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.

These Revisionist Fairy Tale Movies Must Stop!

You paid for something just like this a few years ago, so...

Now that Jack the Giant Slayer has officially sort of bombed, it would be nice if I could write the obituary for the revisionist fairy tale genre.  (Not sure if that is the title others are giving this recent slew of “okay at best” fairy tale movies, but that’s what I’m going with.)  But I can’t.  Not because great fairy tale movies are right around the corner, but because of the sheer fact that more are coming out.  It doesn’t seem to matter that no one is actually asking for these movies. 

 

Let’s begin with how this even happened.  I blame Johnny Depp.  No, wait, people (including me) like him.  Okay, I blame Avatar.  No, that won’t work, either.  The internet may have grown to hate that movie, but actual people apparently really liked it (once again, including me).  I’ve got it: 3D is to blame.  I can get behind that, and so can a decent amount of people.

 

Allow me to explain.  Avatar came out a few years ago and made all that money.  Some genius in Hollywood decided that it must have been because of the 3D.  That certainly explains why 3D has been a part of film world conversation ever since, but that doesn’t necessarily explain these new fairy tale movies.  Alice in Wonderland, a children’s fairy tale, just happened to be the next family friendly film to be released in glorious 3D, and it made far more money than it deserved.  It made over a billion dollars worldwide…ridiculous.  Is it any wonder that Oz the Great and Powerful looks more like a prequel to Alice than it does to The Wizard of Oz?  But more on that later…

 

The reason isn’t all that important, though.  At this point, the studios need to listen to the audiences.  In general, mass audiences hate revisionist fairy tales.  Let’s go through the list of recent films and their estimated domestic gross and budget (according to boxofficemojo.com):

 




Have they learned nothing from us?

The Brothers Grimm made $38 million and cost $88 million.

 

Red Riding Hood made $38 and cost $42.

 

Mirror Mirror made $65 and cost $85.

 

Snow White and the Huntsman made $155 and cost $170.

 

Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters made $54 and cost $50.

 

Jack the Giant Slayer has made $29 so far and reportedly cost $195.

 

 

There are no massive bombs listed here (Jack might eventually qualify), and all of the films that have finished their run ended up making more than their budget after worldwide grosses are applied.  None of these films were smash hits, either.  The only one getting a sequel is Snow White, but I’ll address that “hit” in a minute.  What is most frustrating about this list is that amount of money spent on these films that could be used elsewhere.  But back to the list itself. 

 

The Brothers Grimm stands out since it was released years before Alice and this whole fairy tale frenzy we’re dealing with at the moment.  I included this movie (which I actually like, by the way) because it is an example that shows audiences didn’t want this stuff back in 2005 and they still don’t want it in 2013.  I know that I said I enjoyed this film, but I’m glad it didn’t start a trend.  This film’s lackluster performance stopped the fairy tale movement before it began, then Alice came out and we’ve been force fed this fairy tale crap ever since. 

 

Things would have been fine if it had ended with Grimm.  The people who want to see an edgier version of a fairy tale would have their fix and we could be spared the rest of the crap.  Red Riding Hood was too mundane to even remember.  Mirror Mirror, despite being directed by Tarsem Singh, was family friendly drivel.  Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters…well, just say that title out loud and try not to laugh at the stupidity of it.  (I have not gotten around to seeing this one, and I will admit that it looks more promising than its name suggests.)  I never intended to watch Jack the Giant Slayer for multiple reasons.  The CG looked too fake, the human characters looked too goofy, and I never really liked the original story anyway.  Actually, you know what?  I can’t remember if I liked that story growing up, mainly because I was a small child when it was meant to appeal to me.  So why is this film being marketed as some grand action adventure for all ages when the source material is meant only for children? 

 

Most of these new fairy tales fall into this weird in-between zone.  They try so hard to be for everyone that they end up being for nearly no one.  The exception to this is Snow White and the Huntsman, which succeeded only because it ended up being just right for the Twilight crowd.  This film is being considered a success to the point that a sequel is in the works, but let’s put this in perspective.  The cartoon version of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs made (over years of re-releases) $185 million.  If you adjust that, it rockets up to $877 million.  You know why that made all the money?  Because it was marketed to the proper audience: children.

 

Familiar faces! Take my money!

Snow White and the Huntsman’s success is a product of casting, good timing, and not-being-that-bad-ness.  It had Kristen Stewart (whose mass appeal I will never understand), Chris Hemsworth (Thor!), and Charlize Theron (who doesn’t necessarily bring in big audiences, but her performance was noted).  And I remember when this came out.  It was the only major release that weekend and The Avengers had already been out for a month and Men in Black 3 was under performing in its second weekend.  And, most importantly, this one is not all that bad.  In fact, the worst parts about the film are the forced Snow White moments.  You know, like any awful scene with the dwarfs.  If this had simply been an adventure movie without the Snow White part, it might have been truly good.  Because that fairy tale crap is for children. 

 

The primary definition of a fairy tale (according to Merriam-Webster.com) is “a story (as for children) involving fantastic forces and beings.”  The key word in that definition is “children.”  Sure, definitions differ and some don’t claim that a fairy tale is exclusively for children.  But look at the plots of these films and tell me that they aren’t more at home in a Disney animated feature.  I’m not saying let’s put an end to all fairy tales.  I’m just saying let’s keep them where they belong: animated and rated G. 

This is for...kids?  Teens?  Adults?  Anyone...?

 

This brings me back to Oz.  To be fair, this one is not exactly a revisionist fairy tale because it is a prequel to The Wizard of Oz and isn’t attempting to be a gritty new take on it.  But it is being marketed (down to the nearly identical release date) very much like Alice in Wonderland.  I am afraid that it will make an immense amount of money and there will be another influx of crappy to mediocre revisions of children’s classics for the next few years.  I fear that this brutal cycle could go on indefinitely…and in 3D. 

 

What’s the point of all this griping?  I want the talent that has been involved in some of this mediocre crap to be used for more original and entertaining work.  Johnny Depp and Tim Burton once made Ed Wood.  Sam Raimi is responsible for the Evil Dead franchise.  Tarsem Singh made The Fall (check that out if you want to see a childhood fairy tale presented in a mature and entertaining way).  Gary Oldman (Red Riding Hood) made (insert one of his dozen-plus awesome roles here).  Tommy Wirkola (Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters) made Dead Snow.  You get the idea. 

 

Hollywood can still make fairy tale movies and make more money doing it without wasting the talent of these people.  They could just make them as animated features meant for children.  They can even mess with the formula and modernize it a bit.  The audience won’t mind, or won’t remember it later on anyway.  I’m not suggesting, by the way, that there is no talent in the animated world; quite the opposite, in fact.  It’s just that the animated folk know what to do with fairy tales and the people behind most these films don’t. 

 

Of course, maybe I’m wrong and Oz the Great and Powerful will turn out to be the beginning of a golden era of Hollywood.  But I doubt it.  There’s just something wrong about Sam Raimi directing a PG rated fairy tale…