Oz: The Great and Powerful (2013 Sam Raimi film)

Went with my 18 year old daughter as we are both fans of the original film, and we really enjoyed it.

The way whole China Doll involvement was handled was particularly successfully, and there was lots to take in and enjoy.

The only weakness for me was Rachel Weisz who didn't quite deliver convincingly, and the odd bit of dialogue that didn't fit the time period - otherwise happy with the result.

 

I watched three trailers for this film tonight and not one editor seemed to be able to find a story to wrap the trailer arou d. I think this is going to be a meandering, pointless stinker (with hot chicks)

 

Just to end this thread on a positive note (if I'm lucky) just saw this film for the third time in the theater. Call me sentimental.

 

I've seen it twice so far (2D on release day and then in IMAX 3D a week later.) I will probably see it again when it hits the 2nd run discount theatre.

 

This is one of those films I think was technically well-made, looked marvelous and had many impressive individual sequences...but it left me feeling disengaged overall. I never quite got that sense of wonder that I expected from the material.

Franco was passable, but I think an actor with a little more personality could have brought the role to life a little more. I thought Kunis, Williams and Weisz were all solid (Rachel was a little under-utilized).

Not really sure if Raimi was the right choice for this, from a technical perspective he's fantastic but he also has a tendency to over-direct his actors into slightly strained, unnatural performances.

 

Thought this might have gotten a bump since released on disc. I thought it was decent...liked the overall look. I think whoever decided to add Mariah Carey's atrocious caterwauling during the credits should serve time.

 

The Blu-ray looks and sounds magnificent -- it's demo quality material, in my opinion.

When I originally saw the trailers, I thought, "man, that China Girl character is so cornball and silly -- there's no way that's going to work." Boy, was I wrong -- she's damn near the emotional centerpiece of the film, and the script gives her prime importance for a couple of key scenes. The structure of the film is really, really good; it's clear to me that they spent a lot of time and thought working the whole thing out. I was even more impressed with it on a second viewing.

 

I just discovered that I can play iTunes downloads on my TV (doh!). Decided to see what an HD downloaded to my iPad looked like on my new 60" Panansonic plasma, and used Oz as my test case. OK. THAT worked. This changes my approach to movie consumption.

Oz, I thought was pretty terrible. Franco was abysmally cheesey, Kunis preposterous, and overall, I was put off by the live action/animation fusion. It was just close enough to 'realistic' for its falsity to be manifest, similiar to the uncanny valley effect. Lots of trippy visuals tho, and vivid colors to look at, so not a total waste of two hours. I can see it working for kids, and if somebody can find an equivalent of the Dark Side of the Moon synch, so I wouldn't have to suffer Franco, I might be able to sit through it multiple times.

 

So you changed your tune! I knew you would

 

I was only doubtful that the movie would make money! I thought it would do OK, but not great. The surprise is that it made almost $500M! They're also talking about a sequel, which I think is iffy.

 

That's good to know....I saw it in the stores and was thinking about picking up the Blu-ray. If it is demo quality, that makes it a more deserving purchase. Didn't really care for Franco's performance overall but the film is a fun experience.

 

Yeah, he seems a bit "shallow," for lack of a better word. I can see he tried his best. Many critics have wondered how much differently the movie would have been with Robert Downey, Jr. in the role, who was Raimi's original choice. He's a guy I've believed 100% in everything he's ever done.

I just gave the Blu-ray to my 8-year-old niece for her birthday, and my brother reports she and her 10-year-old brother have watched the movie non-stop for 3 days, so I think that means it's a hit. (You know, for kids.)

 

Your brother should stop slipping those white crosses into the kids' pudding.

 

The blu-ray is a disappointment. The special features are cheap and almost non-existent. Studios keep cutting the corner on all these.

 

That's hard to argue with. I, too, was disappointed at the relatively-brief "making of" documentary, especially when you consider this was a $200M film with a couple of thousand visual effects, massive sets, and a very complex story and script development. Note that not once did anybody mention that they had to bend over backwards not to copy anything that was in The Wizard of Oz, for fear that WB's lawyers would sue Disney. And WB was uninterested in licensing any of the 1939 film's story elements to Disney (like the ruby slippers, the "look" of the Wicked Witch, etc.).

 

Just saw it, I dug it. Fluorescent feast. Franco was fine as the less than average Kansas hokum huckster. Downey jr. is too sharp edged to play this character.
I liked the nods and winks to the '39 film. Oz still has a crazy quilt of characters.
Easily trumps dreck like The Wiz, Tin Man, Return to Oz....
Worthy of purchase to own

 

The twister scene had nice presence on my Home Theater. It did recreate what a twister must be like with my two subwoofers.

 

This warms my heart!

 

I enjoyed the film, but it's an empty story. It's very nice for the visuals but that's about all it has to it. I doubt I'll be rewatching this soon.

 

You know, I liked it better on a second viewing (at home), mainly because I now understood the importance of the China Girl. The scene with the fake wizard at the carnival having to face the crippled girl was really wrenching... though I wondered why they couldn't have just fixed this with one line of dialogue: "I'm sorry little girl... what I present here is just an illusion, done for entertainment purposes only! Only God can do miracles." Or words to that effect. But... I get that they had to tie every human character to a counterpart back in Oz.

You still gotta wonder what happened to Oz's three friends (the monkey, the midget, and Grady from Sanford & Son) in the later Wizard of Oz movie. My guess is they refused to be in the 1939 movie because they wanted too much money. And why did Oz the Wizard not continue his fling with Glinda? And howcum the Wicked Witch of the West stayed away from the Emerald City for so long? And how did Oz create a microphone and projection machine from scratch for the climax with the witches? (I have many questions.)

 

You know that Bill Cobbs didn't play Grady, right? I assume you're making a joke - not sure...

 

All that was explained in the "Fringe" finale.

 

I really enjoyed the movie, but i think i was hoping more. The B&W scene was something new, and i like it.



________________
www.timesharescam.com

 

Film was showing across the street last night for $3.00. Some sort of charity event. Had not seen it so...Loved the B&W academy ratio at the beginning. The rest, standard Michigan filmed blue screen. Kept looking at my watch. Lots of effort for very little payoff. I guess they saved a ton of cash.

 

We accidentally got the Blu-Ray from the Disney movie club (forgot to decline the monthly offer)

Technically it was fairly well done. The CGI sets were nice to look at, but garish to the point of pulling you out of the story. Some of the backgrounds reminded me of a first person shooter set on a tropical island or exotic alien planet. Too shiny and perfect. The B&W beginning was pretty nifty.

The rest of the movie didn't do much for me. The acting was wooden and downright awkward at times. If you are going to have a movie set in an strange fantasy-land, your actors have to play it fairly straight, otherwise it comes off as cartoon-ish, which it did.

The pacing was all wrong, as well. It felt like they made a finished movie, test-screened it, then took a machete to the thing and redid half of the plot. There were few emotional buildups to anything. It was scary forest then pretty scenery then suspenseful dialog then scary chase scene - all rammed together.

SPOILERS!

The payoff was all wrong, as well. What was the point of having all the melodrama around the professor faking his death? You know he doesn't die in the movie. Then you have him set up as the fake wizard of Oz, pretending to grant people their wishes? That's the payoff? In the original he was presented as a fraud and a swindler, which is how he started this movie. That was his story arc?

I think the movie should have been about someone else. Maybe focus on the wicked witch. She has an arc - she starts out good and ends up evil. The professor starts as a fraud and ends as a (better natured?) fraud.