Oz the Great and Powerful

[ChaddDerkins 1]

Hey, I'm Chadd and I've been listening to (and loving) the podcast for a while, but this is my first time posting. I expected to come here after this weekend and see a ton of people recommending this movie. When I didn't see it, I had to sign up.

 

I am a huge Disney nerd, a huge Sam Raimi fan, and an Oz fan. So this movie had the potential to be one of my favorites. Turns out, it's is one of the worst movies I've ever seen in the theater, if not THE worst. I think it's perfect for HDTGM. It's the perfect storm of badness. A script that has the quality of a Real Ghostbusters script, porno-level acting (even from the people who are usually pretty good) and some of the worst green screen effects I've ever seen.

 

I know you don't often do movies that are currently in theaters, but I really think this one ought to be considered!

[seanotron 2307]

Really? I saw this yesterday and while it had problems, I don't think the effects were an issue (other than the fact that they were overdone). Mila Kunis was indeed quite bad, but otherwise it really wasn't too terrible. The kids in the theater loved it.

 

And I have to say, flying baboons are terrifying regardless of whether they are CGI or dudes in costumes.

[justinmh05 1968]

Mila Kunis was so embarrassingly bad in this that I had to look away every time she spoke after awhile.

 

And to quote Jason, Franco was really Francoing it up in this one.

 

This movie was awful.

[ChaddDerkins 1]

I never noticed it before because I've only seen him in Spidey movies where he is kind of supposed to be a bit of a moron, but man is Franco bad. In this movie, he reminded me of Scream era David Arquette. That's not good.

 

90% of the "effects" were characters pretending to walk in front of greenscreens with watercolor,paintings on them. Mila Kunis looked like Jim Carrey Mask. It was just a mess.

[seanotron 2307]

I agree Kunis was awful, though I really didn't think Franco was that bad. He was supposed to be insincere, so it worked for me. Franco is Franco.

 

90% of the "effects" were characters pretending to walk in front of greenscreens with watercolor,paintings on them.

 

This describes pretty much any movie with CGI. I didn't see anything here that was especially bad. The China Girl, for example, was pretty freaking great in terms of visual effects.

 

I dunno, it's a kids movie, and as far as kid's movies go I really didn't find it that egregious.

[ChaddDerkins 1]

As I said, I'm a Disney fanboy, so I have seen a looooot of kids movies. That makes me two things: (a) kind of a weirdo, and ( so,eone who doesn't accept that movies for kids should be held to a separate set of standards, quality-wise. We will just have to agree to disagree. I think,it was one of the worst mainstream movies I have ever seen, if not the worst.

[seanotron 2307]

Maybe I just see too many movies, as this was nowhere near one of the 'worst mainstream movies I have seen'.

 

Thanks to my niece, I once had to endure this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford%27s_Really_Big_Movie

 

It's hard to judge anything harshly after that.

[Jachin 123]

Maybe I just see too many movies, as this was nowhere near one of the 'worst mainstream movies I have seen'.

Thanks to my niece, I once had to endure this - http://en.wikipedia....eally_Big_Movie

 

 

It's hard to judge anything harshly after that.

 

That was a movie based on a PBS cartoon made for children. This is a 200 milion dollar blockbuster w/ decent stars and Raimi behind it... Kind of hard to compare. But, I don't think this film deserves the HDTGM treatment.

[seanotron 2307]

 

That was a movie based on a PBS cartoon made for children. This is a 200 milion dollar blockbuster w/ decent stars and Raimi behind it... Kind of hard to compare. But, I don't think this film deserves the HDTGM treatment.

 

I'm not comparing the two, I'm just saying that movie almost killed me. Even my niece was bored. Especially sad since it was the last thing John Ritter worked on before he died.

[ChaddDerkins 1]

I am honestly surprised that opinions are this divided on the movie - I thought it would be pretty universally panned! Maybe I just wanted it to be good too desperately. In any case, I'd love to hear a HDTGM on it!

[seanotron 2307]

It definitely wasn't universally panned

 

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/oz_the_great_and_powerful/

 

Not that we haven't had some well-reviewed movies on HDTGM. Devil's Advocate had a 66%, after all.

