Oz the Great and Powerful suffers from the same condition that so many prequels do, in that it seems obsessed with explaining things that don’t require an explanation. How did the Wicked Witch turn green? Where did the Wizard get his cool projection image? Seriously, what’s the deal with munchkins? Well, now I know and, quite frankly, I really didn’t need to know.
Prequel films that focus on having a stand-alone story have the most success, and those who seek to give a so-that’s-how-it-happened explanation seem to bomb; largely because they force themselves in the shadow of the original. And if we’re talking about one of the greatest, most historically significant, films of all time – yeah, you probably don’t want to force your way into its story too much, because you just can’t compare. Much like the failed sequel Return to Oz (1985), this Sam Raimi product feels like little more than a cheap knockoff, with modern special effects thrown in to wow the kiddies.
The problem with Oz is that it has a major identity crisis, and seems unaware of how to capture the magic of the original. At times what’s on screen feels like a serious prequel, or perhaps an ode to the classic; yet there are other moments where this adventure feels like a parody. None of these approaches work on their own, and all of these takes work even less when combined together.
This inability to find its legs leaves the performances of the talented cast to feel flat and uneven. It has to be difficult to play a character when there’s no consistent tone to work with. Yes, there are moments where Franco really steals the show, but typically even he feels bland and distant.
In defense of Franco, he does spend most of his time interacting with CGI characters, which could explain why I never felt drawn into the adventure. Add in a huge budget and modern computer effects, and all that wonderful charm that comes from costumed characters is gone. It’s hard to relate to CGI characters, just as it’s more difficult to make computer-generated backgrounds come to life, especially when it’s the painted scenery that gave the original its unique appeal.
Article comments
1 - Mike
Should of been, no b/w just overly artistic w/more brown. Magician goes real magic, creates tornado, lands disappearing act, in Oz,finds a way home but, stays to help the emerald city, with science and magic becomes the greatest in a land with no science. Plenty of dancing singing.. done perfect no sam or elfman. 3d with no annoying blur 100% stage 100% digital The first was great because it was something to watch.
2 - Mike
Took my daughter to see it, and we loved it. Honestly, I think the story was pretty good, a sort of warped version of the adventure Dorothy has in the first movie. The special effects were great, basically created a world I remember wishing Hook could've achieved when I saw that as a kid. Seriously, I don't really see why this movie is getting such a bad rap from critics.
3 - Hugh
Dull overall. Splendid special effects, especially in 3d. But to what end? The original had song and dance. This had only background music. Oz looked something like Gotham City in an early Batman film. Stunning.
One very interesting feature, the magician defeats the witches, not with magic, but with science.
The good guys compose an army that cannot kill! How politically correct 21st century. And how unreal.
And Franco decrees that they are forever free. No one or people is forever free. It is always a struggle to remain free.
4 - Angie
I thought this movie was sorta....horrible.
I kept wondering about when the movie was suppose to "start up" and present a different twist on the original movie I actually dozed off a couple times.The special effects and 3D was great.It's just too bad that they were for THIS movie