Combine James Franco, a $200 million budget and a well-loved children’s classic that has stood the test of time and you are bound to get one of the year’s best films. Right?
Wrong. Pffffttt. *Blows raspberry to adequately convey disappointment for this film*
While Oz The Great and Powerful definitely has its attributes and positive aspects, overall it was a film that lacked depth, originality and the simple charm that its predecessor, The Wizard of Oz, has in abundance.
However, as a film reviewer (self-titled, go with it) onwards and upwards I may go to describe in full, why even the lovely James Franco couldn’t keep me entertained. Plus, I think a lot of people have really enjoyed this film so I may have to defend my opinions.
Plot:
Set 20 years before The Wizard of Oz, Oz The Great and Powerful stars James Franco as con artist Oscar Diggs, a small-time magician who uses illusion and trickery to make people believe he is magical. Straight away we learn that Oz lacks morals, is a bit of a ladies man and is concerned solely about making money. When escaping from an enraged strongman via a hot air balloon, Oz is sucked up into a tornado and transported to the land of Oz.
The land, for all of its beauty, is apparently cursed by the Wicked Witch, and Oz (who everyone believes is their leader and saviour), is to team up with the two ‘good’ witch sisters to bring about her downfall.
Cue slight twist, a romance, a couple of wonderful sidekicks and a realisation that there is more to life than money and you have reached the end of more than 2 hours of film.
Expect some spoilers below.
The Good:
Director Sam Raimi makes good use of his massive budget by creating a beautiful and fantastical world. The colours are gorgeous, the effects surreal and the world believable. From the textures of the bubble, to the green of the emerald city, Raimi has produced one of the loveliest looking films going around
I appreciated the references, both narratively and stylistically to the classic, from the sepia tone to technicolour; the use of the tornado; the way that original characters are replicated in the Land of Oz. And of course, the lovely yellow brick road is as omnipresent as ever. Wouldn’t life just be better if all our sidewalks were in yellow? I wish
His sidekicks Finley the flying monkey (Zach Braff) and China Girl (Joey King) (who came from Chinatown, hilarious). They are possibly the biggest source of entertainment and hilarity that this film has to offer, which is more often than not the case. Out of all the characters they appeared to have the most depth and personality, as well as being genuinely likeable
The Bad:
The acting. The cast, while all incredibly beautiful (Franco is supported by Mila Kunis, Michelle Williams and Rachel Weisz) are two dimensional and weak. Although all have shown depth and incredible acting talent in other films, together none of them shone or appeared to be anything special. As a big James Franco fan I expected him to bring an unusual quality to his generic and cliched character, but he fell easily into the mould and didn’t attempt to break it. Williams was insipid as Glinda the Good Witch and Weisz immediately came across as evil, although this was meant to be one of the major twists in the film. The only actress that appeared to put in any effort was Kunis, but once again, her character should have been a lot stronger than it was
The storyline. While intended for a younger audience, I felt that this film lacked charm, innocence and that ‘something’ that so many great kids films have. I felt that this film tried to convey multiple messages, and while its predecessor did it so well, unfortunately it just came across half-hearted and jumbled. Are we teaching kids that money isn’t everything? Or not to lie? Or just to lie when it’s for a good cause? That love can go terribly wrong if it’s one-sided? While each of these could have been addressed in greater detail and really made a poignant point, unfortunately they weren’t explored enough to really make any traction
The length. 127 minutes. I am not always adverse to long films, as I think from the past 5 years we can accurately say that some of the best films created have been lengthy. However this, sadly, was not one of these films. There were too many bits of the film that were unnecessary and didn’t add anything to the overall storyline, making it feel like it was dragging a lot of the time
While this is one of my more negative reviews, I know people who really enjoyed this film. Perhaps it is out of personal preference, or because I had such high expectations (but seriously, with the combination of The Wizard of Oz and Wicked to back you, HOW did it end up with no storyline?), but at the end of the film all I felt was disappointment.
Have you seen Oz The Great and Powerful? What did you think? Am I too harsh? Or do you agree? Let me know!
It’s been a while since he has graced our screens, during which time Ryan Gosling has been able to sidle in and firmly take the number one position of ‘gorgeous, kooky and incredibly smart guy’, but finally, James Franco is back, and with a bang, with his upcoming movie Oz The Great and Powerful.
About time too. Any film where James Franco doesn’t hack off his own arm is one that I’m keen to watch.
Oz The Great and Powerful brings back Franco with Spiderman director Sam Raimi, as well as Alice in Wonderland producer Joe Roth, so expect a massive budget, lots of special effects and a fair bit of psychedelic colour usage.
Oz is a sort of prequel to the famous 1939 film, The Wizard of Oz, that pulled MGM from near-bankruptcy and shot Judy Garland straight into the spot light. Big shoes to fill.
James Franco plays Oscar Diggs, a small town circus magician with a lack of morals, who is transported into the beautiful and colourful World of Oz. He thinks he’s hit the jackpot, until he meets the three witches, played by Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams.
While my inner fan girl is excited to have a new excuse to drool over James Franco, and his supporting cast in Kunis, Weisz and Williams is certainly competent, I feel that Oz could really go either way. While ideally, we as the audience will be swept away by beautiful imagery, a quirky storyline and great acting, it could be a massive flop.
The Wizard of Oz is considered such an iconic masterpiece, with stirring songs and that amazing switch from sepia to technicolour (which has been replicated in this film), one does wonder how well a film can be in comparison.
Only time will tell, but let’s be honest, either way, come March I’ll be seeing Oz The Great and Powerful.
Are you excited for this film? Are you a James Franco fan? Let me know!
So I was hanging with my friend on Friday, and feeling the blues pretty mightily, so we decided to find the most ridiculous, crude, laugh-fest film showing and, you know, watch the heck out of it. Or something. Turns out Ted won that prestigious award.
Ted is a comedy starring Mark Wahlberg as John Bennett, a Bostonian (right term?) who wished for his teddy bear to be real when he was eight years old. That wish came true, and 25 years later John’s best friend is still Ted (voiced by Seth Macfarlane). Which would be awesome, except for that fact that Ted and John seem to be going nowhere in life, getting high and generally pissing off John’s girlfriend of four years, Lori (Mila Kunis).
Chuck in a fat kid and a really big creepster as the bad guys and you have, what can only be used loosely, a “storyline”.
This film has had a lot of hype over it since it’s release, as it is the first feature film by Seth Macfarlane, the notorious creator of Family Guy. As anyone who has seen an episode of Family Guy would know, they don’t hold their punches. Which some could say is a good thing because they don’t discriminate, while most would say is in bad taste, and that at the end of the day Down Syndrome isn’t really joke-worthy.
Moving on. For me, I found the film funny because it had a lot of hilarious one-liners that were at times, ridiculously politically incorrect. A personal favourite: “I can hear the fat kid running, I can hear the fat kid running and it’s fucking hilarious” pretty much shows that they don’t really care about hurting anyone’s feelings.
However, I also found that it tried too hard to stick to the storyline, and there were too many nauseating “loving” scenes between Milka Kunis and Mark Wahlberg. In the film’s defence though, I was particularly against any romance that day, so perhaps I’m just being over the top?
Some people have complained and said that it has been marketed as a family film. These people are idiots. Please don’t listen to them. Firstly, its rated MA 15+, which is a general indicator that it’s for people, unsurprisingly, over the age of 15. Secondly, Ted spends at least half his scenes high on some kind of drug, and this isn’t something that’s covered up in the trailers.
For those who are considering watching it, but are worried they’ll be insulted, you probably will be. It’s mean humour. But it’s also funny, and at times uses both insightful and smart, humour. I feel that if you go into the cinemas realising that, yes, people are going to get bagged, then you’ll be fine. At the end of the day, it’s a film, and like every other form of media out there, you have to take it with a pinch of salt.
Plus. It’s a pot-smoking, talking bear. What’s not to love?
As it is the end of another year, I decided to recount my favourite films of the year (that I saw at the cinema), and bring back memories of the shockers that I was also forced to endure. While I’m not the biggest movie-goer, and make no claims to pretend to be a cinephile, there were some films that really stuck out as being amazing. Drum roll please!
THE BEST FIVE
Drive:
Drive follows the seemingly boring life of Driver (Ryan Gosling), who by day works as a stunt driver and mechanic, but by night works as a getaway driver for criminals. His life appears boring, simple and unfulfilled until he meets his neighbour Irene (Carey Mulligan), and her son, Benicio. When a break-in goes wrong, Gosling and Mulligan become targets by the mob, putting at risk all those that Driver has in his life.
What worked:
Pretty much everything. Usually I can appreciate terrible chick flicks, as long as they have a cute boy starring in it, but this film exceeded my expectations simply because of the way it was put together. The directing, by Nicolas Winding Refn, was superb, as it managed to both encapsulate the filming of loneliness that Driver felt at the beginning of the film, as well as work in the crescendo of violence and action that eventually led to the big finale. The acting was flawless, with Gosling as Driver in particular, to the point that potential Oscar nomination talk has been whispered. Finally, I enjoyed the 80s vibe to the film, from the tacky racing jacket that Driver wears, to the bright pink writing for the credits, and the quirky, yet catchy, soundtrack.
What Didn’t:
Almost nothing. The only problem that I had with this film was the scene where Gosling pokes his head around the corner, grinning like a madman, splatted head to toe in blood. Automatically I had a Jack Nicholson in The Shining flashback, which ruined the entire moment for me. Which is saying something, since Christina Hendricks had just had her head graphically blown off.
Contagion:
An unknown disease starts spreading across the world at a rapid pace, with terrifying symptoms that quickly escalate into painful deaths. The film follows different groups and their responses to the epidemic, including the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and their control of both the media’s impact and the spreading of the disease; the World Health Organisation, CDC scientists trying to find a cure, conspirators, and those directly affected by the disease.
What worked:
Considering this is a film directed by Steven Soderberg, with heavyweight actors Matt Damon, Kate Winslet, Gwyneth Paltrow and Jude Law starring (although there are at least another six or seven easily recognisable actors also included), this film was always going to be a technical success. Luckily for them, it was also a fantastic storyline. While the idea of a mutant disease spreading the world and killing everyone seems implausible, Soderberg tells the story in such a way, and with such detail, that it soon dawns on the viewer that actually, yes, this is possible. Which was a terrifying thought, particularly since I had to catch public transport home afterwards and all I could keep thinking about were all the germs I was touching and how they could potentially kill me. Also, brownie points for the ending, which managed to both complete the story and leave the viewer going “Dun Dun DUN!” (Or something similar).
What Didn’t:
The only part of the storyline that I didn’t particularly enjoy or think was necessary was the fact that Gwyneth Paltrow’s character cheated on her husband, Matt Damon, spreading the disease to another city in America. I felt like it was only in there to further our dislike for her character and become de-sensitised to the fact that she had died, but honestly, it’s Gwyneth Paltrow, I couldn’t really see anyone caring that much.
Source Code
Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) wakes up to find himself on a commuter train travelling to Chicago, only to realise that he is actually in the body of a stranger, who soon dies when the train suddenly explodes. As the storyline unfolds, we learn that Stevens is actually in the Source Code, which means that he has the ability to live the last eight minutes of a person’s life before they die. He has been sent in by the Army to find and capture the person behind the bombing, before they have the chance to set of a larger, nuclear bomb throughout the city.
What worked:
What was so great about this film was how it kept the viewer entertained when they could have become so easily irritated by the repetitiveness of re-living the same eight minutes on a train. Gyllenhaal played the character to perfection, and the story arch got more enthralling as the movie played out. Not only did we want to see his succeed, but the eventual ending left the viewer (or at least, left me) both satisfied and utterly perplexed, asking myself; what REALLY happened?
What didn’t work:
The only thing that I can think about is the ending; it was great, but six months on I STILL don’t completely understand it. Anyone care to tell me?
Friends With Benefits
Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis, as Dylan and Jamie respectively, become close friends after Timberlake moves to New York, and eventually they decide to start sleeping with each other. Except they have promised each other that there will be no romantic feelings involved.
What Worked:
OK, OK so it WAS a predictable chick flick. But so what? The writing was funny, the chemistry (both in and out of bed) between Timberlake and Kunis was addictive and the whole film just appeared to be effortless. YES, we all knew they were going to end up happily ever after, but the journey there had it’s unexpected moments, filled with witty lines, and hilarious co-stars Woody Harrelson and Patricia Clarkson thrown into the mix. And quite honestly, who would have wanted to see Kunis end up with that dick-douche who slept with her and then ditched her? Yeah, that’s what I thought.
