Oz, the Great and Powerful - Page 2

Can't keep my eyes open but here goes. Did the Oz thing tonight. DEFINITELY more a kids movie than one for the adults and yes, James Franco screwed the pooch on yet another role. Can't this guy do anything right? The formula is all one we've seen before. Where the "dog of a protagonist", thanks to a bevy of friends he meets along the way, finds the inner hero and saves the day. At least you get to see how the main characters become who they are. " Yeah, it'll probably make a buttload of money this weekend. My take - "Oz, The Great and Powerful" had a golden opportunity at a prequel and dropped it. The movie was short on story line and heavy on the CGI. Did I mention that Franco screwed the pooch...again?

Well, that's a shocker!

You wouldn't mind if I urinated on your childhood too, would you?

Don't get me wrong. I can still tap into my childhood and I still love the movie. Now if you read the books (and there are quite a number of them), you'll know that there's a lot that was left out so a continuation is definitely within the realm of possibility. With that said, I am no longer a child and would like to see something darker that would be of interest to a wizened old geezer like me.
Edited by smudge981 - 3/10/13 at 10:24am

What is it about this guy that makes him a "go to" actor? I've heard the term "one-dimensional" thrown around but in this movie, his acting was just downright annoying! Half way through the movie, I was hoping that Dorothy would make a cameo and have the house drop on him.

Seriously, I think that is a fascinating question and have often wondered how this is done in Hollywood.

Another guy who was, for a little while, a "go to" actor as well: Sam Worthington.
The guy came out of NOWHERE to pick all of those high-profile leads.

Danny McBride is another one I don't understand. How is it that he's offered all these roles? Whose sick pictures does he have?

This was definitely more of a kids movie, and James Franco should really stick to comedies. Stoner comedies. I was tired of his toothy grin and one dimensional acting, maybe fifteen minutes into the movie.

It seemed to me from the reaction from the crowd (and other websites) it was definitely a women and kids movie. When my girlfriend turned to me and asked how I liked it, I knew it was a trick question ("Yes, honey, I loved it!") Franco really forced his character which made him look like one big cliche. The script was another problem.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Coming soon: Oz: Greater & Powerfuler! You just know, based on these early returns, it's already in development.

I'm predicting a huge 2nd week drop via word-of-mouth. And to the general movie-going public, I have one favor: Quit turning out to see James Franco in a movie. You're only encouraging him. Signed, me.

Agreed....that's another guy who has the talent of my shoelaces.

I guess nobody has read or remembers the source material. Let me explain, L. Frank Baum wrote 14 full length novels plus one short story collection. Disney's second film (the 2013 Oz the Great and Powerful) plus the 1939 MGM musical The Wizard of Oz are both derived from events in the first book which was titled The Wonderfull Wizard of Oz - and yet there is enough source material left for a couple of more films, Dorothy and her three companions had many adventures in Oz. The 1985 film (Return to Oz) introduced some characters and plotlines from several later books.

I'll have to say, the movie that strays the furthest from the source is the 1939 MGM musical. This is NOT a happy or light-hearted story, any more than is the original Hanzel and Gretel (which was about children cannibalized during the Dark Ages) or LOTR, which is intense adult fantasy (unlike The Hobbit which is a modern saccharin children's story). Both Disney films have now been criticized as scary and intense, a charge that has also on occaision been levelled against the 1939 musical production. Such charges are entirely accurate and they are true to the source books.

The first Oz book is in fact scary and intense, just as was Grimm's Fairy Tales and most such stories. They are products of another time, when nobody sought to "protect" children from the scary and intense real world. As everyone who has survived a camping trip knows, the very best storytellers around the campfire tell the most scary and disturbing stories, those that cause nightmares. Then for good measure they make a sudden loud sound and make you jump out of your skin....nothing imprints memory like a good jolt of adrenalin...

I would criticize Disney and MGM for toning down and taming the Oz material far too much. As for the quality of the production including the acting involved, I would rate all three Oz films as follows: 1) The 1985 Return To Oz 2) The 1939 The Wizard of Oz and 3) The 2013 Oz the Great and Powerful.

I was disappointed. No reason not to wait for the BluRay on this one. I definately would not get a ticket just to watch the 3D or evaluate the sound mix.

Gary was able to take the time to explain what I already knew. Fairy tales, such as those purported by Grimm, were not meant to entertain but to keep children in line. Although a lot of Baum's children literature didn't have morals, they had a LOT of violence. Which reminds me of more thing. Baum wasn't a fan of romance in his childrens books. Guess what we got in "Oz, the Great and Powerful?" That's why I look forward to someone who is willing to be true to the books (and like Gary said, there are many books to draw from.)

