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

I took my daughter to see it in 3d. LOVED the opening credits. Some of it was super deep and felt very real. And I thought the 3d was done well for a live action movie. Fun flick, no classic, but enjoyed it.

 

I honestly couldn't remember! 1905 makes more sense, and that would make Oscar 70+ by 1939, if they're going by movie release date.

Still, it makes you wonder how he was able to pull off the "projection on smoke and fire with magnified sound" deal in 1905. Hell, that wouldn't be easy to do in 1925!

 

Well, he did say that Houdini and Edison were his idols.

 

Yikes! Well, they did dump a lot of old-age makeup on him...

 

I suspect all of those questions will be dealt with in the inevitable sequel to the prequel.

 

This effect is called Criticus Post Cloitus, or what happens when you read reviews after seeing a film and let critics talk you out of enjoyed something you actually liked.

 

No, I didn't notice that! Good catch! Huh. I like the fact that they did Oz-like parallel universe coincidences but didnt try to explain them away. Eg, girlfriend/Glinda, assistant/monkey. I can't believe the development people didn't hoot and howl about "paying off" those ties in the end somehow, trying to explain them away. Instead, they're just sort of there and no effort is made to neatly tie them up. I liked that choice by Rami. It left a little to think about while creating nice ties to the original film. I'm surprised more people aren't screaming- What did that mean! I thought the unexplained added a nice sprinkle of wonder to the project - which you aptly noted.

 

Don't forget that people showed their age much earlier back in those days. I've read somewhere that people in their 50s today have the youthful appearance and vitality of thirty-somethings of the 1920s and '30s. So Frank Morgan looked older at 49 than a 49-year old of today, in most cases. (Must be the preservatives in our food )

Did you also notice that Oscar's assistant was named Frank? and that the carnival was named Baum Bros.? There are a lot of nods to the author of the books and the previous film. It was fun to see those things. I'm going to go see it again with my wife and daughter.

 

That never happens around here...

 

It was 1905. That's why I was like the timeline is screwed up on Oz's age.

 

Margaret Hamilton made no secret that Morgan was a terrible alcoholic, despite being an MGM contract player for more than 20 years. I think he did more than 150 films before his death in 1949, during the production of Annie Get Your Gun (where he died on-set and had to be replaced by Louis Calhern). I suspect his drinking problems contributed to his aged look. But let's face it: there's a lot of people who are 49-50 today who look a lot better than people did half a century ago. Hell, Tom Cruise is 50 and -- in the right light -- could pass for at least 10 years younger.

Yes, and Zach Braff plays both the assistant and the monkey's voice, and Michelle Williams plays the former girlfriend back in Kansas and Glinda, and the crippled girl in the wheelchair is played by the same girl who did the voice of the China Girl. Yep, I got all that.

 

Those were the 3(6) strongest performances in the movie.

 

Yeah, there was a point where I said, "why the hell is the China Girl even in this film?", but that's answered in a pivotal scene near the end. That's another reason to like the film: in general, most of the plot is pretty logical and all the plot threads are taken care of pretty well, with pay-offs for all the major characters. (Except for the nagging questions I stated earlier.)

 

I predict this on is going to be a big hit. Go Franco!

 

Well, the reason these pics are posted in this thread escapes me at the moment, but I won't complain

 

Oops! Wrong thread kiddies. I meant to post that in the big hit movies of 2013 thread. Not sure how it got here. Except James Franco is in both, lucky bastard!

 

No worries; thanks for the yummy pics

 

Saw oz last night. Thought it was boring. Didn't think the makeup was very good and didn't think the special effects were all that good either.

 

I'm just gonna bump this thread for the yummy (OT) pictures above, since I accidentally put them in OZ!

Is this a thread crap?

If so, tap your toes three times and maybe they'll disappear.

 

Oz is about to hit $300M worldwide, so it's still doing very well.

I didn't think it was boring at all, but I knew going in it was going to be a very, very old-fashioned kind of movie, so I was prepared for it. I do agree that the first half of the movie is slow going, and it finally kind of gets to the point once Franco goes off on his mission to kill the witch. That plus the ending were great, and I enjoyed all the little tie-ins as it went along.

 

I don't want them to disappear. But I have to say, there are a couple young actresses there who I thought had some promise. I don't think they going the Gweneth Paltrow route of acting based on these pics. Is there no shame!!!!

 

I just found out about this new movie (and career move) from the late night shows. Two of these nymphets made the round this past week. It looks quite interesting, aside from the deflower-in, so to speak, of these former Disney Starlets. I'm no Franco-phile, but James stayed in character for the whole shoot as a bad-assed pimp daddy, which really creeped the girls out, and probably gave him cart-blanc to leer and ogles these bikini-clad young ladies all he wished.

My main draw for the flick is the Harmony dude who made it did Kids, which was a brilliant 90s cult classic.

I can't believe there is no thread on Spring Breakers yet!

 

Saw it last week.

I think it is a GREAT movie.

CGI was dazzling without overwhelming the film-----must see it in 3D. The feel of the otherworldly sets somehow felt true to the 1939 movie.

Just the right amount of wit---scattered throughout.

Music was great.

All three witches were effective. Kunis has never been better-----just about all of the performances were finely tuned----with Franco admittedly an acquired taste------and a China Doll CGI elicits as much emotion as any. Tony Cox’s performance was a little too Bad Santa contemporary---a slight miscalculation.

I am baffled by the negative reviews. Film seemed to hold the packed house in the palm of its hand throughout----some applauded at the end.

It is a little dark-----somehow sparse-----simple-----but very effective.

I've got an itch to see it again------I don't believe I've ever seen a movie twice during its first run.

 

Yes. The Tony Cox thing bothered me. A lot.