Have You Seen Oz?

[mjaclyn]

DH and I just saw Oz the Great and Powerful last night and I have to say that I was sadly disappointed. I grew up with the original Wizard of Oz and I LOVE Wicked, so I am totally open to new story ideas. However, I thought James Franco was a bad choice to play the wizard. He wasn't believable. The Wicked Witch (Mila Kunis) also paled in comparision to the original Margaret Hamilton. SHE was scary. Mila didn't really have the face for it... I was also really sad that there was no mention of the ruby slippers in the entire movie even though they seemed to go to great lengths to reference the original film throughout in other areas. It was over two hours long but I still thought the story needed more development and that too much time was spent on creating the world of oz. I really wanted to love this movie but it just didn't deliver the way I thought it would. It's decent... but like Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland remake it's somewhat depressing to watch because with such a great story I keep thinking about what it could have been.

What did you think?

 

[MomofKatie]

You might want to add SPOILER to the title- the identity of the Wicked Witch is supposed to be a surprise during the movie.

I haven't seen it, but didn't think it sounded great from the previews, etc. I agree about James Franco- I think he wasn't a good choice for the role of the Wizard. I will probably see it eventually, but I'm not in a rush. Will probably wait until it's at the dollar theater or on demand.

**Editing to add: Never mind- just saw an article online where they interviewed Mila Kunis and she reveals that she becomes the Wicked Witch. I guess they only kept it a secret until the movie opened.**

 

[WizardLarz]

I thought the movie was good especially the Black & White to Color shift.

Let us remember one thing the 'Wizard of Oz' take place many years After this 'Oz'. Dorthy; one would guess is the Daughter of Annie (Michelle Williams). Who at the Circus lets Oz know she has become engaged to John Gale.

Also since Evanora was into Emeralds in this 'Oz', I would guess that she was given the Ruby Slippers by Theadora. Because if you look close after Theadora changes you see her Ruby ring pulses with power.

 

[mytripsandraces]

DH and I just saw Oz the Great and Powerful last night and I have to say that I was sadly disappointed. I grew up with the original Wizard of Oz and I LOVE Wicked, so I am totally open to new story ideas. However, I thought James Franco was a bad choice to play the wizard. He wasn't believable. The Wicked Witch (Mila Kunis) also paled in comparision to the original Margaret Hamilton. SHE was scary. Mila didn't really have the face for it... I was also really sad that there was no mention of the ruby slippers in the entire movie even though they seemed to go to great lengths to reference the original film throughout in other areas. It was over two hours long but I still thought the story needed more development and that too much time was spent on creating the world of oz. I really wanted to love this movie but it just didn't deliver the way I thought it would. It's decent... but like Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland remake it's somewhat depressing to watch because with such a great story I keep thinking about what it could have been.

What did you think?

The ruby slippers belong to Warner Brothers, so they couldn't use them in this film (they're silver in the books). They walked a very fine line to make this without infringing the copyright in The Wizard of Oz.

 

[jcb]

DH and I just saw Oz the Great and Powerful last night and I have to say that I was sadly disappointed. I grew up with the original Wizard of Oz and I LOVE Wicked, so I am totally open to new story ideas. However, I thought James Franco was a bad choice to play the wizard. He wasn't believable. The Wicked Witch (Mila Kunis) also paled in comparision to the original Margaret Hamilton. SHE was scary. Mila didn't really have the face for it... I was also really sad that there was no mention of the ruby slippers in the entire movie even though they seemed to go to great lengths to reference the original film throughout in other areas. It was over two hours long but I still thought the story needed more development and that too much time was spent on creating the world of oz. I really wanted to love this movie but it just didn't deliver the way I thought it would. It's decent... but like Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland remake it's somewhat depressing to watch because with such a great story I keep thinking about what it could have been.

What did you think?

I haven't seen it (I'm just now watching Brave on Blue Ray) but some things, the Ruby Slippers in particular, were MGM's copyright and couldn't be used without Warner Bros. suing Disney. Disney could do what was in Baum's original book but had no rights in the prior movie. In the book, the slippers were neither ruby nor slippers.

"The Silver Shoes," said the Good Witch, "have wonderful powers. And one of the most curious things about them is that they can carry you to any place in the world in three steps, and each step will be made in the wink of an eye. All you have to do is to knock the heels together three times and command the shoes to carry you wherever you wish to go."

According to the New York Times, Disney's copyright lawyers monitored the movie closely to make sure it didn't violate Warner's copyright in the original. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/03/m...werful-disneys-wizard-of-oz-prequel.html?_r=0

 

[nsalz]

Saw it last night....I was not thrilled, but my 16 year old daughter
loved it.

 

[gojoe]

I'm not a film critic, nor do have any deep knowledge of past films. Some of the greatest films I don't care for and some of the worse movies I love. I don't say this to inflame anyone.

All I can say is "I was totally entertained by this film".

 

[ukwildcat]

Wife and I enjoyed it. Not the best movie, but we were definitely entertained.

 

[Stitch_lover_Sith]

My sister and I enjoyed it in 3D, a lot of the effects would not look right in 2D. That being said I really enjoyed the movie for what it was. Disney trying to reboot Oz so they can do more stuff with it in the parks without having to worry about copyright. Land of Oz garden at EPCOT comes to mind.

 

[starwood]

Did everyone notice who Oz's girlfriend in Kansas was going to marry?

 

[gojoe]

Did everyone notice who Oz's girlfriend in Kansas was going to marry?

I didn't notice, Who?

 

[starwood]

I didn't notice, Who?

She was wearing gingham and said she was going to marry John Gayle.

 

[txvjc]

I saw it a few weeks ago at the showing they did at Epcot for DVC members and thought it was ok...not great, not bad...just ok...I agree that James Franco didn't really seem to grab me as the wizard, but he had his moments...I thought the 3D was actually put to pretty good use visually and not overly hokey...besides the whole legal/copyright issue with the red slippers I figure they didn't bring it up because they will use it in a SEQUEL which will undoubtedly happen if the numbers are as big as they are hoping

 

[LadyBeBop]

My sister and I enjoyed it in 3D, a lot of the effects would not look right in 2D.

I can believe it. We saw it in 2D. While the movie itself was good, not great, I think it would have been better if we saw it in 3D.

I did think James Franco was believable as the wizard.

 

[WaltD4Me]

Just back. I thought it was really good, but not great. My sister thought it was good and my 10 year old nephew LOVED it. I gave it a 7.5, my sister gave it a 6 and my nephew gave it a 10. I think I would have liked it a lot more with someone else as the wizard. James Franco was very blah to me. I heard in the beginning they were thinking of Robert Downey Jr. for the wizard, IMHO he would have been better, more personality. I wasn't wild about Mila Kunis either. She was good in the beginning, but for some reason she didn't do it for me after she turned into the wicked witch. We did see it in 3D, the effects were really amazing. 3D has come a long, long way even since Alice in Wonderland.

 

[auroralark]

[Spoilers ahead!]

I thought it was okay. There was stuff I liked and stuff I didn't like. I thought James Franco was okay. Mila Kunis was doing her best with a part that was never going to live up to the original. (I also hated her make-up job.) I loved Finley and the China Girl. They had me laughing out loud several times. Michelle Williams and Rachel Weisz were great too.

The black and white part at the beginning was great but there was something missing when it turned to color. The visuals were fantastic overall though. I loved the climax at the Emerald City.

I understand why they couldn't use the ruby slippers and wasn't expecting them, but I was expecting some kind of shoe. I was disappointed about that. And that kiss at the end - HATED that. Hated that so much.

 

[mjaclyn]

Thanks for clarifying about the Ruby Slippers. The copyright issue makes sense.

Did anyone else notice that Glinda is the Good witch of the South instead of the North as depicted in the original film? I know she is South in the books so I'm wondering why it was ever changed in the first place.

Robert Downy Jr would have probably been better. Has anyone seen 'Water for Elephants'? After reading the book before seeing the movie I thought it would be really difficult to cast the part of August and make it believable without being too much. However I thought they did an amazing casting job with Christoph Waltz, and I was hoping for that same kind of fantastic in casting the wizard. The movie could have been better with a different actor.

I do have to agree that it looked awesome in 3D. I loved the whole opening with all the paper cutouts.

 

[fuzzlekins]

I'm looking forward to seeing it b/c the visuals look amazing (and Disney has done an excellent job with the marketing posters, etc. IMO), BUT I can't stand James Franco ... in anything really. Just don't like him ... visually, as an actor, from what I've heard of his real life personality, etc. Definitely wish they would have gone with Robert Downey, Jr. because I think he's great.

 

[Kimberle]

I loved it! Even without the copyright issue, the ruby slippers would have no place in this movie.

I read they used one of the actual books as a basis for the movie. (Baum wrote a whole series, not just "The Wizzard of Oz".) I wonder how closely it followed the book.

I saw Wicked on Bdwy. JMHO, but that has no bearing on this movie since it was not part of the book series.

 

[mikelan6]

I enjoyed this film a lot. I loved the visuals and the actors. We saw it in IMAX 3-D, which was a perfect way to see.

It's inevitable to compare this movie to the MGM version as well as the musical, but it can stand up for itself on it's own merit.