Oz: The Great and Powerful

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)

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)

Raimi has taken a story for little girls and re-vamped it into a movie for little boys with a soft-spot for machinery and magic tricks. Edison’s legacy is alive even here and I’m glad. However, it fails when confronted with real magic and some aspects are very jarring. Paradoxically, it is the Land of Oz itself, its laws and its fame are responsible for this, because the story about a dapper fraudster who finds good inside himself works only in terms of its artiness, but is spoiled by the poor production design, full of obviously digital or even plastic substitutes for the real world. Franco isn’t suited to a world like that, but that’s what I liked about his Oz. He’s a modern person, but with fantasy and ending up in this strange land doesn’t surprise him, he just wants to get as many laughs as he can from it (the scene with the cashier reminds me of Scrooge McDuck). I didn’t like the trio of magicians one bit. Just Mila Kunis was magically naive at the beginning, but things went downhill with her after her transformation. If a new and original world were presented or if I were younger, I would have given Oz: the Great and Powerful more. P.S.: I get Alice in Wonderland and the Wizard of Oz confused and these alternative stories don’t help me at all. Is it only me, or you have a similar problem? (05/28/2013)

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)

As it sometimes happens, you get movies reviewed here at Filmbooster that most people would expect to provide them at least with some proper cinematographic entertainment. Well, Sam Raimi is no dummy, so it was clear also that what he would make wouldn’t be your typical genre movie, but a typical blockbuster that can make a lot of money. And if I set aside the sometimes too wacky editing, or the crazy camerawork, and given the way people criticize this movie and bring it down to average, I was pretty satisfied. Sure, you can see that the whole thing is shot in front of a green screen, but I didn’t mind that. The premise of the story is a bit different than what you’d expect. This is no Alice in Wonderland. At times, it’s scary, especially the characters of the witches themselves – that’s pretty typical for the director… and at times it can really lift you up and make you laugh. And that’s good to know. The movie has it in it. The fact that it’s not the way everybody had dreamed it would be and everybody’s upset, that’s another thing. Sam Raimi simply made a fairy-tale with everything that entails. I was satisfied and I must admit that James Franco’s transformation in this movie was flawless. (02/05/2014)