The reasoning behind bringing up Disney's non-traditional director choice for this films is because Raimi has been known to have a unique directing style and has been tied to many "out of the ordinary" films. The Evil dead series were films he wrote, produced, directed, and were, as the title states, dark films (turned comedy due to its poor special effects, campy acting, and cult following). Even the Spider-man trilogy (starring Tobey Maguire) was a bit more aggressive and edgy than most Disney adventures. Some of Raimi's other cinematic ventures include: 2013's remake of The Evil Dead, The Grudge and the recently announced Poltergeist. The theme with those films is that they are all dark and scary, very non-Disney. So, to hire Sam Raimi to direct your Disney film about how the Wizard of Oz becomes the Wizard of Oz seems a bit adventurous.
This film is the prequel to The Wizard of Oz- I know what you're thinking...duh!- which stars some of today's busy actors, Mila Kunis (SPOILER ALERT! the wicked witch) and James Franco (not so SPOILER ALERT, Oz), as well as some less busy actors, Michelle Williams, Rachel Weisz and Zach Braff. Originally, I thought this was going to be a weak point, in that I felt this story was too important and necessary and some of these actors might not have the "chops" to handle. I was relatively surprised, mainly by Franco and Kunis, in that they were both more than capable of doing a serious story, not just their previous stoner comedies (Ted, Your Highness). In fact, initially in this film Franco was falling right into the label I had for him. I felt in the beginning of the film, he seemed almost as though he wasn't on board with his character and the direction of the story, however as the film progressed, Franco's dynamism pushed past all of his labels and allowed for a stellar performance. Kunis on the other hand, seemed to slowly but surely to decline as her character became fleshed out.
When she transformed into the witch, although she looked very witch like and fitting for being such a wicked person, her downfall came from the one thing make-up and special effects did not, but should have changed...her voice. Mila Kunis has a rather interesting voice. It's not powerful, or overly timid, but rather one dimensional and girly. Add this voice to a sinister wicked witch hell bent on revenge and power, and you have almost a comical character, not very scary. I'm not sure why they didn't alter her voice in post (Post is where all the fake magic happens; from CGI-computer generated images/imaging to all the editing both sound and image. Post takes place after the Production, acting of the film; hence Post) or have Mila simply exaggerate her own voice, make it raspy and harsh sounding. Kunis' voice was just as important as her physical look; her physical look changed drastically and at the same time her voice should have changed equally as drastically, yet it didn't. This really took away from her character. Food for thought I suppose.
As for the look of the film I'm a little on the fence. I really enjoyed the beginning when the film was in black and white, and the aspect ratio started 4:3:
(tangent)
I'm unsure as to whether I'm the only person who finds this troubling, but I honestly feel less connected to a film when there isn't anything tangible. I know cartoons are not tangible either; one cannot touch Roger Rabbit (awesome film!) or Mickey Mouse, but when the action is real, and the actors are real, and the film for all intents and purposes is meant to be real, then so should the scenery, within reason. I always ask myself when seeing these types of films, "What would the production team/production designer have done if CGI was not available?" The answer to this lies with films utilizing old-school special effects: Star Wars (the original 3), Planet of the Apes, Gone With The Wind; all of these films couldn't fake things, they had to build scenes, and paint them, and in most situations, pioneer them. All I'm getting at is that film used to have to push boundaries and invent solutions when nothing existed prior, now they have limitless possibilities as to what they can do, as long as their pockets are deep enough. I digress.
(end tangent)
Back to my original point is CGI makes the film hard, again in my opinion, to connect 100%. As for Oz, there was a lot of CGI, but boy-howdy it looked damn good!! The production design and costumes and make-up were beyond top-notch. I mean they took someone who looks like the girl on the right, to the "thing" on the left, observe:
So all in all, I actually really enjoyed this film! I know most of you, if you made is thus far, have probably thought I didn't like this, well to quote Dark Helmet (Space Balls, see it!!!!) "Fooled You!!" I believe this was a great film to bring out, especially since we have a generation of young people who probably have no clue who or what The Wizard of Oz even is.
Final Words: Large Popcorn.
Even though I have personal reservations about the overuse of CGI, I feel that the acting, story and most importantly make-up/costume/special effects more than made up for the wicked CGI of the west. This film is rated for younger people, be prepared however, especially in 3-D, for frights.
P.S. I think I will use more pictures in the future to help prove my theories, if you disagree, say so.
Until next time, happy viewing!
Review Rating : Based on popcorn sizes; small, medium, large, extra-large
When films get a snore zzz... worth skipping
No comments:
Post a Comment