An Uneven Trip to Oz Is Still Fun, Even If It Does Feel a Decade Too Late

Oz the Great and Powerful - Directed by Sam Raimi, written by Mitchell Kapner and David Lindsay-Abaire, starring James Franco, Mila Kunis, Michelle Williams, Rachel Weisz, and Zach Braff - Rated PG

I really should not have watched Oz.  It kind of represents the very films I've been condemning lately.  My most recent post involved asking, or demanding, that Hollywood stop making this movies that straddle the age line in an attempt to make a film truly for everyone.  I also complained about the fact that they seem to all be in 3D and come across as cash grabs.  Despite all of that, I still went to see Oz the Great and Powerful, and, worse yet, I actually liked it.  In my defense, I did point out that Oz was more prequel than revision of a classic story.   

I must stress that I only "liked" it.  I didn't love this film and odds are I'll never watch it again.  But I enjoyed the experience of the film (in IMAX 3D) and found myself lost in it a time or two.  It is not an amazing film or anything, though.  It is confusing in tone at times, parts of it did rely too heavily on CG, and some major roles are miscast.  More often than not, however, the film entertained me. 

The story is basically the origin of the wizard from the original 1939 film (even though this cannot be considered an official prequel because of rights issues between two different studios).  The wizard (played somewhat successfully by James Franco) is two-bit circus performer who aspires to be a great man, but succeeds only at conning gullible women into sleeping with him.  When this leads to problems within the circus, he escapes, only to be sucked into the vortex of a tornado a la Dorothy.  The wizard wakes up in Oz and begins a quest to save the land from a wicked witch. 

As far as storylines go, the film is pretty childlike and lame.  But who's watching this for a story?  All people need to know is that this is not a remake of the original, so don't expect to see the Tin Man or anyone like that. 

Oz is first and foremost a visual film and in that regard it succeeds.  I watched this in IMAX 3D, and I have to admit that I am a sucker for that format.  For one thing, the inflated ticket price makes me want to like it to justify the expense.  Secondly, when done right, it can look amazing.  Oz is certainly not a home run as far as visuals go, but there are enough moments to justify spending the extra money if IMAX is an option.  Honestly, if I had watched this in regular 2D, I would be much more harsh in my judgment. 

The greatest trick Franco ever pulled was convincing Sam Raimi that he looks like he's from 1905.

The visual and the action suffice, but the acting falls short at times.  Franco plays a swindler with a heart just fine and is believable at times, but he still seemed completely out of place, both in Oz and in the real world of the opening.  Look at Franco, does he look like someone from 1905?  I really wish one of the first two actors considered for the role, Robert Downey, Jr. and Johnny Depp, would have taken the part.  Mila Kunis plays one of three witches that could become the wicked witch (Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams are the other two), and she seems out of place, as well.  The rest of the cast is fine, with Zach Braff being the only standout, in my opinion. 

It's hard to get behind this film because it just seems like director Sam Raimi is trying to one-up Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland.  To be fair, he does just that, as this film is much more enjoyable.  It's just that Raimi, who is already pretty similar to Burton, should not be doing the same safe, lame work that Burton has relegated himself to.  Raimi would be better suited to stick with film's like his last effort, the sickeningly fun Drag Me to Hell.  On an uplifting note, he has said that he doesn't plan on directing the already green-lit sequel.  And on an even more uplifting note, Raimi has said that he is working on a script for Evil Dead 4, later clarified to actually be Army of Darkness 2.  In fact, many people have noted, and I agree, that Oz is very similar in structure to Army of Darkness.

Which brings me to the biggest source of contention for a film like this: what is it?  Is it a children's movie, a teen movie, or a family film.  I guess I would say it's a family film above all, but it contains elements of everything.  Is it too intense for little kids?  Maybe.  I think the original Wizard of Oz film is more disturbing than this film, though.  (CG flying monkeys have nothing on the 1939 version of a flying monkey...)    Sam Raimi did toss in a screaming witch scene (which seems to be a requirement for each of his films) that could bother some children.  This complaint applies to the humor, also.  Some of the gags are childish, but then there are multiple jokes about the wizard being promiscuous.  Sure, most of it will go over younger heads, but it still felt uneven.

