness Franco slumming his way through a weak script, and a prequel to a movie I have no real affection for.

Tempting: finally seeing my beloved Rachel in top-of-the-line 3D. But only for a fraction of said movie. Hm.
 

Sunarep

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
2,634
Reaction score
2
Trophy Points
46
njvc said:
Agree entirely with the sentiments already mentioned. Went in with very low expectations, but ended up enjoying it a great deal. The movie is streets ahead of Tim Burton's efforts in the same genre (large scale cgi laden kid's movies).

I am really surprised that there are many positive opinions it seems.
I was worried when i saw that the movie was only at 60%

 

Gaith

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
5,785
Reaction score
291
Trophy Points
123
I guess these aren't quite so funny now that the movie's a hit, and definitely will get a sequel, but when the AV Club review first appeared, the commentariat produced some golden comic post-release headlines:

OZ FLAWS DRAWS BLAHS

"WE'RE OFF TO FLEE THE WIZARD": AUDIENCES ARE ALREADY OVER RAIMI'S RAINBOW REDUX

AUDS ZZZZ OZ

YOU WEREN'T THERE, AND YOU WEREN'T THERE: OZ'S AUDIENCES GIVE MOVIE THE SLIP-PER

NEW OZ FAILS TO SYNC WITH PINK FLOYD, OR AUDIENCES

OZ THE GWEAT AND TEWWIBLE

AUDIENCES TAKE WHIZZ ON RAIMI'S TAKE ON WIZ

NEW OZ FILM DOES POORLY AT BOX OFFICE

SOMEWHERE OVER THE RAINBOW THERE IS A GOOD MOVIE, BUT NOT THIS ONE

FRANCO BOMBS, GUERNICA SPARED
 

nightstalkerpoet

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
441
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
26
Haven't seen this yet... but from a cgi/real sets and props standpoint, would this be a reasonable mix to hope for in the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy? Everything I'm reading here sounds like it would be good for the new films... of course the look is different, but the approach sounds desirable.
 

emanswfan

Well-known member
Messages
744
Reaction score
0
Trophy Points
21
nightstalkerpoet said:
Haven't seen this yet... but from a cgi/real sets and props standpoint, would this be a reasonable mix to hope for in the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy? Everything I'm reading here sounds like it would be good for the new films... of course the look is different, but the approach sounds desirable.
I think it's totally feasible for Lucasfilm to take this approach. This mix prevents CGI from becoming a negative, and letting it just make the real, hypereal. I think there's a good chance that they could take this approach since Abrams and Hamill are certainly fans of the "retro" way of doing things. Plus, Oz is a Disney film so, and the new SW films will be too, so it would make perfect sense. But you can't allways be a 100% confident, so we'll see how it turns out in a year or so.
 

Hymie

Well-known member
Messages
878
Reaction score
120
Trophy Points
48
Saw this the other day and really liked it for the most part. Its not as much a prequel to the Garland film than to the story of The Wizard of Oz, though there are obviously influences of the original but that's to be expected. The witches all do a good job, though Kunis is the weakest though her character is also given the worst material, so I'm willing to see if she can step it up with something more to do. The world of Oz actually has its own identity in this film and feels real, which I really appreciated.

And then there's James Franco. I don't know how he keeps getting the kind of projects he does, because he totally ruined a number of scenes in this film. He makes goofy faces at very inappropriate times and ruins some really dramatic scenes (the one with China girl was terrible). You know you have a problem when a CGI china doll does a better job of exhibiting emotion than the human actor in the film. I felt if he and Braff switched roles the film would have been much better off, but it was an enjoyable experience regardless.

I expect the next film to likely end where Dorothy enters Oz, with the third film being a new Wizard of Oz. Hopefully it turns out even better.
 

FatherMerrin

Well-known member
Faneditor
Cover Artist
Messages
910
Reaction score
2
Trophy Points
33
I loathed Tim Burton's Alice In Wonderland and when I saw the trailer for Oz it looked to be along similar lines. But I actually quite enjoyed it. It's a bit slow at the start but once it gets going it moves along nicely. My only gripe is Mila Kunis' voice as the Wicked Witch. I mean we had the black clothes, the broom and the green skin so I just assumed we were going to get a younger sounding version of Margaret Hamilton's Witch. Instead we got Meg.
 

mnkykungfu

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
747
Trophy Points
123
hbenthow said:
Well, that's my take on "Oz The Great and Powerful". Have any of you seen it? If so, what are your thoughts on it?[font=&amp]
rCXOYXaen79+f+DdExYy3FTY9BAAAAAElFTkSuQmCC
[/font]

Almost completely agree with everything you said here.  I especially love that you pointed out this likely would have had Depp in the title role: SO true!  I didn't love Franco here as much as you, but he was mostly good.

I wonder, did you see this in 3D?  It remains my 3rd best 3D experience (behind Gravity and Avatar) and one of the few films that seemed to conceive of the 3D experience during the filmmaking, and not tacked on afterwards as a marketing gimmick.  In my theater, as Franco descended into Oz, a gradual transformation took place.  First, the curtains gradually pulled back as the aspect ratio modernized and widened.  Then, color saturation started to gradually fade in, replacing the mundane black and white world.  The film world began to pop both forwards and recede with more depth as the balloon drifted through Oz, and the drops on the flowers each toned a different sound from separate speakers around me in the theater. 

It was a wonderfully magical and immersive experience, evocative of what audiences must have felt when they experienced the first color film in the theater back in '39.  I have great affection for this movie, and a large part of it is probably due to the care and thoughtfulness with which Raimi paid tribute to what had come before.
 

hbenthow

Well-known member
Messages
1,600
Reaction score
170
Trophy Points
68
mnkykungfu said:
I wonder, did you see this in 3D?  It remains my 3rd best 3D experience (behind Gravity and Avatar) and one of the few films that seemed to conceive of the 3D experience during the filmmaking, and not tacked on afterwards as a marketing gimmick.  In my theater, as Franco descended into Oz, a gradual transformation took place.  First, the curtains gradually pulled back as the aspect ratio modernized and widened.  Then, color saturation started to gradually fade in, replacing the mundane black and white world.  The film world began to pop both forwards and recede with more depth as the balloon drifted through Oz, and the drops on the flowers each toned a different sound from separate speakers around me in the theater.

It was a wonderfully magical and immersive experience, evocative of what audiences must have felt when they experienced the first color film in the theater back in '39.  I have great affection for this movie, and a large part of it is probably due to the care and thoughtfulness with which Raimi paid tribute to what had come before.

I haven't seen it in 3D, but I have heard that the 3D was very well-done. There's an interview with Sam Raimi in which he talked about how he studied 3D before making the movie so that he would understand how to use it well.

 

mnkykungfu

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
747
Trophy Points
123
That's a shame... the 3D TVs that I've tried have not yet really captured a good 3D theater experience (which are admittedly few and far between).  So that means that we're back to the idea of not being able to have a similar experience at home, so that you really need to catch a film in the theater if you want to be in on it.  Of course, we've learned to mostly distrust 3D these days, so I'm not sure that many people care if they miss out on it, but I'd really recommend keeping it in the back of your mind for some future possibility.

That video was pretty cool, thanks!  Interesting how that could have been an innocuous press junket answer, but Raimi chose to dive in and give a really technical, long explanation.  haha  It does explain to me what I've heard some people complain about, which is that watching some films in 3D was hurting their eyes and making their brains feel fuzzy...like it was too much work.  I believe I hard comments like that about the Hobbit films and Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk...
 
Top Bottom