http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyywumlnhdw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

IMDB.COM Page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1623205/

Logline: A prequel to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz that tells how the Wizard arrived in Oz became the ruler.



Thoughts: Visually speaking, the trailer is fantastic...and it's Sam Raimi, who many of us in here dig or seem to like, etc.

I'm just not sure about the cast: Franco as The Wizard? K....

looks cool to me. i wish they'd made it a little darker like return to oz tho.

Which isn't good.

I'm hopeful. I have basic faith in Raimi.

it's more like a "let me cup your balls while i suck you off"

it's a blatant and lazy rip-off. fuck everything about this.

>it's a blatant and lazy rip-off. fuck everything about this.

It's lazy? You haven't even seen the damn movie yet. SMH.

visually i think it looks like ass. not my taste.

How can they do an "origin" story about Oz when it's not even a "real" place in the original film?

and he wrote a lot of oz books:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L._Frank_Baum#Oz_works

so you may just need to get over your outrage.

...at least as it relates to the premise of the original movie, which is:

A. Person bangs her head.
B. While knocked out, person dreams of being in a place called Oz.
C. Person wakes up.
D. Person isn't in Oz anymore, because it only existed in her dream.

I'd think that in order for this new movie to make sense, Oz has to be a real place. And in the original movie, it's explicitly not a real place. Unless this new movie is based on a separate dream, which theoretically would have also had to have been had by Dorothy, then I just don't see it making sense.

I'm really not sure why I give a fuck, actually. I'm not outraged though. Guess it just struck me as absurd, and I commented on it.

EDIT:
Actually, fuck it. I hadn't even watched the trailer when I typed that above...If it was a "true" prequel, I can't see how it would have made sense, but it looks like Franco is playing Baum, and it's about how he first imagined Oz, which he later wrote about in his stories. Which is entirely different from what I took from the one-liner I read above. Makes more sense now.

The circus is called "Baum Brothers", so I thought Franco was supposed to be Baum. Whatever. I'll accept the L and keep it moving.

Not to mention a TON of other books in that universe by his son and others.

The OG movie is based on part of a book. This movie is derived from that book, which doesn't end the way the movie ends (Oz is real).

What's the issue here?

none of these things exist how dare they!

<------ Boho Model Madness Presents: Andy Allo

http://www.gifsoup.com/view3/2298233/andyallo2-o.gif

http://www.rareformnyc.com
http://djshinobishaw.tumblr.com/
http://twitter.com/DJShinobiShaw
PSN: ShinobiShaw

"Arm Leg Leg Arm How you doin?" (c) T510

It does have an Alice feel though, Frank's right about that.

I do think it'll do well though. I'm interested, i'm not sure if it's go to the theater interested, but i'm interested.

please don't spend money on this bullshit. do we really want more empy, soulless Burton-esque retreads like this?

fucking horrible.

a pox on the house of anyone who supports this vapid horse manure.

you don't wanna see it, fine.

Kidding. Kind of.

You haven't seen the film and flat out don't know what you're talking about. It's not a retread in any way, shape or form. You just sound like a pissed off film snob.

<------ Boho Model Madness Presents: Andy Allo

http://www.gifsoup.com/view3/2298233/andyallo2-o.gif

http://www.rareformnyc.com
http://djshinobishaw.tumblr.com/
http://twitter.com/DJShinobiShaw
PSN: ShinobiShaw

"Arm Leg Leg Arm How you doin?" (c) T510

and i hate to say this but...TOO SOON.

it looks good but its missing a lot

As in it feels as if they didn't let it cook a bit longer.
I think the movie will deliver but rather than being something that will stand the test of time I think it will be forgotten within six months of its release

she'll become evil at some point in this film right?

we'll find out when the movie comes out March 2013...

until I saw that one.

It's absurd and completely without merit.

To not be sold on the trailer, sure.

But all this "We need to stop supporting this shit!!! argh!!! it's a burton rip off!!! arrrrghh!!" nonsense is astounding. I mean, really? Like THAT?

NO. Nonsense.

We're talking a fresh take on a classic, one with a rich treasure trove to pull from. Let's see what Raimi's got before we jump all over it. Have your reservations, but that's extra.