What Didn’t:
The constant reminder that Justin Timberlake is a singer. When he was singing in bed with her, when he rapped, and when he started dancing in his bathrobe (sorry, not sexy). All unnecessary, and I became less attracted to him when I was forcibly reminded that he actually once belonged to a boy band.
Surely we all know the storyline to this one don’t we? Harry, Hermione and Ron take on Gringotts and eventually Hogwarts to fight the evil Lord Voldemort and save the wizarding world from inescapable doom.
What worked:
OK, so MAYBE this one is in the top five for nostalgic reasons, but can you really blame me? I was so excited for this film that I dragged along my tour group to see it with me in Peru. And were any of us disappointed? Of course not. While there were aspects that weren’t included (Dumbledore’s past for example), the film kept true to the books and I think, overall, to the fans. The acting was mostly good, the special effects amazing (to be funded by Warner Bros…) and the ending as epic as anyone expected.
What didn’t:
I didn’t particularly like the constant declarations that love is the most powerful magic of all. Pah! But then again, J K Rowling did continually write about this in the series so it shouldn’t come as a surprise. Also, the ending. Why was it necessary? And instead of getting similar looking actors, they just tried to age Hermione, Ron, Ginny and Harry by giving them unfortunate hair-dos and an extra 30 pounds. Just awkward.
THE WORST FIVE
Limitless
Needless to say, Limitless had its limits. I will admit that I went into this film disliking Bradley Cooper, but I also think it’s important to point out that when I walked out 2 hours later my feelings had only intensified. This film was bad on a number of levels, from the bad writing and directing, to the overuse of nauseating special effects, and Cooper’s smarmy, smug acting. Most importantly though, this film made the terrible error of trying to please everyone by being both a thought-provoking film, and an action flick, which of course means that it failed miserably at both.
Something Borrowed
For a chick flick this film just seemed to go on and on. I will give the film the kudos of having a surprising ending, but that was about all that was good. The characters were unlikeable, particularly Kate Hudson, and while she was meant to be awful, her character was so ghastly that one wondered why Ginnifer Goodwin’s character even put up with her. Also, I disliked that the best friend moved to England, declared his love to her, and then was rejected. Why was this necessary at all? To remind cute best friends that it is best not to fall for your friend because you will eventually be turned down? No thank you.
Real Steel
The very worst bit about this film? Hugh Jackman was involved in it. And before this film I had held him in such high esteems (OK, so I still do). I was disappointed with this film, because, like Limitless, it pretended to be something it wasn’t. I wanted to watch 90 minutes of mind-numbing action of robots beating the shit out of other robots, yet instead I was stuck with this sappy story between the re-building of a relationship between estranged father and son. If I wanted to see a heart-warming, yet vomit inducing film, I would have seen the latest adaptation of a Nicholas Sparks novel.
Abduction
OK, so I walked into this film knowing it was going to be bad. The only reason I had even gone to see it was because we were having a “I want to go to the movies” kind of mood, yet there was nothing showing. Oh, big mistake on our behalf. Long, tedious and ridiculously predictable. Taylor Lautner’s acting was even worse than in Twilight and the script was so bad to the point that it was laughable. And this is coming from someone who enjoyed watching Charmed.
Bad Teacher
To be honest, I didn’t see this film at the cinemas, and thank goodness for that because it is by far the most atrocious film I have seen in years. It had the potential to be funny, with Jason Segal, Justin Timberlake and Cameron Diaz teaming up together, yet it failed miserably on all counts. It was long, boring, badly directed. The characters were incredibly awful, and Timberlake’s character ridiculous to the point that he seemed unrealistic. Worst was the lack of continuity between scenes, to the point that my friend and I kept looking at each other in confusion because we didn’t know what the hell was going on.
SPECIAL MENTION
I saw The Lion King in 3D at the cinemas, and despite the fact that I was not 5 years old, and I succeeded in not weeping, the film was as amazing as the first time I saw it.
What did you think? What were the best and worst films of 2011? What are you excited to see in 2012? Please let me know!
Set In Motion 