Review: "Oz: the Great and Powerful"
Sunday, March 10, 2013 at 3:01PM 
This review was originally published @ Towleroad in my weekly column
You're basically asking for a trouble with that title, you know? OZ: THE GREAT AND POWERFUL. It doesn't take a crystal ball to predict how this will turn out. If the movie is neither great nor powerful, tomatoes will be thrown. It feels weird to abbreviate the new picture as simply Oz, since it's a derivation rather than an original, so we'll call it Great and Powerful moving forward despite the misdirection. The filmmakers would approve since the movie begins with a clear and charming admission that James Franco's "Oscar Diggs" is no wizard at all but a travelling con-artist. So I come not to throw tomatoes (too easy), at least not at first, but to marvel at how red they are as they fly through the air.
The trailer brags that the movie comes from the producers of Tim Burton's Eyesore in Wonderland, a gargantuan box office success but one of the worst films of the new century, so there was cause to worry. Could any film be as simultaneously garish and muddy to look at? The happy answer is no. 3D technology has come a long way and director Sam Raimi (most famous for the Spider-Man and Evil Dead trilogies) has far more taste and control of his color palette than Burton has had recently.
more... After the movie's old fashioned title sequence and Kansas-set prologue, introducing us to Franco's womanizing wizard before he's whisked off to Oz (you know how), every color of the rainbow does make an appearance. They often share the frame but rather than a muddy color assault, the rainbow here behaves like a joyous community, intermingling peacefully and taking turns in the spotlight. In some small ways it's a worthy tribute to the joys of Golden Age Technicolor. That's especially true when the eye-popping color meets a great visual idea like the Wicked Witch's fiery silhouette (shadow play being a favorite tactic of Raimi's) or a terrific climactic image like the Wizard's pompous arrival in the Emerald City via clouds of colored smoke and cinematic projection.
So, points for visual prowess but visual prowess ages rapidly in cinema. People don't still watch The Wizard of Oz seventy-four years later because the effects look cutting edge. They watch it for Judy Garland and those adorable Friends of Dorothy.
The character work in Great and Powerful is hit and miss. After sleepwalking through his Oscar-hosting gig and Rise of the Planet of the Apes, James Franco is suddenly awake again, an irony of sorts since Oz is a dreamland. In the absence of tin men, cowardly lions, and scarecrows we get a flying monkey and a china doll as companions to the hero and while they're cute they won't become iconic companions. The movie has the most trouble, though, with its three witches: Michelle Wiliams cuts a hypnotic figure as "Glinda the Good" but the movie doesn't give her any opportunity to flesh out the character and strangely there's not a hint of the prissy humor that defined the character in both Billie Burke and Kristin Chenoweth's takes so she doesn't always feel like Glinda per se; Rachel Weisz has the least to do as "Evanora" but she's good with a line reading; But Mila Kunis is, I'm sad to say, an absolute disaster as her sister "Theodora." Some actors understand style and the heightened qualities of genre acting but Kunis is utterly lost which handicaps the movie considerably.
But the most disappointing thing about Great and Powerful which is a bit better than it ought to be thanks to Sam Raimi's visual giddiness, is that there's just not much to talk about that isn't in some way a paraphrase of "So… how about that the immortal 1939 musical!?!" So why fight it…
My absolute favorite soundbyte from The Wizard of Oz (and the competition is stiff) though not my favorite shot is when Dorothy Gale discovers the Tin Man, feet first. The camera pans up with Dorothy's eye from legs to crotch to torso to face.
Why, it's a man!"
For all of that clip's gay camp value, it's completely asexual; Dorothy is never thinking about boys. If The Wizard of Oz is an innocent child, than Great and Powerful is a horny teenager. But unlike the 1939 classic it serves the male ego despite the largely female cast. When the claws come out (literally), it's weirdly sexist as a result.
