I liked it a lot, but it wasn’t subtle. Artful, sure.
Oz was an idiot until the end - there should have been several moments where he said “I must be dreaming or dead” instead of just accepting of his situation -
of course that may be true for the char inthe book - that he just accepts the reality he’s in - but given his pre-tornado role of conman and being deathly afraid of dieing, a couple of moments trying to get his ‘head around things’ after landing would have made it ‘better’ - especially at the china doll scene.
Just saw it last night. I agree with you all. James Franco is a nice enough guy but I’ve just never liked him. In anything. He certainly didn’t sell me in this movie and I can imagine the writers of this screenplay yelling at the screen “That’s not how you’re supposed to be saying these lines! GAH!”
I wasn’t so much bothered by Mila Kunis’s performance though I agree that her character, and a host of others, needed to be fleshed out a bit.
I was surprised with the face of the Zach Braff monkey. There’s just nothing there. Go on and try to visualize what the monkey looked like. The face was so plain. So unmemorable. This is a Disney production. Animating characters should be their bread and butter and I think they blew it when it came to the monkey.
Oh and finally, I was completely blown away by Joey King, voicing over the china doll. She’s 13 years old and her voice alone completely out acted literally every single other character in this film.
I was doubly blown away because I wasn’t very impressed by her Kansas character.
Mila Kunis has a big 'ol head.
Also, the Wicked Witch of the West should not sound like Meg from Family Guy.
These were exactly my thoughts coming out of the movie. Awful casting. Franco is a decent actor but with a very limited range. He always plays James Franco. And that’s not what this role needed.
You know who would have been a good Oz? Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Especially if the role had been played more for laughs and less for romance.
Milla Kunis’s California mall accent was a terrible distraction, and not at all appropriate for the Wicked Witch.
Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams were OK in their roles.
Reviving this thread, because I saw this a couple of days ago.
I now believe that Mila Kunis can’t act. She can’t do alluring, she can’t do angry, she can’t do heartbroken (those tears in front of the mirror? horrible). And since her hotness does nothing for me, I would be happy not to see her in another movie.
Rachel Weisz’ role was the real opportunity for subtlety and acting, and, well, ended up as a huge disappointment. That final duel had more than a whiff of every other magic duel I have ever seen, including Gandalf v Saruman.
Don’t like James Franco as a leading man. But he does make a fairly convincing con man, so there’s that.
And the question I came in here with has already been answered, I guess. I was going to ask if anyone else saw the ending as a major setup for at least one sequel, to get us from this point to the beginning of the 1939 movie story. Apparently it was, because on IMDB the sequel was announced on or before March 8th.
And since this movie is apparently making a pile o’ money, I will be expecting that sequel some time next year or so. I doubt I will see it. But I can tell you what will be in it:
Rachel Weisz’ character somehow conquers Munchkinland - battles and treachery abound
The WWW goes off to her castle to nurse her wounded feelings, taking the flying baboons and the Winkie guards with her
There is some falling out between Glinda and Oz to cause her to leave him alone in the Emerald City.
The good but bland flying monkey dies a heroic death to save the day. (I put it in spoiler tags so as not to ruin it for you.)
Roddy
On a purely nerdy D&D player level, I liked the implementation of the witches’ “bonded objects” in the movie and related spell effects: the green amulet for green lightning, the red ring for fire, and the pearly wand for white light.
Since this movie’s been all over Starz for the past few months, I thought I’d bring back this thread since I finally saw it.
First, it’s really too bad Terry Gilliam didn’t direct this movie. I would’ve liked to see his take on the Oz mythos but given Gilliam’s notorious bad luck on projects, the cost of the film probably would’ve increased ten-fold and the production delayed indefinitely by a meteor strike.
Second, I never totally bought James Franco as “the Wizard.” I know Johnny Depp and Robert Downey Jr. were considered for the role and probably would’ve both done much better even if by now they’re both a little too old for the role. The same is true with George Clooney who would’ve been ideal about ten years ago (especially if he played Oz as a variation of his character in **O Brother, Where Art Thou? **)
[QUOTE=Roderick Femm]
I now believe that Mila Kunis can’t act. She can’t do alluring, she can’t do angry, she can’t do heartbroken (those tears in front of the mirror? horrible).
[/QUOTE]
Third, Kunis was passable and actually somewhat charming in her early scenes as Theodora but after that she was out of her element. Of course, her role was by far the most difficult one in the movie since the character basically begins as an ingénue who, due to external and internal factors, ends up being warped and twisted into a heartless villainous hag. The part would’ve been a challenge to even the most talented young actress and almost needed someone with an extensive Shakespearean background to convincingly pull off. As it was, Kunis as the WWW came across as an annoying spoiled brat rather than sinister and scary.
Fourth, Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams, as Evanora and Glinda respectively, were both good. Weisz’s Evanora, while being an effective villain, came across as somewhat dithery in that she didn’t seem to have complete control over her magic or fully know how its effects. I almost expected there’d be scene where she’d say the king’s death was was really an accident due to her misjudging of the power of her magic.
Fifth, did anybody get a vague “King Lear” vibe from the backstory? Going into the movie, I wrongly assumed that it would turn out Evanora, Theodora, and Glinda were sisters and that their father, the King, had stepped down as ruler and divided Oz among them. The reason why Glinda is called “wicked” by her sisters is because, like in Shakespeare, she refused to emptily kiss-up and flatter her father like they did thereby resulting in Glinda getting banished from the palace by the King who mistakenly sees her honesty as disrespect and the King supposedly later dying of a broken heart. Of course, in the finished product, they clearly indicate Glinda and the deceased King are not related to Evanora and Theodora but I can’t help but wonder if previous drafts of the screenplay had a riff on “King Lear” but it was abandoned as possibly being too dark for a colorful lightweight Oz fantasy aimed at a family-friendly audience.
Okay, that was dumb. Bring a dead thread back to life and then kill it with one post.
Hey, I appreciated it. This movie’s on my list to watch and seeing the thread was a good reminder to find the time to watch it. Probably tonight, as I ended up reading Animal Farm all at once yesterday rather than over the week as I’d anticipated so I have some unexpected free time.
Don’t know if I can go with ‘damn good’ but, I’d definitely give it a ‘purty good’.
This thread and the “what movies have you walked out on” thread remind me… I turned this DVD off midway through. You’d think a movie lacking any subtlety would move along at a pace faster than “glacial.”