Our Wizard Has Arrived

"Oz the Great and Powerful," with James Franco and Mila Kunis, directed by Sam Raimi.

What you have here is really an insurmountable task. You have a beloved classic ("The Wizard of Oz," of course) that most people have seen anywhere from 10 to 100 times, and is a movie of which people have visceral sense memories. You have a canon of literature attached, such that "Oz" purists are ready to attack, should anything out of place be noticed. You also have a public really kind of burnt out on sequels, prequels, remakes, the constant rechurning of old classics for a quick buck that seems to be Hollywood these days.

And yet, much like the people of Oz themselves, you have many of us, who in our hearts truly believe that a wizard can come along and give us the magic that is Oz once again, complete with all the latest technologies and visions.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have such a wizard, and his name is Sam Raimi.

Other bad reviews to the contrary, I'm here to report that "Oz, the Great and Powerful," is stunning in its majesty. All the nods to the original that you expect to be there: the black and white into color, the "tornado"/dream sequence, the yellow brick road, Glinda's bubbles and, of course, Munchkins, are all there.

Added to that, we have the technology of today: 3D, where the gorgeous flowers of Oz literally pop out into bloom into your face. It is truly breathtaking. The visuals absolutely knocked my socks off.

Also, there is the challenge of story. While there are many books about what happened after Dorothy landed her house in Oz, there aren't any "before" books. What's up with those sisters anyway? How did they come to be "good" and/or "evil"? And, in laying down that story, you have to be darn sure to lay a really good path to the movie we know and love. Screenwriters Mitchell Kapner and David Lindsay-Abbaire acquit themselves quite nicely. The story rocks.

Much like "Wizard of Oz," you have to have a journey, and you have to have traveling companions. We get a wonderful monkey, with callbacks to the original film with his character; and you really need a little girl. There is a whole universe (in the "Oz" books) about the villages made of China that I was unaware of, but we get the cutest little China Doll you ever have seen.

Let me say at this point that I loved, loved, loved this film and you will, too. So don't listen to anyone else, don't even read any further, just get your ticket for the 3D version. Read the rest of this later.

OK.

Cause I also want to talk a bit about the things that bugged me. While we are on the story elements, without giving anything away, there are two things. First, in "The Wizard of Oz," isn't it made clear that there is a Wicked Witch of the West, Wicked Witch of the East, Glinda is the Good Witch from the North, doesn't there also have to be a witch from the South? This really wasn't explained at all to my satisfaction in this movie. Plus you have a little sleight of hand at the beginning (no spoilers) which doesn't make sense to me. (Given the above statement.)

But for me, if you put some of the Tin Man's oil into the first twenty minutes, to ease you into the next part (once the Wizard is traveling with his companions), it's quite wonderful. From there to the end. Story is great.

Really the biggest letdown to me (and it's a big one) is the caliber of the acting. I walked into the theater with biases against the acting of James Franco, Mila Kunis and Michelle Williams. That is to say, I don't think much of it at all. Don't like the way they act, don't think they are good—all of that.

Franco somewhat acquits himself. In fact, he's pretty much fun to watch throughout.

What bugged me about Michelle Williams is that Glinda is light and airy and ethereal, a portrait of pure goodness. Michelle Williams' version is dragged down a bit by the real world, but I suppose you could put it down to this being the earlier one, and once Dorothy gets there, she's had a chance to be really happy. Still, I would've preferred more pure giddy happiness and goodness from her.

I walk gingerly around the Mila Kunis bit now. Let's just say that I really would've preferred to see more heartfelt sappy love in the beginning, swoony over the top love that's palpable, to have the ending make sense. Also, she was a few rehearsals away from really owning that character. (Too bad films don't do that anymore.) She has moments, angry moments, crying moments, where she just rocks it, but overall, I felt strongly that her performance was uneven.

Rachel Weisz is easily the best actress among these, and she was fun to watch.

But as in the Star Wars movies, where really you just wanna see the Death Star blow up, in "Oz," you just wanna see the flying monkeys and the scary guards and the Munchkins dancing, and you get all of that. And so so much more.

So the quibbles I have with acting and story are really minor, in the end. You watch some real accurate Oz fun that's good for the whole family? This is it.

Some final applause/tech credits, all amazing: Peter Deming, Cinematography; Danny Elfman, Score; Robert Stromberg, Production Design; Gary Jones, Costumes. And a big sweeping final bow to all the VFX wizards who worked on making this amazing movie happen.

