Oz: The Great and Powerful

If there's anything I hate most about classic Hollywood, it's the three-star The Wizard of Oz in ethereal Technicolor colors, the auteurist wonder Citizen Kane, and The Wisconsin School. Yet, amazingly, Raimi's visionary approach and love of 1905 technological advances did the trick. So, if James Franco, who has proven he can play leading roles in spectacles and downright intimate dramas about a man, a rock and a hand, Bruce Campbell in a horrible mask, Ted Raimi somewhere in the crowd, Danny Elfman over a sheet of music, etc., are all in place, then everything is perfectly fine. The epicenter of pleasure is based on the presence of the praxinoscope and other technical proto-crap, the Edison name, and on the fact that 3D has its cards nicely laid out on the table (in-depth and off the screen), and I actually experienced for the first time what Curly Sue did back in 1991. What a time gap! The porcelain girl was incredibly sweet, but somehow I still can't figure out which of the witches was more loveable. Finally, proper girl wars! (03/06/2013)

James Franco is badly miscast here. The two witches played by Mila Kunis and Rachel Weisz cannot hold a candle to the Charlize Theron from Snow White and the Huntsman. The only thrilling scene in the film is the chase with the muscley guy in the black and white prologue. And the only magical moments are those with the porcelain doll. This didn’t turn out well, which is surprising with Sam Raimi, who is generally successful, be it in small thrillers and horror movies or blockbusters. (03/14/2013)

I might have considered adding an extra star if the creators hadn't shamelessly borrowed from Tim Burton and added colors that reminded me of Pushing Daisies. Unfortunately, the movie didn't quite hit the mark for me. Rachel Weisz was more appealing to my eye than Michelle Williams, so it didn't take long for me to realize I was leaning toward the dark side of the force. Mila Kunis was also in the mix, whom I'm not particularly fond of. Thankfully, she underwent a transformation early on and became more tolerable. But let's be honest, it didn't salvage the story, and I can't say I was impressed by this prequel to Dorothy's adventures. / Lesson learned: Even a warehouse worker in a factory can read Virgil in the original, and even a carnival magician can become a king. (06/24/2022)

A very beautiful fairy tale, but I was (unpleasantly) surprised by how "anti" the main character was. And for that, I won’t give it a fifth star even if I wanted to. Otherwise, however, I am one of those who was moved by the gluing of the porcelain doll's feet, enchanted by the colored world (cursing Raimi's "coloring book" would be like cursing Technicolor from the original film), and amused by the digital monkey. James Franco is good, but it’s too bad that he’s not particularly sympathetic, the trio of witches is perfect, and Danny Elfman's score is more than pleasant (the theme!). Four and a half. (03/12/2013)

OK, I don't know what specifically caught Raimi's attention in the 150th generic version of the plot, i.e., "the hero travels to a fantastic realm where three witches rule, one of whom is evil and only he can defeat her." The fact is that the implementation is not bad at all and the result is definitely not an unnecessary remake (Franco really does not resemble Judy Garland, the whole story is about something completely different, and the framework of the world is absolutely different), or prequel, as I thought for a while. So, it's simply different in terms of genre and content than the famous game with songs and a dog from 1939, a song in which the funny-awkward James Franco sings a slightly varying chorus “I'm a bastard / liar / charlatan" and women fall into his lustful arms as if he was Rudolph Valentino. After the poetic, funny and imaginative introduction, it is followed by a widescreen hyper-colored 3D fair with lots of digital flowers, a pastel mindfuck and cute creatures, which, however, Raimi handles with more forethought and irony than Alice’s Burton. He also manages to play around a bit, pay homage to the moving images, and to pay tribute to the details of his predecessor from the late 1930s, but I wouldn't say that he explains to me why I should watch this recycled plot and listen to the second-rate melodramatic croaking of witches. In addition, the 1939 version seems to me to be much smarter, more thoughtful and has nicer singing... and it’s just better in general. (03/07/2013)