In 2010 Tim Burton's "Alice in Wonderland" made a billion dollars and opened the flood gates for all sorts of "dark fairy tale knockoffs" for kids. "Alice" itself was a rather mediocre disappointment, and it unfortunately yielded even worse films like "Snow White and the Huntsman" and "Red Riding Hood." In that tradition, comes the slightly better "Oz the Great and Powerful."
The film, like "Alice" and "Huntsman" was produced by Joe Roth. And the biggest problem for me is the fact that ALL of Roth's fairy tale adaptations follows the EXACT same formula: The land of "__insert mystical land__" was once a happy place until "___insert villain name____" came along and turned it into a dystopia. But there's a prophecy that "___insert hero name___" will come along and save the kingdom. The problem is "___insert hero name____" does not want to be the hero the land of "___insert mystical land____" needs. Along the way "____insert hero name_______" meets some kooky friends and soon realizes their full potential, defeats "___insert villain name_____" and saves the land of "____insert mystical land_____".
See what I mean? It's literally the exact same formula that has repeated itself in every fairy tale movie Roth has produced behind some visually stunning director. And unfortunately, "Oz" doesn't attempt to make things any more original. Which is a big waste considering the visuals are great, the acting (for majority of the cast) is good, and the fantastic direction by Sam Raimi deserves more.
Nevertheless, those 3 aforementioned strengths are just minimally enough to make Oz stand out as a better film than any of the other Roth productions--particularly Raimi's direction. Raimi has a tendency to make various sequences throughout the movie both inventive and charming, starting with a really interesting introduction to the film that harks back to the original "Wizard of Oz" complete with a 35mm black and white small screen. It gives everything a classy feel, but Raimi's not afraid to break those barriers, having elements of the story literally pop out of the frames, taking full advantage of the 3D technology. From there, once you go from Kansas, a small world, to Oz, an enormous, magical, visually incredible land, Raimi expands the frame and changes everything to color to show the expansiveness of the land of Oz, and also to immerse the audience. From there, we get some signature Raimi situations--quick paced crooked camera zoom-ins during horror scenes, rising tension that pauses then is broken by some horror surprise (2 scenes with "witch reveals" call back to some of Raimi's signature "Deadite" reveals from the "Evil Dead" franchise), the obligatory Bruce Campbell cameo--all make you really feel at home, if you're a fan of Raimi's work.
Additionally, the visual effects and the CG-constructed landscapes the team at Imageworks have brought to life are astounding. Oz is simply gorgeous. The minor details like plants, landscapes, building architecture, etc. around the Emerald City, the Munchkin village, and the more savage areas (like the woods, China town, the countryside along the Yellow Brick Road) look very similar to the work done on "Alice in Wonderland" but have a more naturalistic look. I think honestly the production design and art direction are brilliant and original. You really wanted to go there in real life.
Another major strength of Oz, is that, for as weak and cliched as the overall story is, being a prequel, there are a TON of clever twists to the Oz mythology. Some of my favorite scenes involve how Oz actually becomes the floating head in the Emerald City, and how the Wicked Witch of the West became the character she is in the original movie. Additionally, we get references to Oz mythology elements like scarecrows, talking birds, the Oz guards, etc.We even get to see some very realistic looking, scary flying baboon monkeys. All of this is a fairly original take on these elements. It's just a pity that they're wasted on a flat story. It's a situation where the parts actually end up being greater than the whole.
As far as performances go, the female leads really drive this movie. Rachel Weitz is fantastic and looks like she's having a blast as Evanora, who would become the Wicked Witch of the East. One of the standout moments in the film is the climactic battle between her and Michelle Williams' Glinda, where she transforms into a completely hideous hag, and the two have an exciting battle that looks like something out of the Star Wars prequels (complete with Force lightning). Michelle Williams is also wholesome, sweet, and pragmatic as Glinda. She looks the part, and plays it perfectly, without being completely over-saccharine. But (and I know I'm in the minority here), I was especially fond of Mila Kunis' character and performance as Theodora, who later becomes the Wicked Witch of the West. Most reviews have criticized Kunis as the weak link among the female leads, but to me, she really carried out the pain and naivety of a young lady, scorned by the false hope of love, and ultimately goes madly over-the-top with terror and rage after she is cruelly tricked into her transformation into the Wicked Witch of the West. I must say, one of my favorite scenes is the reveal of her new persona, as she telekinetically throws Franco's Oz around like a rag doll. Additionally Joey King provides a lot of heart as The China Girl who's essentially adopted by Oz and Glinda. And Zach Braff provides some much-needed comic relief into the movie, just straddling the lines between charmingly funny, but kind of annoying (hey it's Zach Braff, after all).
The unfortunate weak link in the entire ensemble, however, is Franco. I know Franco has been nominated for an Oscar before, for his turn in "127 Hours," but in general, I just don't think he's a very strong leading man. His line delivery really flirts with over-campy/corny, and there's barely any charisma there on-screen, for a character that's really supposed to be charming and sleezy, but also sympathetic and brilliant. We get none of that from Franco. The real pity here is that the part of Oz was originally supposed to be Robert Downey Jr.'s. And when you watch the movie, you get why. This is character that's a womanizing, screw up of a man, and a terrible con artist, who is secretly inventive and brilliant, and actually has a heart of gold deep down inside, and will eventually do the right thing--basically it's a Tony Stark. The thing is, Downey is very good at portraying flawed and vulnerable, yet brilliant and hilariously dysfunctional. James Franco, on the other hand, is just not. He's boring and unconvincing. And though he does more here than he did, say, hosting the Oscars in 2011, that's honestly not saying much. We get behind a character like Oz because we know what he's supposed to be through the writing, and not from the on-screen portrayal, which is a definite shame.
At the end of the day, "Oz" hasn't exactly convinced me to get behind the same tired "Joe Roth Fairy Tale Theatre" formula that he's done every year since "Alice" came out. For a movie that's trying to stand out and astonish you, it unfortunately really doesn't attempt to do anything at all to reinvent the wheel, which is both disappointing, and slightly lazy on paper. Fortunately though, in terms of execution, the movie is enhanced by nice visuals, good direction, and fairly strong performances from most of the cast (with the exception of the one character that should have the strongest performance, but failed). It's just enough to save an otherwise tired film from falling into the same bland footsteps into mediocrity that its predecessors directly kamikazed into. It's not great--it just simply is alright. And at the very least, better than Spider-Man 3.
Overall Grade: B-
