There are certain film classics you don’t want to mess around with, making straight remakes a bit questionable. If there’s room for improvement, that’s one thing, but The Wizard of Oz? Pretty much un-impeachably awesome. Who doesn’t love that film?
As a result of people not leaving well enough alone, we’ve instead gotten “re-imaginings” like The Wiz (an African-American take on Oz, with Michael Jackson and Diana Ross) or Tin Man (a more sci-fi oriented take- or should I say Syfy?- with Zooey Deschanel as Dorothy), plus the largely forgotten-but-better-than-you-remember Return to Oz, from Disney, featuring a young Fairuza Balk (The Craft).
The strange thing is, there are actually fourteen books in the original Oz canon by creator L. Frank Baum- to say nothing of a small army of more authorized books under the Oz banner that were licensed and approved by Baum’s estate. So, you’d think someone would have tackled at least one of those in all this time. Save Return, no one really has.
However, with prequels having become a thing in the last decade or so, not to mention the impressive improvements in film technology in recent years- particularly in regards to 3-D- the time was ripe for a new take on the old tale. It’s a smart move, as it shows the classic original the proper respect it deserves, while shifting the story to a nifty subject: the Wizard of Oz himself. Who is he? How did he get there, and how did he become the Wizard?
That’s the story being told in Oz The Great and Powerful, also from Disney, which opened March 9th. Armed with a near-perfect cast and an undeniably talented director, Sam Raimi- best known for the original Spider-Man trilogy and the cult-horror Evil Dead series (which also gets a re-imagining next month, on April 5th)- the new Oz had a pretty decent chance of being something to see.
While I won’t deny original star Robert Downey Jr. would have been preferable to his replacement, James Franco; I also won’t deny that Franco fits the role like a glove, as it turns out. Playing Oz as a trickster, schemer and hapless womanizer, the opening section is a lot of fun, following the original Wizard of Oz's lead in terms of being in black-and- white and in a smaller aspect ratio than traditional, roughly filling up the center of the screen only.
At first, the approach is a little distracting, and some complained this section was a little overlong, but I think that was just because everyone wanted to get to Oz (as in the land of, not the character) and today’s audiences aren’t as welcoming of the old B&W thing.
But I think it was completely necessary, as it perfectly sets up the “Oz” character and all his faults, so that, once we do get to the land of Oz, we can focus on that, instead of dealing with a lot of character-driven stuff- save, of course, the witches.
Besides that, the 3-D is phenomenal, and you won’t see a lot more gasp-inducing sights than the way the film segues into color, with the frame expanding as colorful stuff literally flies to the sides and out of the screen as it expands to full screen. You really do feel transported, and it is pretty awe-inspiring. That’s no mean feat, pulling that level of wonder off, especially these days, with so many audiences jaded by all the remakes and rehashes, myself included.
From there, we meet each of the main characters one by one, which takes a little more time; but come on, when we’re talking about such eye candy as Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams, that’s a problem? These ladies are perfectly cast- I mean, Williams as Glenda, the Good Witch just sounds right, doesn’t it?
There’s also a fairly nifty twist that I managed to avoid getting spoiled on, in which witch turns out to be the wicked witch is not necessarily who you think and is actually mildly surprising. It’s hard to talk about without spoiling it, so fair warning: if you don’t know already, skip the next paragraph.
It never occurred to me that Kunis would be the wicked witch- I just assumed from the previews it was Weisz, which made perfect sense to me, not because she’s scary, necessarily, but because I could see her playing it. Kunis, though- she’s Meg on Family Guy, for God’s sake. Not the sort of thing that inspires fear, you know?
But damned if she doesn’t knock it out of the park, cackling laugh and all. It also helps that her transformation from good to bad is wholly believable, and tragically avoidable. And is it wrong that I thought she was still kinda hot green? Just me, then? Okay, moving on…
I really loved this movie. I love fantasy films, and of all the ones coming out in recent years- and there was a lot of them- this was the one I was most looking forward to. I was not disappointed. The 3-D is nothing short of phenomenal, and well-worth your extra cash, and I do not say that lightly. Indeed, this is the rare movie I would go so far as to say you’d be doing yourself a great disservice if you didn’t see it that way.
Yes, the film is a bit overlong, but come on: there’s a lot going on here. A lot of stuff to set up, and if they had rushed it any more, it likely would have seemed a bit overstuffed. This length felt about right to me, and I could look at those visuals all day- even the B&W ones, which were delightfully retro, IMHO.
I thought Raimi did a great job, loved all the foreshadowing for fans of the original (“Is that gingham?”- LOL), and the cast really did nail it, with a special shout-out to Zack Braff (TV's Scrubs), who really does make a perfect non-scary flying monkey, for whatever that’s worth. (Not sure what that says about him, but there it is.)
Also, munchkins! One of which is Tony Cox, of Bad Santa!
Just watch out for those evil flying monkeys and monster flowers- scary stuff, and not for the little ones, though most of this is firmly family-friendly. I mean, it is a Disney movie, and they’re sort of known for bringing the scary with the funny, which I have no problem with.
So there you go. I don’t know if critics will agree with me or not- maybe they’re suffering from fantasy overkill, maybe not- but I liked it just fine and if this is even remotely in your wheelhouse, so will you. Whatever the case, I thought this Oz was indeed great and wonderful, and gets the rarest of ratings from me: an A+.
No comments:
Post a Comment