3 out of 5 stars
"A small-time magician arrives in an enchanted land and is forced to decide if he will be a good man or a great one." (IMDB)
I was particularly impressed with the acting in this movie. In particular, James Franco was a phenomenal choice for Oz, as he has the perfect charm to win the audience's heart, but also the dark brooding playboy feel that turns you off. Mila Kunis (Theodora) and Rachel Weisz (Evanora) were also outstanding. I thought Michelle Williams' Glinda, while being sugary sweet and good just like a "good witch" should be, was too seductive. The way she delivered many of her lines came across the wrong way.
The character development and interaction was minimal; often scenes ended leaving characters in situations that it would be difficult to get out of. If we had been allowed to see how they got out, it would have shown the audience the true colors of the characters and we would have felt more attached. For example, Oz is basically a poor Tony Stark. When he arrives in Oz, he has to choose between staying the way he is or risking his life to help others. In Iron Man 2 the motivation for Tony Stark's change is clearly shown; he loves Pepper and so is no longer focused only on himself. The scene where Oz's focus is supposed to change, while sweet, was unconvincing. Oz changed his mind because the plot required that he not run away during the climax. We need our happy ending. But it didn't work for me.
Another problem I had with the movie was the repetition of the idea that "anything can happen if you believe" by several characters. No. This is complete nonsense. It makes no sense. If I BELIEVE with all my being that I will one day be a rooster, will that make me a rooster one day? No. If I BELIEVE that my best friend will develop super hearing, does that mean she will? No. Belief means nothing.
Even with this, however, the movie was okay because of the overwhelming presence of archetypes and the interesting way they tied it into "The Wizard of Oz". In this movie you can see the scapegoat, the hero quest, the bildungsroman. The colors are meaningful. The screenwriters carefully constructed parallels between characters in the "real" black and white world and Oz, just as in the original movie. And the way they set up for the events in the original was quite entertaining (broomstick, lion, scarecrow), but they left out some major items (RUBY SLIPPERS. tin man). Maybe I missed these. If you've seen it, enlighten me, please. Also, I'd love to discuss any points I've made or anything you think was interesting about the movie.
I heard on WJR this morning that they left out the ruby slippers. They said it as thought there was no way the ruby slippers would have fit into the plot. I, of course, haven't seen it, so I don't know if that's true or not.
ReplyDeleteWhile it was good to leave the Ruby Slippers out from the beginning (intentionally confusing the audience about which character is which), they could have slipped them in at some point. The plot was not contingent upon it and *technically* the movie is sound without it, but with the other tie ins they included, their absence was very noticeable.
Delete