We went to see it yesterday. I liked it. My daughter loved it as well as my wife. All 3 of us were, for once, rather pleased with the 3D. Franco at times seemed to not care much about his role. Sam Raimi in some scenes can't help himself and reminds his audience where he comes from, that was cool! The youngest kids in the theater jumped more than once in certain scenes I'll sure buy it, and I'm looking forward to the sequel. I thought the opening credits were an amazing sequence. Unfortunately, I was expecting more from Danny Elfman, his main theme is lovely, but it never fullly develops which was a bit disappointing. I guess it's as good in 2D (a bit heavy on the "in your face" effects imo) even if, again, I enjoyed seeing it in 3D.

What age do you think this is appropriate for?

My youngest is 7 so the croods seem like a safer bet, but my kids did like the trailer for this. There just seemed to be a promise of a little more intensity in OZ which might be better for the adults than Croods, but I want to make sure my 7 year old enjoys whatever we see.

Same here man. How in the hell and who in the heck would hire a James Franco for any movie much less this one. I honestly hate this guy I think even more than Shia Lebouf. I honestly want to see this movie but when I see his name it's like WHAT?, again.

It's hard to say. My daughter is 12 she started to watch a few horror movies recently (mostly PG-13 ghost movies). But most of the time if I'm not watching them with her, some scenes end up too scary. As for Oz, it's a PG film with "some scary images". These scary images are not really scary but the way they are brought it can be a little too much for a 7 year old. Having said that, throughout the movie there's really many, many things to enjoy for a young kid, so I would definitely take a 7 year old. The specific scenes (or should I say shots) are near the end of the film during the climax, and we're talking about only a handful of shots. There's no blood of course. It's your call obviously, but even if Sam Raimi directed it, Oz is still a visually beautiful, kid-friendly Disney movie imo.

I wanted to like this. I really did.


The good:

Excellent 3-D, with some of the best pop-out I have ever seen. The B&W scenes are handled imaginatively too.

Beautiful production design and costume design.

China girl. An Oz inhabitant that can proudly stand with the MGM ones.

A good and clever climax.


The bad:

The script. How they make these multi-zillion dollar things with such faulty scripting continues to baffle me.

The script could have been greatly improved if there weren't pacing problems too. It should not be this slow.

The direction. Raimi is in demand because he has proven he can do F/X intensive films, but he is miserable with actors. Mila is just lost, and I looove Mila.

James Franco. He plays the wizard as a shallow coward. It's a way of doing it, but it leaves a big hole in the middle of the picture. Robert Downey would have been ideal, but he must have read the script.

It's too long. It needs to lose fifteen minutes at least.



If you think you're interested then by all means go see it. It's not bad, but ultimately it may simply wear you out rather than delight you

All I can say is, "wow". Maybe we're easier to please, but we enjoyed the heck out of this film. Beautiful to look at, all the tie-ins to the '39 film. Clever. As for Franco playing this as a shallow coward, that fits, too. That's how Frank Morgan played him. Okay, Robert Downey Jr could have played this perfectly, his old smarmy self, but we thought Franco was fine.

Honestly, what do people want? All gunfire and blood?

We think this deserves box office.

Ok members who have seen this,
Is this oz flick a mandatory 3d viewing experience?

Depends. If you like 3D and would normally pick out a 3D showing over the 2D one, yes. It''s one of the better ones lately.

Each time I saw the preview, I thought "No way. Looks like a dumb CGI fest."

But then I read a couple positive reviews and decided to see it this weekend with the younger granddaughter. Based on the reviews I opted for the Real D 3D showing (but not willing to pay big bucks for 3D IMAX / Lie-Max).

It was a lot of fun, and the 3D was well worth it, IMO. I'm not sure why they did the opening sequence in B&W rather than sepia like the original. The allusions to the original were cute and not overly forced, and the way they connected some of his Oz adventures with what had happened earlier in B&W Kansas was good, too.

If they ever make a movie of Wicked, there will now be conflicting "origin" stories.

Unlike the original, though, I don't know if the acting or the story would hold up to repeat viewings. I guess time will tell. I didn't really care all that much for the character or appearance of Finley, the flying monkey.
Edited by eweiss - 3/17/13 at 8:31pm

It must be the Stonecutters - they're the ones behind Steve Gutenberg, after all

Attended the IMAX-3D version last night and overall a disappointing movie with very little to recommend unless you're in the 5-8 age group.

As many people who have gone to see this, I'm surprised there hasn't been more comments. Maybe if we changed the thread to "Prometheus, the Great and Powerful."

Well we wasted some $$ seeing this pile of nap inducing poop! My wife and 2 daughters ADORE the Wizard of Oz. I assumed then that they would feel the same about Oz.....uuuhhh NOOOO!!

I noticed about an hour in in that my wife's head was tipped and had not moved in about half an hour. I nudged her awake and she immediately mouthed,"This is terrible!" Afterwards she admitted that she had no idea when the monkey came along! Both of my daughters had the same sentiment. BAD casting, terrible script. Ridiculously soft cg (expect for the monkey and china girl)! !/10 on imdb for me!! This joke of a film made me think of the snooze fest Once upon a time with a massive CG budget!!

yep, we saw the same movie. Razzies?

I guess I must be 6-1/2 years old, then.