the whole Oz was dating/banging dorothy's mom thing really pissed me off. to call that a terrific throwback was asinine because i just saw it as lazy and juvenile.
 |
And make no mistake, this is a direct prequel to the '30s movie. Again there is no Good Witch of the North; there are but three - Evanora (Rachel Weisz), Theodora (Mila Kunis) and Glinda (Michelle Williams). All of them refer to another wicked witch, and there's no need for me to ruin the "surprise" identity of same, but if you know your Oz in any form, you'll know that at least one of those three can be ruled out. You'll also be amazed at how quickly life-changing decisions are made with little-to-no buildup. When Oz the showman first arrives in Oz the land, he encounters the stunning Theodora, who tells him there's a prophecy that a wizard will come to be the new king. Sensing riches, he plays along, but there's a catch - as in Dorothy's tale, he makes it to the Emerald City to be told he must kill the wicked witch in order to get what he desires. And yes, he meets a couple of unlikely companions along the way: a winged monkey named Finley (Zach Braff) and a china girl (Joey King) who appears to be the last survivor of a flying baboon attack. Both are astonishing effects creations - you never question their reality. I didn't, anyway, and I suspect kids won't either.
Raimi avoids the four color-coded countries of the books too, though he mixes the primary hues in throughout, as nearly everything we see that isn't green is either red, yellow, blue or purple. I raised an eyebrow when the Quadlings were introduced and they weren't wearing red; then, when the Munchkins showed up as singing, dancing little people, I had to take a deep breath. To an Ozophile, the fact that the word "Munchkin" has become synonymous in the language with something little and cute is grating. The Tin Man's a Munchkin, after all - or at least he was until he accidentally dismembered himself and became a magic cyborg. True to Baum, my ass. Need I also point out that the witch in the book was neither green nor pointy hat wearing? Or that the Margaret Hamilton lookalike here sports some pretty cheesy makeup? Anyone who says Oz fans will be satisfied has never read the books; mark my words. Maybe you'll say I shouldn't be so hung up on the books, and maybe I wouldn't be if they hadn't made a point of saying this would adhere to them.
Talk of rebooting The Wizard of Oz after this is just silly, because it leads directly into the existing movie pretty exactly. I'd be more than fine with a genuine, nonmusical reboot, especially if it were to lead to all the books being done, but Oz the Great and Powerful has essentially salted the earth on that score, at least as far as building a Disney franchise is concerned.
They could do a hell of a Splash Mountain makeover based on Franco's arrival in Oz, though.
<< Previous Page | 1 | 2
More links from around the web!
40 comments
One minor thing - The Munchkins were little people in the book. They're describes as being the same height as Dorothy, who was about 10 years old.
2 Like
Mila Kunis' ass looks great in 3D (Michelle Williams and Rachel Weisz both look incredible too)..............James Franco was horribly miscast (I really would have preferred it if Zach Braff and James Franco switched parts).........There are moments in the film where the scale of the China Girl is all wrong (she barely comes up to your knees, but when she's held close to another actor's head, she's almost twice as large) Tony Cox is his usual awesome self.........and Bruuuuuuuuuucccceeeee!!! The opening credits were the 2nd best part of the 3D.........All in all, just an average kinda picture..........at least it was better than Jack The Giant Slayer
2 Like
admittedly, I have not read the books, but I still enjoyed the movie... though I saw it as the Army of Darkness with a bigger budget... because, really... it's the Army of Darkness with a bigger budget
3 Like
Interesting story for those who only know Wizard of Oz from the '39 version...
Don't forget another obvious MGM nod is the Emerald City is green and emerald instead of "Here, wear these silly glasses"!
@LYT Huh. I guess it's been forever since I read the other books. I guess Jurassic Park and Marvel's not the only book that changes everything to suit the films!
@Kozmik_Pariah @LYT It wasn't to suit the '39 movie...Baum had long since been dead by then. I think it's more like he made things up as he went along rather than maintaining any kind of "series bible" - so by book two General Jinjur is wanting the city's treasure, and then I think they explain later that the Wizard took all of the original emeralds out, but then they got restored by Scarecrow, or something like that.
4 Like
As I feared. Despite tons of ideas to be mined from the original books, they went back to the 39' version for inspiration.
6 Like
@skrag2112 more like "We need to make this like the other movie or the viewers will be confused - DUMB IT DOWN MOAR!"
3 Like
Reviews for this are interesting. Movie Bob over at the Escapist really seemed to like it and his reviews have usually been pretty spot on for my personal tastes.
Regardless, looks like we are finally getting into the "good" movies of 2013 and out of the Doldrums of Jan/Feb.
3 Like
@cyvaris I tend to only follow a few critics when it comes to movies but I don't let it dictate what I watch. Basically if it looks good and I can convince some people to go I see it. If not, I put it off until I see it pop up on Netflix or buy the movie when it becomes cheap.
1 Like
@cyvaris Yeah, a lot of critics I enjoy and tend to agree with are rating this quite well, the Spill guys loved it, yet the negative reviews are pretty damn harsh like Luke's.
I have no attachment to Baum's work (the fact that the man was a horrendous racist who advocated the slaughter of Native Americans makes me less compelled to read his work) or the other Oz movies, so as a Raimi fan I'll probably still check this out.
6 Like
Is this the Hobgoblin backstory we've all been craving that will bring long awaited clarity to Spider-Man 3?
