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.