Good:
- visuals, when working, are great
- the supporting characters are cute and will play for kids
- some cool Raimi visuals and throwbacks
- BILL MOTHERFUCKING COBBS
- a crowd pleaser ending that I wasn't mad at

Bad:
- women all underdeveloped... Kunis looks like she'll be developed, but is then given something totally one-note and somewhat insulting as her motivation.
- Franco is crazy inconsistent, nailing some scenes and awkwardly hamming in others
- some of the green screen work is bad. Crazy bad. ABC's remake of V bad.
- all action feels frenetic but without any stakes. The tornado in the first film is more convincing and scarier than one in 2013. Characters never feel in any kind of danger.
- the Green Wicked Witch... Didn't work for me. At all. She tried hard though.
- too long in the middle. Suffers from prequelitis, in which they make sure they cram in all the things we know about the first film.
- littler kids will find this too scary. There were parts that made me jump and creeped me out... which is good for me, but bad for families taking their kids to a PG flick, I'd reckon.

Overall a mixed bag, with more bad than good for sure. It's no disaster, and it's far better than the Wonderland by Burton for sure. But still, it leaves me with the same question I usually have for films like this: why?

My full review here: http://www.examiner.com/review/oz-the-great-and-powerful-the-wizard-of-blahs

I like the monkey and the china girl, tho. Obviously, all of the real CGI budget was spent on them and not the green screen work and some of the sets (I saw the film in 2D, and some of the scenes in Emerald City look like video game quality renderings)

http://nydn.us/Z2tjjl

I'm reading very few good reviews. and the theaters in NYC cost too much for me to see a half ass movie.

>I'm reading very few good reviews. and the theaters in NYC
>cost too much for me to see a half ass movie.

Right? 3D is like what? 20 dollars in NYC?

cause everyone I know who *DID* like it, said to see it in 3D.

i'm going to see it this weekend, cause I really want to do a "trashy double feature movie" what with DEAD MAN DOWN *AND* THE CALL coming out next weekend and Halle's dusty ass afro wig?

*OH, I'M SO IN JUST FOR THE CLOWN FACTOR OF HUH WIG!*

lol

... with the horrible green screen work.

yeah I might have to go in for that. I got a coupon for a free soda. that will make me feel better about life.

i have not seen any 2013 movie yet and i really don't want Oz ro be my first F of 2013.

lol

http://my.spill.com/profiles/blogs/oz-the-great-and-powerful-audio-review

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=101117

http://collider.com/oz-the-great-and-powerful-review/

really expected more visually (not how it looked, but the design and life of Oz) and thematically. the story simultaneously seemed rushed and boring as hell. Longo covered what was good/bad about Franco, but even Michelle came off to dainty "fragile white snow queen" for my taste.

and that porcelain character was just fucn weird.

even with that said, this is a great kids movie. i went to see it with youngest sister and we kept telling each other how her daughters / my nieces would've really enjoyed it (they were with their father).

1.5, maybe 2 outta 5

It might be something your (small) kids would enjoy if they like bright colors and cute characters (which context clues seem to point to what you meant0, but a bad or average movie is a bad or average movie, if you're 7 or 70.

i can see kids enjoying it, the kids in the theater i was in seemed to be having a good time... but, yeah, not a good movie

With Disney's interest in strong positive fantasy female characters that girls will go gooey-eyed over, they chose... this story?

both power-wise and character wise.

I mean, really? The Wicked Witch turns evil because of a man? Are we really doing this?

My full critique is right in line w/ yours, but I will add I did laugh a lot at the jokes (but there were too many overall, and quite a few were not funny), whenever chase scenes occurred the characters descend into cliched dialogue ("They're gaining on us!" "That was close!"), Franco is waaaay too smarmy, and...Mila Kunis as the Wicked Witch of the West was easily the biggest misstep in this entire production.

She obviously had it in her contract that she couldn't be "too ugly", even though she's supposed to be* recreating one of the most famous film villainesses in cinema history. Like, everyone and their GREAT-grandmama has seen "The Wizard of Oz" and is going to compare the performances - it's like they didn't even try. The look, the voice, all of it - ptbt. And if the Witch doesn't work, Oz doesn't work. The other one was just a standard Disney villainess, as if Snow White's wicked stepmother somehow wandered her way into Oz, apple and all.

I have to go see it again in 3D for work on Tuesday. I may have to drink first.

But seriously, the whole time I'm watching the three witches conflict and battle on screen, I'm just thinking about how much more fun and impactful "Wicked" was doing basically the same material in a different way.

do you think Mila besides being "too pretty" also didn't have the acting chops to pull of the witch? IMO it seemed so forced for her to be a villainess

She needs to stick to comedies, because she absolutely shines in that medium. She's a gem in a comedy setting, but this isn't her lane by any means. I could see her pulling off some convincing indie drama roles, but not like this. Fantasy drama is a different animal and you have to be completely immersed in that world and own the character within that world.

I do think Weisz (however the hell it's spelled), despite being something of a prop in this, could have pulled off the West role.