I'm a bit disappointed to hear that they aren't using the original Baum books more. There's so much cool stuff they could develop from there. Maybe instead of Raimi they should have enlisted Tim Burton. I could see him picking up the Baum world with much gusto. Of course, then, we'd have Johnny Depp as Oz and Helena Bohnam Carter as either Glinda or the Wicked Witch ...
2 Like
@ketsuko Burton would have been even less faithful - look at his Alice, Dark Shadows, Batman, Sleepy Hollow...he takes an idea that he likes and ignores all the rest of the mythology. Even his Willy Wonka, while more faithful to the book's plot in many ways, got the character of Wonka (and the ending) completely wrong.
@LYT @ketsuko Playing devil's advocate, that's why it's called "inspiration" and not "book faithful". I'm not interested in seeing any movie that is an exactly faithful telling of a book. I loved Sleepy Hollow, and I liked it better than Disney's version(though it's the difference between loving soda pop as a kid and loving Champagne as an adult).
Don't listen to this article OR any of the critics. It already has an 82% AUDIENCE rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and honestly, that's really the only thing that counts.
6 Like
@nightstarx I think there's a misconception in this comment - that I'm somehow trying to persuade you to see or not see anything.
A review is an articulation of an opinion with as much explanation possible as to why one feels that way. Agreeing with it isn't the point - understanding vaguely what the movie's all about and whether you might like it better or worse is.
7 Like
@nightstarx Also, no offense but are we doing the "DERP DON'T LISTEN TO CRITICS THEIR OPINIONS DON'T MEAN ANYTHING DERP" argument again? Because while I agree that one's own opinion is ultimately the one that matters, I tend to find that most User Reviews are pretty much crap compared to the pros, as anyone who's ever seen a MetaCritic score can tell you.
And for that matter, the RT Audience Rating on Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is a Fresh 76%%. So is the audience also right in that RotF is actually a good film? Choose wisely, because your answer may be used as grounds for banishment.
@SlyDante777 I don't look at audience ratings as saying a movie is "good". I look at them as saying they were entertained. I also don't really take many critics' reviews at face value, because a lot of them are film snobs and can't look at a movie as entertainment- they judge it as art, which really doesn't benefit the average moviegoer who wants to escape and be entertained. So basically, while critics lambasted RotF as cinema garbage, the lager portion of average viewers had fun watchin' stuff 'splode.
3 Like
@nightstarx But 58% of the critics say it's good as well (hence the consensus), & though not Fresh, that still means a majority liked it. So are you telling me not to listen to the professionals who are actually saying the film is decent? That kind of seems like an odd move.
1 Like
I'm bummed, I was kind of excited about this movie. Won't see it in theaters anyway, because money, but saddened to know that it's not as good as I had hoped.
6 Like
...Aaaaand it's already getting a sequel. Well goshers, I wonder what story they could possibly do for it?
Seriously though, are there any other stories they could do between this one & the original? I'm interested. At the very least, I hope Disney is smart enough to just skip over the original tale for it. After all, I don't even think they're dumb enough to re-tell a story that's been adapted so many times, odds are you can turn on your TV right now & find at least one adaptation of it playing on some channel.
...Right? o_O
9 Like
@SlyDante777 AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
*Sniffle* Oh, SlyDante, you're adorable. . . not doing a story that's been adapted. . . you rascal!
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/1OSiowb.gif[/IMG]
6 Like
@rabidronnie @SlyDante777 Ha ha ha!! Right, I know, ha ha ha, haaaa...seriously though, they honestly could not be that stupid. I mean hell, even Burton's live-action Alice in Wonderland was still a sequel to the original story. A sequel using pretty much every character, prop, & story element from before, mind you, but a sequel nonetheless.
1 Like
@TheConjurerOfCheapTricks @Canadian.Scott @SlyDante777 @rabidronnie "Hollywood logically," though, would suggest that a sequel would have to have the same actors. Doing The Marvelous Land would only bring Michelle Williams back, and not even as a major character.
Honestly, if I were thinking Hollywood-logically, in a sequel I'd combine the Wicked Witch and Old Mombi, do a version of Land in which she somehow seduces the wizard into corruption and enchants Ozma.
5 Like
@Canadian.Scott @SlyDante777 @rabidronnie I think a sequel could be adapted from The Marvelous of Oz, logically, if you skip doing something with The Wizard of Oz. Admittedly, some of the elements of this one *have* been put on film already (the Gump and Jack Pumpkinhead both appear in Return to Oz)...but who knows?
5 Like
@SlyDante777 @rabidronnie I think the only natural progression would be a remake of the musical but without the music. But then again I only really know of the Wizard of Oz from the Judy Garland movie so my perspective is skewed a little.
1 Like
This pretty much confirmed what I thought. I didn't see a point of this movie. As with most prequels. It is paint by numbers, as I see it from the bleachers.
From other reviews I've read it also sounds like there's some odd gender politics going on in this film with women not coming off particularly strong. This is a shame cause the original Oz books had some pretty strong roles for women, especially considering the time they were written. Dorothy in particularly is much sassier and outgoing than Garland portrayed her in the movie. So kind of a shame to hear in this film they're mostly subservient or manipulated by men.
2 Like
When he's not cutting his arm off, James Franco just looks stoned all the time.................
(You see what I did there?)