Sure, this flying monkey might look goofy, but I'd still freak out if I saw this thing in person.  CG monkeys don't scare me...

Perhaps the largest part of the audience wasn't looking for any type of film other than a new Oz movie.  Let's face it, it's not like the franchise has been utilized with any regularity (although now I'm sure it is about to be exhausted).  I must admit that childhood nostalgia for that classic film was the biggest reason I bought a ticket.  But this leads me to my potential biggest problem.  I always enjoyed the original because of how each character was a physical representation of elements from Dorothy's real life.  That's fine because she wakes up back in Kansas, having learned a lesson.  So Oz is a place of her imagination.  After a little research, I found out that the film made it all a dream while the books by L. Frank Baum considered Oz to be a real place.  This film claims to be an adaptation of the books rather than a prequel to the film, so it is not beholden to that dream concept.  Okay, but then why are so many characters obviously figments of the wizard's subconscious if Oz is a real place?  The China doll with the broken legs is the wheelchair bound girl the wizard couldn't cure in the real world.  His flying chimp helper shares the same DNA as his real world helper.  There are more examples and each one is played by the same actor in each world.  Kids might not have issues with that, but that question stuck with me more than anything else in the film.  I just find it cheap for the film to cherry pick elements from both sources. 

These problems didn't really occur to me while I watched the movie.  That is the most important thing, I suppose.  Oz the Great and Powerful kept me entertained, and I didn't think of most of these negative things until later on.  Sure, a good movie should hold up under scrutiny, but I still consider it a success if it provided entertainment in the moment...and all in 3D!  I know, I know, the 3D thing is getting old, both the element itself and the complaints about it.  I must admit that this is the perfect film to utilize 3D.  The original film ushered in color in an interesting way, so it only makes sense for this film to begin as a square, black-and-white film only to expand in color and dimension when Oz is reached.  This should have been one of the first new 3D movies.  Maybe that's the problem.  This film should have been released five or six years ago.  Then maybe it would just be considered a fun time at the movies.  Instead, it's a fun time, but the scent of cash grab is still in the air.

"Ted"

Directed by Seth MacFarlane, written by MacFarlane, Alec Sulkin, and Wellesley Wild, starring Macfarlane, Mark Wahlberg, and Mila Kunis - Rated R

Flash!  Ahhhhhhh! Ahhhhhhhh!

Seth MacFarlane has been dominating the animation world on TV for quite some time with shows like “Family Guy” and “American Dad,” but he has not made an effort to cross over into live action very often.  With “Ted,” MacFarlane makes his feature film debut as an actor (though he stays off screen by donning a motion capture suit to play Ted), writer, producer, and director.  And it turns out that MacFarlane’s humor translates quite well to cinema.

Of course, as with all comedies, I can’t just tell you flat out that this is a funny movie.  Some people will find this movie offensive, crude, and downright stupid.  Some people (e.g., me) will laugh at almost every weird, crazy minute of this film.  I would say that if you enjoy “Family Guy” and all those shows, then you’ll like this.  And if you don’t like those shows, then you’ll probably hate Ted.  This is very clearly a movie made by the same people.  One other warning: you probably shouldn’t let your kids watch this.  Even though it is about a talking teddy bear, it is a still an R-rated comedy and it gets pretty raunchy relatively early in the film. 

Ted works for multiple reasons.  First, the R-rating allows MacFarlane, and fellow writers Alec Sulkin and Wellesley Wild, to go places they can’t go on TV.  Secondly, the constant pop culture referencing style of “Family Guy” is just plain funny.  Some may scoff at the “easy” humor of a show or movie that bases its laughs on other works, and maybe they are right.  But you know what?  I was laughing.  And that’s all a comedy has to do for me.

