Three Years Later, Disney Repackages Its Last Weird Success With Oz The Great And Powerful

The Good: Decent special effects, Good pacing
The Bad: Predictable plot, character arcs, and themes, Relies far too much on spectacle over effect.
The Basics: Cinephiles and actual witches will have plenty to complain about when Disney repackages its 2010 film Alice In Wonderland as the astonishingly similar and familiar special effects-driven Oz The Great And Powerful.


Coming out of the yearly cinematic doldrums of February (one of two times of the year where movie releases go to die), March inevitably kicks off the big-budget films that the studios release early so they will not have to compete with the ultra-blockbusters released during Summer Blockbuster Season. Unfortunately, March is not known for releasing truly great films, just big films that are in a better market position than the February releases. This year is, of course, no different. However, it is hard not to feel like audiences are being taken as suckers this particular March with the release of Oz The Great And Powerful. Disney is releasing Oz The Great And Powerful to be the first big blockbuster of the year and it is a tactic in 2010 when they released Tim Burton’s vision of Alice In Wonderland (reviewed here!).

Disney is, no doubt, hoping that people will not notice the similarities in release date (Alice In Wonderland was released on March 5, 2010, Oz The Great And Powerful will break to the public on March 8, 2013), merchandising push and attempts to tap the virtually identical fan-bases. No doubt, Disney publicists are pushing talking points for all of the talent should any of them be asked about Oz The Great And Powerful and Alice In Wonderland (you can pretty much bet that within the first five interviews of actors/directors/producers/etc. someone will very pointedly note that Alice In Wonderland was a reimagined sequel, while Oz The Great And Powerful is a prequel to the previously-established The Wizard Of Oz. It is important for the producers to make that distinction; they need the audience to believe they will be watching a different movie.

It is, alas, all window-dressing. Oz The Great And Powerful is essentially Disney’s Alice In Wonderland set in Oz, where the protagonist is not struggling to remember herself and her past, but rather to grow into a man who will lead a very different future. Both are very obvious stories about a hero in the process of becoming, both rely heavily on spectacle over strong storytelling and both made reviews utterly pointless to 90% of the potential audience. Oz The Great And Powerful will be a smash success for Disney, just like Alice In Wonderland was, not because of any inherent quality of its own, but rather because it comes with such a massive fanbase that it cannot be anything but a success.

That said, Oz The Great And Powerful is not unenjoyable, but it is thoroughly obvious and it is, at best, a popcorn movie that seeks to entertain and overwhelm as opposed to telling a story that is worthwhile or compelling.

Starting in Kansas, Oscar Diggs is a simple illusionist. He entertains at the carnival, but he is a magician who is engaged in slight-of-hand and simple science, not one who calls upon any magical forces. So, when his balloon is whisked off in a funnel cloud, he is shocked to awaken in a world where magic is very real. After quickly determining that he is not, in fact, dreaming, Oscar is told where he is by Theodora, a woman who treats the magical Land of Oz as mundane. Theodora takes Oscar to her sister, Evanora, who believes she can use Oscar against her enemies.

Quickly seduced by the potential of the vast wealth of gold, gems, and treasures found in Oz, Oscar slowly comes to realize that Theodora and Evanora are not exactly who they claim to be. When he learns of the plight of most of the citizens of Oz through Glinda, Oscar must choose a side and raise an army to stop the oppression of the people of Oz, in the process becoming the great man – and a man of substance – that he never was before.

First, the good: Oz The Great And Powerful is as visually amazing as fans and cinephiles would hope it could be. Disney has, apparently, used the last three years exceptionally well. While Alice In Wonderland had moments that looked exceptionally like one was watching an awkward animated movie, Oz The Great And Powerful does not; it looks like a true, real setting. The 3-D is incredible and the creatures look like they match the real-world (which is mostly CG in Oz, though the actors are, largely, real). While some of the creatures look derivative – one of the earliest creatures seen in Oz bears a striking resemblance to the Tooth Fairies from Hellboy 2: The Golden Army (reviewed here!) - Oz The Great And Powerful tries hard to make the sense of magic and wonder match The Wizard Of Oz while employing the latest technology to push the envelope of what can be done.

As well, the pacing in Oz The Great And Powerful is good. The film is long, but it does not feel long, it moves at a decent pace, establishing wonder and reversal with a very steady sense of movement.

Unfortunately, where the movie is going is hardly original . . . on pretty much any front. One of the key battles between Glinda and the Wicked Witch was shot in a way that reminded me a great deal of the final battle in Dark City (reviewed here!). Everything else just seemed like it was plotted out from Alice In Wonderland, though Oz The Great And Powerful does not belabor Oscar whining about whether or not Oz is real (unlike Alice’s prolonged whining in the other film), which is nice. Heroes in the process of becoming are familiar stories and it is tough to do something new with that, especially in a single movie, but Oz The Great And Powerful does not even try; it goes with an obvious, formulaic progression as Oscar is tempted, learns the truth, learns a deeper truth, and digs into his soul to take the obvious high road. Hell, in true Disney form, he goes with the blonde!

The best we might say about the acting in Oz The Great And Powerful is that almost all the time, the performers interact with the virtual sets and characters flawlessly. Beyond that . . . James Franco is stiff and he plays Oscar as a man playing charming, as opposed to a character who is innately charming. This is, unfortunately, not the worst the film has to offer in terms of performances. Mila Kunis often seems like she is sleepwalking through the role of Theodora and Michelle Williams’s performance of Glinda is monotonous. Williams plays in a narrow sliver of emotional depth for the character – quickly illustrating deep pathos for the citizens of Oz, but opting for an optimism that seems utterly simplistic in this day in age. Rachel Weisz abandons all subtlety as Evanora the longer the film goes on and her performance lacks any genuine emotional depth.

Oz The Great And Powerful is a popcorn movie and for those who go for family-friendly, big-budget special effects films, the film will satisfy. It is solidly entertaining. Unfortunately, it is nothing beyond that; Disney aims for spectacle over meaning and they nail it perfectly for that with Oz The Great And Powerful.

For other Disney live-action works, please check out my reviews of:
The Odd Life Of Timothy Green
John Carter
Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
Tron: Legacy
Oceans
Prince Of Persia: The Sands Of Time
Old Dogs
G-Force
Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End
Pirates Of The Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
The Chronicles Of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch And The Wardrobe
Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl
The Princess Diaries 2: A Royal Engagement
The Princess Diaries
Tron
4/10

For other film reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Cult Classic?! I've No Hope For Humanity . . . Garden State

The Good: One or two moments of character, Ian Holm
The Bad: Most of the characters and acting are terrible, Plot is nonexistent or hackneyed.
The Basics: Dull, predictable and uninspired in acting and writing, Garden State disappoints the viewer who was enthusiastically anticipating the viewing.


A very good friend of mine warned me against being too critical of Garden State after I panned The Last Kiss (reviewed here!). She informed me that there's something of a cult that has grown up around the movie Garden State and that Zach Braff is considered the second coming for writing, directing and acting in the movie. I know it's chic to take shots at celebrities when they become ridiculously well-paid, but the timing of this review is coincidence. And before I tear into someone's new Bible, let me start with the caveat that I was looking forward to Garden State. It's been on my list for years.

Andrew Largeman, a bit actor in Hollywood, returns to New Jersey when his mother drowns in the bathtub. He has been living a life as a twenty-something in Hollywood half asleep and half bored. He returns to New Jersey, avoiding his issues with his father, to hook up with friends, fall in love with a local girl, and come to understand that life is for the living and it's time he started living in the present and for a future.

I'll start my rant off with my real problem with Garden State; almost everyone is a stupid stereotype of youth. I cannot recall the last time I watched a movie about people in their twenties when there was not excessive drinking, drug use, smoking or open, emotionless, sexuality. I can live with sex, but I'm sick of seeing young people universally portrayed as idiotic drug-using, smoking, boozers that lack genuine personality and real rebellious spirit. If this truly is the future of America, the United States is doomed. If this is considered entertaining, the next generation is as lost as every prior generation has always secretly feared.

