Wicked Review

        My look into the Oz films concludes with the most recent one from last year. I’ll admit, it didn’t really interest me since it was a musical and I couldn’t comprehend on the idea of an origin story of the two characters Dorothy would meet. Again, it was a time where I passed judgement on it without doing my diligence. Right down to getting spammed various TikTok clips of the film and the theater experience as a small majority of theater folk where morphed into Marvel fanboys by going into a frenzy to the songs. It’s easy money for studio to milk that experience and make a sing-a-long cut. Aside from that, here’s what I think. 

1. Before Dorothy

        As I continue to mention in my look into the Oz films, the initial books that the MGM classic was based on went into the public domain. Meaning that the concept and characters can be used in any way without the author’s permission. Time passed as the novel “Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West” by author Gregory Maguire hit the shelves in 1995. It would spawn a series of sequel books that expanded on the Wicked Witch among other characters. And it’s still going on, no doubt after the subsequent success of the film adaptation. 

        Of course, it inevitably got made into a successful Broadway musical. I think my first exposure and maybe some other people was the poster used to advertise the play. Showing the Witch smiling as Glinda in white whispering to her. Something about it is interesting since it appears to be an inverse of the bad manipulating the good. And did that play win some accolades, winning the Tony award for Best Musical. The actress who plays Elphaba would later get recognition for voicing Elsa in Disney’s Frozen. Her song “Let It Go” has been compared to one of the songs from the "Wicked" play.

        Initially, I was tricked into thinking that the film was a one and done thing. In simpler terms, I got Dune’d. Since the subtitle pops in after a matter of seconds after the main title. Which I feel is needed since the movie going experience can’t exceed anything beyond 2 hours. One can’t condense a hefty play without an intermission. Those things used to be common way back when movies spanning three to four hours would have breaks in between. I think I’m getting sidetracked. The point being that if a movie is going to be a part one, announce that it is going to be as such. Although, one may run the risk of having the first part be labeled as set up instead of being independent. 

        Anyways, Wicked in it’s pure form is how the Wicked Witch became as such. It was when the author was watching the classic and wondered, “how did the Witch know Glinda?”. Inevitably we see the story between both Galinda and Elphaba Thropp. I know I misspelled Glinda with an extra “A”, but when discussing how she met Elphaba. I’ll refer to her as Galinda. So the story follows them as they had a contentious introduction until inevitably becoming friends. Amid that, Elphaba becomes aware of a conspiracy within her university that multiple talking animals have been disappearing. 

        I feel that Elphaba is such an interesting character that she’ll get her own tab. For now, I’ll talk about how this film basically nails everything to be a musical. It feels like after marathoning a variety of Oz films that the one thing that they could not manage to achieve was the overall cinematic tone. The Wiz tried and to me failed with adapting it’s spin off. Return to Oz was an ok attempt to pay tribute to the source material but didn’t match the original. Oz The Great and Powerful attempted to be an interesting origin story, albeit it fumbled the tone. 

        With this adaptation, it sticks through with being a musical and having it all be catchy. That’s one of the secret sauces to make a musical be at the very least enjoyable. The songs are catchy for one and match what’s going on as they help move the story along. The misconception is that the songs are just that, and nothing else. In a great musical, it helps advance the story and what the character is singing about wanting or feeling. A bad musical is just a greatest hits but not contributing to the overall story, just stops any progression of getting interesting. 

        With the music, the camera becomes very kinetic as it follows Galinda and Elphaba with what they’re wanting/feeling. The best moment before they’re friends is when the camera literally splits and we see them divided. How the camera is used is very bouncy and captures the songs visually. Such as when the love interest Fiyero, is dancing through Shiz University’s library. Fiyero is dancing through books, all the while as Galinda tries to get him to notice her. 

        I think everyone’s favorite song is the last one featured. I will admit that I have “Defying Gravity” in my playlist. Cynthia Arivo just absolutely nails her part in great fashion. And seeing it play out in the film is just the cherry on top. While I will talk about her, trust me. I’ll say that the song is practically a culmination for her whole character arc. I just love it when the backup chorus emphasizes that she’s “Wicked” and bringing her down, it’s like oogly moogly I have goosebumps. 

