OZ The Great And Powerful (movie review)

I remember my mom and dad setting my sister and I down in front of the TV about once a year for the annual CBS playing of The Wizard Of OZ. Not only did we love watching it because it was a great movie, it aired in the evening and we got to stay up just a little later than normal. I can't remember if we watched it every year, or if we even watched it more than the one year I am currently recalling, but I remember, this one time in particular, at least, it was a family event. That is the memory I associate with the original movie. How could a new rendition of the original even compare? And after watching RETURN TO OZ? Forget it. That movie ruined my belief that a new OZ movie could work. Return to OZ was a decent movie, but it was too different, too weird. As a stand alone movie it would have been better, but they really bastardized a classic there.

So The bottom line becomes the top line: I have decided that I liked the movie. Shame on me, I didn't build up any suspense! A movie review is suppose to build pros and cons and then, to keep the readers in suspense(and hopefully to keep them reading), I'm suppose to reveal my final assessment at the end. Well, if you haven't noticed yet, I'm not really into doing or writing what is expected. So my final assessment is that the movie was good. Here are my observations during and after viewing the film, for whatever it may be worth:

The word "prequel" is not in my Oxford English Dictionary for a reason. It's not really a word. Spellcheck, however, has maintained it's relevance by adding the word to its list of recognized terminology, slang added for the sheer purpose of helping one understand the trends in today's ever changing world of misguided and perverse twistings of a once eloquent language. I once took a creative writing course in college, in an attempt to hone my fiction-writing skills into something entertaining, or at very worst, readable. We were coached in multiple assignments to open the story with an attention grabber. Invest the reader immediately, to dispense with initial exposition. This is why George Lucas started with Episode IV with no intention (at the time) for Episodes I II and III. It's why he started Dr. Jones in a cave, deep in a jungle and hunting for a golden statue right off the bat. A prequel, by its very nature, should be expositional. It's all the mush before the main action starts. A good writer can make anything into a compelling story, but because it should have been a boring description of events leading up to the really cool stuff, it ends up being forced despite the skill of the screenwriter. Don't get me wrong. Writing a prequel must be way more difficult than writing an original. There are already world rules established. There are already fans that will be expecting these rules to be followed and they'll also be extremely critical with any liberties that might be taken. Yes, a prequel is a difficult write, indeed. So this new OZ, this highly computer animated, visually spectacular feature is a prequel to the original, if you didn't know. It, in a nutshell, is the wizard's venture into OZ and what he must overcome to establish himself as such. The movie never gives us much of a timeframe in respect to its relation to the first film, but it does give us a date at the beginning and eludes to a timeframe by reference of names and generations. But you've gotta be sharp to catch it.
The opening credits were a striking embodiment of Danny Elfman's musical signature. Danny Elfman, composer of the Beetlejuice score, Edward Scissorhands, and a slew of other Tim Burton films, has a distinct staccato, circusy sound that is difficult to ignore. Going into it, I didn't know that he was the composer of the score and while he composes great music, I would not have thought he could pull it off. Refreshingly, his signature was subtle and only widely considered during the opening. His score didn't pull me out of the world of OZ and if anything, his subtlety amplified the experience. Kudos to Danny Elfman. He exercised his compositional maturity by scaling back and not overpowering the action.
Homage was payed often and respectfully to the original film. It began in black and white, but not only that, it was in a 4:3 aspect ratio: a square box. It's an aspect ratio used for the old square tube TVs. In other words, it was not formatted to fit the movie theater's screen. Upon entering OZ, the aspect ratio smoothly and slowly corrects for wide screen and the color appears. I knew it would happen, but the transition was done nicely. L. Frank Baum, the creator of The Wonderful Wizard Of OZ, was given his due respects in the opening scene. We begin with a carnival, the Baum's Brothers', indicated by the banner at the entrance. It's starts the movie on a good note, I think, even though the opening felt at least a little contrived. The camera panned past carnival barkers until it arrived at the great wizard's trailer, who, straight away, was revealed to be a womanizing fraud. But it was the carnival barkers that made me feel that the movie would be an imposter. It felt almost too--stage act. Does that make sense? The scene's only saving grace was that the barkers could still be heard once they were off camera, making me relax a little, knowing that their lines went beyond the scope of the camera, adding a little bit, albeit, JUST a little bit of realism that the scene desperately needs.
This movie, unlike the first, starts at the Emerald City and works it's way back to munchkin land. The route they take is true, first entering the forest, then arriving at the corn field, then into munchkin land. They come to the corn field from the correct direction, which is odd to me that I noticed--but I did, so good. Apparently, they detour through Chinatown, which is not a decree of nationality, but instead a town fully comprised of fine ceramic, china. As in the original, the wizard begins to meet characters which add themselves to his party. I personally did not experience this foray into Chinatown because during this part of the film, I was gently scooting past the people in my row, careful of drinks and being sure not to bump knees. My son, whom I was there with had to use the restroom. Therefore, I only have second hand accounts from my wife and two girls of the existence of Chinatown. I cannot comment further on it, but I did see the result of the wizard's presence there, so I know it probably did happen.
I had a hard time with Theodora, the wicked witch of the west. She was played by Mila Kunis famed actress of That 70's Show and the voice actress of Meg from Family Guy. All I could hear was Meg from Family Guy, and it took me out of the moment on several occasions. Bummer. She played the part very well, but it was hard to look past that recognizable vocal talent and see her as someone--anyone else.
My final gripe is when the wizard first landed his hot air balloon in OZ, the whole thing was overdone. He landed in a river, in his balloon basket and floated down it as he saw many of the natural wonders of OZ. The scene was trying to be fantastic. Giant flowers opened as he passed by, a tree composed of nothing but butterflies scattered and flew all around him. Multicolored songbirds flocked around him, and he passed reeds that made music. It WAS fantastic, but it went on for too long and it was too much, as if the animators were just trying to come up with something to throw in that would be fun to animate. It was simply too much.
As a fan of the original movie, and skeptical that this one would be even remotely decent, I was quite surprised by the strict attention they payed the original and pleasantly surprised that I didn't hate the liberties they did take. Overall, it was entertaining and magical, much like the original. Go see it if you have an opportunity. I suspect the big screen does it more justice than a home television.