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: The Bourne Legacy

The Gist

There is a great drag at the beginning of the Bourne Legacy, and a poor narrative, but everything improves and eventually pays off, leading to one chase scene after another. There might be some narrative flaws and items that beg explanation until after the credits roll, but those aside, Bourne Legacy is a movie that works.

The Good

• Jeremy Renner
• Great action pieces

The Bad

• Annoyingly slow and seemingly paltry narrative in the beginning
• The resolution may seem like a bit of a fizzle in the end
• There is the gaping plot hole of using Larx-03 somewhere in the movie

*** Spoilers Begin Here ***

Synopsis

After Jason Bourne exposes Operation Blackbriar and Treadstone Project (both of which I have no idea what they are about), the CIA decides to kill off every Operation Outcome subjects to keep their black ops secret from leaking out of proportion. Desperate to survive this wipeout and retain his enhanced physique, Outcome subject Aaron Cross journeys across the globe to make his enhancements permanent and escape into a peaceful life.

It's More Fun in The Philippines

I think the main draw of Bourne Legacy from where I live (Manila) is how Hollywood portrays the Philippines. Everywhere else, I doubt this is the case. We Filipinos always take pride when our countrymen, our country, or anything Filipino is exposed via international media. Likewise, we take it badly, too, if something is portrayed poorly. I am, however, more curious as to how Manila got into the story. For me, the proper portrayal would be the logical use of Manila within the movie. If it actually makes sense to have used Manila instead of, say, Bangkok or Tirana or New Delhi. And, well, it did make sense. The Philippines is one of the growing economies, and unlike China, has better English speakers and comparatively cheap manual labor for drug companies to put up offices in it. And while the chase scenes were good, my problem with them was that Manila traffic is poorly portrayed. If anything, you can't really do a proper daylight chase scene here as, God would know, the traffic in Manila is perhaps one of the worst in the world.

Hitman Re-Bourne

Bourne Legacy starts slow, and if you, like me, have not seen the previous movies, the first 30 minutes or so will get you lost and disinterested--the starting narrative is clumsy and fails to engage, which can easily lose audiences. But as soon as you've managed to piece the puzzle together at about 30 minutes of setup, it would make sense and it will quickly pick up from there. There are some items that will never be explained like why there is an Outcome operative living in the mountains and why he sends out items via a small auto-pilot plane and those for me are annoying given that they don't really feel like items that can be explored on to the next installment, shall there be one.

Some would blame the clumsy directing, particularly of the first part, to Tony Gilroy, who used to pen the Bourne series before graduating as the director in its first installment, but I don't think the direction was that bad. It just took time to pick itself up. And sadly, not everyone can be as patient as I am.

Jeremy Renner, as always, worked well--not a surprise. Weisz was relatively good. She may not be as large as Renner in this flick, but she worked her part and her scenes well. Was she believable as a doctor? I'm not sure she was given the proper scenes, but she was believable as someone passionate with what she does, and someone passionate to keep breathing. Norton is menacing, but not enough for you to hate him. You'd like Renner, but you won't hate Norton enough because you know Renner will always outsmart him and the perils for both him and Weisz are something that don't really pose any threat.

The chase sequences, albeit truly fictional, are great and exhilarating. Actually, majority of the movie is comprised of chase sequences, with the FBI getting to them as close as they could in Manila. And I have to give it to the producers of this film for shooting that scene in the middle of a sweltering Manila summer.

Then comes my biggest concern with the movie: Larx-03, who was explained as a brainwashed, emotionless, enhanced killer. He flies all the way from Bangkok to go after Aaron Cross on the surprisingly un-busy Manila streets. In a sense, Larx-03 can be excused for not being terminated unlike the other Outcome agents because he is brainwashed. But how about the doctors who attend to him? Or his records, those can be traced by the FBI even if they're remotely linked with the other projects. If Norton's team can do brainwashing, couldn't they have simply brainwashed their Outcome agents rather than killing them and dumping already expensive medical research that have proven results already? And also, why kill the doctors, too? Couldn't they have been simply secured and held against their will somewhere safe? Why the complete whitewash while leaving a Thai speck somewhere in the fabric? The inclusion of Larx-03 to me is the biggest downer to this film; he felt like an unnecessary cornstarch made to thicken the plot, nothing but a nameless instrument.

The ending, though my friends bemoan it, sees Renner and Weisz escaping into the open sea aboard a motor boat into the Palawan sea and the gorgeous beach, this my friends, is impossible given that a motor boat cannot travel all the way from Manila to Palawan without stopping for gas.

My verdict:

Plot holes aside, I felt the Bourne Legacy was a good film, full adrenaline and great chase sequences. Might not be completely logical, but is interesting in its own right. A passing mark of 3.75/5 stars.