When watching a sequel or prequel to a previously released movie, it's really important, and only fair, to try and watch it with a blank mind and not be influenced by its predecessor. But when you claim to be a prequel to the 1939 classic "Wizard of Oz", it's almost impossible not to! I grew up with the Wizard of Oz! Back in the mid/late 60's, way before the birth of VCRs, cable TV or satellite TV, "Oz" was played on broadcast TV once a year, so we had to wait 364 days before we could watch it again. So this movie holds a warm place in my heart, and I suspect for a lot of other baby boomers too!
As a result, I was half excited, half skeptical when I went to watch "Oz the Great and Powerful'. And after watching it.....a bit disappointed. I guess the thing that bothered me the most was that, as impossible as it may seem, it really wasn't a movie for children. At least young children. Not even the addition of an animated China doll character helped. Not
really sure why the character was even in the movie, other than to appeal
to young girls. It really didn't contribute to the overall plot all that
much.
Which brings me to the next issue I had: exactly who was the target audience for the movie? I know it wasn't the 50's crowd that I belong to. Definitely not the
seven and under group. The entire black and white sequence in Kansas at
the beginning of the movie would have bored them to death and would have
lost their attention. The 8-12 group? With flying monkeys and witches
that were frequently pretty scary, combined with some implied sexual
innuendo, I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable taking someone that age.
Teens and the 20 crowd? Maybe. Once you get older than that though, the
story might start to become a little silly.
With that said, I actually really did enjoy the last 20-30 minutes of the movie when Oscar Diggs, aka Oz, claimed Emerald City and how he did it. I'll just say that it explained a lot about how Oz in the 1939 original operates. Unfortunately, it was actually one of the very few references to the original, which is a bit odd for a prequel. In fact, there were probably more references to the musical "Wicked" than in the original "Oz". Anyhow, because of the ending, I suspect that many people will like the entire movie as a result. But unfortunately I can't ignore the previous 90 minutes. Basically, it lacked the magic, creativity, and overall writing the 1939 classic did. Call it an early 21st century version of an early 20th century Hollywood production. Less innocence, more grit, over done scare tactics, and as I said earlier, some sexual innuendo.
The wicked witch of the west (Theodora), played effectively by Mila Kunis, is a good example. In the original, the wicked witch was scary in a creepy way. In this version, the witch was scary in an evil way (plus her outfit was a bit more revealing, shall we say, than that of 1939's witch). Same with the flying monkeys. In this movie, they were downright fierce and brutal, ripping apart its victims (or at least trying to...you'll know what I mean if you saw the movie). Along with Rachel Weisz (Evanora) and Michelle Williams (Glinda), the three witches were probably the best part of the movie. Or at least the best acted. Zach Braff's dual role as Frank the side kick and Finley the flying monkey was probably my favorite in the movie though. Braff played both characters basically the same as both had similar relationships with Oz. An ironic moment referring to both arose at the end of movie, which was a nice touch. I'd also give the plot early in the movie some credit when it tried to hide who of the three was the "good" witch. But the majority of the movie, outside of the final 20 minutes, just didn't do much for me. But again, I'm pretty sure director Sam Raimi didn't have 53 year olds in mind when he was filming it! Finally, the visuals in the movie were very good. One thing they did do well was provide a look similar to the original Oz. My wife and I saw the movie in 3D, and neither of us thought it added much to the experience.
And that brings me to Oscar Diggs, or the Wizard of Oz himself. As much as liked James Franco in other films, I didn't particularly care for him as Oz. To me, at least, he didn't play the shrewd/conniving/devious/cunning part of the role well. Just wasn't believable. He was much better playing the "hero" though.
In conclusion, I thought the majority of the story was dry, the visuals were good, the acting for the most part good, and the ending very good. Slightly disappointing over all though, mainly because Disney took a nice G-rated story and made it into a PG rated film. On a side note, I've actually been reading L. Frank Baum's original "Wizard of Oz" book for the first time. I'm about 2/3rds the way through it, and I'm shocked how different it is from the 1939 movie. A lot of what's in the movie is in the book, but there is so much more story in the book that is not in the movie, which is not unusual. I normally would frown on a remake of the 1939 "Wizard of Oz", but after reading what I have so far, I would no longer be opposed to someone like Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings fame) or Ang Lee (Life of Pi) exploring the possibility of a Wizard of Oz trilogy, or at least a two part movie. With today's technology, it could be fantastic....if done in the right hands and written by the right person.
Using my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee,
4= worth full price), I’d give it a "3 just for the visuals. They are worth experiencing on a large screen.
No comments:
Post a Comment