I call the characters idiotic because the prevalence of drug culture as mainstream youth (as presented in Garden State and innumerable other teen-oriented coming-of-age films) culture is characterized by the most selective stupidity I've yet witnessed. So, while Andrew acknowledges he is a Hollywood actor, but refuses to do coke, he - moments later - pops whatever pill is handed to him. Moron. This is on top of the pharmacy of antidepressants Andrew is on.

And on that front, Garden State writer Zach Braff ought to have done some homework. In a scene in the movie where Andrew visits a neurologist, the doctor tells him that antidepressants clear the system relatively fast, which is the opposite of truth (a number of the SRIs take time to build up in the blood stream, should not be ended abruptly and can cause withdrawal symptoms up to a month after usage is terminated if the system is not properly weaned from them). As problematic is just the basic sense of the pharmacy of Andrew is on and the lack of interactions with the various drugs he uses in the course of Garden State.

I'm sorry, there are a lot of cliche ideas in film and literature; coming of age, mid-life crisis, deathbed conversions. We've seen these things. I suppose every generation needs a coming of age film/novel. Then again, it's hard to top The Catcher In The Rye. Garden State is a particularly witless coming of age; the protagonist is barely believable as someone who either has coasted as long as he has without dealing with his problems or someone who hasn't already gotten over them. That is, the elements of his backstory that come up in the movie seem like they ought to have been dealt with already in order for him to have remained functional as long as he has or there didn't seem enough in the movie to wake him up.

Either way, the plot has been done. It's been done to death and this is not a particularly compelling coming of age. Andrew is not an interesting protagonist. He's dull, dull to watch and it's hard to feel empathy for one who willingly surrounds himself with such losers as Andrew does. Like Napoleon Dynamite (reviewed here!), Garden State is a much-hyped movie with characters that are supposedly original and compelling, but fall short.

The only marginally interesting characters are the two supporting characters in Andrew's life. Andrew's father, Gideon, is aloof, but intelligent and every scene he's in is riveting. Similarly, Sam, Andrew's love interest is far more interesting than Andrew, though from her first moments she seems ridiculously young.

On that note, let's explore the acting. Natalie Portman plays Sam and from the first moments she is on screen, she seems to be playing Sam as young. Sam is very open with opinions, but the level of enthusiasm and lack of discretion was so childlike as to be troubling. Honestly, she was playing the role in a way that was more appropriate for a character five years old than eighteen. Later in the film, as Sam and Andrew move through their days and the obstacles they find there, Portman's acting becomes more age-appropriate and the performance is better.

Ian Holm is great as the taciturn Gideon, ruling each scene he is in with a sense of sensibility that makes the film watchable at least for the few minutes he is in it. Similarly, Ann Dowd is recognizable and wonderful in her bit role as Olivia, Sam's mother. It is refreshing to see her bring maturity and dignity to this movie.

But the film rests mostly on the back of Zack Braff and there it dies. Braff is quite good at creating a low-key affect. But it doesn't bring us into his character. In fact, Braff's performance is so understated as to make his character repulsive; the viewer does not want to get to know Andrew because from the opening frames (where he imagines going down in a plane crash and he sits unphased by the experience) he seems too unbelievably boring. He's not enjoyable or interesting to watch and Braff's performance only serves to distance the viewer from whatever internal struggle the character might be going through.

Were I truly jaded, I might suggest that Zach Braff's first directoral effort was simply an insecure attempt to kiss Natalie Portman. But that would be real jaded. As it stands, I'm at a loss as to why Garden State resonates with so many young people. Were I them, I would see it as a cautionary tale and strive for better.

For other works with Peter Sarsgaard, please be sure to check out my reviews of:
Green Lantern
Knight And Day
The Cell

3/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

It's Never A Good Sign When A Cinephile Has Not Heard of Your Movie. . . The Last Kiss

The Good: Moments of decent acting
The Bad: Not funny, Not charming, Characters almost universally stink, First hour is terrible
The Basics: If you want to save time an not read this review, all you need to know about The Last Kiss is it's bad. Real bad. Of unacceptably poor quality. Blech!


