In Review: Oz: The Great and Powerful

Directed By: Sam Raimi

Stars: James Franco, Mila Kunis, Michelle Williams, Rachel Weisz

What I Liked

Clever, witty, respects source material, grounded on the wizard's humanity than the witches' or The Land of Oz's magic

What I Disliked

CGI wasn't completely to my liking 

Gist

Imaginative, entertaining, respectful of its source, and grounded on humanity, Oz: The Great and Powerful's magic is derived from the flawed humanity core of its story and a strong supporting cast that's half-human and half-CGI. It's a movie about sticking to your own faults and making the most out of them, something the movie did well as an example.

Oscar Diggs is a traveling magician, performing in two-bit towns to a half-filled tent audience. But he's also a con man, and a loveless / friendless philanderer who thinks that his ways will lead him to greatness. But one day, after his performance in Kansas, a strongman running amok sends him flying on a hot air balloon that got caught up in a tornado. Where he lands, however, is not a place known to men--a place ruled by witches, filled with magic and flying monkeys.

When the movie first came out, critics have criticized the casting of James Franco and Mila Kunis, with Franco's performance being particularly described as wooden and forced. Then there was also the frequent complaint that the movie doesn't have any sort of magic that the 1939 predecessor that it prequels to. All those said, my expectations for this movie has been tapered. I was really gonna be seeing it just for Michelle Williams. I was ready to pass on the movie. But that wouldn't be fair and I gave it a watch anyway. So was my surprise.

First, I would like to address the thing with Franco. I am not a big fan of him. In fact, I find his voice, as well as his little brother's, annoying. And to be honest, I haven't really seen much of his movie. I mean other than Spiderman and Rise of the Planet of the Apes (which I didn't enjoy much, and I actively avoided 127 Hours because I don't like the whole premise), I haven't seen much of Franco in the movies. I am also aware that a great deal of critics hate him deeply and actually take good care to nourish that hate (of him and his arrogance). Anyways, those said, I think most of the hate affected their enjoyment because to be honest, I think Franco did well. Sure, he's no Robert Downey Jr., who was Disney's primary choice (and oh what magic would that make) but that would be boring already. Downey would take the role and do it so effortlessly that already I am no longer interested seeing it. Don't get me wrong, I love him, but it seems like the role of Oz would not challenge him, or would simply present itself as another iteration of him or of Tony Stark or of Sherlock Holmes. It will be so predictable how he would tackle it.

Going back to Franco, I think he is Oz. I mean the way Oscar Diggs was written was practically based on his personality. Oz can be a bit of an arrogant, self-serving asshole. And yes, with what I've read about Franco, that's him. But he's also got a heart and goodness, something he's not very good at displaying. Again, James Franco. Oz was a guy in need of redemption and maybe so does Franco. Those said, I actually enjoyed his performance. Sure, his smile is reminiscent of the Cheshire Cat's and is often more menacing than sincere, but he has so many redeeming scenes in the movie where he brought forward the humanity out of the big CGI fog.

And speaking of CGI, I don't really understand why Disney had to make it such an Alice in Wonderland Party. While it's pared down and more simplistic than the mess of Wonderland, it's still a bit cartoonish, something that's aspiring to be Avatar but only manages to be Smurf. Though plus points to the CGI team that made Finley and the Little China Girl. Those two scene-stealers provide much of the movie's heart and are the conscience-steerers for Oz.

Of the three witches, Kunis was the looniest. I'm fine with her performance, to be honest. It wasn't career-defining, but it wasn't movie-breaking either. In fact, I don't find any fault in her performance. She was angry mist of the times anyway, and probably that was for the better. Weisz was good, but not completely detestable. She's so svelte and composed and rarely dips into her villainy. But when she does, you still couldn't hate her enough. Best performance of the three, and of the movie, however, belongs to Michelle Williams, whose royally blonde portrayal of Glinda managed to combine desperation, feist, hopefulness, and elegance in equal measures. Her Glinda matches the atmosphere of Oz under the Wicked Witch's control: Desperate yet hopefully jovial and put together. It's a close tie between her and the China Doll, though.

But what I like most about the movie is how clear it puts its morals: sticking to your own nature and finding redemption in it. Oz was a con man who wants to be a great person. He know his nature and for a reason, he thinks that there's no redeeming him. But the things he has gone through in Oz makes him realize how he could turn the tides and find the good in his ways. Disney managed to do this in a clever way. The dialog was written well, particularly the exchanges between Williams and Franco at Kansas then near the end at Oz. It is at the end too that Franco's Oz shows his heart and matures into wisdom.

The overall tone of Oz is imaginative, entertaining, respectful of its source, and grounded on humanity. Its not as loony or magical as, say, its studio kin Alice in Wonderland. Its magic is derived from the flawed humanity core of its story bolstered by the strong supporting characters adding more volumes into the story. It's a movie about sticking to your own faults and making the most out of them, something the movie did well as an example.

Judgment: 4.3 out of 5 stars

For this movie, I'm willing to pay, 200 to 250 pesos. Paid 300 for 3D. Not sure the 3D matters.

In Review: My Week with Marilyn

The Gist

Williams' glowing transfiguration to Monroe will leave spell-bound throughout the whole movie and that alone is enough reason to watch and recommend the movie.

The Good

• spell-binding performance by Michelle Williams
• perfectly cast, with Redmayne, Caine, Brannagh, Dench, and Watson doing solid work all the while allowing Williams to completely shine

The Bad

• would need you to suspend your disbelief in the events that happens (as this is a memoir of Colin Clark), lest, take it as a fan fiction of sorts.
• though is pleasurable to watch, does not completely achieve a climax

Synopsis

Colin Clark, 23, applies to be a production assistant in Olivier's production of The Prince and the Showgirl. During the course of things, Olivier and Monroe's professional relationship are marred by Monroe's stage-fright and Olivier's impatience. Feeling a need to help Monroe, Clark "takes sides" with Monroe and in the process, spends a flirtatious week with her. The movie recounts that week.

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes

My reaction when Williams was cast as Monroe was apprehensive. Sure she's blonde, American, a female, and has full lips, but that's about it. Williams is a good actress, but a bit too far from looking like Monroe, much more carrying her charm and allure. This is me coming from watching her in "Blue Valentine" where she played a sappy housewife who couldn't seem to attract even the flies. And remember how pathetic the housewife she played in Brokeback Mountain was? That, plus the fact that if anything, Williams does not in any bit look like Monroe. But alas! Williams manages the impossible: she recalls Monroe from the dead and becomes her! Complete from accent, diction, speech, gait, and allure. She even managed to be really sexy, though not Monroe-sexy. That transformation alone got me hooked throughout the movie's 1 hour and 40 running time. I believed it was Monroe I was watching the while time.

Seems legit

Whose Side are You On?

Marilyn explains the kind of behavior that Monroe brings to the set, which is consistent with the literature written about it: habitually late, difficult to work with, struck with stage-fright; albeit, I find it all too condensed that one will have to imagine how she became lovable, how she became the most famous woman on Earth. The movie does not bother to explain it in length, but assumes you have a basic knowledge about Monroe before you jumped in to watch the movie.

The script is fair enough, with Williams squeezing the most potential out of it. Some may bemoan the lack of depth, but it didn't really bother me as I am taking this as a biopic for which witty dialog do not really suffice or happen often, but when they do, they do. What really brings the work to life is Williams' channeling Monroe into being. It is impossible to imagine anyone playing the role. As mentioned above, she got everything spot-on, from the raspy, breathy speech pattern to the flirtatious gestures. She brings Monroe to full life when she performs a dance routine number that Monroe played on The Prince and the Showgirl. Branagh's and Dench's performance of Olivier and Thorndike were laudable, too, while Redmayne, albeit outshone by Williams, did relatively well, too.

Costume and set design were also great and add to authenticity of the movie, while the pacing is fluid and simple, which helps a lot to enjoy the movie. There are great sparks of comedy in the movie and like most of Marilyn movies, this one is light, with the darker areas mostly reflecting on Monroe's inability to cope up with her stage-fright and being near impossible to work with. It is however impossible to decide which part of the film is the climax. For most of it, the film goes on to become delightful that there is no discernible climax, but rather a series of playful scenes during the whole filming, guided by Curtis' tight direction.

My verdict:

A biopic, albeit dubious but a really enjoyable one, powered by a glowing transfiguration of Williams into Monroe is not something you'd like to miss. A passing and recommended mark of 4.5/5.