Oz the Great and Powerful (2013) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
533 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
The Good, The Bad, & The Ugly
mvd10200019 March 2013
Well, let's start with...

The Good:

The visual effects are 2nd to none. Raimi and his team have given their audience a bright and colorful world of wonder in a much more 'wowing' Land of Oz than that of the original film, and possibly even one that's more visually attractive than any other film to date. A very fun and crafty Rachel Weisz takes the role of Evanora and grips the audience with charm and viciousness in all the right doses. The supporting cast also performs pretty well, sometimes capturing that original 'Wizard of Oz' magic.

The Bad:

Going into this film with high expectations for the dialogue, & acting is going to leave you very disappointed. Two of the most featured roles of the film, Oz (played by James Franco) & Theodora, (played by Mila Kunis) are surprisingly and inexcusably portrayed very poorly. Franco's Oz is written to be about how you would expect him to be - complete with charm, wit, & deceit. However, the depth that you would expect to come with such an anticipated resurgence of a character is missing, & you can tell that Franco is having trouble buying into the role himself. The character quickly becomes stale at about 45 minutes in, and doesn't ever fully recover. Kunis feels the same - bored & devoid of passion for the lackluster lines given to her. Her character also has an issue with development, and is rushed from high to low so quickly that the audience doesn't have the opportunity to invest in her. The performances aren't the worst thing you'll ever see, but the lifeless script & awkward dialogue make it hard to stay focused. Even with a great script though, I feel as though Franco & Kunis weren't the best choices for their respective roles.

The Ugly:

The worst part of this movie is the story. It leaves you waiting for some kind of clever & unexpected plot twist, a little divulgence of the characters motivations, or even just some depth for the main focal points of the story. It's also somewhat obnoxious that this film takes elements of the original film that should have been left alone because the original film portrays Dorothy's entire journey as a dream in the end. (Such as transferring characters of "the real world" into characters of The Land of Oz) Without saying too much, I can tell you that this film is stuck somewhere between being a fun and family friendly revitalization of the original story and being a serious and intriguing fantasy film for a wide movie-going audience - and the formula just doesn't work.

Having said all of that, I do not regret having gone to see Oz: The Great and Powerful, as the visuals do a great job of making up for everything that didn't work. I will warn you though, that the films run time of just over two hours can be difficult to sit through at times. Don't be afraid to take a bathroom break when it gets dry, you probably won't miss too much.
139 out of 192 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An average film ruined by Franco and Kunis
MikeyBoomBoom28 May 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I'll keep this short.

The movie was pretty average and the casting of Mila Kunis and James Franco was the nail in the coffin.

Mila Kunis is just plain bad, wooden and awful in the role of Dizzydora or whatever. One of the worst performances I've seen. Really shockingly bad.

Every time she opened her mouth I couldn't stop thinking "Shut up Meg".

James Franco, as other reviewers have said, comes across as an unsympathetic, slightly creepy Oz. His performance is uneven to say the least. Over the top in some places, half asleep in others.

Franco's "likeable conman" Oscar Diggs, entirely misses the mark, you won't hate him, but you won't give a crap what happens to him.

The dialogue isn't strong, some of the visual effects are a bit dodgy and there are flaws in the direction. A strong performance from the leads could have easily saved this movie. Sadly, the terrible casting decisions rendered this film pretty much unwatchable for me.
20 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Perfect Prequel
darosslfc14 August 2015
Oz the Great and Powerful tells the story of how the great wizard Oz from the Wizard of Oz came to be. It follows the young Oz (James Franco) as he is swept away to an enchanted land ending up in the middle of a power struggle between three witches. The young Oz is a trickster who deceives those he wants and/or needs for his own ends. This attitude has consequences and those consequences are what drives the story forward.

James Franco plays the young Oz brilliantly. The character is a shallow small time magician and the story shows how he comes full circle to be the Great and Powerful Oz from the Wizard of Oz. Unfortunately, his change happens after taking a grievous toll. The three witches who Oz comes to affect are Theodora (Mila Kunis), Rachel Weisz (Evanora), and Glinda (Michelle Williams). The three play their parts and give great performances to add to their resumes.

For those who watched and loved the Wizard of Oz in their childhood, this movie is the perfect prequel. Watching it as an adult was a treat. The writers did well to adapt the script to make it a worthy prequel. In addition, the movie does well to entertain both children and adults. It slots in perfectly as the precursor to the Wizard of Oz.

The film didn't have the best reception but I encourage you to ignore this. The directing is probably the weakest link in this movie, but the story and actors more than makeup for this. The character development is amazing and shows exactly why things were they way they are in the Wizard of Oz. Simply stated Oz the Great and Powerful is truly a prefect prequel.
22 out of 28 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not a Great Movie, but Still a Good Movie
MrSosotris9 March 2013
I went into this film prepared to be disappointed. Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland felt a bit lifeless to me (except for Johnny Depp's Hatter) and I couldn't help but compare this movie to that one in my head. So, I went and saw this one with reservations.

I'm a huge Oz fan. I love the original books. I love the movie. I love Wicked (book and musical), Tin Man, Return to Oz, The Wiz (the musical more than the movie), and even Geoff Ryman's oh-so-depressing novel Was. There's no such thing as an "official" version of the story anymore, so I don't mind a little pastiche here and there. After all, Baum's Witch was short, wore an eye patch and a very tall hat, and brandished an umbrella, but Margaret Hamilton effectively erased that version in favor of the glorious green-skinned villain we all know and love. So talk of "the real version of the story" is pretty much moot at this point.

This movie didn't disappoint me at all. Yes, it had some issues, but I didn't really mind overall. I left the theater with a big goofy grin and I'll probably go see it again. It was an enjoyable romp through a gorgeous landscape with enough insider references to merit multiple viewings. It rarely takes itself too seriously, and never tries to step on the toes of any other version of the story. There are references to events in the books which, before now, have never made it into any other adaptations (such as the China Girl), as well as many familiar visual cues from the 1939 film (the guard's outfits, the spiral where one fork of the Yellow Brick Road begins, and even a shot of the Kansas horizon with a scraggly grasping tree seem comfortably familiar). There was even a visual cue that, while it may not have been taken from this source, certainly suggested a character from Tin Man.