Sometimes when I am reviewing a movie, I get caught up in the minutiae. I find myself thinking about how BAD a movie truly was and today while contemplating The Last Kiss, I decided my life is worth more than sitting and truly worrying about whether this was a 1 or 2 point movie. The first hour of The Last Kiss is absolutely terrible. The movie picks up near the end and I was debating for some time how much that ought to count for before I decided my life is worth more than that. Go figure.

Michael, a young man in his late twenties, is living his life with a girlfriend of three years, a great job and a generally nice place in the world when he decides he is unsatisfied about this state of affairs. Learning his girlfriend, Jenna, is pregnant, he appears ready to stand up but when he meets Kim, he allows his attention and devotion to wander. While Michael is having his crisis of lack of personality, Jenna's parents split, and Michael's circle of male friends begin to fall apart with their relationships.

There comes a point when one is doing something, watching or listening to something and they realize they are no longer in any way connected to the next generation. I officially hit that mark while watching the witless antics of Michael in The Last Kiss. There's a disconnect in me that fails to understand movies featuring young people with Hollywood-good looks and great relationships and stations in life who are simply miserable. The disconnect is tripped because for people of that younger age, which I apparently no longer am, the solution is always to change romantic partners. Sure, it's not cinematic for a guy who feels a lack in his life to take up a hobby or go back to school, but something other than simply screwing the first new woman who shows him affection would be nice. And, it seems, it's always a younger woman.

The thing is, none of the characters, save Jenna's father Stephen, say anything remotely interesting during the course of the entire movie. Michael feels anxiety. Okay. He's feeling anxious because there are no surprises left in his life. Wow. Boo hoo. I don't buy it. I don't buy that seeing one's future looking like one imagined it is such a bad thing. And if it is, it's his own fault; Michael laments that life looks exactly as he thought it would growing up. He never takes responsibility for the concept that HE DIRECTED HIS LIFE IN THE DIRECTION IT WENT!

The supplementary characters are equally witless and problematic. Izzy is an obsessed loser who cannot stay away from the woman he loved, who has dumped him. Kenny is sexually promiscuous and manages to find a woman who satisfies him completely until she wants him to meet her parents (I was seriously rooting for Kenny to have the awakening that getting everything he wanted was enough to want to stick with someone, but alas . . .). Sadly, it is Chris, who is waking up to the difficult realization that having a child has ruined his relationship with his wife, who I found myself rooting for. Even Anna, Jenna's mother, does not come across as sympathetic or realistic or even interesting as Chris.

As for Michael, he's bafflingly stupid for an architect. For a well-educated, fairly responsible guy he pretty much shoots rationality in the foot the moment he hits the first emotional obstacle. There is nothing especially distinctive or interesting about Kim, the college student who begins hitting on him. Sure, she looks good in a miniskirt, but she's so much more an object than a personality in this piece.

I could evaluate all of the performances, but for a movie of this quality, I am opting to not waste my time, nor yours. Zach Braff, who plays Michael, is convincing as a directionless, somewhat moronic adult. He plays witless and distressed well, even if his character's motivations are never fully explored. Casey Affleck gives an astonishingly deep performance as his character, Chris, wrestles with the emotional decision to abandon his wife. Affleck's story becomes more interesting than any of the others by the sheer magnitude of his performance.

The best acting, though, comes from the over 50 crowd in The Last Kiss. Harold Ramis's cameo steals that scene and Blythe Danner is easily the most interesting woman on screen in the course of the movie (and that includes the naked women having sex in a hammock). But the acting gravitas - when it is present in this lemon - comes exclusively from Tom Wilkinson, who plays Stephen. He is given the heaviest lines, especially near the end and he is up for the heavy lifting.

In the end, though, even that is not enough for me to willingly recommend The Last Kiss or rate it above 1.5. The movie fails to ask too many integral questions. Chris's anxiety over leaving his wife is a story in itself that has unrealized potential because we never see the pair happy. None of the characters seem to believe they can truly change their fate, save the witless Izzy and his only solution is to run away to South America.

Just once, I'd like to see an intelligent movie involving the next generation that gives me hope that humanity will not only survive, but grow. This movie is not it.

For other works Harold Ramis was involved in, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Year One
The Ice Harvest
Orange County
Bedazzled
As Good As It Gets

1.5/10

For other film reviews, be sure to visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |