Oz the Great and Powerful

          On Thursday night I went to see Oz the Great and Powerful in 3D. This is a prequel to the 1939 musical The Wizard of Oz. It shows how the Wizard (Oz, played by James Franco) stumbles upon Oz. We find out that there was a prophecy that a wizard with the same name as the land would come to save everybody in the supposedly "very merry" land of Oz, which actually has more problems than would appear so on the surface. Visually, this movie is stunning, as I'm sure you could have guessed from the previews. Believe it or not, the colors are even better than you would expect. There were colors that I had never even seen before, including magically vivid blues and beautiful greens that make you want the whole world to be covered in emeralds. From the story point of view, I thought there were clever attempts of connecting the real world of Kansas to the magical land of Oz -- such as Michelle Williams' two characters -- that were reminiscent of L. Frank Baum's original works. I thought it was an entertaining tale, especially just to see the evolution of the characters, which brings me to the acting. Before seeing this movie, I had heard that the acting was pitiful. To be fair, the acting in the 1939 film was very overly dramatic, as the tale was meant to be told. So I have to disagree with the other critics to a certain degree. Yes, when Mila Kunis first shows up as Theodora her voice is a bit too high-pitched and she acts a bit too stupefied at the wizard's presence, but I think it works for the story, particularly her specific character. I think Williams was appropriate for Glinda, even though we humans are prone to compare her to Billie Burke's version back in 1939. In my opinion, Rachel Weisz's Evanora was the weakest link, which is okay because we are meant to care about the other two witches the most anyway. As for James Franco, I think he was perfect for Oz. A bit extra goofy, he really showed how naive the "wizard" was upon arrival in Oz. Do I think the actors gave the best performances of their lives? Absolutely not; but they were appropriate for this fairy tale of a story.

Warning: minor spoiler ahead. The reason why I say "minor" is because I knew this before I saw the movie, and it did not ruin my experience by any means. If anything, it made me pay closer attention to important details.

****MINOR SPOILER ALERT****

A note on the costume design: I think the design for Theodora's (Mila Kunis) hats was commendable. In the beginning, she wears a big, floppy red hat with a loose chin strap. Once she turns into the wicked witch of the west (lowercased so that wandering eyes do not see it if viewers do not want to know this minor spoiler), she wears the infamous floppy black hat, of course. Obviously, it was clever to have her beginning hat be floppy like the later one. What I thought was really cool was the chin strap. At first meeting, I thought it was sort of funny-looking since it reminded me of those dull safari hats, but it is actually quite genius in my opinion. In the beginning of the movie, