It bears repeating that one can never, ever rely on early buzz. Reviews for
Oz so far don't reflect the enthusiastic early tweets. But with just over a handful of reviews in on
RT, it is comfortably ahead of
Jack the Giant Slayer.
A weak score for
Oz means many critics will walk into
Maleficent next year still largely unimpressed by any of the previous fairy tale adaptations --
Mirror, Mirror 50%,
SWATH 48%,
Hansel & Gretel Witchhunters 13%, and
Jack 52%.
It means
Maleficentit will be facing a very low bar. But it also means half of the critics in the room will be skeptics who have yet to meet a fairy tale film they liked. After so many disappointing films, they may now be weary of fairy tale adaptations.
Oz and
Jack both boast dazzling special effects, huge $200M budgets and are helmed by directors with blockbuster super-hero film experience. Sam Raimi directed the first
Spider-man trilogy while Bryan Singer made
X-Men and
Superman.
Maleficent has an equally big budget and will be at least as dazzling, but it has an inexperienced first-time director -- albeit one with two Oscars for Prod design. And it has Angelina. Interest even now revolves around her and her performance will be key.
-- Fussy
The Playlist
Reviews
by
Kevin Jagernauth
March 1, 2013 9:00 AM
We’re coming up on 75 years since
MGM’s Technicolor wonder “
The Wizard Of Oz” first enchanted audiences on screen, and at the time it was already the fourth movie based on the works of
L. Frank Baum.
Of course, it has become not only the best known version, but an
American cinema classic and icon, and so the prospect of a prequel is
always one that was greeted with some wariness. There’s not only the
pressure of living up to a film that has been beloved by generations of
filmgoers, but there's also the often undiscussed issue of whether or
not adding backstory and additional mythology is simply answering a
question no one asked. As studios continue to mine fables, fairy tales
and comics for franchises, it’s a query they will continue to grapple
with, but as for the results cooked up in
Disney and director
Sam Raimi’s “
Oz The Great And Powerful,” it’s a lot of smoke and light, without much behind it.
After a pretty great opening credit sequence that plays like a journey through a pop-up book, the film pays homage to
Victor Fleming’s
movie, in Academy ratio black-and-white, on sets built and designed on
soundstages just as they would have been back in the day. It’s here we
meet Oscar Zoroaster Phadrig Isaac Norman Henkle Emmanuel Ambroise Diggs
aka The Professor aka Oz (
James Franco), a not particularly
successful huckster, showman and magician whose selfishness outweighs
his middling talent. Aided by his assistant Frank (
Zach Braff),
Oz spends an equal amount of time wooing the ladies as putting on a show
of good, if not quite exceptional illusions. But when he tries to hit
on the girl who belongs to the strongman, he has to go on the run, and
makes his escape in a hot air balloon that's sucked up into a tornado
that happens to be passing through at the same time, and when it’s all
over, he’s in the widescreen, HD color world of Oz....
....and it looks nothing short of spectacular. With nearly two years in
production, and a budget reported to be in the range of $200 million,
the amount of time and money spent is definitely up on the big screen.
After the murky, muddled visuals of “
Alice In Wonderland” and the mostly bland Mars in “
John Carter,”
the world pulled up here truly feels special. A sequence in which Oz
careens down a rapidly flowing river, taking in the sights and sounds of
this new land he finds himself in, is beautifully rendered with
eye-popping color, and fully realized plants and creatures that are
distinctly exotic. It’s impressive stuff, made all the more so given
that we’re often treated to CGI that’s rushed or simply dull, usually to
meet the strict requirements of a release date. Let this be a lesson to
Hollywood that taking the time to do it right pays off.
Before long, Oz crosses paths with Theodora (
Mila Kunis),
a good witch who believes he’s the wizard of prophecy come to free the
land from the evil Wicked Witch. Lured by the promise that he’ll rule a
kingdom, Oz goes along with the story and heads to Emerald City where he
meets Theodora’s sister Evanora (
Rachel Weisz), and perhaps more
importantly sees the giant reserve of gold that could be his...if he
kills the Wicked Witch. With the promise of riches beyond his wildest
dreams, he heads down the yellow brick road with Finley (voiced by
Braff), a monkey with wings he rescued earlier from a lion, who becomes
his faithful sidekick. And along the way, they’re joined by China Doll,
the lone survivor of China Town that was destroyed by the Wicked Witch.