        Now it’s not just the two main characters getting their songs, other characters contribute to the soundtrack and help the story progress where it is basically a tragedy. Not to give it away since I’ll be going to the next tab. What I will slightly tease is that the musical has that tragic element where we know how it’s going to end just by the association it has with the MGM classic. It succeeds as a prequel where any thought of what’s going to happen is overshadowed at the how and why. A lot of times, prequels have it be where the person in question is passive in the plot where it’s preordained what he/she will become. With this, the characters are active enough in the story where what they do literally leads into who they’ll become. 

2. Jon M. Chu

        Might as well talk about the director since I’ve talked about the others in this retrospective. Honestly, it’s quite impressive how his career evolved when you look at it. My first exposure to him is when my Dad took me to watch the action stinker G.I. Joe: Retaliation. The movie was just fluff with loads of action eye candy, but I couldn’t tell you what it was all about. Looking at it more, he was mostly involved with the Step Up sequels and helming two Justin Beiber concert films. Chu hit rock bottom when he directed his worst movie Jem and the Holograms. While I haven’t seen it, just various videos of people unilaterally denouncing it as one of the worst films ever. 

        He rebounded with his adaptation of Crazy Rich Asians. From there he pivoted towards musicals with Warner Bros.’ In The Heights and this one. Just by technical merit, this film goes all out portraying his version of Oz. It all feels practical when we see how much goes into the choreography in the songs. The best one is when Fiyero sings in the library and everybody follows suit. Special kudos for Grande with dancing in heels. 

        What really sells the musical is that he makes it bounce with how he uses the camera. As I mentioned earlier, the camera is very bouncy and kinetic. None of it is very static but follows the characters and keeps up with the beat of the song. The best use of the camera is when the duo arrive at Emerald City. That whole section reminds me of a Disney park since it’s all predicated on The Wizard and a myth involving him. Lastly, that moment is literally a passing of the torch as we see the original Elphaba and Galinda meeting the movie versions of the characters. 

3. Elphaba

        Since the title of the film is called Wicked, it we mostly focus on Elphaba Thropp and how she got the title of Wicked Witch. What’s interesting is that the author explained that her name is literally a tribute to the original Oz author L. Frank Baum. Anyways, what’s interesting is that the movie shows and tells how Elphaba was born green and was an outsider. It’s ingenious to think that Glinda tells the Ozians about her association with Elphaba. More so that the preceding song cheers for her death and how Glinda is saddened by it. 

        I’ll get to that in a moment. From the start, we find out that Elphaba was practically born an outsider. To the point that her father has her assist her sister Nessarose with anything. She wasn’t even enrolled in the University, but has her power be in display which catches the eye of the headmistress. Again, possibly the author wanted to know how the Witch threw fireballs and appeared out of smoke. And I like how that she has powers due to her mom being injected by an adulterer who’s implied then confirmed to be The Wizard. 

        So yeah, Elphaba’s character arc is interesting since we understand initially what she wants. She wants to be accepted and feels that the Wizard can help her not appear green. All of it initially, is that she’s being used by headmistress Madame Morrible. Who wants her to control her powers when she lashes out in anger. Moreso that we clearly see that she’s an outsider and bonds with the only animal professor in the school. Peter Dinklage portrays Dr. Dillamond, who manages to say Elphaba’s name but not Galinda’s.   

        As I mentioned earlier, her relationship with Galinda is contentious. Due to their personalities and what they want individually. Galinda wants to be in the good graces of the headmistress but doesn’t take the hint that she looks down on her. Ariana Grande does a great job as portraying the young Galinda. She can sing, especially the high notes in some of her songs which may give Mariah Carey a run for her money. And it’s not by style as to why she sometimes sing high. It’s confirmed that the reason she sings high is that she’s lying about what she’s singing.

        One of the best moments in the film is when they’re together. And it all culminates when both are in a dance hall. All of it focuses on Elphaba wearing the black ensemble with the hat. Immediately being the odd one out, she dances as everyone laughs at her. Until Galinda joins her, in a way it’s sort of emotional because now they’re on the same level of tolerating one another. From there, the film gets even better as Galinda tries to have Elphaba become “popular”. That song is Ariana’s best solo song in the film. With her dancing and attempting to use her training wand just sells her as the next Glinda. 

