Movie Review: Oz, the Great and Powerful

Here's that review of the last date night flick my wife and I caught at the local SuperUltraMegaplex-o-matic.

Oz, The Great and Powerful (2013)



A small-time magician is swept away to an enchanted land and is forced into a power struggle between three witches. Short synopsis of Oz the Great and Powerful taken from IMDb.com  

What can I say?  I suppose I liked Oz, The Great and Powerful well enough, but at the same time, it was kinda clunky. 

By way of explanation, I am, as an adult, definitely not a rabid fan of The Wizard of Oz (of the Judy Garland stable, nor have I read the books, which I am told are far superior to the movies), but I did like Oz well enough as a kid.  Heck, even today if it is on the TV, I will sit and watch a minute or two without getting up and walking away with a feeling that my time was wasted. It's an "old" movie, but the mechanics employed just scream "BIG SHOW." And yet it feels so solid.  Oz, The Great and Powerful just did not. 

With this prequel, what we as an audience get is a film that seems to be playing for dollar signs in a most unashamed way. Yes, there are the little touches that come from the books (my wife pointed out a couple) and The Wizard of Oz movie, but they seem thrown together in a rather haphazard way.


For instance? Well truthfully, the film is at its best when it isn't trying so hard to be a BIG SHOW.  The scene where our small intrepid band of heroes discovers the remains of the village of "China Town" and helps the only known survivor is one such moment. The little china doll girl (did she have a name? I never caught it) has broken legs, and the wanna-be wizard (played by James Franco, who - like several performers in the film - really seems to be making the most of what he is given) uses "magic" to mend them. It's actually a touching moment that harks back to the beginning of the film where, after producing a rather nifty illusion, our hero is asked to heal a little girl in a wheelchair, and then is forced to run off the stage when he confesses that he cannot do real miracles.

Our intrepid band.  From left to right, our flying monkey butler Finley (voiced by Zach Braff), the Little China Girl (voiced by Joey King) and James Franco as Oz himself.  / Source: Sugarscape.com

But unfortunately, the film has few of these kind of really genuine spots. Instead, there are actually a couple of cringe-worthy parts where the movie seems to almost go off the rails. The aborted song set of the Munchkins, for one. The moment feels all wrong, but then the story doesn't even have the guts to go through with it, and instead our protagonist wizard breaks it off by insisting that the whole effort of saving Oz is doomed because he only has peasants to use in a fight with a pair of witches and their well-trained and rather scary army (and these peasants are forbidden to kill, to boot - yeah, sucks to be him, huh?).

Oh, and there's another annoying bit. Our would-be wizard goes by the name of Oz, and the land he visits is also called Oz? Seems a bit coincidental, and clumsy at that. He can be the "Wizard of Oz" and be named Toby Rakewarmer too, ya know.  The movie has lots of these less effective instances.  The kind where you feel like smiling, but not in a good way.  Spoiler Alert for those of you who haven't seen it and want the "mystery," but here's another one that my wife pointed out: why did Oz and Glinda have to kiss at the end? It sort of breaks the illusion. Yes, there was budding romance between them the whole time, but... It is too convenient.

And then the producers/director missed some obvious "convenient" moments too. We learn where the Wicked Witch of the West got her broom from (said witch played by Mila Kunis), but not why she is "of the West," and we learn more about the Wicked Witch of the East (Rachel Weisz), who incidentally started the whole thing that is this conflict in Oz. And apparently she did it just because she is not a nice person. Just for kicks, you might say.  But the filmmakers missed out on bringing in the stripped socks that are the hallmark of our Wicked Witch of the East in the original movie. You know, the ones we see curl up under the house after Dorothy Gale makes her spectacular entrance and crushes the old crone to death? And then the Ruby Slippers are missing too.

The film did have its good moments, don't get me wrong.  When Glinda tells the Wizard that the bubble barrier that keeps evil out of the safe lands will let anyone with a good heart through, the look on Michelle William's face when she realizes that Franco, as the Wizard, might not be up to snuff is priceless. / Source: pghcitypaper.com

These clunky moments seem to add up to one big problem; i.e.: they left this film wide open for a sequel. Yes, it is admirable that Oz, the Great and Powerful didn't wrap everything up in a nice neat little package (even the first movie - The Wizard of Oz - did that), but why do we have to make a film that already options the rights to sequelize itself while people are in the process of watching it? It seems very much like a money-making scheme. Yes, I know, I know.  "Film-making is a money-making endeavor," you say.  But can't we at least put some veneer over the avarice for the production part?  Wait until the marketing department gets ahold of it before turning it into The Phantom Menace, please.

What else?  Let's go back to the acting. Though James Franco does a really good job of playing to what he's given, and Mila Kunis before the transformation is subtlety menacing and yet enchanting as the soon-to-be Wicked Witch of the West, and Rachel Weisz seems to be having all kinds of fun in being as deliciously malevolent as she can be, the film still manages to disconnect from the audience too often. For one, why do sisters have such varying accents? Did Evanora (Weisz's character) grow up in a bad "British-come-Oz" boarding school and that's why she turned evil? Sure, you can say they shouldn't try to do fake accents, but at least give us some continuity or something to hold to. The contrast breaks credulity (this was one my wife pointed out as well, and she is typically more forgiving of a film if she likes it than I am).

Good point.  Although, even when I say the acting doesn't match between Burke (pictured) and Willaims, I gotta say, this Glinda was the reason I'd flip off the TV if I saw Wizard on it today.  That saccharine sweet stuff always drove me a bit nuts. / Source: Tumblr.com

Oh, and speaking of witches, Glinda seems entirely out of character compared to her version in Wizard of Oz. Billie Burke played it very "sweetness and light" in the 1939 film, but Michelle Williams seems so much more practical and sensible. There is little to none of the same indefatigableness that our familiar version of Glinda had. Yes, she is sure things will work out, but it all hangs on our admittedly scallywag-like proto-wizard, and when he seems to be going south, she seems to flag too.

