Oz: The Great and Powerful

For the first half, I was seething with the words: "This isn't a movie, it's just a dusty attraction!". A chain carousel that gives you the creeps, a product for one purpose: so that the capos at Disney can afford new limousines. But there is one big BUT. Although I subscribe to a completely different world of cinema, I ended up feeling like someone on a weight loss diet who visits a candy store with all its delicacies wrapped in colorful and at first glance tempting packaging, and bites into one of them. Superficial, I know, but sometimes you just succumb to something like that easily. The last act improved the final impression, and the incorporation of technical conveniences into the fairy tale world was reminiscent of the best of The Wizard of Oz from 1939, or Vaughn's Stardust, which is still proof that a fairytale can be done in a clever way. So in the end....in the end, it wasn't as silly and overwrought as the disastrous trailer might make it seem. (03/09/2013)

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)

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)

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)

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)