But of course, what our hero learns from the witch Glinda (
Michelle Williams) about Oz and the true nature of who is ruling over the land, isn’t quite what he expected.
To the film’s credit, the nods to the classic “The Wizard Of Oz” are
mostly subtle in nature. When Oz first arrives, he’s awakened by snow
just as Dorothy and her pals were in the poppy fields (which also
feature here). In the background of one scene, if you look closely,
you’ll see the horses of a different color. The Cowardly Lion’s
“something’s got my tail” gag is repeated here, with a slightly
different variation. It’s all organically ingrained, which it makes it
all the more puzzling that the actual main story is a dull carbon copy
from the 1939 movie.
The prospect of a movie centered around
Oz/The Professor and explaining his journey is actually a pretty good
one. It’s a smart opening from the 1939 film to take, but it’s pretty
disappointing that
David Lindsay-Abaire (“
Rabbit Hole”) and
Mitchell Kapner (“
The Whole Nine Yards,” “
Romeo Must Die”)
couldn’t create a story that didn’t mirror the same template from seven
decades ago. Oz and Dorothy both team up with a gang of friends, have
one big showdown with the Wicked Witch and all learn some platitudes
about life. While the first forty minutes or so of the film offer some
promise creating a new fantasy journey for a contemporary audience, when
it quickly becomes clear the movie aims to smash directly into “The
Wizard Of Oz,” it loses all its steam.
We’re given a character in Oz who holds both
Thomas Edison and
Harry Houdini
in esteem as heroes -- a great detail -- but it uses those
characteristics as a launching pad to essentially explain away the big
reveal in the original movie. “Oz The Great And Powerful” finds our hero
inspired to conjure up his greatest illusion for his biggest audience
ever in order to defeat the Wicked Witch, but because we already know
what it is, we’re always two steps ahead of the story, and the big
finale may be a wonder to folks of the Emerald City, but our enjoyment
is second hand as we see it coming well in advance.
But perhaps
the biggest narrative issue is one of originality that goes beyond using
the same structure as Fleming’s movie. In “Oz The Great And Powerful”
we’re presented with three strong, powerful women, and yet it’s an
ordinary man who undoes the villains, saves the day and gets the girl.
This has become a pattern in high-concept Disney fare of late, wherein
the studio decorates formula storytelling with expensive concepts. “
Wreck-It Ralph”
and “John Carter” were both essentially princess stories we’ve seen
dozens of times over, and in “Oz The Great And Powerful” it’s
essentially a knight in shining armor -- or a top hat at least -- who
these women are forced into action by, both good and bad. It’s just a
shame to think of parents taking their daughters to see “Oz The Great
And Powerful” -- with Weisz, Williams and Kunis in lead roles -- only to
see their characters never really taking charge. "Oz The Great And
Powerful" presents an opportunity to take a narrative risk, approach
tired genre conventions and turn them on its head, but everyone plays it
safe and it’s a reason why that for all the creative talent being hired
for Disney’s “
Star Wars” movies, we remain very cautious (but that’s a discussion for another day).
Story flaws aside, Franco acquits himself well in the lead role. He
pretty much hits the smarmy Oz head on, evoking the combination of his
hubris and self-protective tendencies quite well, while selling the slow
melt of his hard, greedy, selfish heart and his turn into the hero.
While Raimi’s original choice of
Robert Downey Jr. probably
would’ve been better suited, Franco makes it his own, and again proves
his can be an underestimated leading man. Williams and Weisz are both
expectedly solid here, but if there is any major stumble, it’s with a
woefully miscast Kunis. She can’t quite manage the tricky tone of the
movie, which is definitely pitched towards kids, but also feels very
much like a throwback to Fleming’s era in its tone and spirit. Kunis’
delivery never quite gels with the material, and without giving too much
away, the movie, particularly as it moves into its second and third
acts, would’ve fared better if Weisz and Kunis swapped parts.