"Oz, the Great and Powerful," directed by Sam Raimi. Courtesy of Walt Disney Pictures and Roth Films.

****************************

A Consideration of the Best Actress Race: Real-Life Impersonations

Let us examine, for a moment, from a deeply detailed acting perspective, who deserves to win the Oscar for Best Actress, and who doesn't, and why.

Two nominees played real-life people that we know and (maybe) love. Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher. Michelle Williams as Marilyn Monroe.

Let's take Beauty first, then Beast.

Back in the acting days of my youth, there were several actresses that I studied thoroughly: Bette Davis, Kathryn Hepburn, Jane Fonda. And Marilyn Monroe. I knew their gait, their phrasing, their breathiness or lack thereof, I knew their histories, as much about them as I possibly could.

So I started out seeing "My Week with Marilyn" with several prejudices: 1. that really NO ONE can do Marilyn and 2. that Michelle Williams can't act.

Sure, I liked her fine in Dawson's Creek, but since then, she has pretty much left me cold. Didn't think she deserved the nominations for Brokeback Mountain or Blue Valentine.

However, I will say, she deserves this one. It's a very tall mountain to climb to recreate Marilyn Monroe. Williams even taught me something about Marilyn that I didn't know: that she was a series of poses, always posing, even in repose. And, in this movie, Williams does some pretty impossible stuff.

She recreates famous dance scenes, and movie moments, so much that you forget that you are watching another actress. That is no small thing. She has her breathiness down, and her movements. Even her insecurities. For all of those things, for which Williams herself says she "worked harder than she ever did in her life," she gets an A+ in my book.

Sadly, here is where she falters. While she was meticulous about recreating the voice, the mannerisms and the steps and phrasing, she missed the heart of it. She missed the things that really made Marilyn tick.

The script, in Williams' defense, only really gives you bits where this Marilyn shines, but in each of them, Williams falls flat.

Here are the key questions one will ask at the end of this movie:
1. What really drove Marilyn to succeed (and to chase men)?
ANSWER: her childhood in orphanages, and feeling like everyone abandoned her

2. What was her connection with Fame? Why didn't she just give it all up and "settle down" with one guy?
ANSWER: She couldn't, cause fame is a drug like any other. She needed that.

Two scenes ask these questions of her, and Williams' performance (to me) fell completely flat in these scenes. So put that Oscar away for this year.

In one, she is looking at the dolls in a dollhouse. There it is, the metaphor is just about hitting you over the head. This was the moment for the actress to break our hearts with her shattered psyche. BAM. Nothing.

In the second, she is lying on the bed, and her lover asks her to just give it all up and settle down with him. This is the moment where the actress needs to give us some insight as to why Marilyn couldn't give up this lifestyle or settle down with this, or any, man. BAM. Nothing.

At the end of that scene, a really poignant scene, the audience should have been sobbing, or at least, thinking, that poor woman. I felt nothing after watching her. She could've been doing her nails. Very unfulfilling.

Meryl Streep suffers from the other problem. She is phenomenal, the script is dreadful and the direction is hokey.

But for me, it was like this. There is an opening scene where you see an old British woman, buying milk. Like her performance in Angels in America, where you see an old Jewish man, and go, HOLY CRAP! That's Meryl Streep... it's the same here. She walks and talks like an elderly British woman. As she talks more, in closeup, in the next scene, you see that it's Margaret Thatcher.

To be fair, her hair and makeup people also deserve an Oscar, cause WOW! This makeup was unbelievable. I've seen nearly all Meryl Streep movies, and I swear, I had a hard time seeing Maryl in there.

She also loses points (like she did last year) when a good chunk of the movie is someone else playing the younger years.

But wow. You wanna see a virtuoso playing that acting instrument, you need go no further than Meryl Streep in "The Iron Lady." I really didn't like the movie at all, but when Streep was in frame, she was riveting. My favorite scenes of hers were the ones with Jim Broadbent. They really could've made better use of Anthony Stewart Head, too.

Streep didn't look like Thatcher as much as Williams looked like Marilyn, but as far as capturing a heart and soul of a person, this Oscar is Streep's, hands down.

I have yet to see the other three performers in this category, but at this moment, I'm calling Streep for the win.

********************************************