Though I feel like even *I* could have been a better witch than that, lol. Her biggest problem is she's just not scary in the least. Couldn't they have had her kill someone/something?

Now whether that's her own doing or Disney self-censorship remains to be seen. But why the fuck should the Ozians (?) be scared of a sexy green girl in a corset?

>why the fuck should the Ozians (?) be
>scared of a sexy green girl in a corset?

I dunno about you, but a green woman showing up like a meteor and standing in a ball of fire would scare the piss out of me.

I know they can't use the Margaret Hamilton look, but she isn't the only witch ever visually depicted. More could have been done to make her ugly.

That, and she did need to display a palpablke threat - maybe by burning down Munchkinland or something.

3. There is next to no charm in this movie. The talking monkey has charm, and while Franco has his moments, those seem come when he's being an asshole. Without that Charm, it becomes flat and weightless. There's no reason to give a fuck about anyone, the land of Oz included.

4. The Wicked Witch of the West looked awful. Was that a mask? Why the fat face

SPOILERS





5. Too much Disney. The climactic scene with the fireworks in Emerald City is so self referential it's almost disrespectful to Oz if you ask me. Rather than really celebrate Oz, Disney celebrated itself. I'm sure others won't see it that way, but that's how it struck me. It was the Disney castle with Disney fireworks. Sigh.

Oh, and back to 1.

Kunis is an awful choice for Witch of the West. Her voice is too child like, to girly, to innocent to work for this. She's Jackie and Meg Griffin, not the Wicked Witch of the West. This was an iconic role, and the two actresses leading in this with her were much better choices for the West role.

Back to 2, there were too many blurry, almost dizzy shots of Oz that made it hard to appreciate that world. As Frank mentioned, the green screen work on here is unforgivably bad. We're talking Wolverine bad, perhaps even worse.

-The Munchkins weren't munchkins, they were midgets. They had no charm or personality outside of performing the mundane midget tasks we always see in movies. The Black Elf midget (sorry, can't call them munchkins or little people... they were treated like Midgets here) just trotted out his Bad Santa persona and called it a day. Oh, he's so sassy! Look at him go! SMH.

-the fight between Glinda and Evanora was a huge letdown. It was nothing more than a beam battle, and the worst I've seen since Pyro and Iceman went head to head in Last Stand.

.......not really detrimental to the movie, but some things I wish would have been different.....

Glinda was badly underpowered. She was the most powerful of all 4 in the books, and it's a little bothersome to see her reduced to the weaker of the three. I'm a little bothered we didn't see

I would have liked to see princess Ozma or at least a reference.

.................on the the good, such as it was..............

I loved the black and white portion of the film. That gave me high hopes. Charm, wit, and a certain winking layer of cheese that struck the perfect balance.

I liked Oz only when he was being a dick. I don't think it should be that way, but I liked him in those moments.

Michelle Williams was very likable while working with what little she had.

I liked the respectful nods to the original film and story. They littered the film throughout and it was a nice touch. Too bad they ruined it with the HEY LOOK WE'RE DISNEY! fireworks show at the end.

Oz was pulled off perfectly in the end.

I like that they used Glinda, Good Witch of the South instead of the amalgam of the north/south used in the original, though I'm disappointed we didn't see the witch of the North in some capacity.

Zack Braff did a bang up job as the monkey. I loved that monkey.

Oz was mostly well conceived visually, despite the aforementioned blurry shots. 3D may have made this better, but I don't like 3D in general.


All in all, it was a fairly uneven film. I mostly enjoyed myself but there were definitely some glaring issues, worst of all Kunis as the Witch of the West. She was a truly terrible choice for this.

>5. Too much Disney. The climactic scene with the fireworks in
>Emerald City is so self referential it's almost disrespectful
>to Oz if you ask me. Rather than really celebrate Oz, Disney
>celebrated itself. I'm sure others won't see it that way, but
>that's how it struck me. It was the Disney castle with Disney
>fireworks. Sigh.

I went to see this as part of an OKOuting, and _everyone_ called them out on this in the theater. The apple bit too - "are they merging stories?"

>
>Oh, and back to 1.
>
>Kunis is an awful choice for Witch of the West. Her voice is
>too child like, to girly, to innocent to work for this. She's
>Jackie and Meg Griffin, not the Wicked Witch of the West. This
>was an iconic role, and the two actresses leading in this with
>her were much better choices for the West role.
>
>Back to 2, there were too many blurry, almost dizzy shots of
>Oz that made it hard to appreciate that world. As Frank
>mentioned, the green screen work on here is unforgivably bad.
>We're talking Wolverine bad, perhaps even worse.

