Oz : The Great and Powerful

This one's a doozy, folks. 

I'm just glad it only cost me 76 cents to rent this from a certain colored box with a promo code. I sign up for every discount I can get, yes, even those 'We'd like to hear what you think' surveys you get on grocery store receipts. Don't judge me, I'm on a budget. 

But I digress...

To begin at the beginning, my sister told me that this movie was so bad, she actually yelled at the TV while watching it. This is not as uncommon an occurrence as you may think, so I was more intrigued than put off by her emotional review. I can safely say, after suffering through all 130 minutes of it, that Corey (my sis) was totally, unequivocally right.

Like a twister, this movie swiftly spiraled into destruction. It payed homage to The Wonderful Wizard of Oz in a rambling oo-ee-oo-ooooaa-way-oo sort of way that would please some frantic fans of the original movie. I will admit Oz: The Great and Powerful was visually interesting, but like a music video that isn't supposed to make sense. The 3-D gimmicks were as frenzied and pointless as ads for Christmas in October, which lessened the beauty of the special effects considerably. The settings and animation were stunning, with eye-popping-bubblegum color that tried to distract the audience away from a very important fact: this movie has very little plot. 

Look, bubbles!

Here's the plot in eleven words (don't worry, this won't spoil anything): Con-man saves POWERFUL women from themselves with quirky sidekicks in technicolor! 

Because that's original. 

I'll come back to the disappointing plot in a moment.

The dialogue was written at a level matching George Lucas' love scenes in Return of the Sith. I mean, the tangled "love affair" between Theodora (a witch) and Oz the great and powerful sleaze, which is supposed to be a catalyst for much of the story, fizzled out with the first words and expressions on the actors' faces. It seemed to me that most of the dialogue acted as fillers between special effects. That makes for a tantalizing film.

Maybe the creators were trying to target a younger audience, but you DON'T need to dumb down your writing to make an interesting show for kids. I know this from personal experience as a teacher. Kids despise being talked down to, and I don't care much for it either.

The only semi-inspiring lines (delivered in a range of mono-tone to Monty Python) were totally plagiarized from other great films. Here's an example: "I know I'm not the wizard you expected, but I might just be the wizard you need." 

"You are not Batman. I'm Batman."
Batman is not amused.

The lines themselves would have been bad enough, but oh, it gets worse. 

Dear villains- yelling ALL THE TIME does not show emotional depth nor aptitude for the acting sphere. There were apparently three go-to emotions for the entire cast- fake smile, fake pout or screaming like a rabid football fan. The character with the most expression in her face and voice was a computer generated china doll, for goodness sake. 

Foul ball- very pretty, but for what purpose? Strike one- bad writing. Strike two- bad acting. Yikes. 

And here's where the movie strikes out.

In order for the audience to feel fear for, or connect with, the protagonist, the audience must be led to believe that the protagonist SHOULD WIN and the antagonist is CAPABLE OF WINNING. Take a page from Joss Whedon, for example.

"I shall kill one of your favorite characters, so that you think EVERYONE is going to die."

James Franco's dimples aren't enough to make a butt-head of a character likable, no matter how many times you zoom in on them. Also, if your hideous, flying baboons insist on crashing into every single solid object just as Stormtroopers insist on missing them, then I'm not going to be all that worried for the well-being of the characters that they are chasing. In short, I felt very little anxiety/empathy/connection for or to any of the folks on the screen. 

Strike three- unbelievable/unlikable.

Not only did this movie strike out, it also struck a negative chord. My final thoughts on this avoidable film involve THE WOMEN. When three quarters of the top-billed actors are women, one might think, hey, progress (or chick flick, depending on your viewpoint). A film full of tough and tenacious females, how refreshing. Not so, gentle reader, not so.

Powerful + Pretty = Success, right? Right? 

Rachel Weisz (one of my favorite actors) as Evanora was written as a two-timing witch who betrays her sister with a man and an APPLE from which she must eat...the forbidden fruit of evilness...I mean COME ON. 

The sister relationship between Evanora and Theodora (Mila Kunis) was about as well written and established as the love connection between Oz and Theodora (read- nonexistent). Her tears of pain caused by rejected love literally burned her face...what is that supposed to mean? Is she not supposed to cry? Are tears evil? Is it that hard to fake cry for the camera? Not to mention the what-the-heck transformation she undergoes. Let's just say her color palette is Christmas themed, for no real reason in particular.

And let's not forget how good Glinda the Good Witch was (played by Michelle Williams). And when I say good, I don't mean she was well played (placid at best). I mean, she was good on the inside- no grey areas. Very simple. Good is good, bad is bad. No confusion (or depth) there. I didn't not like her. After all, she was the only reason I wasn't rooting for the bad guys (well, that and all the yelling). 

So, we've got three cookie cutter characters: the evil witch who doesn't care about anything but power (becomes ugly); the betrayed woman who becomes evil because of a man (becomes ugly); and the good one, who has absolute faith in her man (stays pretty). Ugh. I say 'ugh' for all the wasted potential for interesting character development.

But then, I guess, I've been spoiled.

The true minor chords of doom playing in my head after watching this movie don't rise from Danny Elfman's familiar score or flat characters, but from the disappointing theme. According to the plot of Oz, women with the POWER OF MAGIC (not to mention leadership, empathy, authority, intimidation, and goodness, but not necessarily in that order) must be saved/defeated by a circus charlatan. The blind faith held in the newly arrived savior (who is usually white and male) by the natives (who are usually quite competent, thank you very much) is so familiar it's annoying. 

I love all three of those movies, by the way. Ironic?

Here's where this movie becomes as damaging as a twister- the underlying message is that women must be rescued (plus the whole kingdom, don't forget the munchkins who sing and make nice clothes). 

Really? Even James Franco doesn't look convinced.

Oscar Diggs (Oz) is delivered flatly, written badly, and never given a chance to show the hidden qualities that make Glinda the Good Witch believe in him so much. Even after Glinda is lied to, must save the magic-less wizard several times, becomes aware that he is "not the wizard she hoped for," and is nearly abandoned by said savior, she still delivers this classic line, "If you can make them believe, then you're wizard enough." I was not made to believe. 

I keep coming back to that troubling idea that these witches are strong. Some are decidedly evil, but strong. And this random dude with the power of..."I wish to be great someday"...is supposed to upset the whole order of things in this magical land? I know this movie is a prequel trying to explain how the wonderful wizard got there in the first place (and the end does wrap that up rather nicely), but even my love for the original story could not overlook how blatantly patronizing this entire production truly was. Oz: the Great and Powerful fails.