I felt that Mila Kunis came across as a bit flat. Her character arc seems too forced and we don't really get to see much progression. I didn't mind James Franco, to be completely honest. He was appropriately sleazy when he needed to be and charming in a goofy way when needed. I think he could have invested his character with a bit more depth, but it never really turned me off his character at all. Superficiality is a huge part of his character, and I thought it worked, overall. The side characters were a delight, with some of the best comedic lines coming from Oz's traveling companions. And, of course, Rachel Weisz steals the show with a delicious performance, embodying a great number of classic villains from Snow White's Evil Queen to Star Wars' Emperor Palpatine.

Visually, the film is a delight. Sam Raimi turns Oz into its own wonderland without it ever seeming predictable or tired. One criticism I had with Burton's Alice was that it didn't really give the audience a chance to luxuriate in the bizarre landscapes of Underland all that much. It had great character design, but the landscape seemed a bit low- key. Raimi, on the other hand, gives audiences exactly what they're looking for. Gems, flowers, waterfalls, mountains, rock formations, sunsets, etc. that are completely breathtaking. Not only that, but the CGI is crisp and clean.

Danny Elfman's score was...OK. One thing I've noticed with him lately is that almost everything he does now sounds less and less unique. We've got the requisite haunting waltz and the spectacular pounding swirling opening credits theme, but other than that, I found almost everything to be a bit forgettable, which is sad because Elfman is one of my favorite film composers. The music isn't bad, but it just doesn't add as much as it could have.

But overall, I really enjoyed this movie. It's a delightful romp through a colorful wilderness that asks nothing more from its audience than a chance to have fun. This isn't a thoughtful, complex Oscar-winner nor is it a gritty realistic fantasy a la Lord of the Rings or Game of Thrones. It's a kaleidoscopic portrait that seems at once familiar and new. Children will love it (though very young children may be scared by a few of the antagonistic creatures) adults will enjoy picking out all the loving homages to the books and the 1939 film. It's a fun way to spend an evening, and you won't be disappointed, just don't go in expecting deep, complex high fantasy. If you liked Burton's Alice, you will definitely enjoy this film (and you'll probably enjoy it more, if I may so myself).
175 out of 273 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Should be called "Weisz, The Great and Powerful" because it is her performance that single handedly redeems this film.
bourdan28 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Sam Raimi's prequel to L Frank Baum's Series of children's books plays greatly into Raimi's strengths as a director. A strong imaginary world that is covered in light and darkness and characters that inhabit that world with a quirky feel of childhood imagination. Raimi literally puts his heart and soul into this production and it shows, giving a festival of the senses with the viewer's imagination. While Raimi is working over time to make all of this work, a weak script and bad casting of two very important key roles set him back. The only thing that puts this film back on track is the game performances by two of the film's other actors, one in particular whose performance keeps this film from sinking from its own lack of depth.

For what does not work, look no further than the script, which is not very well put together. Yes, it is a kid's film but kids are a lot more sophisticated than some of the dialog here and some of the kids in the audience I was with moaned a bit while hearing it. Moreover, yes, it is a prequel to a story that many people know, so there should not be any real surprises but that is no excuse to be lazy with the script and the scriptwriting is lazy here. What makes the problems with the script jump out here is some of the casting, which is just bad. A good actor is able to make a bad script some how work for their character; a bad actor only magnifies the scripts problems and makes their character look worse. Unfortunately, we have two actors completely wrong for their roles here and it only makes this movie even a bigger chore to sit throw. The first cinematic offense is the main character Oscar Diggs, who is not only the weakest character in the film but has an actor who just not believable in the role. James Franco can be a decent actor when he tries and he can be infuriatingly bad when he just stands there and not care about his performance, which he does here in this film. The character of Oscar Diggs is supposed to be the anchor of this film, a man that has to see the error of his ways in order to be the man that he is destine to be. However, thanks to Franco's lazy performance and the weakness of the script, we really cannot see the good in the character and is not impressed with his changed of heart when the time came to prove himself. Oscar comes across more as a sleazy opportunist than a man conflicted with his inner self and we cannot root for him at all. The character is wasted opportunity and really does not add to the story and thanks to Franco's inability to show sincerity with his role, we really do not care at all about poor Oscar or his problems. Another character we end up not caring for is the character of Theodora, who (Come on, the cat has been out of the bag for a while) becomes the Wicked Witch of the West. Thanks to the script and Mila Kunis inability to show range or any emotion outside of anger, we do not care about how this character loses her innocents to become the evil witch and we do not care what happens afterwords. While both Kunis and Franco fall flat on their faces performance wise, not all the actors fall by the waste side and some of them are able to transcend the weak script in order to gives performances than is able to salvage the good Sam Raimi tries to give to this film. The first one belongs to Michelle Williams, who plays Glenda the good witch and manages to give off the right kind of goodness and decency that her character needed to be believable with out the added fake sweetness. She is genuine and believable and is able to make her character work despite the weakness of the script. It also helps that Williams is an amazing actor with a lot of range and is able to tap into her strengths to achieve this feat. The best performance however belongs to the great Rachel Weisz, who almost single handedly saves this film from all of its shortcomings with a performance that not only transcends its weak script but also manages to be even better technically than the film as a whole. When the script keeps moving south, Its Weisz that keeps moving the film forward. She gives a fun and sassy performance that manages to make the character of Evanora much more than the standard fairy tale villain and manages to give off a level of understanding and complexity that does not talk down to its audience. It is a brilliant performance with a weak script and only the best actors manage to accomplish that feat with out breaking a sweat and Weisz does that effortlessly.

While the script is weak and some of the performances pretty bad, it is the efforts of Weisz, Williams and Raimi that keeps it from falling off a cliff. For them only is the reason you should see this movie.
141 out of 220 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A yellow brick road worth following if you are able to avoid the huge potholes, which unfortunately is not always avoidable.
midnighttheater6 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Unbalance prequel to the classic "The Wizard of Oz" has a lot to offer thanks to the directorial grace of Sam Raimi and the game performances of both Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams. Unfortunately, their efforts are almost torpedoed thanks to a bland script that needed a lot more heart and the shocking miscasting of two of its major roles.

First we should start with the look of the film, which is to my surprised tame considering the gluttony of CGI in today's films. Sam Raimi gives an old school feel to this film that manages to balance the right tone of epic nostalgia and childlike intimacy with a hint of Raimi's signature manic style of energy. It is a beautiful film to look at and it is very inviting. The character's looks all represent their personalities and the CGI animated effects for the imaginary characters match the feel and look of the film. From the childlike wonder of China Doll to the scary fanged flying baboon, Raimi manages to let them connect on a visual level with their environment and not for once that they over power the seamless look of the film. It is a beautiful, visual affair and that is all thanks to the grace that Sam Raimi and his ability to let the audiences feel their way around this beautiful world. Unfortunately, while this movie is beautiful to look at, not even Raimi's efforts are enough to cover over the fact that the movie's script is as bland as a stale cracker and some of the performances are just flat out bad. The story lacks punch and its barley passable as a narrative. The character's motives are flimsy at best and a hint of irony and complexity could have added a lot more to the film. It is only through the efforts of the movie's best actors (Rachel Weisz and Michele Williams) that give this film the fun, irony and complexity that the script does not manage to even give itself. Unfortunately, while Weisz and Williams are bring more than humanly possible to their perspective roles, both James Franco and Mila Kunis look like they rather not be there are all. The bad part is that both Franco and Kunis are so miscast that it makes you question the mentality of the casting agent who though that they were good choices for their roles.

This leads me to the acting of this film, which is disjointed to say the least. James Franco has done good work in past films but here he just looks like he just does not care about his fellow actors or his performance. He looks like someone who just wants to cash a check and just cost by on what little he can do. He lacks charisma, charm and presence in the role of Oscar Diggs and the bad part is that he is the movie's lead character. Franco's attitude is well displayed on screen and it hurts the film and you end up wondering on why he was even cast in the first place. The same goes to Mila Kunis, who tries a bit harder than Franco on her performance but ends up almost as bad. She just does not have it in her to pull off the role of Theodora, who becomes the Wicked Witch of the West and her performance on screen shows that she is well aware of that. Therefore, she just gives up half way and leaves both Weisz and Williams to fend for themselves. This is not a bad thing when you think about it because both of them manage to hold the film above water while the script just falls flat, Franco continues to not care about anyone but himself and Kunis just does not bother.

This leads me to the best parts of the movie, which are the performances of Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams, who both should get overtime pay for keeping the film from self-destructing. Both actresses are probably the best we have working today and in this film, it shows. Weisz plays the oldest sister Evanora, who is the villain of the film and let me tell you, she is so much fun that its criminal and her performance is the best of the film. She gives the character of Evanora such a sassy, fun presence that you do not need Kunis to transform into the Wicked Witch of the west to get a charge, because Weisz does more with less and gets the job done. Her performance keeps the movie afloat and the viewer is more than happy to follow her, which is strange because she is the villain of the film and has more charisma and charm that the hero himself. The second best is Michelle Williams who plays Gilda, the good witch and manages to keep her character from going way too far with the sweetness and have a bit of an edge as well. Williams brings humanity to her performance and the film and gives a perfect foil to Weisz's evil Evanora. If Disney had any sense, a sequel or prequel to this film would have just both Weisz and Williams and leave out Franco and Kunis but I seriously doubt it.

You should follow this yellow brick road just to see Sam Raimi give his all to this beautiful world and see on how good actors Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams are in their roles but this road has potholes (Which are the script and the performances of James Franco and Mila Kunis) that cannot be avoided. Let's just hope you have good wheels to go around them to get to the good this film has to offer.
99 out of 152 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Has its moments but outside of Sam Raimi's strong directorial efforts and Rachel Weisz's fun and wickedly sassy performance, the movie plays more like a Star Wars prequel.
Footserve18 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Mildly entertaining look at the origins of the characters from 'The Wizard of Oz" has everything down pack. From great visuals to imaginative set pieces, this film has everything. Its does not have however a single interesting character outside of the film's main villain and her good witch sister. Not to mention the fact that its script is as thin as a sheet of paper and the plot reeks of a Star Wars prequel but with out the light sabers. Its main hero Oscar Diggs (Played by James Franco) is not interesting at all and it does not help matters that Franco is miscast and while Oscar is supposed to be a bit of a conman with a heart; Franco comes across more as a degenerate deviant with his performance. While Franco is sputtering out of control performances wise, it falls on his co-stars to pick up his slack and one of them is Rachel Weisz, who plays the oldest witch sister Evanora, who rules Oz with a velvet iron glove. She is manipulative and cunning and in my mind the best thing about this film. While most of the things in this film are mostly kids stuff, Weisz infuses her character with a wickedly sassy seductive charm that elevates this film past most of its problems. Her showmanship with the material is greatly appreciated, especially when after a while; you are getting quite annoyed with most of the characters in this movie, especially the computer generated ones. Another actor who picks up Franco's slack is Michelle Williams, who is very charming in a good girl kind of way and is the only actor in the film who can hold the screen with Weisz performance wise. The movie could have worked much better if it just had Weisz and Williams as the leads but unfortunately, its not and we have to suffer though Franco trying to be charming in a squirmy kind of way and suffer though probably the movie's worse offense, which is the character of Theodora played by Mila Kunis, who redefines the word "Miscast". Theodora is supposed to be innocent in this film and gradually lose her innocence to become (Spoiler) the iconic "Wicked Witch of the West". Unfortunately, Mila comes across as interesting as a block of wood in this film and her transformation towards the climax ends up being more funny in a very bad sort of way than revealing. It does not help matters that Mila looks as disinterested in her character as the audience is and a better actor with more range could have brought more to it.

All and all, it had its moments but its problems weight it down.
175 out of 280 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
From The Evil Dead to Disney....
Matt_Layden10 March 2013
A magician finds himself transported to the magical land of Oz, where witches, flying monkeys and yellow brick roads exist. He is mistaken for the saviour of Oz and must decide whether or not to stay and be king, or leave and find his way home.

I love Sam Raimi, the man and his invented work with a camera are what made me want to get into filmmaking in the first place. So to see him handling big projects like this (and Spiderman) was a joy for me to see. Oz the Great & Powerful is a CGI heavy film that demands a creative eye behind the lens. After his work on big budget films like Spiderman, it seemed like an easy choice for Raimi to be the one behind Oz and for the most part, it works. The films shortcomings keep it from being really magical and memorable, like the original from 39, but Oz has enough whimsy to keep the kids entertained and the adults smiling.

The land of Oz is indeed magical, with vibrant colours around every corner, memorable spots like the poppy fields and the dark forest for us older viewers, but even in saying all that I can't help but feel how fake it all is. This film suffers from the same troubles that plagued Burton's Alice in Wonderland, the visuals, although great for the story, add no sense of realism to the image. I hate overly used CGI in films to the point of noticing the awkward placement of actors in front of the green screen. The first major offender of this is Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, none of the actors made me believe they were in the settings they were. Both Wonderland and Oz have this same feeling.