The green screen quality varied widely. There were a few good shots, but most of them looked like no one felt the need to color-match the live action to the animation.

>
>-The Munchkins weren't munchkins, they were midgets. They had
>no charm or personality outside of performing the mundane
>midget tasks we always see in movies. The Black Elf midget
>(sorry, can't call them munchkins or little people... they
>were treated like Midgets here) just trotted out his Bad Santa
>persona and called it a day. Oh, he's so sassy! Look at him
>go! SMH.

LOL, I was just glad to see him get a big part. He's been hustling since Martin.

>
>-the fight between Glinda and Evanora was a huge letdown. It
>was nothing more than a beam battle, and the worst I've seen
>since Pyro and Iceman went head to head in Last Stand.

The Last Wha? There was no X-Men III, whatEVER are you talking about, lol.


>
>.......not really detrimental to the movie, but some things I
>wish would have been different.....
>
>Glinda was badly underpowered. She was the most powerful of
>all 4 in the books, and it's a little bothersome to see her
>reduced to the weaker of the three. I'm a little bothered we
>didn't see
>
>I would have liked to see princess Ozma or at least a
>reference.

I did at least appreciate seeing the china people and the Quadlings. But where are my little dudes with the flat heads that jump around and try to beam you in the face?

>
>.................on the the good, such as it
>was..............
>
>I loved the black and white portion of the film. That gave me
>high hopes. Charm, wit, and a certain winking layer of cheese
>that struck the perfect balance.
>
>I liked Oz only when he was being a dick. I don't think it
>should be that way, but I liked him in those moments.
>
>Michelle Williams was very likable while working with what
>little she had.
>
>I liked the respectful nods to the original film and story.
>They littered the film throughout and it was a nice touch. Too
>bad they ruined it with the HEY LOOK WE'RE DISNEY! fireworks
>show at the end.

And the Snow White apple.
>
>Oz was pulled off perfectly in the end.
>
>I like that they used Glinda, Good Witch of the South instead
>of the amalgam of the north/south used in the original, though
>I'm disappointed we didn't see the witch of the North in some
>capacity.

This.

>
>Zack Braff did a bang up job as the monkey. I loved that
>monkey.


The monkey and the china girl were decently animated as well. I guess that's where the money went.

>
>Oz was mostly well conceived visually, despite the
>aforementioned blurry shots. 3D may have made this better, but
>I don't like 3D in general.
>
>
>All in all, it was a fairly uneven film. I mostly enjoyed
>myself but there were definitely some glaring issues, worst of
>all Kunis as the Witch of the West. She was a truly terrible
>choice for this.

It fell short on so many levels, but to be a true blue fan pulling hard for a quality revival of the franchise on film made it that much worse.

I'll probably see it again in the dollar theater run because I still enjoyed myself overall and would like to give it a second run before giving a final judgment. They had a chance to do something great with this and dropped the ball. I'm sure it will make boatloads of money though, and I look forward to a sequel because I would like to see if they can improve on this.

I'm also mad because, much like with Transformers, I'm a huge fan of the property itself thus I am stuck on this ride for better or worse.

I dread watching Kunis in the next one though.

The total budget to market and produce, from what I read, is around 325 million. When it's all said and done, I wouldn't be shocked if it grosses half a billion worldwide and cleans up on merch and blu ray sales.

It's definitely got tentpole potential. I'm not thrilled about it since that means we're likely stuck with another Kunis, but again.. I'm such a fan of the property that I'll go for the bits and pieces I do enjoy. It's like an abusive relationship, lol.

Make it about Glinda. Give her depth. Make it about something before her father's death... their rise to glory potentially. Her learning how to embrace her powers, using them for good, etc.

Lose the Wizard. Lose the Wicked Witch. Give us strong female characters. Feminism, legitimate magic.

I'm not as familiar with Baum's extended works. I just know I don't want another Franco-led Oz flick, and I don't have faith in Kunis as the WW (though I found her charming enough, though bland, as Theodora).

If they're going to make another Oz flick (and it seems like they will), I feel like going even farther back in the storyline would be the way to go.

you hit the nail on the head about the charm (or lack of it) in the film, AND Oz being a dick. like really, some thing is wrong when I'm ONLY relating and believing the protagonist when he's being a dick, and a HUGE dick, in a Disney movie at that.

and man did you/me/we not give a fuck about anyone. how the fuck you not gunna have adorable/likable munchkins. and to make the lil' nigga into a curmudgeon was eye roll inducing.

i can't speak for anyone else, but reading through these reviews reminded me how powerful and well made the original was and how i within myself under-acknowledged how much nostalgia i was going into this film with. Oz the G&P seemed so lifeless, and as an adult, in these times, i think i wanted something to take me back in honest imaginative way to my childhood, but it just didn't.

Cinema history is full of them.

You could argue that the beginning of Oz's story isn't too unlike Aladdin in basic story structure: poor con man who wishes to be great, thanks to magic he gets that chance, he lies and feels himself too much...

... but you need redemption for it to work. And to have redemption, you need:

1. Someone he has legitimately wronged, which requires a relationship. He has no real relationship with Kunis before she freaks out.
2. A moment of clarity where he realizes who he really is and how he needs to change. Michelle Williams reveals right away that she knows he's a liar and a con man, but she doesn't care, so neither does he. She just needs a male figurehead. Thus he never needs to change, stop lying, or have an emotional breakthrough where he acknowledges he in no way deserves any of this. He spends so much time saying "I can't" that he never once says "I shouldn't."
3. A worthy adversary to prove the mettle of your character. This is more the flaw of prequels in general: he can't kill either witch. So the big victory is... he scares her real real bad. That's the final battle: the bad guy gets frightened. And since the bad guy is the person he "wronged," he never has to redeem himself to anyone of real consequence. The finale is that the liar wins with a lie and continues a life of lying where he now is rewarded for it with gold and a beautiful woman.

There's really just no good way to make a hero story about a character who was never meant to be a hero in the original film in the first place. The whole message of Wizard of Oz is that hero worship is pointless: you possess what it takes to achieve your goal, and you have all along.

I liked him only when he was being an asshole, but there was nothing to bond with in the end.

>There's really just no good way to make a hero story about a
>character who was never meant to be a hero in the original
>film in the first place. The whole message of Wizard of Oz is
>that hero worship is pointless: you possess what it takes to
>achieve your goal, and you have all along.

They made a half-assed attempt at pulling it off though, and it could have worked had they amped up his inner Scrooge McDuck. He was an asshole, but they merely touched on his innate greed instead of exploiting it. I agree that Glinda let him know she knew he was a fraud far too early in the story for there to be any weight, and that compounds the lack of any real malicious intent on his part.

You actually laid out a great roadmap for making it work. In the end, Oz works as a hero only if used as the vehicle for inspiring his people to believe in themselves, as he ultimately facilitates in the original film. It's easy to let that get to his head over time to where you have this curmudgeon we see in the original.

http://www.etonline.com/movies/125577_Wizard_of_Oz_Goes_3D_for_WB_90th_Celebration/

'Wizard of Oz' Goes 3D for W.B. 90th Celebration

By DAVID WEINER

October 03, 2012

Warner Bros. has announced that The Wizard of Oz is undergoing a special restoration and conversion into 3D as part of its impressive 90th anniversary celebration slate, which includes the release of several Best of Warner Bros. film collections, documentaries and other special Home Entertainment releases from its extensive library. Read on for details…

Video: Watch: 'Oz The Great and Powerful' Trailer

In addition to the surprise announcement that the 3D edition of The Wizard of Oz, which recently celebrated its 70th anniversary, would arrive in the autumn of 2013, Warner Bros unveiled its brand-new 90th Anniversary logo.

At a special press event on Wednesday, they detailed several new home entertainment releases coming in 2013 including The Best of Warner Bros. 100 Film Collection on DVD and 50 Film Collection on Blu-ray; several 20 Film Collections on DVD in five major genres: Best Pictures, Musicals, Romance, Comedy and Thrillers; The Best of Warner Bros. Animation Collections -- Hanna-Barbera, Looney Tunes and DC Comics; and The Best of Warner Bros. Superman TV Collection, which features both live-action animated TV shows.

The limited and numbered Best of Warner Bros. 100 Film Collection and 50 Film Collection on Blu-ray will be released in January, containing film classics ranging from Casablanca and Gone with the Wind to The Dark Knight and The Hangover.

The two new documentaries celebrating the 90th anniversary include Tales from the Warner Bros. Lot and The Warner Bros. Lot Tour, and longtime Warner Bros. collaborator Clint Eastwood will also get his own 40 DVD and 20 Blu-ray movie collections, both including a brand-new documentary, Eastwood Directs: The Untold Story.

Video: Clint Eastwood and Amy Adams Talk 'Trouble'

And several stand-alone releases new to Blu-ray for the first time will also be released for the 90th anniversary in 2013, including the first talkie The Jazz Singer, all three James Dean films (East of Eden, Rebel Without a Cause and Giant), Cabaret and Academy Award Best Picture Winners Grand Hotel, Mrs. Miniver and Driving Miss Daisy. Anniversary editions of The Exorcist, A Christmas Story, Enter the Dragon and The Right Stuff will also get special treatment.