After nearly seven years spent on “
Spider-Man” movies, followed by a lukewarm reception to the B-movie “
Drag Me To Hell,”
any fans wondering if Raimi still had it in him to whip together
imaginative new worlds can rest assured. “Oz The Great And Powerful” is
certainly his most ambitious movie, and at least on the technical side
of things, it’s a homerun. It’s certainly the most impressive digital
effects we’ve seen in a long, long time and even the 3D is smartly
utilized for key sequences (though, you could just as easily do
without).
But unfortunately, nothing else matches the technical
accomplishments. Dulled by predictability, the pacing of the two hour
plus movie often sags, and the film’s humor never quite establishes the
running gags or knocks out the one line zingers with enough success to
call it funny, so much as smirk worthy. And since we know how things
turn out for The Professor/Oz in the “sequel” (aka "The Wizard Of Oz"),
there are no real stakes and thus no believable peril for our hero.
Which brings us back to the beginning of this review. “Oz The Great And
Powerful” is a valiant attempt to build on the magic of “The Wizard Of
Oz,” and while it certainly doesn’t diminish the standing of that movie,
Sam Raimi’s film provides proof that the more we know about the
mysteries of our favorite stories, the less interesting they become. [C]
Hollywood Elsewhere
By Jeff Wells
I saw
Sam Raimi's
Oz The Great and Powerful
tonight on the Disney lot, but the invite came with my pledge to not
review it until Friday, March 8th, or opening day. Anyway
Oz screened in the main Disney theatre with grade-A 3D projection, and when it ended around 9:20-something a
review by
Variety's
Justin Chang had posted. Plus
five reviews are now up on Rotten Tomatoes so all bets are off, it would seem. But I'll hold for now.
Chang is basically calling
Oz diverting family fare with a few portions that connect, but he's mainly saying that it's composed of
thin material that's
not very involving
-- "rings hollow," "gaudily depersonalized," "visual Baum-bast." He
adds that it makes you want to rush home and pop in the Bluray of the
original 1939
The Wizard of Oz , which is where the real
nutrition still resides. But he praises the film's "exquisite"
black-and-white prologue, composed in a 1.33 aspect ratio, set on "a
windy strip of Kansas prairie" and showing
James Franco's wily circus magician-slash-con man performing and sweet-talking a couple of ladies.
I have to at least say that Chang is
right-on about this portion. The
opening credits
(also in black and white 3D) are inventive and beautiful and altogether
quite masterful. Handsome naturalistic black-and-white 3D hasn't been
seen since...what?...
The Creature From The Black Lagoon? (
Frankenweenie
was animated.) "This is amazing...delightful...unique," I was saying
to myself. "I haven't watched anything like this ever on a big
screen...the first time in my life!"
This section recalls the opening of
Victor Fleming's
The Wizard of Oz
in that it lays out character issues and plants a couple of character
seeds that will sorta kinda pay off later on. (Of course, if Raimi
really wanted to pay tribute to the original
Oz he would have rendered this sequence in monochrome sepia.)
Honestly? The lensing, writing and acting in this portion of
Oz the Great and Powerful
(which lasts maybe 14 or 15 minutes) are better than in the rest of the
film, which runs another 110 minutes and has been shot in widescreen
color 3D. So I can at least say for now that
Oz the Great and Powerful is worth the price just to catch the black-and-white 3D.
Read the original post at
Hollywood Elsewhere
The Playlist
by
Kevin Jagernauth
February 26, 2013 7:01 PM
Hollywood’s race to bring fairy tales to the big screen over the last
few years hasn’t had the best results, at least creatively. While “
Alice In Wonderland” made a still unbelievable $1 billion worldwide, it simply wasn’t good, and subsequent efforts like “
Red Riding Hood,” “
Mirror Mirror,” and “Snow White & The Huntsman”
brought high concepts and diminished returns. Part of the problem has
been an issue of approach, with fairy tale films either choosing to aim
for kids, or go dark for tweens, with very little middleground. But
that’s a problem screenwriters Christohper McQuarrie, Darren Lemke, and Dan Studney solve with “Jack The Giant Slayer,”
a movie that aims for that soft, MOR mainstream audience, but takes its
source material and executes its modest ambitions into a satisfying big
screen adventure.