While I'm getting the negatives out of the way, I must say that what everyone is saying about Mila Kunis is true, she was miscast in this role. I think she was chosen more for her beauty and star power than her acting abilities, which is sad cause it looks like she really is trying here. The story for her character here is a sad one and the second half I think suffers a bit because the threat from her is not really present. I don't really know why I'm tip-toeing around the issue because those who know The Wizard of Oz, know that Dorothy kills one witch with her house and the other with water, leaving Glinda the good witch in a bubble as the saviour. Seeing the Kunis character go in the direction she does didn't really effect me as much as I wanted it to. Consider that the failure of the script more so than the actors. Not enough time is really given to her for her transformation to affect the viewer.

The film opens in black & white and and the transformation to colour had a smile on my face. Despite the "fakeness" of some of the scenes (not all) Raimi does a decent job of not letting the effects overpower the film. Raimi steers the film in the right direction, but it is James Franco's shoulders it has to rest on. He is the type of actor that comes off as not really caring. It works in some films like Pineapple Express and he does manage to turn in some great performances, look at 127 days or Freaks & Geeks for that. Unfortunately I don't know if he has enough charisma and power to command a film like this. At times it looked like he was in the role, other times it felt like he couldn't care. Maybe it's his acting style, I can't really put my finger on it, but clearly Raimi sees something in him because he has worked with him previously on the Spiderman films.

Where the acting does work, marvellously and in every scene is Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams. Two polar opposites that look like they actually enjoy the characters and the movie they are in. They elevate the material a bit to make the drama more tangible. Whereas without them I think the film would have fallen more flat. The drama and character choices didn't really bring me into the story. The film didn't feel like it took chances, or tried to have complex situations for the characters. It had mapped out beats, hit them and marched on.

It was nice seeing some nice Raimi touches in the final product. More than 25 years later and I still smile when I see Bruce Campbell getting hit in the face, knowing full well that it is Sam Raimi on the other end of the camera hitting him. Surprisingly, moments did indeed feel Evil Deadish to me, with the flying witches holding out their hands in a deadite possession form. But I digress. Oz is a good film, with weaknesses that bring it down. Raimi and two witches try their best to elevate some bland material and in the end we are left with a film that is neither great, nor memorable....just satisfactory enough.
80 out of 124 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A great and powerful prequel/reboot that does the source material justice and surpasses the Star Wars prequel trilogy.
mhol111964-754-56794217 February 2014
I saw "Oz the Great and Powerful" in theaters on it's opening weekend and I loved it. This movie had heart, a good storyline, a well-written script, emotion and some intense moments. It's not as much a prequel to the 1939 classic "The Wizard of Oz" as much as it is a reboot of the "Oz" franchise that acts as a prequel to the novel "The Wonderful Wizard of Oz" by L. Frank Baum (not that I've read the novel). As a reboot, I think it did the source material justice. As a prequel, it actually answered some of my questions. I think the reason some people were disappointed by "Oz the Great and Powerful" is because they had high expectations for it. I actually had very low expectations going into it and I was surprised by it. I thought it was going to be "Alice in Wonderland" but set in Oz and without the only reason to watch it (Johnny Depp). From the trailers and TV spots, it looked like it was made to cash-in with "Alice in Wonderland". It was so poorly marketed. But I thought the movie was one thousand times better than "Alice". I've seen "Oz the Great and Powerful" three times now and I don't see why some people may hate it. Sure it's almost all CG (but then so were "300" and "Avatar" and no one gave a crap) and the cast consists almost entirely of celebrities (but then again, Judy Garland was a celebrity) so I can sort of understand why it may feel like a turn-off. However, I can't name a bad thing about the movie and most of my friends who have seen it really enjoyed it like I did. While James Franco wasn't the best choice for the Oz character, I think he pulled it off very well. I think it's a much better prequel movie than "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace" was. And I like "Star Wars" better than "Wizard of Oz" so I think that's saying something. "Oz the Great and Powerful" may not be a masterpiece or better than the classic but It's a "great and powerful" movie and if you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it. Don't listen to the haters. You're opinion is all that matters. I give this movie 10 stars out of 10.
16 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Sometimes dreams really don't come true
tomvardin15 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
***This review may contain spoilers************************** Quickly recapping the 1939 classic: A true wonder of film, utilizing gritty realism and fantastical surrealistic innovation to deliver a charming and timeless parable of self-acceptance and gratitude. The songs, the casting, the seamless yet unworldly story arc magically combine psychoanalytic and sociological themes, not to mentioned thinly- veiled drug references coming together so perfectly that it would appear that the chance to attempt this quasi prequel in this day and age was too great a challenge to turn down for this director. Unfortunately due to several flaws it falls flat like a house on a witch. Firstly, Franco- just awful, I'm sorry, he may be a smart kid and a good actor but he isn't able to pull off the con-man who finds he has a heart called for here. Trivia claims Depp and Downey turned the role down. The former, maybe, the later quite possibly could have made a significant difference here. Secondly, Kunis. I'm sorry but I COD't get the image of Meg as the giant moon-worm out of my head as she screamed on so, ugh! and finally, I am left with an inability to connect this particular premise with the classic, which began and ended in a reality with a coma-induced delerium used to bring together all the dots. Kudos to Weisz and Williams, fine acting in what is essentially a fun kidflick.
29 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
There is a lot to admire here, too bad a couple of bad casting decisions and a flimsy story almost ruins the party.
offbased11 February 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Sam Raimi's excursion into the Land of Oz is somewhat of a sight to behold, with great sets and wonderful use of CGI that does not over power the senses or your cinematic tastes. Too bad for this film, bad casting decisions on two of the characters and a way too simplistic story sets it back somewhat. Raimi does not throw up too many computerize affects and a great deal of Oz is old school charm with grand sets and costuming. That benefits this film greatly and makes Oz a real cinematic treat. The performances are for the most part spot on with great turns by Rachel Weisz (Weisz has the most fun in her role) Michelle Williams, who gives a noble performance as Glenda the good witch and the third best belongs to the voice over of Zach Braff, who gives a funny performance as a talking monkey sidekick. With these performances and Raimi's technical savvy, the film almost takes off, almost. What keeps it from being any better is the story, which is fine but flimsy and predicable. Yes, it is a sort of prequel and you know what is going to happen but there are no surprises to be found here and most of the so-called surprises are ruined thanks to the marketing if you have been following this movie. Another factor that keeps this movie from soaring to better heights is some of the other casting, which is baffling to say the least. Mila Kunis is disappointing as the younger sister Theodora, who of course becomes the Wicked Witch of the West. No flare in her part and just looks miserable through out the entire film. The biggest casting violation is James Franco who comes across as sleepy and somewhat creepy as the main character Oscar (Oz). He overacts in some parts and under acts in others and is with out a doubt the weakest member of the cast.

While there is a lot to admire with this film, the problems it has (Mainly the story and the miscasting of Kunis and Franco) keep it from achieving a better grade from me.

133 out of 220 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The not so great and powerful Oz
TheLittleSongbird26 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I love anything to do with The Wizard of Oz. The story is a classic, and the 1939 Judy Garland film is for me one of the best films ever made. And I liked the idea of having a prequel to this story, and Oz the Great and Powerful had potential to be great in the right hands. I was kind of intrepid though as well because I heard a lot of bad things about it, and while it was not as bad as I'd heard it was a disappointment. And this was including me taking into account that it is a family movie and that any film should be judged on its own merits.

Oz the Great and Powerful does have a fair few things that redeem it. I loved the visuals, I thought on seeing the trailer that they looked amazing and on seeing the film itself I still stand by that. The colours are truly beautiful to look at and the cinematography and camera angles don't intrude too much and allow us to properly enjoy the visuals. The costumes and sets equally fanciful, Michelle Williams in particular looks radiant, while the CGI effects have moments where they are generic, but on the most part they're fine. Danny Elfman's score doesn't have the whimsical, poignant magic that his Edward Scissorhands score has for example, but it is both sparkling and rousing and you really feel a sense of fantasy and adventure when hearing it. When it comes to individual scenes, the highlight was the expertly done and thrilling tornado sequence, it looked great and didn't feel dragged out too long. And there are two performances that are good. Coming off the best was Rachel Weisz who is deliciously sassy and seductive. Michelle Williams occasionally comes across as a little too airy-fairy, but she also makes a good impression, being wondrous visually and being full of charm and benevolence.

James Franco and Mila Kunis did absolutely nothing for me though. Franco I've liked before in other films, the finest example being 127 Hours, but I did feel that in perhaps an attempt to be quirky that he wildly overdid his part, his smirking- almost like he was stoned- grated really fast. Kunis unfortunately is bland personified, granted she was not given much worthwhile to work with but I just could not buy her at all as a Wicked Witch and there is no expression at all in her eyes. The voice acting is serviceable but never much more than that. Franco and Kunis are not the only let downs to the film. The script, story and pacing were really big issues in this regard. The script tries to incorporate too many things all at once and instead of doing this successfully it comes across as muddled and stilted instead. The story starts off well, but quickly becomes contrived, paper-thin and rushed with next to none of the enchantment, sense of wonder and emotional resonance that the story and 1939 film have. Relationships are introduced quickly and end even quicker than that. The overall pacing was rushed, but the lack of any genuine excitement also eventually made the film a sludge as it tries to stretch a very thin plot longer than it needed to be. The characters also are ones that we never learn anything about and consequently I didn't properly care for a single one.

All in all, has its good points and things to enjoy but this Oz is not as great or as powerful as it had potential to be. Not bad, but disappointing all the same. 5/10 Bethany Cox
27 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Gaudy and Superficial
LeonLouisRicci6 June 2014
if You didn't Know that this Movie was Directed by Sam Raimi, You wouldn't Know that it was Directed by Sam Raimi. All of the Style is in the CGI. It has a Certain Eye Candy Appeal that also Lacks Warmth, Depth, and Anything Resembling a Soul.

But here it is. A Mega-Million Dollar Spewing of the Plasticized, Industrial Art that has become the Standard for This Type of Thing. The Other Worldliness of the Superhero and other Fantasies. It can Work Very Well in Limited Quantities but when that's All there is, that's All there is.

James Franco is a Movie Star (and some may question why) and Not an Actor, so He can by No Stretch of the Imagination Pull off the Charm Needed for the Wizard. He Grins and Smirks and All the Women On Screen, and in the Audience, are Supposed to be Charmed Out of Their Pants. Right.

The Prequel has its Moments of Appeal, but Hardly Awe Inspiring. The Witches are Interchangeable Bores. The Flying Monkey is OK and the China Doll is the Most Memorable. There are a lot of Explosions and Fireballs to Pump the Sub-Woofers and Danny Elfman's Recognizable Style is Noticeable from the First Few Notes (did someone say repetition).

Overall, the Movie can be Recommended in a Gaudy kind of Display with Enough Color to Capture the Eye, but the Movie is Not that Captivating. It is such a Mediocre Movie that Slightly Betrays the Source Material and is Another Expensive Extravaganza that is by Most Accounts Disappointing and Adequate at Best. That's not much for Disney and the Pile of Gold it put out for this Thing.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
L. Frank Baum is spinning in his grave!
hbb-hb14 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Once again, Hollywood has come out with another horrific "addition" to the canon of classic children's stories. This awful prequel should be seen as another blemishment in Sam Raimi's career as a director. Once again, he's splattered cheesy special effects all over the screen in an attempt to impress the audience, but skips out on any type of depth of meaning. He still hasn't figured out that the magic of the movies comes out through the audience becoming engaged with the characters and the storyline, not by being overwhelmed by an over-expansive computer-generated world that looks like its made of plastic. James Franco and Mila Kunis should also be embarrassed by their utter lack of acting in this film. A half-hour into this tragedy and I was ready to leave the theatre. All the characters in the film seem like they're speaking their lines into the camera, probably a result of the fact that everything in the film looks like it was put into the film in post-production. I couldn't help but find it ironic that the screenwriters of Oz have the Kansas magician be tempted by the gold-filled riches of the Emerald City, but find the strength to resist. After viewing the film, all one can think of is how much Roth and Raimi sold out the magical, fantastical world of Oz for the evil riches that came with suckering the poor fans of the imagination of Baum with this over-bloated, horribly-written, poorly acted travesty of a film. They are the ultimate Kansas hucksters. Perhaps they need to look for a little more "goodness" and a little less "greatness."
57 out of 91 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Where's Hansel & Gretel when you need them?...
Chalice_Of_Evil7 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I admit I hadn't really known much about this movie (such as what the story was about and who was playing who) until recently. Though I did find out before going to see it and, well, I think you'd be better off going into this film knowing very little about it. I've seen numerous complaints about the 'spoiling' of Theodora (Mila Kunis) turning out to be The Wicked Witch of the West, but in hindsight, the signs are all clearly there. Her big floppy hat, for one (which deserves its own credit). Then there's her voice, that you just KNOW is going to turn into that classic evil witchy cackle - which she does plenty of. Lastly, her conversation with her sister, Evanora (Rachel Weisz - who deserves all the praise she's getting, as she really *does* have fun in the role and is one of the stand-out performances), is about as subtle as a train wreck. Theodora insists she's NOT 'wicked' (a word you'll hear a plenty of throughout the film) and then promptly tosses a fireball. What ultimately turns her evil? Thinking she was the 'one and only' witch for Oz (James Franco), then believing she's but *one* of his 'one and only's, thanks to her sister's deceit. Yes, it's one of THOSE origin stories. I'd actually originally thought Weisz would turn into the Wicked Witch, back when all I knew about the movie was who was starring in it. Then once I read a bit of info about the film, it became clear this wasn't the case. Maybe the movie would have benefited from her being cast in the role? Kunis does a good witch cackle, and certainly looks the part - all greened up, pointy hat and broom-flying - but ultimately, she doesn't really convey that much...well..'wickedness'. Probably the nicest/most subtle touch was her streaking tears burning her cheeks.

