Cosmic Book News

There’s No Place Like the Original Home

A Film Review of Oz the Great and Powerful

By: Lawrence Napoli

If you have been to the movies recently, chances are you have seen the trailer for this film during the 40 minute prelude to the feature you bought tickets for.  If you’ve been surfing the internet during the same period, chances are you’ve seen an advertisement for this film.  If you watch TV, you have seen a commercial for this film.  Basically, you must be living under a rock to not know anything about Oz the Great and Powerful, how it’s some kind of prequel to the original journey through Oz and that it’s starring “Mr. Renaissance Man,” himself: James Franco in the title role.  Yes, this film has been greatly anticipated since 2012 and has so many things going for its success such as its connection to past greatness, its PG rating, screenings in 3D DLP and IMAX 3D projection, and the fact it happens to be a fantasy fairy tale that isn’t falling in line with the trendy (and played out) “dark” and “edgy” interpretations such as Alice in Wonderland, Red Riding Hood and Snow White and the Huntsman.  Yes, all of this sounds really good on paper, but I could not shake the feeling that this film was trying way too hard to sell itself and that doesn’t seem to make sense based on its aforementioned “advantages.”

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:6081:]]

You cannot deny the power of my media blitz!

Screenwriters Mitchell Kapner and David Lindsay-Abaire were clearly going for a very different take on an iconic adventure while making as many nostalgic connections to the original as possible.  This brings me to a couple of complications, the first of which is that the reader must understand that this film is meant to be a prequel to L. Frank Baum’s original book: The Wonderful Wizard of Oz and NOT the MGM film of 1939 starring Judy Garland.  Sure, the audience gets a graphic indicating this during the title sequence, but no one will be thinking about that connection when so many familiar images, costumes and circumstances are carbon copied and enhanced from the 1939 classic.  As the story unfolds, the audience will notice a greater disconnect from 1939 thanks to a plot layered with lots of detail and conflict to explain the political climate of the Land of Oz.  Therein lies the second complication to the script.  Oz, the character, is set up in an eerily similar manner as Dorothy to discover some personal truth.  Oz struggles over a desire to be a “great” (successful) man rather than good (moral) man, and had this film been made 15-20 years ago, this element of the story would drive the entire production forward.  Unfortunately, this part of the script takes a back seat to a relatively complex series of subplots that explains why witches, soldiers, tinkers, munchkins and flying monkeys are at each other’s throats; oh my! 

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:6082:]]

Everyone, Everyone!  I really AM that great!

Wasn’t this film supposed to be for kids?  Contemporary live adaptations of fairy tales have clearly been marketed for older audiences that prefer more intrigue to their simple morality tales of yesterday.  Oz the Great and Powerful is no exception in this regard.  By infusing a redemption story with all of this extra conflict, the writers have effectively nullified the personal journey of Oz, which creates a rift between the audience and the protagonist who already has the distinct disadvantage of being presented as a scumbag in Kansas.  There are moments where the film really wants to get into some very interesting and untred territory (i.e. the relationships among the witches), but then distracts us by returning to Oz’s less appealing journey.  I can understand what the writers were trying to do, but their unfocused attempts prove (yet again) that a script wanting to do everything while sacrificing nothing delivers a confusing and incomplete experience.  I’d rather have intelligence and intrigue read into a simple story by an audience that learns at the same rate as our main characters.  Oz gives the audience full access behind the curtain from the very beginning thanks to what seems like a never ending string of exposition.  Do I need to mention how this couldn’t have less to do with the land, character, mythos and original film of “The Wizard of Oz?”

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:6083:]]

What’s really going on in moments like this?

None of this criticism applies to how well children will appreciate this film as the manic nature of the story lends itself to the short attention spans of youngsters.  The lynchpin for the kiddies happens to be the very exquisite special and visual effects at work in Oz.  Colors are always bright and vibrant on the screen (even in Oz’s “darker” settings).  The CG characters such as Finley and China Girl are as adorable as they are vapid.  The costumes are as unique as they were in 1939.  The sets and set pieces are very detailed up close and at range.  Heck, even the 3D effect on an IMAX screen isn’t a complete and utter waste of time as it is for any other film not named Avatar.  Basically, pure production value will capture your children’s minds, goofy slapstick will enthrall them and the effects will amaze them.  There may not be a lot of “lesson learning” at work, but concerned parents worried about the “scariness” of the witches or the perceived violence in Oz can rest easy.  Every moment where this film could take a Tim Burton turn to the morbid or a Robert Rodriguez turn to the violent, Sam Raimi consciously holds back so as to keep the overall tenor of this film light. Oz will probably be the best family movie of the year and its strategic release at the beginning of March maximizes its allure of a new, blockbuster while getting a secondary adrenaline shot to its sales by the end of the month thanks to Easter.  Well played Disney, well played. 

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:6084:]]

Oz looks magical and sometimes looks are enough.

Every cast member in Oz looks really, really good so kudos to makeup department head, Vivian Baker, and the intimidating size of her makeup team that contains almost as many crew as credited cast.  Looks, however, don’t necessarily yield substantive performances, and I’ve got to start right at the top with Jimmy Franco.  I think he’s a fine actor and his recent work in 127 Hours and Rise of the Planet of the Apes is evidence of that, but sometimes I feel his performances are a tad lax, a bit smarmy and somewhat mailed-in.  This is the exact impression I got from his performance in Oz.  It’s not an easy proposition playing a charming rogue in a PG feature where spectacle, CG and cartoon characters upstage you at every turn.  A fully engaged and talented actor can power through this to make a memorable performance, but what Mr. Franco leaves the audience with is a collection of half-baked smiles and clueless faces.  Chemistry with his CG travelling companions is nonexistent as he constantly talks down to them and ends just about every line of dialogue with an “are you kidding me?” expression on his face.  Chemistry between him and all of the witches is hollow as he never fully commits positive energy to the good ones while never getting personal enough to despise the bad ones.  Franco, perhaps, indulges his character’s personality a bit too well because Oz radiates mightier-than-thou arrogance in every scene that somehow reminded me of his co-hosting duties with Anne Hathaway during the Oscars a couple years back. 

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:6085:]]

It doesn’t get much more dangerous than this; which happens to be quite tame.

Rachael Weisz plays an effective villain in Evanora for this type of film which is determined to curtail the depiction of violence as much as possible.  Weisz has certainly played much more vicious roles and while Evanora is clearly evil, her inability to cut loose hampers this character as well as her performance to the point that it comes off as quite flat and predictable.  Mila Kunis’s Theodora has the widest range of emotions to cover which makes sense seeing how her character makes a considerable transformation.  Eventually Kunis takes full advantage of an atrocious cackle inspired by her interpretation of Meg Griffin at the age of 80, but I was much more interested in her character when she was neutral in the entire conflict.  Kunis has an uncanny ability to sell friendliness, but tends to make me smirk when she gets angry.  She came the closest out of all the witches to shatter Franco’s demeanor of disinterested malaise.  Michelle Williams provides genuine warmth in her performance as Glinda. Out of every human performance in Oz, hers is easily the most charismatic thanks to her sincere dialogue, soft voice and intimate gazes. Her contributions are most welcome in a production that lacks some uncompromising heart. 

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:6086:]]

Glinda actually is quite lovely.

Oz the Great and Powerfulis an ideal family film in that it is entertaining enough for everyone. Kids will have fun and they will be safe. Unfortunately, a Jack of all trades can never be a master of any, and the fact that this film pales in comparison to its masterful lineage is disappointing to me because of my love of The Wizard of Oz of 1939.  I thought that it was an inspired notion to have a protagonist reconcile the difference between goodness and greatness because it is so common for those concepts to be considered directly connected.  I just wished that this film actually cared about exploring that idea. On top of everything, I found almost no redeeming value in the character of Oz. Sure, he’s the main character, but he generates no sympathy. By the end of the film, he clearly becomes the hero and makes the right choice, but he was shamed into this choice rather than rising to meet it. I suppose a con artist will always be a con artist, so I suggest to you all to not be disappointed by the shallowness of Oz’s cool surface.  What you see is all that you will get.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:6087:]]

The eventual sequels may involve more of this character.