But, it doesn’t start off well. Delayed from release last summer to
this spring, unfairly or not, the movie does have a certain stigma
attached, and the opening makes you wonder why the filmmakers didn’t use
this extra time to fix it. We start with young Jack and young Isabelle
-- one a farmer’s son, the other a princess and heir to the throne --
being separately read the story of “
Jack & The Beanstalk”
which is reimagined as an involved mythology to set up the movie. And
this is fine, but the gaudy, cheap animation -- which never looks better
than a PlayStation 2 cut scene (at best) -- used to illustrate the
backstory feels like a hasty afterthought, distinctly out of step with
the rest of the movie. But it’s no matter. All you need to know is that
the world of giants and humans were once connected, and that a magical
crown will make whoever wears it the leader of that massive race of
creatures, bringing this person immense power. And oh yeah, some magic
beans from that bygone era are the only way to re-connect the two
worlds. Fine.
So fast forward a decade and mechanics are all set in motion, with sly
but not overtly or obnoxiously faithful nods to the old timey tale. Jack
(
Nicholas Hoult) does indeed go to market, but this time he defends the honor of the now grown Isabelle (
Eleanor Tomlinson)
-- disguised as a commoner -- when the concealed princess is harassed
by some local ruffians when she's roaming in public outside the castle.
But that’s just the start of an eventful day that sees Jack come into
possession of the magic beans when a monk steals them from Roderick (
Stanley Tucci),
the king’s advisor (who is also arranged to be married to Isabelle,
much to her dismay), and as he is being chased, gives them hastily as
collateral to a reluctant Jack, for the horse he has come to sell, which
he uses to escape. Not too long later, Isabelle runs away from home,
takes shelter at Jack’s house during a rainstorm, which in turn gets the
beans wet, creates the giant stalks, and she gets thrust into the
mysterious land in the sky. And all this allows Jack to team up with the
King’s men to climb up into the sky and rescue her.
The narrative doesn’t reinvent the wheel, but
Bryan Singer’s
canny moves in the casting department elevate the endeavor into a
familiar, but still compelling, well-oiled swashbuckler at its core.
Indeed, it’s folks like
Ewan McGregor who takes the
one-note Elmont, the leader of the King’s army, and turns him into a
noble, witty and heroic role model of sorts for Jack. Tucci delivers as
always, bringing an appropriate balance of slime and menace as Roderick,
while
Ewan Bremner is enthusiastically goofy as his
henchman. Isabelle is thankfully written as much more than a damsel in
distress, playing a young woman coming-of-age in an era when they don’t
have much voice, which gives Tomlinson some nice notes to play. And even
Ian McShane brings a gravitas a pretty simple part of the widowed King, afraid to lose his only daughter. And finally, coming off “
Warm Bodies,”
Hoult is emerging as one of the most unassuming leading men out there,
and he does a fine job of carrying this film as the aw shucks everyman,
thrust into an extraordinary situation.
Structurally, the film is hardly a revelation either, but once again,
it’s having a team of experienced folks bring it together that makes it
work. Everything moves in a straight line, but Singer keeps the story
beats moving fast, with his cast adding color, and his already honed
blockbuster sensibilities keeping everything lean and efficient. You
already know our heroes will get into trouble, you already know they
will escape, and when the false ending arrives, when everything appears
wrapped up, you know there is something big just around corner. Singer
knows you know this too. So when the movie heads into the final act,
with the inevitable grand showdown between the giants and humans, he
doesn’t shortchange on what audiences are waiting for. Thus, he creates a
big, fiery finale that while not
quite spectacular, still
raises the expected bar delivering a lengthy battle sequence and siege
with real peril and some inventive setpieces, which all wind up
effectively dovetailing with Jack and Isabelle’s simple journey. From
farmhand to hero, from princess to independent woman, with the pair
finding a way to finally be together.
And while as an entertaining two hours, “Jack The Giant Slayer”
succeeds, it’s not without its flaws. The bookend sequences are clunky
and feel tacked on, as does the requisite wide open swinging door left
for a potential sequel. But perhaps most crucially the digital effects
leave something to be desired. The giants never quite feel realistic,
always on this side of being cartoons, nor is the creature design
particularly inventive. Aside from the one or two main giants, they are
largely indistinguishable. And though shot in 3D, its use neither adds
or subtracts, making it mostly unnecessary -- you can see the movie
without the glasses just fine. And as the magical crown that controls
the giants changes hands among three different people, it means there’s
no central villain, and the allegiances among the baddies are both
vaguely defined and constantly shifting. One gets the sense they were
more fleshed out at one point, but excised along the way. So there is
that missing oomph of satisfaction at seeing the bad guy(s) defeated and
the hero save the day, that would have come with one main figure
pulling the strings.
But ultimately, it’s hard and a bit pointless to nitpick “Jack The Giant
Slayer” because it never sets out to be or presents itself as anything
more than a slightly beefed up fairy tale. It’s not steroid-sized, it
doesn’t dabble in dark undertones or make concessions to young kids
(aside from a few grossout gags) -- it aims squarely for the middle, and
hits it with a bullseye. Bryan Singer’s film is almost old fashioned in
its simple furnishings, with sly humor and accomplished but never
outsized action, and there is a certain charm to that in an era when
bigger is equated with better. It isn’t a blockbuster that will change
the game, and hell, it likely won’t even be remembered twelve months
from now. But anyone buying a ticket will get the good time they’re
paying for, and particularly during a dreary 2013 at the multiplex so
far, that’s something that can be said about few films. [B-]
boxoffice.com
Long Term Projections
| Title | Opening Weekend | Cumulative |
|---|
| Oz: The Great and Powerful | $64,000,000 | $183,000,000 |
| G.I. Joe: Retaliation | $48,000,000 | $125,000,000 |
| Oblivion (2013) | $42,000,000 | $120,000,000 |
| The Croods | $40,000,000 | $150,000,000 |
| Jurassic Park 3D | $25,000,000 | $55,000,000 |
| The Host (2013) | $23,000,000 | $63,000,000 |
| Pain and Gain | $22,000,000 | $55,000,000 |
| Tyler Perry's Temptation | $22,000,000 | $47,000,000 |
| Scary Movie 5 | $20,000,000 | $45,000,000 |
| Evil Dead | $20,000,000 | $47,000,000 |
| The Incredible Burt Wonderstone | $18,000,000 | $55,000,000 |
| 42 (2013) | $17,000,000 | $50,000,000 |
| Olympus Has Fallen | $17,000,000 | $45,000,000 |
| Admission | $15,000,000 | $50,000,000 |
| The Big Wedding | $14,000,000 | $50,000,000 |
| Jobs | $13,000,000 | $33,000,000 |
| The Call | $13,000,000 | $30,000,000 |
| Dead Man Down | $7,000,000 | $18,000,000 |
Carl Kolchak
says ...
Vampiric activities with Billy BobKakihara
says ...
She sounds like Jodie Foster, for some reason.Gaydos says ...
Back in 2002, Jolie came THIS CLOSE to taking the female lead in an Adam Sandler film.LexG says ...
She is still awesome beyond belief-- hence the term "Jolie Pass"-- but, man, when I FIRST saw Angelina Jolie, in a movie trailer for PLAYING GOD, my eyes were out of my head like a Tex Avery cartoon. It was like, WHO IS THIS, and WOW is she the hottest woman I've ever seen. Rushed out to see that, and to rent Hackers and Foxfire and became almost literally obsessed... She was so sexy and charismatic it was like the movie screen or TV set was literally scorching from her intensity.I've since moved on to K-Stew and Megan Fox and now Shailene Woodley, but the first glorious few years of Jolie must've been what it was like watching Brando or Dean in their day... She's still beautiful, but it's the unfortunate effect of someone being SO much in the public eye and written about and photographed so much, you almost start taking them for granted-- I'm on the verge of it with K-Stew, even *I* am starting to think she's overexposed and should stay away for a year or two and reinvent herself in a different light.