Those hoping for an origin story that has lots of depth and substance may find this a bit disappointing. Theodora meets Oz when he crash-lands in the wondrous realm of Oz, and within a very brief amount of time, is already infatuated with him (of course, she believes he really *is* a wizard with actual powers, so that probably has something to do with it). I didn't mind Mila when she was skipping merrily along The Yellow Brick Road, despite her naivety, but there just wasn't enough time spent developing a real solid attachment between her and Oz before she descends into villain territory. Given the overlong runtime of the film, more of it should have been devoted to their burgeoning relationship, I think. It's hard to believe Weisz wasn't Raimi's/the studio's first choice for Evanora, as she plays her perfectly. She and Glinda (Michelle Williams) have quite the witch battle at the end. The real crime here is Evanora's punishment she suffers at the end - as robbing Rachel Weisz of her beauty is just not on! I guess it does set her up to become a future pancake underneath Dorothy's house, though. Williams as Glinda is kind and sweet and floats around in a bubble (though that's apparently just for show) and has a crown that never falls off. She can also take a hit or two and manage to bounce back after Evanora goes all Emperor on her arse, zapping her with green lightning shooting from her fingertips. Williams' Glinda is fine, if not particularly interesting/memorable. The last we see of the two Wicked Witches does suggest that this may be set-up for sequels to come...or, if not, then it serves as simply a prequel to the two already existing 'Oz' films.

Kunis's Theordora utters the words 'how predictable' at one point in the film, and that really could apply to the movie as a whole. It's not exactly a story you haven't seen before. There's Oz, who pretends to be a great magician, but really just uses cheap tricks. When he comes to the Land of Oz, he is of course mistaken for a real wizard. There's the expected self-doubt, then the bit where he makes everyone thinks he really is a coward, only to reveal himself to have turned noble in the end and save everyone. Nothing new to see here. Franco is adequate in the role, though his grin really makes you want to punch him in the face at times. He's also somewhat overshadowed by the witches. At least Oz's career in illusion comes in handy at the end - even if it's a bit hard to believe that such powerful witches are so easily fooled and give in so quickly. Zach Braff is Oz's offsider, both in Kansas and in the Land Of Oz - although, in the latter he is a flying monkey valet. He is intended as the film's main source of comic relief, and he has his moments. While there is some humour in the film, it's not exactly big on laughs. Joey King, meanwhile, does tug at the heartstrings as a girl in a wheelchair who asks Oz to make her walk, when she's seeing his performance. She also provides the voice for China Girl - a wonderfully brought to life creation...that sadly verges on the irritating, personality-wise. So much damn crying! And that must have been some fast-acting glue Oz had on him that he used to put her back together.

Starting the film in black & white and a vintage aspect ratio does help set the tone of the film, plus it creates that nostalgic feel for the classic original film. The visuals are quite stunning, but after a while the novelty wears off. Visuals can't make up for a lacklustre story, and sadly, despite the direction/look of the film and some good performances, Oz the Great and Powerful just doesn't quite live up to its title. In the end, it's good...but not great.
54 out of 86 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Not quite over the rainbow
duncdonut737 March 2013
Oz the Great and Powerful .. or maybe not so great, but still highly watchable.

Franco plays the little man behind the curtain, while Kunis, normally a favourite of mine, appears to be stuck in that tornado. Neither manage to defy gravity but the rest of the cast were pleasant, especially Weisz - even with her Emperor-like green force lightning.

It would have been a more visually stunning Oz had the effects been simplified. Conversely, the story lacked depth and with some rather clumsy dialogue (especially for Kunis), it was all perhaps a little too light and "Disney".

Doesn't quite get the ruby slipper, but maybe 3 out of 5 wands.
128 out of 218 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Both lovingly referential and delightfully imaginative, this is a vivid, colourful and enchanting tale of whimsy and wonderment
moviexclusive4 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
To attempt a follow-up to a beloved classic such as 'The Wizard of Oz' would seem entirely foolhardy; yet there is sheer magic in Sam Raimi's 'Oz: The Great and Powerful', an always engaging, consistently entertaining and utterly bewitching fairy tale fable that elegantly evokes the 1939 classic while being entirely in tune with the sensibilities of modern-day audiences.

As clear reverence to that legendary picture, it opens in black-and- white and framed in Academy ratio with the traveling magician Oscar Diggs (James Franco) at the Baum Family Circus in 1905 Kansas. It's no secret that Oscar will eventually become the Wizard; all that matters is how he gets there, and what follows is a beautiful journey imagined by screenwriters Mitchell Kapner and David Lindsay-Abaire of how an ordinary man can become a great man with a good heart and a little bit of faith.

As such tales do, this one starts with who Oscar isn't – and that is, an honest and reliable person. No doubt as a magician, Oscar will always have a trick up his sleeve; but Oscar hasn't simply been hoodwinking his audience. Instead, the smooth talker has also been fooling any beautiful lady whom he meets; even as one such lady (Michelle Williams) hopes to persuade him in his trailer to marry her, the relative of another broken-hearted woman gives furious chase, forcing him to climb into his hot-air balloon for escape.