For more info, head over to www.bestofwb.com.

so I figured this movie came out in perfect timing.

I was blown away at "Wicked", and a prequel involving the wizard was almost laid on my lap. I was Oz'ing out.

Sam Raimi at the steering wheel, to boot! I couldn't wait to see Bruce Campbell hamming it in some fashion while indulging in my newly found Oz interest.

Sorry to see the reviews being somewhat flat. I'll prob Redbox it down the road.

They had to paint the witch _a different shade of green_ just to not get sued.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130304/18411522197/insanity-making-wizard-oz-film-todays-ip-climate.shtml

The Insanity Of Making A 'Wizard Of Oz' Film In Today's IP Climate
from the goodbye,-yellow-brick-road dept
It's always tough to root for the underdog when neither of the involved parties deserves that title. So, rather than pick one, we'll just discuss the overweening ridiculousness of copyright law. It's a subject that never goes out of style, thanks to our legislators' willingness to continually extend copyright protection terms.

As was covered much earlier in the year, Disney is producing its own "Wizard of Oz" movie, titled "Oz the Great and Powerful." While Frank L. Baum's books are definitely in the public domain, filmed depictions of Baum's characters are mainly the property of Warner Bros. WB attempted to head off this incursion into its domain by filing a trademark application on "The Great and Powerful Oz," but it was a week too late and is now (presumably) several billion dollars short (H'Wood mathematics, yo).

Having failed to block Disney's entry into the Oz arena, Warner has now busied itself with watching each development for any slip-up that could land it a tasty settlement -- or an injunction. To that end, Disney has placed its own legal team on the set to ensure that none of the characters or elements in the Disney film bear too much resemblance to Warner's property. The sheer amount of highly detailed micromanagement needed to avoid the rights holder's litigious wrath borders on OCD-hellish insanity.

Striving for a visage different from the one Margaret Hamilton made famous, Howard Berger, an Oscar-winning makeup artist, “was finally able to come up with a shade of green which satisfied Disney’s legal team,” SlashFilm.com reported after a visit to the set. According to Disney’s production notes Mr. Berger named his custom color Theostein — a conflation of the witch’s name before she turns wicked, and Frankenstein.

When something as minimal as a move left or right on the Pantone chart could potentially trigger some legal action, you know you've reached some sort of watershed mark in IP protection. It's highly doubtful our founding fathers had a "shade of green that satisfies a legal team" in mind when they set about trying to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts."

Nor were they particularly concerned with innovative hairdos.

About 40 dwarfs were cast in “Oz the Great and Powerful” as Munchkins... They still have weird hair, but Disney lawyers nixed at least one style as too similar to one from the original movie. It was tweaked in postproduction using computers.

True, there are many things the founding fathers couldn't possibly have considered over two hundred years ago, but what's going on here is resembles nothing more than gerrymandering Baum's legacy in order to avoid a costly turf war -- over something that should be in the public domain.

It's a rare day when you find yourself commiserating with one of the biggest IP thugs of all -- Disney. Baum's original work is now a minefield, and anyone hoping to utilize this public domain title now has to contend with a powerful legal team protecting a 74-year-old film. But, I suppose, if you're going to choose someone to walk across an IP minefield, it might as well be Disney. It makes perfect karmic sense.

ridiculous

in the article. didn't see it. smh.

i chuckled a few times. It was alright but i wont be adding it to my dvd collection.

Grade B-

i didn't think i would like it as much as i did based on reviews I read here. but I did.

I thought it was hilarious, a lot of low key funny scenes.

I wish there was more character development and background to Oz and Theodora's relationship (I just can't believe that a day or two after she met him she was so in love that when he broke her heart she went evil...)

I realize time is not a factor in Oz but it seemed like everything happened very quickly. I didn't feel that the middle was slow at all. the movie was already two hours, and it didn't feel like that but any longer might have been too much so i guess they did what was best.

however, more background would have been good.

i see a *sequel* in the making.

My biggest gripes were:

1. The characters accepting him as the foretold Wizard and the eventual doubt and realization that he was a fake, came without him having to prove himself either way. Franco’s portrayal wasn’t conniving enough. His actions at the carnival before the tornado, gave no indication he was a immoral hustler…A PLAYER, yes, but not a hustler. A DICK (as described by some above), hell yes…But not a scheming fraud.

Despite his pretending to be the Wizard, I never felt he was truly untrustworthy. Even at the end when Finley and the others thought he left them high and dry, it felt forced, like Raimi suddenly remembered Oz was supposed to be shady and selfish, and squeezed in the "I told you he was a phony" moment.


2. Theodora’s initial attachment to Oz and her subsequent transformation into the Green Goblin after his supposed betrayal, was too simplistic and kinda lazy.

When he first meets Theodora, what did he do that made her believe he was the wizard? The smoke trick with the lion? The bird trick with the flying monkey? Theodora was a witch. Evanora was a witch. Glinda was a witch. They could fly and shoot shit from their hands. They lived in a glowing green emerald castle. Glinda had a magic wand and made giant bubbles. And Theodora was impressed/convinced by HIS tricks? C’mon son…

I’m in the minority here, but I actually liked Kunis as the Wicked Witch. She was evil, without being over the top. She was way more engaging once her evil side came out, much more than Rachel Weisz, who seemed bored. As did Michelle Williams. None of them were given much to do. But the cliched woman scorned?? smh For her transformation, it should have taken more than a few views into a crystal ball and Evanora’s “See girl, I told you he ain’t shit” rants, to turn her into a bitter and hateful being.

I know she was young, but the movie made her look like a starry-eyed 12-year-old kissing her Justin Bieber poster and dreaming of marrying him, then seeing him on Youtube kissing Selena Gomez, getting pissed, and Twitter dragging death threats to Gomez with her friends...


3. Why wasn't Oscar more bewildered at this new land he was in? He was attacked by whistling river fairies, met a talking monkey being attacked by a lion, was chased through a forest by a growling, clawed flying animal, AND was led to a glowing emerald city...

His reaction? Nothing. smh

>My biggest gripes were:
>
>1. The characters accepting him as the foretold Wizard and the
>eventual doubt and realization that he was a fake, came
>without him having to prove himself either way.

He didn't have to prove himself. There was a prophesy and in this fairy land, prophesy is equal to fact. Notice how quickly word spread and how no one (who wasn't evil and threatened by his appearance, i.e. had motivation to) doubted him. His name was Oz, he came on the wind just as the prophecy said, what reason do they have to doubt? As for the times when he was doubted later, that all seemed completely justified. Glinda doubted him because she was smart, a shrewd politician and hand plenty of time to observe him. Evanora, as I mentioned had her own motives for not wanting him to be the wizard and for wanting people to doubt his legitimacy. And to this point:

>Even at the end when Finley and the
>others thought he left them high and dry, it felt forced, like
>Raimi suddenly remembered Oz was supposed to be shady and
>selfish, and squeezed in the "I told you he was a phony"
>moment.

There were only three characters (who weren't evil) to doubt him, Ginda (her reasons have been explained), Finley, who Oz told he wasn't the wizard, and Knuck who was so supremely and consistently pessimistic that I, at least, didn't find his disbelief forced. Now if the China Girl started having doubts, that would be a problem.

>Franco’s
>portrayal wasn’t conniving enough. His actions at the carnival
>before the tornado, gave no indication he was a immoral
>hustler…A PLAYER, yes, but not a hustler. A DICK (as described
>by some above), hell yes…But not a scheming fraud.

I'll agree that pre-tornado, he wasn't revealed to be anymore immoral than any other carnie. In fact, he had some obvious soft spots (Annie, the girl in the wheelchair). And while by-the-book character development might suggest that the totality of his immorality be established in act I, I see no problem with his willingness to exploit scaling with his opportunity to exploit.
>
>Despite his pretending to be the Wizard, I never felt he was
>truly untrustworthy.

And I'd argue we weren't supposed to. At virtually every point of the movie, we were privy to what was behind the curtain. I don't think that we, as the audience, were supposed to not trust him any more than we were to wonder how he made his magic. That is a part of how the story is told that is built for young children. Children can still be entertained if they know the way the story is going. In fact, it's comforting (which is why kids like having the same story read to them over and over or watch movies a million times). I actually appreciate the movie deciding to appeal to kids at this level rather than with perpetual motion and scatological humor.
>
>
>2. Theodora’s initial attachment to Oz and her subsequent
>transformation into the Green Goblin after his supposed
>betrayal, was too simplistic and kinda lazy.
>I know she was young, but the movie made her look like a
>starry-eyed 12-year-old kissing her Justin Bieber poster and
>dreaming of marrying him, then seeing him on Youtube kissing
>Selena Gomez, getting pissed, and Twitter dragging death
>threats to Gomez with her friends...

I kinda agree here. She is played like a tweenager and Mila Kunis (in those leather pants) clearly is not. I want to allow for the naivety of the character because of the children's story/fairy world that they live in, but I can't. I think a better way to go would have been to actually write the character as a teenager, have the way Oz treats her (he's nice, maybe even gives her a box and dances with her, but he doesn't romance her in his mind) leads to her crushing on him. So that when he actually tries to romance her older sister, that leaves her in the jealous position to be manipulated.

>When he first meets Theodora, what did he do that made her
>believe he was the wizard? The smoke trick with the lion? The
>bird trick with the flying monkey? Theodora was a witch.
>Evanora was a witch. Glinda was a witch. They could fly and
>shoot shit from their hands. They lived in a glowing green
>emerald castle. Glinda had a magic wand and made giant
>bubbles. And Theodora was impressed/convinced by HIS tricks?
>C’mon son…

Again, the prophecy is sufficient, no convincing is necessary. The onus is on anyone who wants to disprove his claim, not on him to prove it. That's established by the rules of the movie.

>
>I’m in the minority here, but I actually liked Kunis as the
>Wicked Witch. She was evil, without being over the top.

My only issue was with her voice. Once she turned green, there was something inconsistent about it. It needed to be more menacing and not just shrill.

>She
>was way more engaging once her evil side came out, much more
>than Rachel Weisz, who seemed bored. As did Michelle Williams.

I really enjoyed Michelle Williams as the shrewd, collected politician. I really felt the edge she was living on as a leader who maintains calm by example because she really doesn't have power otherwise (not that she'll use on her people anyway). She doesn't maintain control through power, that's what she needs Oz for. You really see it after the wicked witch leaves her city in chaos. She's trying to bring calm by being calm, but the witch has caused too much havoc. She turns to oz, but he's already on the next train to Clarksville. This is a point where I feel the movie cheated by cutting away. How was that chaos calmed?


>3. Why wasn't Oscar more bewildered at this new land he was
>in? He was attacked by whistling river fairies, met a talking
>monkey being attacked by a lion, was chased through a forest
>by a growling, clawed flying animal, AND was led to a glowing
>emerald city...
>
>His reaction? Nothing. smh
>
All I can say is that this is very consistent with the books. When folks arrive in Oz, they are fairly quick to accept it, even adults. Uncle Henry and Aunt Em have about a line each of disbelief before they accept they are in another land.

box

..even as prequels have become the new hollywood cliché, this film had potential

however, that potential was heavily dependent on chemistry. the cast, the director, everything needed to gel in order to bring new light to a classic story. unfortunately, chemistry is where this film falls flat. franco & kunis felt forced like wrestlers in a steel cage match, while the rest of the cast didn't really offer much to build on.

the approach to the visuals is on par with modern cgi abilities, but once again hollywood abuses the 3D promo. beautiful imagery, yet 3D simply wasn't utilized well here. unfortunately, the musical elements that have always benefitted this film legacy was left out.

average, at best, and that's simply not good enough for such a storied franchise.


-------
"..i was born a free man. nobody beat me 'cept i beat them right back..."

..and miles to go before i sleep...

pretty much unanimously hated on by PTP check

critics poo-pooing on it check

real people enjoying it and making it number one movie check


He slipped with this one imo, could have came in here saying James Franco is blacker than Don Cheadle. lol at the Lesson a bunch of nerds, etc.

Oh well

It's "audience approval rating" on RT isn't much higher than the critics' (66% vs 61%)

This was one of the few movies that didn't have me regretting paying extra for 3D. Also enjoyed Zach Braff's performance, there were a few JD-esque lines/deliveries in there.

1) The oz - Theodora relationship wasn't earned...AT ALL. The writers tried to mitigate that with Kunis's lines about how she never thought anyone would be into her...but even with that, it got heavy way too quickly. Unearned relationships never resonate with the audience, reminded me of Thor in that regard.

2) Kunis was miscast. She was fine as the good witch but once she turned, the voice and face were just terrible.

3) Franco, and this surprised me, gave a very uneven performance. Started off great but there were def moments where he wasn't natural.

Positives: the graphics were excellent and immersive, the 3D was extremely well done (third best and seamless usage I've seen behind Hugo and Life of Pi), very strong supporting characters (the monkey and china girl far surpassed my expectations, great writing and delivery), and I thought the pacing was quite even (I had read some of the reviews in here before watching and was expecting far more of a drag but I was thoroughly engaged).

I definitely enjoyed the movie and would highly recommend seeing it in 3D...but the 3 issues listed above were definitely ones that disengaged me from the movie, particularly the first one since it's the crux of a major story arch.