But Jolie has that rare type of charisma where women and men both equally are fascinated by her... she's probably the first female movie star of "that" type since the heyday of Classic Hollywood where the actress was the big draw.
Sams
says ...
I think one of the reasons people buy her as a spy/assassin is that they believe she'd actually do all the crazy stuff like jumping out of a helicopter or walking into a boatload of armed men. Gina Carano and others may have the actual fight skills but successfully projecting that they're suicidally brave is another thing. You buy that Jolie would totally do what her character does. And of course having that face doesn't hurt.erniesouchak says ...
She was once gorgeous but is now WAY too emaciated.hollywoodtease says ...
Yes Jeff, she has already alluded to her *dangerous* drug use in interviews years ago. To continue what LexG was saying about Jolie, it can be summed up like this: Men want to F*ck her, and women do too.Rashad
says ...
She could stand to gain some weight, but she's still gorgeous.People buy her because of her attitude. It's sexy how she appears to not give a fuck and not think, but know she's better than whoever she's up against. It's the swagger most actors lack
Eloi Wrath
says ...
Who's the next Jolie? Amber Heard has the faux-edgy backstory ("OMG she's a lesbian!") and is absurdly hot. I could see her being a decent-sized star in future.cyanic
says ...
Who's the next Jolie?There aren't any. She's the real deal.
fitz-hume says ...
Maybe she's referring to the time when Pitt was actually still with Aniston...Buk94
says ...
I still like her, and although I think she could stand to gain a few pounds, she still looks great. But that "Jesus Christ she's batshit crazy" feeling I used to have with her is gone now. Good for her, bad for me.LexG says ...
Megan Fox was kind of trying to be "the new Jolie" for ten minutes, but even as a Fox fan I'll concede it was a Bargain Basement Version, the put-on "shocking" interviews obviously just shtick, and even though I think Megan's an underrated actress (Passion Play, JB), let's face it, she wasn't a committed crazy person and life-at-the-edge firebrand like Angelina, but kind of a hacky hottie who just wanted to marry the kid from 90210 and collect a paycheck.I'm big on Amber Heard, but I think it would have happened by now... She's been in like 20 big movies, but strangely they're almost all "dude movies"... I don't know that many women even know who she is. The guys who dig her reeeeally dig her, but quite frankly she seems stuck eternally in that B-list zone with Odette Annable or Teresa Palmer where they're hot and in some stuff, but not household names.
Seems like Olivia Wilde's had the biggest push possible lately, but audiences aren't jumping up and down over her... Seyfried has the big eyes and the star quality, but audiences seem to like her best as a button-down... really, nobody else seems primed to take up that Jolie spot of super-sexual actress that both men and women drool over.
LexG says ...
Oh, and forgot... Evan Rachel Wood is probably the closest Jolie type since-- the mix of smart, talented actress who can be really well-spoken and "cool" in interviews, but then bangs Marilyn Manson and is openly bisexual and has this vaguely vampiric vixen/Goth side...I love her, but again, like Heard, she's been kicking around at a certain level for going on a decade, and I don't know that a lot of construction workers OR film-geeks OR sexually confused emo girls have up shrines to THE ERW in their lair like Ribisi's Tower of Halle in PERFECT STRANGER.
LicentiousMaximus
says ...
She's hot. I like her. I want to have sex with her. I don't begrudge her success at all....but she still hasn't made a movie worth a shit. She still hasn't given us a great performance(Girl, Interrupted is melodramatic garbage and Sevigny should have won) and her one-size-fits-all Transylvanian accent doesn't cut it.watchingyoubeytch says ...
she is one of greatest actress of generation.and i may say her acting is underrated , the same could not be say about her love life, hotness (or lack of it) and un tribe