Look I'm not above a good cat fight. There's almost nothing funnier in The Wizard of Oz than Glinda's helium-voiced Queen Bee dismissals of the Wicked Witch ("only bad witches are ugly"). In fact, the original cattiness enabled a whole modern wave of sympathy for the devil (i.e. The Wicked Witch of the West) in rethinks like "Wicked" and Great and Powerful that wondered how she got that way. But at its heart the 1939 classic was a heroine's journey that spun on the bravery and kindness of a young girl testing her strength and resolve in a frightening world.
Though the three witches in Oz are all quite powerful, they are rendered powerless when a man enters the equation. Even a man who admits he is without power. It's not really about about who sits on the Emerald City's throne but who sits beside the man who will sit there. The plot spins not on transporting tornadoes but on the con-artist's seductive charms and HOW CRAZY WOMEN GET IF A MAN DOESN'T LOVE THEM! 'Someday their Prince/Wizard will come' being the takeaway. If you're really going to Follow the Mighty Dick Road at least have a little camp fun with your ode to the patriachy ! Great and Powerful hedges its bets here by taking it too seriously and extending an olive branch to the Wicked Witch because it's not her fault she's so crazy. James Franco, you see, is just too irresistible in Sepia or Technicolor.
Grade: C
Oscar Chances: That all depends on how the blockbusters do this year, critically speaking, some years having multiple Dark Knights, others multiple Battleships. If 2013's would be megahits fare poorly, you can expect Oz to fight for a few tech nods like Art Direction, Visual FX, and maybe Score and Sound? (I'd be alarmed if Costume Design happened. I have no idea what the hell Gary Jones, who has done Oscar-nominated work on The Talented Mr Ripley among other considerable efforts, was going for with Mila Kunis' ensembles.) Strangely, though they hired Mariah Carey to do an Original Song they've buried it in the closing credits which means it won't be eligible for Oscar play. Did Hollywood learn nothing from Madonna's W.E. mistake?
Reader Comments (21)
Yeah, it's so pointless to contract songs (good, bad, or average) from talented megastars if they're immediately disqualified from Oscar consideration. Even more baffling that Madonna did it in a movie she directed. In all but very rare cases (musicals, Bond movies, and Titanic) original songs are totally irrelevant to the film itself. The category is back-asswards as it is, so why make it harder?
If I were an A-List diva and was asked to pen a song for a movie, you better believe I'd get approval on where it appears in the final cut.
In a word: horrible. Walked out about 90 minutes in, following another couple who also walked out. Writing and dialogue are really flat, and the jokes are not funny. James Franco and Mila Kunis seemed lifeless. Rachel Weisz had some nice flair, but she could only do so much with a few scenes. Michelle Williams was bland. Featuring Zach Braff as the monkey says it all.
Hm... well, I agree with parts of this. I actually liked it quite a bit. I'd argue the issues with Kunis largely stem from her essentially starting out as a weak character, but I liked the twist ***SPOILERS*** that it wasn't her choice. Her sister capitalized on her slight heartache and voila, we have the strained relationships. That was always an interesting piece of Oz - Glinda, the Wizard and the Wicked Witch clearly have a history, and it feels as if they were all close at one point, in some way. Anyway, Kunis was just OK but while the material doesn't give her enough meat to shine, I don't mind this origin story for her.
Williams - I was concerned about the soft voiced take, thinking of the quippy bubbly Glinda, but she was able to sell me sticky sweet with a surprisingly knowing wink to the audience. Too much snark might have ruined her, but a couple lines (fireworks and the talk about her people's perception) made me see some grit behind the smile. I was thrilled by the witch fight, personally - it gave me the same glee LOTR did with the wizard fight.
I actually think the Wizard was a perfect sleazy Dorothy replacement, and considering the character from the movie, I thought that was dead on. The Wizard is a putz. We can ultimately cheer him on because he barely steps beyond his selfishness. I'm kind of impressed they didn't try to make him heroic, because it really wouldn't fit for me. The colors were lovely, the references were clever, and while I knew it would never come close to the original, I could watch the two of them together without getting annoyed. That's all I could expect.
