Oz the Great and Powerful

At last, one of us has bothered to go to the movies. It's been a dull winter for theatrical releases. But never fear; we're getting into movie season, and between May and September, I alone usually average about 30 hours staring at the big screen. Now, when I first came up with the idea for the In Theaters section, I was envisioned it following our tradition of seeing and promoting lesser-known films. Unfortunately, I realize now that, American consumer that I am, I am more likely to go and see highly advertised big name movies than small indie films, especially at 15 dollars a pop. So for a movie like Oz, you can get a review pretty much anywhere. My only hope in grabbing your attention is to bring something new to the conversation. Which -- let's face it -- probably isn't going to happen.

The other drawback is that for movies in theaters, depending on how long it takes me to go and see it, you've probably already seen, have made up your mind not to, or it's no longer playing nearby. These are kinks we'll have to work out down the road. For now, hop in your air balloon and hang on tight, let's take a journey to the land of Oz!

Viewer: Dylan Dog
Time Elapsed Since Theatrical Release: 3 weeks

One thing I hate about movie reviews -- at least the ones I tend to read -- is how they tend to give a synopsis of a movie instead of just saying if it's good or not. I'm going to avoid this as much as possible. So let me get right to the point. Oz is not an awful movie. But then again, it's not really a movie, so much as an amalgam of other movies you've have already seen.

The most obvious connection is the deliberate one, and that's to The Wizard of Oz. The opening scenes are meant to completely emulate the style and feeling of the original. Instead of Dorothy we have Oscar, and the supporting characters from his reality end up being represented as people and creatures when he gets to Oz. These scenes go on longer than they should, and only seem to show that Oscar (Oz) is a failure and a conman.

Our first glimpses of Oz are big, bright, and beautiful. Whereas the original film had this effect simply by being in color, Oz uses 3D and CG to convey the same sense of wonder. In doing so, it becomes a combination of Avatar, Alice in Wonderland, and anything by Dr. Seuss. If by some chance you missed those movies, then you may find this one more unique. For the most part, I enjoyed the immense scale and ingenuity of the landscapes and scenery; I just couldn't help but feel like it had all been done before. And at least in Avatar, where Cameron wants us to see a planet inhabited with creatures that really live and interact with each other, Oz is filled with gimmicky creatures that don't really make sense or have a purpose, and James Franco just sort of fumbles through it, more like Alice. This is all well and good, given the source material, but the film never seems to figure out which side of the fence to fall on: is it a serious adventure or a playful remake of the original? It's not a musical. The flying monkeys are now aggressive baboons with bat wings. It seems darker and scarier at times. (The Little China Girl's entire race was destroyed, and she is a very intriguing character.) And yet, there are Munchkins and Tinkers, and Emerald City soldiers with clearly glued-on mustaches that completely take away any serious or suspenseful tone.

Which brings me to my next movie comparison: the Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Hobbit. Peter Jackson couldn't decide if The Hobbit should have the same tone as it's predecessors, or be a more childish adventure. Because of this, it is difficult to get on board with the plot or believe in any of the characters. The same happens with Oz. Franco just sort of fumbles his way through Oz and eventually saves the day, when it's made clear to us (and him) that there is a whole lot of serious shit at stake. The whole movie ends up being way too long. The characters get old very quickly, and all you want to do is explore Oz more. Once you get tied down in the stupidity of the plot, you just lose interest.

Even the music seems to be taken from another movie. And in a way, it is. (Hmm, still sounds like I'm describing The Hobbit). Danny Elfman and Sam Raimi worked together on the original Spider-Man trilogy, and the music was noticeably similar to that of Spider Man 3.

All in all, this movie is just a big budget time filler. Not much originality, or groundbreaking story or technology. For a little while, it is nice to look at. But even that doesn't last long. (Also, one of the people I was with said it was completely contradictory to the show Wicked, which is also a prequel of sorts to the original movie. I can't vouch for this, but if you've seen one, you may find the other frustrating.)

-----------------------------------------------------------

Hm, perhaps these theater reviews need some sort of rating system as well. How about a checklist of sorts?

Would I recommend it: well, did you just read all that stuff I wrote? Decide for yourself.

Did I enjoy it: Mildly

Would I see it again: Definitely not in theaters. And I wouldn't bother with a DVD purchase or rental. Maybe if a group of us were going to watch something, but even then I'd suggest something else.

Maybe it should've been more like this.