That is the first of many narrative sleight-of-hands in which fans will immediately recall Victor Fleming's original. Here, a giant tornado whisks him right into its eye, where he watches with wide-eyed horror as every manner of debris flies dangerously around him. Once again taking a cue from the original, this sequence is filmed for maximum thrills – especially so with an added dimension – with an exhilarating ride down a gushing waterfall added in for good measure.

As Dorothy was in 'The Wizard of Oz', Oscar is greeted by a kind and beautiful witch, Theodora (Mila Kunis), who is immediately spellbound by the possibility that he could very well be the great and wonderful wizard that an ancient prophecy had foretold. Those familiar with the tale will recall that Theodora is but one of the witches of Oz; besides her, there is her sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz) as well as the supposed evil one called Glinda (Williams again) whom Evanora accuses of murdering her father.

The fates of these pivotal witches of Oz is intertwined closely with Oscar's transformation from an opportunistic and self-centred trickster to a revered hero of the people of Oz, and like Dorothy, Oscar is joined on his adventure by two unlikely companions – a flying monkey (Zach Braff) and an all-porcelain China Girl (Joey King). Along the way, fans of both Baum's novels as well as the original will recognise the other cleverly placed narrative sleights – including flying baboons, singing and dancing Munchkins, poisonous-scented poppy fields, and floating magic bubbles.

Yet at no point do these plentiful references ever feel slavish; rather, building on a solid foundation from Kapner and Abaire, Raimi creates a visually resplendent world wowing in its lovingly rendered details that feels fresh and original. The effect is, we dare say, just as magical as that audiences in the past were transported on when Fleming's Technicolour visual effects fantasy was first unveiled, and perhaps even more so with the wonder of today's CGI advances put to work.

There is of course much more than just visual bombast on display; in fact, Raimi uses these in service of a story that is full of heart and nerve. Cast as an unprepared man whom destiny calls to greatness, the Wizard is a surprisingly poignant character study of a flawed hero who eventually finds it within himself to rise above himself. That change of heart is portrayed in a befittingly heart-stopping climax engineered on illusion and ingenuity, a grand magic show set right in the heart of Emerald City that again brings to mind the revelation at the end of 'The Wizard of Oz' of the Wizard's identity.

If there is one blemish to an otherwise outstanding accomplishment, it is James Franco's casting as the Wizard. While he does bring a slippery charm to the Wizard, he lacks the dramatic stature necessary to make the character a more compelling one. Among the three witches, it is Williams and Weisz who steal the show, the former's radiant goodness a perfect complement against the latter's icy malevolence. And though we do not see him after the film's extended prologue, Braff's voice-over for the Wizard's winged companion brings much spirited humour to the proceedings.

So like 'The Wizard of Oz', this prequel is good old-fashioned family entertainment. And just because this comes late in Hollywood's recent obsession with fairy tales should not at all deter you from making a beeline for it – because this is hands down the best of them (even better than Tim Burton's 'Alice in Wonderland' in fact). True to its title, it is great and wonderful, an ageless and timeless fantasy deserved to be enjoyed in history with its forbearer.
166 out of 291 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Oz: Anything BUT Great & Powerful
MisterNicholas20 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Okay. So I was excited for this film for quite some time now. Back in October or so when I first saw the trailer, I instantly wanted to see it. It's too bad that it was such a letdown. Don't get me wrong, the cinematics are gorgeous. The colors pop and everything is sharp and beautiful. But then the characters speak. The writing in this film is laughable, even during scenes that are meant to be taken seriously. James Franco and Mila Kunis just didn't please me either. The only two that really stood out for me were Michelle Williams (Glinda) and Rachel Weisz (Evanora).

The film felt too rushed, especially in the beginning. When Oz and Theodora met, they literally fell in love within 5 minutes. When Oz "cheated" on her after the one hour they've known each other, that's when Theodora snaps. So basically the entire story of the wicked witch is based on a relationship that hadn't even lasted a day. To me, that can't be taken seriously.

Also, the only action scene that took place didn't even make sense. The poppy field that put all of the flying monkeys to sleep was directly in front of Emerald City, yet somehow the witches were shocked when this occurred. But this could just be me. So if you're wanting to see it in theaters, I say go. I'm only saying this for the cinematics though. Because this film looks gorgeous on the big screen. Other than that, I say wait to Redbox it.
10 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Beautiful yet vapid prequel.
kimgrear9 March 2013
Beautiful yet vapid prequel to "The Wizard Of Oz" that is plague by not only by the numbers script but the questionable judgment of the people behind the scenes of the making of the film. The CGI effects are good and the characters created by those effects are cute but they are not strong enough to hide the films real problems. The script is so by the numbers that you can envision the twist and the ending five minutes into the film. Prequels are generally predicable because it set before the events of a prior movie but this film just did not have any originality to it and was just lazy in its set up. The script is not the only problem here; some of the casting is also off by a large margin as well. James Franco was not the first actor to be considered to play the character of Oscar Diggs but you can see a hundred better actors who could have done the role justice before you can ever think of Franco in the role and he does not disappoint in proving how miscast he is. Franco is terrible, so terrible that he is distracting to the film. He definitely does not care about his performance and it shows. Franco just swaggers in as if he is above the material and the actors around him while in reality, his performance is worse that the script of this film. Making his character so unlikable that you really do not want to watch or care about him. While Franco is in his own little world, Mila Kunis just looks lost in her performance. She is not believable as the wicked witch of the west and just comes across as lightweight compare to her sisters played by Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams who are both much better actors than this film deserved. Weisz in particular gives the film's best performance because she at least makes an effort with the lazy script she has to work with and just has fun with it. Her character is the typical Disney villain but in Weisz's capable hands, she becomes more and that does translate on screen. You as an audience member are swept off your feet by Weisz's enthusiasm for her role and the movie becomes better off because of it. Williams does the same, making her sweet tooth character a joy to watch as well and brings a real sincerity to the role which is a god sent because of how insincere Franco is in his.