        Now, with all that as I’ve established. I feel that the film is very contemporary with what it’s trying to go for. It’s an adaptation for one thing, but I like the message that it’s trying to get at. I feel that it’s partly about propaganda and alienation due to how people perceive Elphaba. They don’t like her due to her being called Wicked. More so that the real villain is pulling the strings and deems her as such. Compounding it is that Glinda knowingly goes along with the burning effigy in the beginning but can’t tell anyone who the Wicked Witch was in truth. It works in tandem with the tragedy aspect that I’ve talked about. 

4. The Oz Films

        It’s really quite something to see and talk about just how one film practically birthed multiple spin offs and having an incredible staying power. Now, every film has a fan base be it generally liked or having a cult following. This franchise has it where it’s both seemingly like a spectrum. Catering to the public right down to the non-conformists of society. It says something where it’s currently being put on display in Las Vegas. As The Sphere is showing a massive viewing of the film with the help of A.I. to cover its gargantuan screen. With the sequel coming out, this is the most Oz this year can get.

        I haven’t done a personal ranking of films since I talked about the four individual A Star Is Born films. With these Oz ones, I feel that it’s an experience to get a glimpse of for the technical merits they each have and how reflective they represent the time. From groundbreaking tech, experimentation, faithful adaptation and creating something new is what practically defines this evolving franchise. The future is unknown with how the next subsequent generations will see these films. Either a radical adaptation or a rerun of the Judy Garland classic. Only someone as talented as the filmmakers of the original and Wicked can pull it off. 

5. Overall

        Wicked is one of the best musicals of the decade. And one of the best all time musicals ever adapted. 

Oz The Great and Powerful Review

        We’re near the end of my look into the Oz films. You know, it never occurred to me to include the interlocking relationship between the Wizard of Oz and Disney. Due in part that without the success of Disney’s Snow White, there wouldn’t be a Wizard of Oz movie in a sense where all the influences and following wouldn’t come to be. In a way, I think that’s why in Disney World the original name for the Hollywood section of the park was Disney-MGM Studios. Anyways, we’ve seen various adaptations and in the 2000s there was a resurgence of the Oz brand. And this meant that there would be another movie to capitalize on it. 

1. Oscar the Wizard

        If you were to line up the movies horizontally, you can say that there appears to be some commonality among them. You have the classic and The Wiz as musicals. Return to Oz and this one as the Disney duology of adaptations. As well as Oz the Great and Powerful and the film adaptation of Wicked as the origin stories to the characters that Dorothy will inevitably meet. All these films reflect the time when they came out and to various degrees were either successes or have specific cult followings. 

        And briefly it’s kind of interesting that there was never a story of how The Wizard got to Oz. While yes, it was mentioned in the classic Oz books. Just moments that sprinkled in the details of his past life and becoming the wizard and friend to Dorothy. More so that ever since the series became part of the public domain, more authors and writers would provide a revisionist history of the events prior to the classic MGM film. And it seemed to get Disney involved, due in part that Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland grossed a billion dollars for a fantasy movie. 

        So it seemed that the company would find another visionary director to bring to life a somewhat prequel to the Judy Garland film. I say somewhat since there’s a clear visual continuity issue at play but I’ll elaborate on that later. Sam Raimi was picked from a short list of directors and it was an interesting choice to have him be the director. As such, I’ll talk about him later since he’s the main highlight and one of the detriments to the film. But it seemed to fit the M.O. for Disney since Tim Burton granted them a billion-dollar hit, never mind that his film was critically mired.

        With all that, let’s talk about the film. James Franco portrays Oscar as he’s a womanizing carnival magician. We see him doing his act but inevitably gets into trouble by one of the performers. Keeping with the tradition of Oz, he gets sucked by a tornado and transported to Oz where he meets various characters and the Witches. We see Oscar as a struggling magician who really is a womanizer. To the point where he romances with his assistant and treats his male assistant like garbage. He commits to his profession but wants to be performing anywhere better than Kansas.