More Lord of the Rings?

A Film Review of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

By: Lawrence Napoli

[*Note, the reviewer did see this film opening weekend but met up with health complications which is why this review is coming out now.]

Peter Jackson is to be credited for making The Lord of the Rings trilogy an instant classic featuring incredible cinematography, costume design, set design, visual effects and performance which garnered unparalleled success from “The Academy” for the fantasy genre by winning best picture of the year for Return of the King.  That kind of legendary success makes any follow-up film or franchise a tad anticlimactic; that is, unless one decides to go back to the same well of success.  The danger inherent of revisiting iconic greatness of the past is that the new story will always be compared to the original which is completely unfair and totally natural.  Would the Star Wars prequels not have been be considered as inferior to episodes 4-6 had they been released chronologically?  The prized fiction of the Tolkien estate will now go through the exact same scrutiny with a second trek through Middle Earth with another trilogy which happens to be a prequel tale. 

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:5539:]]

Once more into the breach.

Let me be perfectly clear.  This first installment of The Hobbit looks, sounds and feels a little too much like Fellowship of the Ring.  A group of adventurers assemble to go on a quest, a ton of walking is featured, there are plenty of fights with monsters, there is a riveting escape through a subterranean stronghold and Gandalf is back with a bearded vengeance.  These are the facts of this film’s plot and they are undisputed.  Now, I didn’t just spoon feed the entire movie, but these elements combine for the vast majority of the screen time and none of it seems fresh.  The leader of the Dwarven expedition has the same personality and looks (minus height) of Aragorn.  The countryside of New Zealand is as vast and beautiful as the landscapes from every other LotR film.  Although trolls and goblins are featured more as antagonists, they serve the same function as orcs: brutal antagonists that are grotesque looking.  The goblin lair looks eerily similar to and was shot with the same bird’s eye view and dynamic angles as the Mines of Moria sequence.  Gandalf still shows off his intimidating “scolding spell” where his shadow expands and his voice gets super deep and loud so as to get his point across with zero talk-back.  Been there; done that.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:5540:]]

These nasties are fatter than I’m used to.

Screenwriters Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Peter Jackson and Guillermo del Toro wrote these elements into the screenplay because they are easy connections for the audience to make with the LotR trilogy which generates familiarity with The Hobbit.  I’m not entirely sure how critical these overt connections are to the story when the setting, environments and ambiance of Middle Earth such as the Shire and Rivendale are themselves so rich and unmistakably LotR that it would have been nice to spend more time exploring Bilbo Baggins, the person, prior to this adventure.  As it is, the audience is given a peripheral glance at the main character’s lineage via Gandalf and the audience is to simply accept that this Hobbit in particular should be more prominent than pursuing a simple existence of peace and serenity.  Bilbo’s motive for eventually risking life and limb for the ragtag group of dwarves is understandable, but not entirely personal.  Unlike Frodo, who carries the burden of the one ring specifically to save the Shire (and Middle Earth by extension); Bilbo is shamed into not being bored anymore.  What we have here is a plot that suffers from stakes that aren’t as high as an army of darkness threatening to conquer all of Middle Earth.  It’s almost like the difference between a space station that blows up planets versus a trade federation blockade.  If the story cannot be written to be more grandiose than it is, an opportunity to make it more personal is ripe for the picking and this simply didn’t happen in The Hobbit.  Yes, yes, we have to get right into the sword fights ASAP, but the action alone didn’t make LotR great.  Why should it be any different for The Hobbit?

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:5541:]]

Do they expect me to use this bloody thing?

For all the similarities The Hobbit has with the LotR trilogy, one extremely good thing they share in common is the overall production value that never ceases to amaze with every frame.  The lighting is beautiful, the set pieces are tremendous, the costumes are superb, the weapons look gorgeous, the landscapes are breathtaking and the CG work is clean and seamless.  I give two thumbs way, way up for production designer Dan Hennah, art director Simon Bright and cinematographer Andrew Lesnie.  I didn’t even mind the 3D element of the visual presentation although this effect never comes close to being described as “a vital element to the viewing experience.”  Unfortunately, I seem to have watched The Hobbit at the standard 3D frame rate so I cannot comment on the utter horror that some are expressing over the 48 FPS controversy.  I simply consider myself fortunate for not experiencing something else that may have sullied the film for me because visual style was one of the best aspects of this movie.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:5546:]]

The culinary talents of trolls.

Performances are once again a high point for this fantasy story and it all begins with Ian McKellen as Gandalf.  Although this is meant to be Bilbo’s story, there is no question that Gandalf is the engine and McKellen delivers a carbon copied, heart-warming performance that harkens back to the original trilogy as if it were created yesterday.  He is every bit the grandfatherly sage who oozes charisma and respect which is vital for this kind of story because Gandalf’s character is responsible for a healthy amount of exposition which needs to be relayed to the audience without boredom setting in.  Perhaps the most enjoyable part of McKellen’s performance is his variety of vocal intonation from calm and soothing, to worried and troubled, to enraged and aggressive.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:5548:]]

I’m cuter than Aragorn because I come in bite size.

Bilbo Baggins is initially reprised by actor Ian Holm who played an elderly Bilbo in the original trilogy, but as The Hobbit is a tale of Bilbo’s youth, Martin Freeman assumes the mantle of the protagonist for this tale.  Bilbo is perhaps one of the most unassuming, everyman characters in all of fiction, thus the need to communicate genuine shock and awe at this amazing new world that gets opened up to him thanks to Gandalf, is essential.  Freeman is an excellent choice for this part as his mannerisms (particularly in his face) sell Bilbo far better than any line of dialogue.  Freeman is clearly going for common pragmatism in his approach to this hobbit (as opposed to misty-eyed altruism in Elijah Wood’s Frodo) which produces excellent reactions on his part in scenes where his character acts uncharacteristically brave and Bilbo is stunned at what he just did. 

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:5545:]]

Why does everyone take advantage of me?

The supporting cast, however, is somewhat of a disappointment to me.  No, this criticism does not apply in one instance to Andy Serkis whose continued performance as Gollum is masterful, creepy, amusing and sly.  It does directly apply to the primary antagonist or rather the lack of a singular identifiable threat.  Certainly, Gollum is the one ring’s initial bearer and an obstruction in Bilbo’s path, but he isn’t particularly nefarious due to the sympathetic manner he is presented on the screen.  The orc lord that hunts the dwarven expedition is about as cookie-cutter as monsters get and reminds me of the utter irrelevance of every orc that came before in the original trilogy.  The exact same thing can be said of the Goblin King.  Although this film does contain an appearance from Saruman, he isn’t quite the evil bastard he becomes. 

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:5542:]]

Is precious the MVP of this film?

I simply did not care for any of the dwarven companions.  It has less to do with their independent performances and more with the fact there are so many of them with so few lines and equally rare opportunities to be relevant on screen. The original “fellowship” had far fewer members with a more diverse racial composition which is indispensable for the audience’s ability to identify and compartmentalize each character’s contributions.  The one shining spot was the group’s brief performance of “Far Over the Misty Mountains Cold” in Bilbo’s house which was eerily warm and a nice addendum to the CG, fantasy and violence.

[[wysiwyg_imageupload:5547:]]

The mountains are lovely, dark and deep.

The Hobbit is a very good film, but mark my words.  Not one of these Hobbit films will equal the greatness of any individual chapter of The Lord of the Rings trilogy.  Taking one book and spreading out the plot thin enough to accommodate three films may be an adaptation strategy that pays off in the future, but not for this prequel trilogy and especially not if Peter Jackson is hell bent on presenting it in the same form as the originals.  I realize that the story is building up to an epic confrontation with Smaug the dragon, but as spectacular as I’m sure that sequence will be, the audience needs something else to peak our interests in the meanwhile.  So many film franchises these days are featuring large casts with marquee actors filling out the roster and the method of balancing story with character seems to be the real trick to making good films versus great films.  Only time will tell if the story of The Hobbit will step up its game with The Desolation of Smaug set for release this coming December.