How about we begin with my least favorite part nobody else seems to care about; The story they made for the Wicked Witch. The whole movie isn't very morally complex, much like the Wizard of Oz was, but what the creators of the film didn't realize is that the last major addition to the "Oz" franchise, Wicked, was a very character involved story that added depth and symbolism to the world. You would think the creators would try to, at the very least, acknowledge what happened in Wicked, try and add onto that story, but no. (Beware, SPOILERS)Instead our story for how the wicked witch came
to be is:
 |
| The mysterious witch that Disney is smartly not fully showing in the posters due to... "mediocre" prosthetics. |
When Oz goes out to kill the supposed wicked witch, he discovers it's really Glinda, the good witch (Michelle Williams), and the two start to fall in love as they create a silly but good-natured army out of the Munchkin Town citizens, (most of whom aren't munchkins...*shrug*).When Theodora finds out, she gets a "magic apple", (weakest bible symbolism ever, by the way) from her sister that she instantly eats and then she turns into the Wicked Witch. Mainly, Theodora wants to become evil because she wants to show Oz how he hurt her. That's it, really. According to this film,the whole reason the most iconic movie villain of all time exists is that she was jealous that someone stole the guy she liked.
 |
| Oh, Tony Cox. What amazing work you've done as "stereotypical random black midget" on classics like Epic Movie, Disaster Movie, and Who's Your Caddy. |
Other then that, I don't think this backstory works because the scriptwriter had an in for character complexities, but they just swept it to the side so they could have two evil witches. When Theodora is given the chance to get back at Oz, she doesn't go through a personal battle about whether she should turn evil to get revenge or forgive him, tragically ending with a rich, developed character turning into a cold hearted monster and flying off into the wilderness. Instead, we have a shallow cardboard "character" that we feel nothing for since she hasn't been developed and hey, why should we care when it seems no one else in the movie cares either? After the transformation, nobody else ever feels morose about this apparently naive, sweet woman just suddenly turning evil. The movie brings this up for a total of 10 seconds near the climax, but it's dropped just as quickly as it's bought up.
There are a few other problems too. Minor in the grand scheme, but prominent enough. The romantic relationship between Glinda and Oz I thought was a bad choice for a romantic subplot because in The Wizard of Oz, they clearly have no relationship, and you have to wonder what happened between the end of this movie and The Wizard of Oz.
But it's everyone's favorite random, exploited-as-hell, black-stereotype-line-spurting short guy, Tony Cox that aggravates me with the short time he's on screen. Cox is usually used for randomly showing up in movies, shouting variations of "I'ma cut you" and "DAYUM!", and that's it. Even though this is a fantasy movie and that kind of comic relief would be tonally inconsistent and awkward, the geniuses behind this movie decide to do it anyway. So, we have a random guy that does not fit in with the epic, fantastical feel the movie is trying to set up that adds nothing to the plot and is really, really bizarre.
There are about three elements in this story that work to varying extent, one of them genuinely surprising me. Shortly after landing in Oz, we come across Oz's first sidekick, a bellhop monkey that resembles Oz's assistant in the real world (both played by Zach Braff) A fair time afterwards, we meet our second sidekick, a tiny girl made of China, resembling a girl with polio that asked Oz to cure her, which he of course couldn't do. When the monkey was introduced, my first thought was "Oh God, this is going to get Jar-Jar annoying fast", with the monkey being a complete idiot. My first thought with the sassy, obviously teen-targeted china girl was "I have a feeling she's going to be like Jubilee from X-men". Slowly, however, my mind was changed, as I actually laughed several times at the monkey's actions, and saw the china girl actually become a key part of the plot.
It's also clear each of the actors put their all into it, even James Franco, who clearly was not meant for this role. I heard Johnny Depp could've been Oz, and... yeah, it' should have been him. Franco tries, but from the random moments of overacting to that creepy face he makes when he's happy, he's just not in the mindset for this.
The movie I could most compare it to is Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland. Both movies are: fairly fanfic-ish retellings of classic literature/movies, both are filmed on mostly C.G. sets, Both are distributed
by Disney, both have a fair amount of A-listers in the cast,both climax with a battle, (although it's hard to make an epic fantasy without ending in battle), both are helmed by renowned directors, etc. But most importantly, both were set up as epic, amazing movies, both got mixed toward negative reviews from critics, and according to the box office report for Oz, both are making or have made a lot of money.
With all these similarities between the two, I personally prefer Alice in Wonderland, not that I think that it's particularly fantastic. It was a lot more tonally consistent and felt like there was a lot more heart put in it.
I actually went into Oz with low expectations, but the first 20 minutes, set in the real world, got me excited. The character of Oz was set up well, with small moments of wit, and a small glimpse into the strange life and mini dramas of traveling circuses. But the movie takes almost a nose dive once you get into Oz. Was it awful? No, it was mixed. I appreciate how dark it was at moments, and the creators sure tried to give a full, original backstory, but really, the misguided failures outweigh anything good in this movie.
2/5
 |
| Both of the posters are very darkly stylized and try to involve you in how epic the fantasy world is before you watch the movie. |
 |
| As you might be able to see, the posters for both movies feature characters on walkways, fantasy-like plants and castles in the background. |
With all these similarities between the two, I personally prefer Alice in Wonderland, not that I think that it's particularly fantastic. It was a lot more tonally consistent and felt like there was a lot more heart put in it.
I actually went into Oz with low expectations, but the first 20 minutes, set in the real world, got me excited. The character of Oz was set up well, with small moments of wit, and a small glimpse into the strange life and mini dramas of traveling circuses. But the movie takes almost a nose dive once you get into Oz. Was it awful? No, it was mixed. I appreciate how dark it was at moments, and the creators sure tried to give a full, original backstory, but really, the misguided failures outweigh anything good in this movie.
2/5
No comments:
Post a Comment