I was thinking that if I didn't see this it would be the first Raimi movie I've skipped in theaters since the early-90s, and how that would be a shame. But given the reviews, I think I'm actually fine with it.
The only actress who gives a great performance is Rachel Weisz, who gives a very fun acting turn here. In fact, she's more fun than the movie deserved. Michelle Williams comes in second and that's because she like Weisz gives a better performance than this film deserved. Both Weisz and Williams lift this movie to a better place but that's a hard thing to do with James Franco giving a career worse performance (He's that badly miscast) and Mila Kunis basically crappy all over her role as the Wicked Witch of the West.
The one positive thing I'll say for Kunis is that the camera *loves* her face when she is in good witch mode, but I agree, she seemed to be stuck going full cartoon when she became the Wicked Witch. Her voice was exactly the same as it was before...not that she had to change, but something less flat would've been appreciated. I'm pretty excited to see what Angelina Jolie does with Maleficient because I do think she will understand her villain will call for something over-the-top.
Overall, I did enjoy it and I loved the two companions...the monkey was adorable and China Doll was a bit like the heart at times.
Franco and Weisz impressed me the most because they seemed to be having fun.
In the minority, but I preferred Kunis to both Weisz and Williams. I found her more alive and compelling than the other two. And since I'm not planning a rewatch any time soon, that's going to be how I remember these performances.
I'm of a different mind with the acting. Michelle Williams, Rachel Weisz, and Mila Kunis (dumped with one of the worst developed characters in a big budget fantasy I've ever seen) take a far more natural approach to the material than James Franco. It is Franco's mugging at the camera and inability to get through a scene without looking like a 1990s tune with attitude video game character that hurts the other performers. His approach is a huge distraction onscreen and his scene partners have nothing to bounce off of.
Mila Kunis suffers not from a lack of genre experience or repertoire (American Psycho 2 is a bad film but she gives a phenomenal performance as a co-ed version of Patrick Bateman) but an inability to react to Franco's choices. Her character exists as a foil to his character--she is less developed than the Emerald City guard, the china doll only named China Girl, even the strongman with two brief scene in the beginning of the film--but his character is already so off the wall and cartoonish in its expression that this source of pure innocence as a foil is doomed to fail.
No actress would have come out of that role with James Franco as the sum total of her motivation without looking like she screwed up everything. He didn't respond to a single thing the other actors in the film did. He slapped on a permanent goofy grin and tried to Captain Jack his way through a trip to Oz.
This movie needed Ewan McGregor. That's all I'm saying.
Robert G -- then explain to me how Michelle Williams came off just fine? Mila Kunis was AWFUL in this movie. No understanding of style or heightened caricature... nothing that actors playing children's fantasy regularly need. I don't understand blaming Franco for another actor's failings.
Actors in heavily greenscreened movies need to be able to act completely alone as if they are getting alot from nothing since even if that's what Franco was giving her, it's still totally on her that she did a bad job.
When everything is fake, then nothing is real. That's what I thought of the movie. Not much heart, brains, or courage, but lots of candy-colored eye-popping visuals. In 2039, we'll still be talking about Judy Garland and "The Wizard of Oz". This one? Not so much.
Williams is always humorless, always. That's why her Marilyn could never have worked. (I am saying this because your affirmation doesn't surprise me, not because I bothered to see this movie).
I really have alot of hatred towards that giant (purple?) hat on Mila's head.
Ridiculous.
and i haven't even seen the movie yet.
I didn't hate it - I never saw "Alice in Wonderland" so can't comment on that - but it has issues. I found its relation to music really disappointing (Franco's cutting off the film's lone musical number because, oh I dunno, it's girly and not cool?) and as you say Kunis is disastrous. Rachel Weisz's wide-eyed horror at what Kunis is doing opposite her is obvious.
I liked this a LOT more than I was expecting, but then, i was expecting a full-on, unmitigated disaster, so... yay, low expectations?