[ChaddDerkins 1]

Yeah, and even the bad Oz reviews aren't anywhere near as harsh as my opinion of it. So, yeah, maybe it's just mostly me. That stinks, because I'd love an episode on it! But yeah, Devil's Advocate gives me hope. I was shocked when that was announced as a pick, because I'd always thought of that as a pretty good movie. I hadn't seen it since I was a teenager though.

[seanotron 2307]

And I'm probably being too soft on it. My tolerance for bad movies is fairly high.

[justinmh05 1968]

I've seen multiple reviews from major publications PRAISING Mila's performance in this movie. I just can't believe it! In fact - and I wish I could remember where exactly it was - one major reviewer called her performance UNDERSTATED,

 

Can you believe that? Did I see the same movie as these people?!?!?!?

[seanotron 2307]

Ok, now that does shock me. I thought she was really bad. Flat and emotionless.

[zeecheree82 7]

I have kids...but I didn't have to get dragged to this movie..I actually wanted to see it. While It's in the realm of " kids movie" it didn't come off HDTGM material..the visual effects were well done the dialouge maybe a little hammy-ish..Mila Cunis did a decent job with the wicked side of her witch character...if it had to go toe to toe with it's classic counterpart...the Wizard of--- wins...hands down

 

 

 

btw if kids movies stick in your craw...your homies would be pouring the 40oz on the curb for you after enduring..ughhhh The Adventures of Shark boy and Lava Girl....

[Skeevins 322]

When you remember the events of the first movie, it really makes Franco's Oz the worst human being ever. Not only did he seduce and exploit what appeared to be a mildly autistic, emotionally damaged woman, but after causing her to be deformed and exiled, he sent someone to murder her in exile.

 

Also, given how much the Munchkins helped out in the war for the emerald city, it seemed kind of callous to just allow the Witch of the East to take over Munchkinland and enslave the populace.

[seanotron 2307]

When you remember the events of the first movie, it really makes Franco's Oz the worst human being ever. Not only did he seduce and exploit what appeared to be a mildly autistic, emotionally damaged woman, but after causing her to be deformed and exiled, he sent someone to murder her in exile.

 

Also, given how much the Munchkins helped out in the war for the emerald city, it seemed kind of callous to just allow the Witch of the East to take over Munchkinland and enslave the populace.

 

 

Well, to be fair it was really her sister that caused her to be deformed and exiled. But yeah, I had a kind of fundamental objection to the story framing Oz (the Wizard) as the hero in the first place. He travels to a magical land with 3 super powerful, badass witches and they're all waiting around for an incompetent male con artist to save them? The Oz books all had really strong female protagonists (Baum was an early and almost unheard of Male Feminist) so it did rub me the wrong way that they made the witches kind of weak. Glinda & Evanora seemed to see through him for most of the story (though Glinda still needed him, for nebulous reasons), but then in the end Glinda & the Wizard have that kiss and you're sort of led to believe there's a romantic angle. Kunis' Theodora is essentially portrayed as an idiot that falls in love after 5 minutes. The movie didn't seem to spend much time developing its female characters, all so we could root for Oscar, a lying philanderer who just wants to be adored.

 

Like I said earlier, I actually found the movie enjoyable for the most part (and it's certainly not HDTGM bad), but it felt like they hadn't fully considered some of the unfortunate implications in their script choices.

[Skeevins 322]

 

 

Well, to be fair it was really her sister that caused her to be deformed and exiled. But yeah, I had a kind of fundamental objection to the story framing Oz (the Wizard) as the hero in the first place. He travels to a magical land with 3 super powerful, badass witches and they're all waiting around for an incompetent male con artist to save them? The Oz books all had really strong female protagonists (Baum was an early and almost unheard of Male Feminist) so it did rub me the wrong way that they made the witches kind of weak. Glinda & Evanora seemed to see through him for most of the story (though Glinda still needed him, for nebulous reasons), but then in the end Glinda & the Wizard have that kiss and you're sort of led to believe there's a romantic angle. Kunis' Theodora is essentially portrayed as an idiot that falls in love after 5 minutes. The movie didn't seem to spend much time developing its female characters, all so we could root for Oscar, a lying philanderer who just wants to be adored.

 

Like I said earlier, I actually found the movie enjoyable for the most part (and it's certainly not HDTGM bad), but it felt like they hadn't fully considered some of the unfortunate implications in their script choices.

 

The witch of the West scarred her face by the tears the Wizard caused her to cry, so she was deformed well before the apple.

 

The stuff with the wizard trumping the witches is kind of ingrained into the story anyway, though. No matter what angle the movie took, it would have involved three powerful women being duped by a male con artist, and that was Baum's original vision of events. The "prophesy" junk I think was actually an unsuccessful attempt to make the witches seem less stupid in comparison. If you didn't have that, it would have been three supremely powerful beings simply being chased away by card tricks and illusions. The reason why it was unsuccessful, however, is that it traded a little stupidity for a lot of superstition. And all their stupidity and superstition definitely carries over into the traditional Wizard of Oz story as we know it as well. All 3 of these characters are either easily dispatched or swayed by superstition when Dorothy gets there. They're also not doing much to actively improve their world or get rid of the Wizard, either. Not a lot of people know this, but not only is the original Witch of the West vulnerable to water...she is scared of the dark. Dorothy takes off the slippers to go to sleep, but the witch is too frightened of the dark to go and get them at that time. So while the Raimi movie is undeniably sexist, it's definitely in keeping with Baum's vision to portray the witches of Oz as lazy, superstitious, and gullible.

 

What made the movie so problematic wasn't so much the prophesy as the way the Wizard treated women, and the way women treated him in return. Also, the idea that falling in love will turn a woman evil and possessive.

[seanotron 2307]

The witch of the West scarred her face by the tears the Wizard caused her to cry, so she was deformed well before the apple.

 

Remember that it was her sister who lied to her, saying Oz gave her a music box and asked her to dance, not to mention she shows Oz meeting Glinda and deliberately misrepresents it as a romantic encounter when she had actually sent him there to kill her. Ultimately, it's her sister who both scars her and causes her heart to turn cold. Oz is a cad, no doubt, but he doesn't actually betray her or directly cause what happens.

 

it would have involved three powerful women being duped by a male con artist, and that was Baum's original vision of events

 

I'm going to have to take exception to that. The Wicked Witch of the West is shown to be superstitious in the books, but neither Glinda nor the Good Witch of the North are shown to be so. Glinda is well aware of the fact that the Wizard is a fraud, it's the people of the Emerald City that believe he's a Wizard. And in the books she is unquestionably more powerful than any of the other witches, so she doesn't need the Wizard for anything (including a boyfriend).

 

Baum's books had a very strong feminist slant, featuring strong female protagonists in almost every instance.

[AdamLevenberg 3]

There's issues with this movie, but it's not worthy of HDTGM. Even critics are at 62% positive on RT and many of the negative reviews are 2-2.5 stars, meaning they didn't love it but didn't hate it either.

 

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but this isn't a "bad" movie by any stretch of the imagination. Also, it doesn't fit into any of the categories I've come up with to represent the types of films on the show. To suggest OZ is bad is one thing but the reviews are good, it's making money and audiences like it... http://officialscreenwriting.com/how-did-this-get-made-the-categories/

[MeganPreece 0]

I'm sure if I was 9 I would have walked away from this movie with a smile on my face. But I'm not 9 and I definitely ran from the theatre in search of a strong drink.

 

I loved the opening credits, I thought they were uniquely done but it went downhill from there!

 

James Franco... I get that he was supposed to be an insincere dbag but was he supposed to appear to have brain damage as well? I could understand it if he did, I mean his journey to Oz was a bit bumpy.

 

Rachel Weisz... she's simply too good of an actress to be in something this awful. She clearly brought her acting down to a level that didn't overpower her costars too much.

 

MIchelle Williams... I legit wanted to take her wand and hit her with it. Her character enraged me. She probably throws up rainbows and shits sparkles. ANNOYING!

 

Mila Kunis... Mila fucking Kunis where do I even begin on this disaster. I would have fired her from a community theatre production if that's the kind of performance she attempted to put in. If I didn't know who she was and someone told me that she had been on a long running successful sitcom and had done several ok movies I would have never believed them. And the makeup/cgi on her... WTF! TERRIBLE casting!

 

The movie did have a couple good things going for it. The china doll (animated) was decent and Finley the flying monkey (animated) was occasionally funny. Other than that NO! Just no!

[Skeevins 322]

 

Remember that it was her sister who lied to her, saying Oz gave her a music box and asked her to dance, not to mention she shows Oz meeting Glinda and deliberately misrepresents it as a romantic encounter when she had actually sent him there to kill her. Ultimately, it's her sister who both scars her and causes her heart to turn cold. Oz is a cad, no doubt, but he doesn't actually betray her or directly cause what happens.

 

I think you're letting him off the hook for a number of things that were directly his fault. She was heartbroken because she thought she loved him and he didn't. That is exactly what happened, regardless of the music box. Oz really did ditch her without saying goodbye, and he did lead her to believe he was in love with her when he really wasn't. And yes, he was totally pursuing a romantic relationship with Glinda, so there was no misrepresentation there. Oz was exactly who the Witch of the East said he was.

 

 

 

I'm going to have to take exception to that. The Wicked Witch of the West is shown to be superstitious in the books, but neither Glinda nor the Good Witch of the North are shown to be so. Glinda is well aware of the fact that the Wizard is a fraud, it's the people of the Emerald City that believe he's a Wizard. And in the books she is unquestionably more powerful than any of the other witches, so she doesn't need the Wizard for anything (including a boyfriend).

 

Baum's books had a very strong feminist slant, featuring strong female protagonists in almost every instance.

 

The Witch of the North, who is one half of the Glinda character here, assumed that Dorothy was a witch even faster than the Witch of the West assumed Oz was a wizard. And the Glinda from the books, while not as superstitious as her sisters, was very similar to the Glinda from the movies in that despite this fact, she never tried to free the Munchkins or the Winkies or the Emerald City by herself, preferring to let Dorothy handle it on her own. Baum did have a lot of strong female protagonists, but none of these witches were ever the protagonists of his books (even in "Glinda of Oz," Glinda was little more than a deus ex machina), and they shared a lot of the failings of their movie counterparts.

[seanotron 2307]

And yes, he was totally pursuing a romantic relationship with Glinda, so there was no misrepresentation there. Oz was exactly who the Witch of the East said he was.

 

But that wasn't true at the time. He had literally just met Glinda, and was there to KILL her at the urging of the Wicked Witch of the East. She deliberately misleads Mila by implying he is there to romance Glinda which was factually untrue. And she conjures a music box to fool her into thinking he had also romanced her. At that point, he had only done that with Mila's witch. So yes, he's involved, and he's a jerk, but the Wicked Witch of the East manipulates her sister because she wants to rule. She is the one that is directly responsible for what happens, because she twists the situation to her advantage. At the point that Mila turns evil, Oscar hasn't actually done anything.

 

The Witch of the North, who is one half of the Glinda character here, assumed that Dorothy was a witch even faster than the Witch of the West assumed Oz was a wizard. And the Glinda from the books, while not as superstitious as her sisters, was very similar to the Glinda from the movies in that despite this fact, she never tried to free the Munchkins or the Winkies or the Emerald City by herself, preferring to let Dorothy handle it on her own. Baum did have a lot of strong female protagonists, but none of these witches were ever the protagonists of his books (even in "Glinda of Oz," Glinda was little more than a deus ex machina), and they shared a lot of the failings of their movie counterparts.

 

The Good Witch of the North initially assumes Dorothy is a witch because she falls out of the sky and kills The Wicked Witch of the East, which was something she had not been able to do (being less powerful than Glinda). It's actually a pretty reasonable assumption under the circumstances, and certainly does not portray her as gullible or stupid.

 

It's also implied in the books that Glinda cannot or will not kill, and that part of the reason she was holding off doing anything about the other witches was because she was trying to locate Ozma. She also did drive out the Wicked Witch of the South from Quadling Country, and she did that before the Wizard even arrived.

 

Sorry, but the witches in the books are absolutely not the Golly-Gee Dumb Dumbs portrayed in this movie.

[seanotron 2307]

We've kind of gone off on a side tangent here, but my original complaint was that they took a series that had very feminist/female-positive elements with traditionally female protagonists and turned it into a story about a dude that makes his way through life swindling ladies and breaking their hearts, and he doesn't even appear to really learn or grow as a result of his adventures. Adding to that, they make a man the solution to all of the witches problems, despite the fact that they are all more powerful than him. It just struck me as kind of an unfortunate decision.