        I was surprised that the film would start in a full screen look that harkened back to the old silent films of the past. And just how committed it was for around 10 minutes. It reminded me a lot of Tron: Legacy, that film approached it where we start in the normal world then go to the fantasy world. I think I made a connection right there. So yeah, I love the tribute but something about James Franco’s portrayal as Oscar rubbed me the wrong way. I can understand that he was a hack, but his personality really struck me where he was money conscious instead of him being a humble magician given his circumstance. 

        Or maybe he got to the humble part as he wised up. Simply put that his characterization didn’t really connect with me since he was looking for fame and glory and practically led on to one of the Witches that he meets. I feel as though it was those character arcs where he starts off bad but then he becomes humble as he embraces his role. I feel that it didn’t connect with me since I would have preferred to have it be the humble and stubborn approach as Dorothy. 

        The witches are interesting, in part that we see them as seemingly good witches. Of course, this film took creative liberties but borrowed some elements from the book "Wicked". I love how the Witch Theadora becomes close to Oscar as she tells him of the predicament plaguing the Emerald City. Her sister Evanora goes along with the charade and tells Oscar that he must kill the Wicked Witch. For a while, I thought Evanora would be the one to don the Wicked Witch apparel but trust me, her real appearance harkened back to Drag Me To Hell. 

        Aside from the main cast, the supporting actors are okay for who they are. We meet Finley who is a monkey that has a bellhop uniform. And a talking porcelain doll named China Doll who meet the two as they go to kill the supposed Wicked Witch. While their performance is ok and work just fine with Oscar, I feel that there’s nothing that gives them that pop as Dorothy’s friends when she entered their world. To the point where Oscar doesn’t welcome them in his quest but begrudgingly accepts them. 

        I feel that the worst side character is Glinda. The supposed Wicked Witch that Evanora tells Oscar to kill as retribution. This isn’t Michelle Williams best role and it clearly shows since Glinda is just there to help Oscar. I think it’s just a middling performance where she quickly figures out who Oscar is. And I can understand where she isn’t the Glinda that we’d seen prior, but one where her father was murdered and that she was exiled. I think it’s one of those executions where some of the characterization is wonky and not being honorable to the original text. 

2. Sam Raimi 

        Me and Sam Raimi go way back. In my younger years, I adored his Spider-Man trilogy and inevitably his other works as time went on. I’ve already talked about his comic book hit Spider-Man, his underrated film Darkman and The Evil Dead many years ago. As I mentioned earlier, it seemed like an interesting choice to hire him to helm an Oz movie where he has a peculiar style. His background is in horror, but the biggest motif of his is when he goes wild with the camera. 

        His films have a kinetic style that matches what is going on in the story. Just his use of the camera made him a match for Spider-Man. When he does a horror is when he can be creative visually. Yeah, they can be bloody and pulpy but he employs a comedic style to it when using the camera to highlight the ridiculousness. Additionally, he’ll have some drama to off set the wacky parts of his films that give it the sort of balance that’s needed. 

        With his adaptation of Oz, in one way I feel that he was sort of trying to have it both ways. Of course, there were some horror elements that creeped up such as when Theadora turned Wicked. And when Oscar’s group was attacked in the Dark Forest by killer plants. I feel as though that he tried to showcase the land by having it be more lively. It reminded me a lot like Alice in Wonderland where Oscar was reacting to the plants as they gave off a musical note when an element hit them. 

        One of the complaints that Raimi’s film was that Mila Kunis’ portrayal as Theadora was a huge miscast in the film. To me, I felt that she did a good job as a “good” witch but as soon as she becomes what we know her as, she just didn’t put her all into it. She does a good cackle, but we only hear a bit of it. And I feel that Kunis couldn’t get her octaves to match the old haggard voice that the classic film had. None of it is her fault, but I question if Raimi should’ve gone with another actress to really make the character’s transformation as is. 

3. Tone

        So you may have figured out that there’s some parts in the film that I don’t like. It’s an okay movie at it’s core but I feel that the biggest thing that wears it down to at least be adequate in comparison to the MGM film is the tone. Any film that has a conflicting tone is a cardinal sin that can really bring it down to mediocrity. What tone is at it’s core is just the overall feel for the film. Tone is established in the opening moments to establish what kind of movie you’re going to be watching. 

        You would think with Oz that Sam Raimi was going to have a fantasy feel given his visual aesthetics. While he does have that, what conflicts the fantasy part is the moments that have the darker elements. And it wasn’t until I found out that Disney went with this cut since they had to make Raimi trim out the original cut which had more dark stuff in it. Now, you would think it’s a confusing since I like Raimi’s stuff that I would be ok with his take of Oz. The movie though has the light/dark moments feel like whiplash. It doesn’t feel natural but more like everything is nice and then slap you around with the weird dark stuff. 

        Say what you will about Return to Oz. The movie was practically a juggling act of being faithful to the books and a sequel to the original. This one suffers the same problem but has it where it doesn’t lean into the darker elements more and being a spiritual prequel to the classic. It’s a thing where if they were to keep it independent, maybe it would be ok. Just having the association and attempting to be a connective link drags the film down since if it was a true prequel the look and feel would be inconsistent. 

4. Overall

        Oz The Great and Powerful is just an ok film. Not one of Sam Raimi’s finest but woefully middling. 

 

Return to Oz Review

        My look into the Oz films continue. We’ve seen mostly musical adaptations of the classic book. While The Wizard of Oz remains as a classic treasure, The Wiz was a mixed bag that tried to be contemporary for the time instead of honoring the Broadway spin-off. There weren’t any live action adaptations of the Oz books between the release of The Wiz and this one. Just Japanese anime movies of the story would fill in the gap of time. For awhile, Disney attempted to do something with the property, as they had the film rights for the sequel books. 

1. Back to Oz

        As I mentioned earlier, Disney had the film rights to the Oz sequel books. There were attempts to make them into a television series and a film at the time, but none of them got anywhere close to shooting. It was during the 80s that director Walter Murch had discussed the project with Disney as they were close to losing the rights to the sequel books. Initially pitched as a follow up to MGM’s film, right down to having to pay the studio a massive fee to incorporate their ruby slippers into the film. Just looking at the poster and seeing brief snippets showed that there was a huge creative liberty that occurred. 

        While I’ll get to that, the film is mostly straightforward. Based on the two Oz books: "The Marvelous Land of Oz" and "Ozma of Oz", the film picks up months after the tornado whisked Dorothy to the fantasy land. We see Dorothy be sent to a sanitarium by her aunt, due to her believing that the young girl’s “dream” is too much. The little girl is transported once again, only to find that Oz and the Emerald City is in destitute. And we meet new characters that help Dorothy try to restore the city and the Land of Oz. 

        So yeah, this movie is a massive 180° shift of the first film. Meaning there’s no musical moments, munchkins, Glinda and even Toto gets left behind in the family farm. This is a different film by all measures. And it would’ve been a nearly impossible task to try to stay consistent with the first film since it had a visual style and clearly time had passed since it couldn’t be a musical without the comparison. I’ll give the director that since he took the direction of the movie to somewhat match the books. 

        Again, I’ll elaborate on that more along with the creative choices. One thing I’ll say that this isn’t the first time that I’ve seen the actress who portrays Dorothy. It’s weird seeing an actor/actress in a younger role than what I’ve been initially exposed to in my younger years. The first film I saw of Fairuza Balk was in Adam Sandler’s The Waterboy as she portrayed Bobby Bouche’s girlfriend. While she wasn’t a big star, she’s mostly known for the supernatural film The Craft. 

        Back to Dorothy, knowing that the film is a sequel to the 1939 classic, it’s a curious choice to cast a younger Dorothy instead of leaning towards Judy Garland’s age for consistency. Not that the age made Balk not good enough for her portrayal. There’s even moments where you can hear the accent that Garland used in her portrayal of the girl as Balk would imitate it in some form. I feel that it was a deliberate choice given what we see her go through in the whole movie. And man, does she go through some things that seemed intense for the time. 

        I know you’re getting annoyed since I don’t elaborate on the dark elements that the film has. I’ll tease you once more since we get new characters that Dorothy meets. We see that none of her friends appear initially, to replace Toto we get Dorothy’s pet chicken Billina. As well as a robot named Tik-Tok, a scarecrow with a Pumpkin for a head named Jack Pumpkinhead. I think out of all of them, my favorite is Gump. He’s a mounted head of an Oz creature that has witty commentary. All of them are a mixture of puppetry and practical effects. I like how there was more of an emphasis on the special effects to show the other inhabitants of Oz. All of it is impressive, especially for the villains. 

        So, let’s talk about the villains. It would be a near impossible task to top the Wicked Witch. She’s one of the best movie villains of all time. Instead of one villain, we get two with the Nome King and Mombi. The Nome King is an all-rock creature who inhabits the mountains and has minions commute from any rock to his lair. It’s looks cool that their facial structure resembles cracks in the stone. Meanwhile, Mombi is the most interesting since she has multiple heads and one body. And I mean, she has various heads behind individual glass cases as she chooses which to pick. One tidbit that they carried over from the first film is that Dorothy encounters the people who would personify the villains. For Mombi, it has one moment where I think was intense for a Disney movie. 

2. Dark Fantasy

        The 80s was an interesting time for fantasy. There seemed to be an inflection point to have the style of films be dark. For fantasy, there were loads of dark fantasy films that weren’t light hearted as some may think. You had films like Legend, Dark Crystal and even Conan the Barbarian that took the genre and pivoted the style to a sub-genre. A lot of it had an edge where it gets, for a lack of the word, dark and interesting since it had no restraint with how it wanted to portray the fantasy element. 

        What makes Return to Oz ostensibly different than the MGM classic is that it tried to adapt the books and be a direct sequel. It’s visually jarring since there’s a huge contrast between the two when you try to marathon them. One is a product of the time that is beloved in cinema, while this one tries to be a sequel and be faithful to the books. It’s clear that there’s a tonal inconsistency, since we have somewhat creepy imagery when Dorothy encounters the new threats in Oz. Now, from researching the books, it’s clear that this is the faithful adaptation. 

        A good chunk of the Oz books have a lot of weird and creepy imagery than what people are not aware of. The film even mentions how Tinman became such, by having Dorothy give out his whole reasoning when discussing it with her new friends. I feel that with the attempt to be faithful to the books, the film alienated the film fans of Oz while being embraced by the true fans of Oz. Additionally, when Dorothy goes into Mombi’s quarters, she’s chased by the headless body of the villainess as the various heads scream and shriek at her. 

        It’s clear that the MGM film made a huge imprint into pop culture that having this one be a sequel is clearly a huge misfire to the ones who haven’t read the books. Of course, it didn’t need to have the ruby slippers and stick with the silver ones. Like, the film tried to have it be both ways but depending on if you’ve read the books or just seen the classic, it’s a clear juggling act of a movie. It isn’t bad since it tried to be different since it couldn’t replicate what made the Judy Garland one a classic. To me, I feel that it was ahead of its time. 

3. Legacy

        No surprise that the film didn’t make back it’s budget. And more so that it seemed like Disney wanted to bury it since the company didn’t believe in the film. It’s one of those instances where the behind the scenes is as interesting as the film itself. Especially as the director was fired then re-hired as the budget ballooned than what Disney was comfortable with. I think had the film be isolated enough where it was it’s own Oz film without any connection to the Garland one, then maybe it would’ve received just enough to squeeze back it’s budget. 

        Reading the reviews of the past, there was a clear line of contention where some thought that the film betrayed the original while others praised it’s faithfulness to the books. It’s baffling to read that since The Wizard version took creative liberties to the extreme when showcasing the colorful cinematography. Yet, this one is crucified by having be tacked on to the original yet being faithful to the source material. As time passed, the reception for the film improved by just borderline in Rotten Tomatoes. Which I think is appropriate due to nature of the film and what it’s trying to go for. 

4. Overall

        Return to Oz is an interesting adaptation of the Oz books. It’s one of the underrated Disney films and an underappreciated adaptation of the Oz books.