Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Oz The Great and Powerful (2013)

This is topic Oz The Great and Powerful (2013) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001937

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-08-2013, 12:36 PM:

This movie was a lot of fun to watch, but way different than I expected.

I was thinking it would be similar in tone to the original "Wizard of Oz" from '39, but it's a lot more serious. That's not to say it doesn't have its comical moments; but it definitely lacks the whimsy of the 1939 film.

The biggest strength of this movie is the visuals. It is stunning to look at. The land of Oz is an imagination run wild. It's probably the best use of 3-D I've seen yet. The action scenes are great fun and there are lots of "in your face" creatures (with big teeth) that will have the kids jumping.

I thought the opening B&W segment in 1.33:1 format was well done. The opening credits are especially cool in their use of 3-D.

Once things get rolling, the sound is all (or mostly) mono until the big tornado scene when it suddenly fills all the channels to great effect. The area outside the 1.33:1 frame is also used to good effect once in a while. The transition from B&W to color and scope is great -- although I wish they wouldn't have spoiled it by including it in all the trailers.

I also enjoyed the many ways that this story "sets the scene" for the 1939 movie. There are also other small tributes, such as the circus in the beginning is named "Baum Brothers Circus," after the writer of the Oz books.

The "sidekick" characters were fun, especially Finley the monkey. I was wishing he had more lines.

The sound mix was excellent, I thought. The score (Danny Elfman) is haunting and beautiful and fits the action well.

Weaknesses? Well, the story is slow-moving at times. The movie could have been about 20 minutes shorter and been much improved. The acting by the three witches was weak, I thought. If you compare the two bad witches to the evil female villains from the classic Disney cartoons, the difference is major. They're not as scary as Margaret Hamilton was in the 1939 Oz, either.

In the visuals department, the scenes with China Girl don't quite look right to me -- anytime somebody picks her up, you can just tell that she was added to the scene later. It's kind of disconcerting.

Families need to be warned -- there are quite a few scary moments in the movie that are likely to drive a few young'uns out of the theater.

Bottom line -- I'm a little worried about word of mouth on this. I don't think it will be the home run for Disney that "Alice in Wonderland" was. I think it might be a little too different from the more famous Oz movie -- people are going to expect lighthearted and whimsical, where this movie is more dark and foreboding. Still, it's a really fun show to watch and IF it connects, it will be big. Overall I would give it a 3.5 out of 5 stars. Would have been a solid 4 if it was a bit shorter and tighter.

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 03-08-2013, 04:11 PM:

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade but The Washington Post panned it. They give it 1 star out of 5.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 03-08-2013, 05:20 PM:

^ yeah, read it, completely ignored it. (I think it's 1 out of 4 stars, not 5)

even though it's my third film heard in Atmos, it's my fave, the audio is simply outstanding - the first time you hear the china girl - it literally sounded like it was right behind your left shoulder - it's quite startling.

as for the 3D wow, from a lot of pop-out moments, to some conveying depth - looking down the cyclone, riding down a waterfall - it took my breath away!

as for the movie, it was entertaining, but in typical Raimi fashion, there seems to be one too many endings, but on the whole I quite enjoyed it.

Posted by Joseph L. Kleiman (Member # 3097) on 03-09-2013, 04:38 AM:

It can't really be that bad. At least Disney had the audacity not to make a sequel to the original Oz story starring Fairuza Balk, Deep Roy, and a bunch of evil half human/half bmx bike reject characters from Captain EO. [Wink]

Posted by Rick Raskin (Member # 1561) on 03-09-2013, 07:18 AM:

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
I think it's 1 out of 4 stars, not 5

You're right, it was 1 of 4. No need for 5 stars. The Post would never rate anything that high.

I remember being told that a certain theater chain would refuse admission to a particular Post critic who had a tendency to pan everything.

I also remember the headline to Richard Coe's review of The Greatest Story Ever Told. "The Greatest Story Ever Told isn't."

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-09-2013, 09:10 AM:

I read somewhere that Disney is already planning for a sequel to this movie which will be based on the same book as the 1939 movie was. Presumably using the same actors, now that they're established in the characters.

I don't know about that....on the one hand it would be cool to see how they handle it; but the original IS an icon and a classic.

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 03-09-2013, 08:03 PM:

Yea I noticed that they did leave room for a sequel. Oz did state at the end that the witches will come back someday. Also they can tell the story as to how Evanora gets a hold of the ruby slippers...

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-11-2013, 11:12 PM:

Thinking about it more, the possibilities for a new movie based on "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" are actually pretty good. I noticed that there is a shot of Glinda's feet near the end of this movie, and she is wearing SILVER shoes. As any Oz fan probably knows, the magic slippers in the original Wizard book were silver -- they were only changed to ruby for the movie, to show off the Technicolor. So that could have been a slight hint about what's coming.

In the original Wizard book, the witch uses a lot more dangerous plots trying to kill Dorothy and her companions while they're heading for the Emerald City... so it could make for a lot more darkness/edginess, like this movie has.

Also in the original movie, the land of Oz was not a dream and Dorothy eventually returns there.

So, a sequel to this movie that's based more closely to the Wizard book and not just a "remake" is a good possibility. The challenge of course will be the marketing -- how to avoid a backlash.

I never thought I would change my mind about this particular issue.

Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 03-12-2013, 01:16 PM:

Well after the big opening weekend they have announced that there will in fact be a sequel. My guess would be that they will make a sequel to "Oz Great and Powerful" adding to the overall story and then remake the original "Wizard of Oz" movie for the third one thus making it a trilogy.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 03-12-2013, 03:59 PM:

How can the sound be almost mono if it's been chosen for ATMOS soundtrack??

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-12-2013, 05:57 PM:

Read my whole sentence:

quote:
Once things get rolling, the sound is all (or mostly) mono until the big tornado scene when it suddenly fills all the channels to great effect.

This happens about 18 minutes into the movie.

Posted by Frank Cox (Member # 6258) on 03-14-2013, 06:48 PM:

The only negative thing that I can say about this movie is to echo the previous comment about China Girl. Every time someone picks her up, their hands aren't quite holding her. Other movies have managed to get the actors to handle imaginary objects quite realistically, so I don't know why they couldn't fix it in this one. China Girl looks great when she's walking around on her own, though.

The storm, the man-eating plants in the Dark Forest, and the winged monkeys are all pretty darn scary, so this definitely isn't a show for little kids.

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 03-16-2013, 07:53 PM:

Oz the Great and Powerful is an example of what happens when a film maker is given an immeasurable budget to satisfy every indulgence. Such flagrances usually destroy a film, and with Oz it comes close, but after a gargantuan struggle in the films first half director Sam Raimi manages to wrestle this beast into submission producing a film which, on balance, is highly enjoyable and an interesting prequel to The Wizard of Oz.

The film nicely meshes with the 1939 film showing how the wizard came to be in Oz and why he was merely a magician in wizard's clothing, as Dorothy would discover later on. It also fleshes out the dynamic between the witches of Oz and their relationship with each other and the pseudo wizard.

The CGI is not very realistic at all. The actors look like they're superimposed on a garishly coloured synthesized background and Oz's flying monkey sidekick looks so fake it's like he's been dragged kicking and screaming from Jumanji. But given this film heavily channels the equally garish 1939 film, this seems somehow appropriate and the artificiality of it all is soon forgotten as you roll with it.

The cast is mostly good without being remarkable though Michelle Williams is lovely as the good witch, Glinda. James Franco and Rachel Weisz are clearly enjoying themselves. Mila Kunis is curiously cast but she gets away with it without disgracing herself. Bruce Campbell gets his obligatory cameo.

Like the film to which this serves as a prequel, it's quite scary at times and it's PG rating is a little perplexing; it's closer to an M I would have thought so parents with munchkins beware.

What begins as a slice of Hollywood bloatware is transformed ultimately into a highly entertaining story with an intriguing connection to a film 74 years it's junior. It's a level of intrigue which, dare i say it, surpasses that of it's predecessor but, of course, an origin story is hard to beat.

8 out of 10

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 03-23-2013, 05:24 AM:

quote: Stu Jamieson
The CGI is not very realistic at all. The actors look like they're superimposed on a garishly coloured synthesized background and Oz's flying monkey sidekick looks so fake it's like he's been dragged kicking and screaming from Jumanji. But given this film heavily channels the equally garish 1939 film, this seems somehow appropriate and the artificiality of it all is soon forgotten as you roll with it.

Although there have been better attempts at combining CGI with real action, compared to Jack the Giant Slayer, the CGI in this one was rather strong. If Oz compares to Jumanji, Jack compares best to A Sound of Thunder [Wink]

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 03-31-2013, 07:42 PM:

CINEMA: Galaxy Greem Valley Luxury + Theatre, Henderson, NV
AUDITORIUM: 8
PRESENTATION: Christie Digital DLP (2D)
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Weak low-end, talkative crowd
RATING: Two stars (out of four)

This recently re-opened UA 8-screener is about as refurbished as you could possibly do. Modern decor, wall-to-wall screens, some not terribly steep stadium seating, and the big deal...reclining seats. We're talking wide plush leather seats that have electronic flip-up footrests and a reclining action that almost goes full horizontal. Never seen anything like it in an auditorium before, and that's what's drawing huge crowds to this place. These are not just a few special extra prices seats either...every seat in the building. Guy sitting behind me..."This seat makes me feel like I should be eating more." The one complaint I have of the seats is you tend to stick to the leather after awhile.

Galaxy hypes that you don't pay extra admission compared to other theatres for the amenities, but they don't mention their snack prices in the same breath. A "large popcorn and two sodas" combo was closer to $20 than $10.

A live person came in to greet the crowd...which a month into this movie's run still filled all but two rows of the room...and go over the rules, emphasizing their zero-tolerance cell phone policy.

Picture was great. I sat in Row 2 ("B") and experienced no windscreen effect. Sound was okay, notably lacking in the subwoofer area. I imaging they had to make it that way because this building simply wasn't designed for the big sound today's multi-channel formats have, and sound leakage would have been a problem.

THE PLOT: Oz goes to Oz. Wackiness ensues.

WOW the opening credits are beautiful. The black-and-white segment is too and shows a lot of promise. Then we get to Oz and the movie takes a huge crap.

The CGI in the early color stages is just dreadful. The flowers, the birds...serious crap. It gets better as the movie goes along for some reason.

The plot pretty much follows the same path. I like where they ended it, but very little of what led up to it.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 04-08-2013, 02:24 AM:

quote: Sam Graham
We're talking wide plush leather seats that have electronic flip-up footrests and a reclining action that almost goes full horizontal.

Doesn't that create some annoying sounds if everybody flips around their footrest at random during the movie?

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 04-14-2013, 05:30 PM:

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Doesn't that create some annoying sounds if everybody flips around their footrest at random during the movie?

Nope. They work pretty quietly. I actually adjusted mine a couple of times during the feature, and I couldn't hear the motor over the soundtrack.

Posted by Tony Gallimore (Member # 5358) on 04-26-2013, 11:21 PM:

Sam, are you sure you didn't got lost in the Film-Tech screening room? Leather recliners?? What won't they do to get your popcorn money! Oz was definitely a good one although a little more on the serious side as one astute observer pointed out than the original. But Franco is versatile enough to have made it work. I'd sleep through all the movies with comfortable seating like that!