The pop culture stuff can be a blessing and a curse, however.  While most of the jokes are broad and the gags are funny no matter what you know, some of them may go over your head.  For instance, 80s cult classic Flash Gordon is referenced constantly.  I have actually never seen that movie so even though I still laughed at the absurdity of some of the jokes, I didn’t get to enjoy them as much as someone who had seen that film.  And Flash Gordon is certainly not the only reference made in this film.  The more pop culture trivia you know the better.  

There’s no point in getting into other jokes since it will just spoil them, so the other major factor needs to be addressed: the CG.  Normally in a comedy you don’t have to worry about special effects very much, but Ted is different since the main character is a walking, talking teddy bear.  The CG is great.  It’s easy to accept Ted as an actual onscreen character.  The performances helped with this quite a bit, as well.  MacFarlane is funny enough with his Peter Griffin voice (which is actually referenced, as well), but more importantly, he made a point to wear a motion capture suit and perform with the other actors.  That assuredly helped out the other actors, but they still had to convincingly interact with the toy bear and they did a fine job.

As far as comedic performances go, the cast is strong as well.  Mark Wahlberg is proving to be well suited for comedy and this role seemed even more tailored to his comedic sensibilities than his previous comedy, The Other Guys.  “Family Guy” alum Mila Kunis is fine, also, playing the girlfriend, but getting a bit more to do than you might expect.  The rest of the cast is peppered with some familiar faces and a number of very odd and funny cameos. 

Overall, Ted is one of the funnier comedies to come out this year, though time will tell if it’s the “funniest” (as the ads would lead you to believe).  It certainly ranks in my top three comedies so far along with 21 Jump Street and Wanderlust.  Hopefully Seth MacFarlane will keep going after this success and produce more and more quality comedies. 

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Okay, just wanted to mention some of my favorite parts down here.

The Ryan Reynolds cameo was so odd and hilarious.  His piercing stare cracked me up.

The Sam Jones cameo was great as well, even though I have never seen Flash Gordon.  That party scene in general is amazing.  Loved the conversation about the Italian restaurant they plan to open.

Giovanni Ribisi and his kid were pretty creepy/funny, but Ribisi's dancing to "I Think We're Alone Now" stole the show.  So weird and great.

There are a ton of moments I found hilarious, but I just want to point out one more: Tom Skerritt.  It makes almost no sense, but I thought it was the funniest part of the film.  The payoff of Matt Walsh kidnapping Skerritt's daughter to force him to hang out is so ridiculous how can you not laugh?

"The Book of Eli"

The Book of Eli - Directed by The Hughes Brothers, starring Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman, and Mila Kunis - Rated R


The Evil Kurgan loves the apocalypse.


It seems that Hollywood is obsessed with the apocalypse these days. Over the past year I’ve seen Knowing, Terminator: Salvation, The Road, Zombieland, 2012, and now The Book of Eli. Let’s face it, people want to see what might happen if the world ends. Would we turn to cannibalism? Would we loot and pillage? Would we lose our humanity? These questions have been covered by most of these films, but, surprisingly, religion has taken a backseat in the Hollywood apocalypse. To be fair, Knowing had a religious aspect to it, but it was slightly open to interpretation.

The trend of ignoring religion during the end times has changed with The Book of Eli. If you’ve seen the previews, you know that the eponymous book is in fact the Holy Bible. In the film, a war tore a hole in the sky and brought on a gray world (the film nearly looks black and white). The Bible was blamed for this war and all copies of the book were burned. Well, almost all of them. Eli (Denzel Washington) has the last copy and he’s trying to take it west.

Eli walks a scorched earth alone. The road is populated with cannibals, though, waiting to ambush lone walkers. But Eli gets by okay. He’s insanely deadly with a bow and arrow and all manner of guns, but he is an artist with his razor sharp machete. Needless to say, The Book of Eli has a number of brutal action scenes. The action isn’t groundbreaking or anything, but it is entertaining. One shootout in particular is Michael Bay-worthy. The action is vital to the film because the story does start to drag a bit when Eli makes his way to town.

In the town, Eli comes across the ruthless Carnegie (Gary Oldman). Carnegie runs the town with an iron fist (he controls the precious water supply) and he uses his power to send out road crews to search for the last copy of the Bible, in hopes of using it for ill gains, of course. This is where Eli meets Solara (Mila Kunis) who insists on tagging along with Eli.

Solara is meant to be an important character and she is supposed to represent a vital theme in regards to the Bible and how it tells you to lead your life. But I thought this fell flat a bit. I think the film is strong enough with only Denzel Washington and Gary Oldman going head to head.
The flaws in Solara’s character are due to writing, not acting. Kunis does an okay job in the film. She just pales in comparison to heavyweights like Washington and Oldman. Washington has become one of the most dependable actors in Hollywood. You know you’re going to see at least a decent movie if he’s involved. His screen presence is unmatched. Oldman is great as usual, though I would have liked to see more eccentricities in his character. Carnegie, as a character, is kind of plain, but Oldman punches it up a bit. The supporting players aren’t bad in this film, either. Ray Stevenson makes for a decent second-in-command. And Tom Waits and Michael Gambon lighten the mood of the film here and there.

The lightening of the mood is a very refreshing aspect of the film. Most apocalyptic films are deadly serious, which is natural, but movies are meant to be entertaining for the most part and it’s nice to laugh occasionally, even in the face of disaster. Don’t get me wrong, though, The Book of Eli is not a comedy. It just has a couple of moments that provide a laugh or two.

The comedy and the religion are refreshing aspects of the film, but the style of the film isn’t exactly original. I can’t help but compare it to The Road. Both films offer a scorched earth as a setting and the opening scenes of Eli walking alone could almost be confused with footage from that other apocalyptic film. But your options are a bit limited when it comes to the end of the world. There’s bound to be some overlap. It may not be the freshest look in film, but it does look great and the Hughes Brothers (the directing duo) create some beautiful shots that match up to the powerful score.

The Book of Eli offers some elements that I found amusing in the crowded post-apocalyptic genre. First off, it’s basically a western. You have shootouts in the middle of town, saloons populated with grungy highwaymen, and even a shot or two that would fit in perfectly in an old Clint Eastwood western. Second, everyone gets to wear sunglasses, and it’s nice to see that people still like to look cool after the end of the world. To be fair, though, the sunglasses are important since the sun is particularly blinding after the war. Finally, the film has an interesting take on the cannibal issue. According to this film, if you eat too much human meat, you get the shakes and basically turn into a junkie. I thought it was interesting to add a physical reason to avoid cannibalism in addition to the moral complications.

The story of this film really worked for me. I was honestly interested throughout the film. The action kept things exciting, but I wasn’t sitting there waiting for the next action scene. First time screenwriter Gary Whitta has created an interesting debut; it’s not perfect or anything (as I said earlier, Solara’s character needed some work), but it should keep your attention, which is more than you can say for a lot of films these days. Some people might be turned away from the Christian focus of the film, though. The film makes the Bible the only book that matters, not the Torah, the Koran, the Talmud, etc. That might rub non-Christians the wrong way, but I think the film offers enough for people to get past that. For instance, there is a plot element that will make you want to watch the film at least one more time no matter what your religious affiliation is. The writing overcomes any controversial elements and the direction makes it interesting.

The Book of Eli isn’t a groundbreaking post-apocalyptic film, but it is certainly a worthy addition, and an entertaining one at that. It might even make you think a bit and you’ll certainly have plenty to talk about once it’s over, and that alone makes it worth watching.