But seriously, I think it was the Kansas scenes that endeared me to the movie. Combined with the opening credits (why do so few movies nowadays have ANY opening credits at all, let alone GREAT ones?), the opening of the film had the best use of 3D I've ever seen. It was actually beautiful, which surprised me a lot. Put Sam Raimi down on the very short list of directors who apparently know how to use 3D to its best advantage.
I thought James Franco was very good - certainly better than the three witches. Michelle Williams got stuck with a bland, self-help cliche-spouting "character" who is nothing like the Glinda we know and love; Rachel Weisz didn't go quite as far as she could have; and Mila Kunis is woefully out of her depth as soon as her character transforms. I can think of at least a dozen other actresses who would have sold that character better.
Overall, I liked it as an Oz origin story more than Wicked the musical, but not as much as Wicked the novel. I had a lot more fun than I ever would have expected, and it's the best 2013 movie I've seen so far (not that it has much competition). It has its faults, but Raimi is such a great showman that I am more than content to just admire the surface and go with the rush, even if later on I can see I've been conned.
Michelle Williams had a character to work with. Mila Kunis did not. It's very hard to add dimension to "I love him for no reason/I hate him for no reason/Now I'm evil for no reason" compared to adding dimension to "I'm fighting against an evil no one else truly understands for the good of the entire world and have the brain capacity to understand I'm dealing with a conman."
I think the best example of my theory is how radically different Rachel Weisz's performance is from scene to scene. She's convincingly evil and powerful when up against Michelle Williams or Mila Kunis. She's far more stilted, weak, and unsure in her long one-on-one scene with James Franco. It did not come across as manipulation as the screenplay called for to me. It came across as an inability to act the scene out when her scene partner was performing in a completely different film.
I have major issues with Franco and the screenplay. Kunis, to me, got stuck with a lot of bad creative choices beyond her control. She didn't design that terrible makeup scheme. She didn't cast James Franco and tell him to pull his face like Roger Rabbit. And she certainly didn't write a foil and cut it to the be the female lead in the film. I thought her first few scenes were solid and all of the garbage with the big wicked witch scenes was terrible (which includes Kunis, the production design, the dialogue, the plot, the effects, the makeup, the music, Franco's own bizarre transformation, all the way through Mariah Carey's ridiculous song at the end of the credits).
I know my viewing history of low budget genre and exploitation films causes me to come down lighter on an actor when the screenplay is terrible and that's where I think a major disconnect is. I'm not a big Kunis fan. She was very good in Black Swan and Forgetting Sarah Marshall. She made good choices in a terrible direct to video sequel to American Psycho. Everything else is kind of forgettable. I think she's capable of more than she's done but, honestly, none of the actors cast in this film are exactly the people you think of when you're taking big budget spectacle. It, like Wonderland, is a production spectacle and that's the only place it trumps Tim Burton's own ridiculous, so bad you have to laugh at it fairy tale prequel/reimagining. I didn't cringe every time characters opened their mouths in Wonderland. I just felt bad for the living mannequins on film. Here, I cringed and kept wishing they would cut all the dialogue and just be spectacle.
I agree with Nathaniel, I thought Franco was fine.
It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't good either. Weisz and Williams were the most fun because they embraced their one-note roles. Kunis, well, she's nice to look at. Visuals were outstanding, as everyone's noted, and I think the effects will make it to Oscar.
Just saw it.
Mila, what happened?
Some of her scenes were like they picked up a pretty girl off the street and cast her as a witch. Her crying scene in front of the mirror? Oh my. She really could've aced that part so i won't say miscast, but just a missed opportunity. Plus, her character is a bit of a hot mess anyways.
Mila Kunis deserves a Razzie for this movie. Just awful.
Don't approach this movie in the context of the original Judy Garland musical. It's basically a re-telling of beauty and the beast. How a selfish jerk can reform if a woman loves him enough to show him the good within himself.