Next up, Theodora. Now I'm not into this whole Wicked thing, or seeing the Witch's point of view, or like that. So let me say, from my perspective, Kunis was great... right up to the moment she turned green. Nice touches on the "woman scorned" idea, and all that. But afterward?  Hmmm...  Oh, and speaking of "woman-scorned," my lovely wife thought the music box was a bit over-used ("how many of those things does he carry around in such a small carpet bag?" - I believe were her exact words).  Then again, I thought the idea of seducing a pretty face and then moving on to the next having serious ramifications was nicely played, and Kunis did crazy pretty well.  Up until she turned green, as I said.

Like I said in the post, Kunis did the best with what she had to work with.  But Hamilton didn't need fancy CGI or designer threads to pull off her shtick.  The evil enthusiasm in that top image says it all. / Source: BullFax.com

The problem here was, Mila couldn't match the creeping evil of Margaret Hamilton from Wizard. If I see any of that movie these days, she is the one who keeps me watching for more than a minute. The lady did scary witch to the hilt. If I saw a witch in my nightmares, she'd have Hamilton's visage. Kunis is too young and fragile to pull off the transformation. The makeup and CGI is just too heavy to let the evil come through. Plus, the effect was not as scary as it was somewhat sad. She gets all green-faced and her nose and eyebrows get distended, but she's still too pretty to be a really scary witch, and she seems small in her costume. Hamilton seemed like the scary sort you'd see in... well in a dark castle full of flying monkeys. Nothing personal against Kunis; I think she is a talented and rather good looking actress (plus she is of Ukrainian descent - which for a "Sovietophile" like me is a big plus). I think Kunis just did the best with what she was handed.

This brings me to my last witch - Rachel Weisz, as Evanora. As I said, she did evil to a "T," and almost over-the-top at times. She was more in the Hamilton vein, but too pretty throughout most of the film. At the end (guess I should call Spoiler Alert again, though if you got this far, you've lost all mystery for the film, I bet), after Glinda and Evanora have a heated but thankfully short climactic battle, our bad gal loses her emerald talisman and - temporarily we may assume - her powers. She becomes super scary ugly (is it your Emerald necklace thingy or is it Maybelline?)and then plummets off the tower of the throne room. In cliche style, she is rescued from death by her flying baboon minions (scary - yes, but baboons vs. monkeys? I don't know 'bout that) and off she goes to wreak havoc somewhere... East, we'd assume. My wife quipped "how cliche" at this moment. I can think of no better phrase to suit the scene.

From the promotional images for the film, here is (left top, going clockwise) James Franco as The titular Wizard, Rachel Weisz as Evanora - soon to be Wicked Witch of the East, Michele Williams as Glinda the Good Witch, and Mila Kunis in her pre-green thing version of Theodora, the Wicked Witch of the West. / Source: WriteToReel.com

And yet, only scant minutes before that scene, we were treated to a great version of Oz in his voluminous ethereal form. The courtyard scene, where our protagonist plays to his strengths as well as anyone could ask, is wonderful. Beforehand, I honestly pondered how they were going to get the wicked witches and all their crew to up and leave the emerald city, and this scene convinced me pretty well.

So therein lies the problem, I guess. The movie does some things really well, and for others it seems to be coasting on good hopes, an unsubtle dash of "gee-whiz" 3D effects (which format we did not see the film in, by the way) and pure commercialism. It just doesn't work out in a fully satisfying way, in the end. And thus, my review reflects a sense of disappointment, even though I didn't go in with exceptionally high hopes either. Then again, at least it wasn't Return to Oz of the late 80s or early 90s (I forget which). Now that was a whacked out film. But between you and me, I actually still kinda like that one. It's dark and a bit demented, and that appeals to the crazy in me. But if you tell anyone I said that, I'll sick a pack of weirdos with masks on top of their heads who skate around on their hands and feet. I know... people, I guess you could call 'em.

Whoever dreamed up Return To Oz was high on some extra-special blend, I'm tellin ya right now. / Source: Mrspriss.com

OK, down to the bottom line. I'd have to say the movie was not worth the full price theater ticket. At the cheap seats it would have felt more at home. It is definitely a big screen movie, with some gorgeous cinematic visuals (albeit many of them painfully obvious CGI; do kids these days even know what a movie that doesn't use computers looks like?), but the plot just doesn't hold up to even casual viewing.

Also - and probably most important, the film has some quite dark moments, and it is probably a bit mature for little kids. In fact, this may be the clincher here. Oz seems to be trying to be all things for all people, and not doing enough of what it is best at. There are scary scenes that might be a bit tense for kids (because so much is not left to the imagination these days, therefore kids have so much more to be scared of, rather than the implications that the original 1939 film often used to such great effect), and there are some things thrown in that feel like panderings to children; it's the old "let's get your kids to beg you to go see this movie"-sort of stuff.

In conclusion, let me say this: If Disney does this same thing with the new Star Wars films that they've done to Oz the Great and Powerful, I vow right here and now to stop watching anything either George Lucas or the Disney company put out after 1995. In my opinion, both Lucas and Disney must have sold their souls around that point (based on what came out from both groups afterward), and if the products of both their efforts combined fails to deliver, I'll be just as happy without including either in my future entertainment calculations.

After all, Han shot first!


The parting comment:


How very Oliver Stone of you.  Of course, if you don't believe that clip, here's a more hip and trendy version that makes a more reasoned argument.  And it's shorter too!



The proof is in the tape, folks.  Don't believe everything you hear, and only half of what you see.