It is a beautiful movie and the CGI does not give you a headache but other those things and the efforts of Weisz and Williams, The movie has too many strikes against it thanks to the script and the miscasting of Franco and Kunis.
105 out of 189 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
melnjose1113 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I honestly don't understand how this has such a great rating. I had high hopes for this movie and though I didn't expect the movie to be everything I'd hoped for, I was still really disappointed with what I saw. The fx were just horrible. Not throughout the whole movie but enough that it became a problem. Now the acting, what can I say? The cast was brilliant but they must have not been too excited to do this movie as their acting skills were just terrible. The only one that did a decent job was Rachel Weisz. Maybe the reason behind some of the bad fx was because i didn't see it in 3D, though i sincerely doubt it. Watch it and get your own opinion on it though.
22 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Wonderful and Powerful Witches
aharmas9 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
For starters, try to forget the 1939 classic when you're watching this. The story deals with events predating Dorothy's arrival to the wonderful land of Oz, and they're very different from the plot events in the musical that has managed to bewitch audiences for the last decades. What we have is a film which contains two marvelous performances by Michelle Williams and Rachael Weisz. James Franco has the thankless role of a man with a dubious character and questionable motives.

As Franco arrives in Oz, he discovers he can manipulate some of the welcoming committee; however he is not aware of the real politics and back stories in the magic family he now confronts. As events evolve, he learns to discover that there is more to his character, but this new knowledge comes with exposure to whimsical characters, interaction with a rather alluring and wise beauty and a realization that he is able to create "magic" of his own in order to save this charming world and his own self.

Williams continues to enchant audiences, this time literally with her powerful charm as the "good witch" who must fight the evil sisters and clear her name. She is now in charge of leading the fight, enlist and convince Oscar to lend her support with his particular knowledge/his own special kind of magic. She is a vision, beautiful to see and admire, as she is able to open up the hearts and minds of those around her. She is kind and pure.

Weisz is the complete opposite, in a way more than a match for either Glinda or Oscar, and still pretty formidable against both of them. If her own sister wasn't a bit traumatized, they both could be the equivalent of Darth Vader in "Star Wars". Unfortunately, the newly transformed Wicked Witch is underdeveloped and not as fascinating as her thoroughly delicious twisted sister. Weisz gives a classic performance and easily joins classic characters as Darth Vader and Hannibal Lecter in the way she approaches the role, with supreme gusto and showing the audience how far you can take a simple and yet, quite meaty role.

One of the biggest assets of this film is its production design, the art direction and special effects. There is a definite tribute to the 1939 film in the way the deco period is revived, but it also boasts its original look, a rich, velvety and luxurious recreation of sets that remind of cinema's golden era. The leads all look amazing, and the 3D technology enhances the magic of the story.

It's not a perfect film, but it has enough merits of its own, and one hopes there is a sequel so they can improve on a very good effort, and we can continue enjoying the mythology of the wonderful world of Oz.
33 out of 54 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Amazing movie, Funny, Inspiring, and Fun.
graydevelopment8 March 2013
I don't normally write reviews, however I feel compelled to write something about this movie. I have seen some negative publicity about this movie and noticed that there was some low scores in the voting. I have to say respectfully to these people, you're being stupid. The movie was almost perfect for what it was intended to be, a family movie about a magical place. There were in fairness some mistakes made in the plot concerning the relationships between the main characters, but they were more creative differences I would have and not full blown errors. Beyond that the movie was brilliant and was in a most pleasant and surprising way funny and I mean funny. The movie was a credit to the legend of L Frank Baum and the legend of The Wizard of Oz. I don't think this movie has any hope of the kind of success The Wizard of Oz had, but It was far above and beyond the typical garbage being manufactured in Hollywood these days. I say get the girlfriend, boyfriend, kids, mom, dad, or whoever and go see it, you will have fun and have some laughs as well. Thank You for reading my review and God Bless.
118 out of 220 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Don't bother watching.
Gembob13-632-35984114 March 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Oof, should never have seen this film. It was slow, boring and with literally no stand out moments at all. James Franco was cr*p, and totally unlikeable. Mila Kunis gave an odd, over the top performance. Ha, which leads me on to another thing.. She was literally over the top of all her tops in the movie.. 3 female characters all wore cleavage revealing corsets, and fawn all over male character. They're supposed to be witches ffs, and *spoiler* even when Mila Kunis turns into the wicked witch she rips her top off (for no apparent reason), turns green and warty, but still has a low cut cleavage revealing corset dress going on. Eh? When I was a kid witches were wicked, a bit scary, and probably covered in warts but not really sexy.. Does everything female have to be sexy? No need. It shows how bad the film was that that is pretty much all I can remember about it though.....
40 out of 70 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Entertaining and Beautiful
claudio_carvalho23 June 2013
In 1905, in Kansas, the small-time circus magician Oscar "Oz" Diggs (James Franco) is a weak, greedy, selfish and womanizer conman without character. He gives music box to the women that he seduces, and when a strong artist finds that his wife has a box in her belongings, he chases Oz through the circus. Oz flees in a balloon, but a tornado strikes his balloon and he lands on the Land of Oz.

Oscar meets the gorgeous Theodora (Mila Kunis) and she believes that he is the powerful magician from an ancient prophecy that will release her land from the Wicked Witch. Theodora tells that her sister and she are good witches, but the Wicked Witch had killed the king. Now the people are waiting for the magician to be their new king after defeating the witch. Theodora is seduced by Oz and brings him to the City of Emerald. When he sees the king's treasure, he decides to seek out the Wicked Witch and destroy her magic wand to get rid off her and become the king. Oz meets Glinda (Michelle Williams), who is supposed to be the Wicked witch, and soon he learns that Theodora's sister Evanora (Rachel Weisz) is the evil one indeed.

Meanwhile Evanora lures he sister that is jealous and uses a spell to turn her into a wicked witch. Oscar learns that he is the only hope for the inhabitants of Oz that believe that he is a powerful magician and his only chance to defeat Evanora and Theodora is using illusion since he has no magic power.

"Oz the Great and Powerful" is an entertaining fantasy movie, with beautiful special effects and great cast. The beginning in black and white turns to bright colors when Oz reaches the magic kingdom and the images are wonderful. It takes too long for the unethical lead character to redeem and become a good man. For viewers that enjoy fantasy movies, "Oz the Great and Powerful" is a highly recommended movie. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Oz: Mágico e Poderoso" ("Oz: Magic and Powerful")
27 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
invisibleunicornninja6 April 2018
This movie is boring and forgettable and not worth talking about. Its not terrible, there's just nothing here.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed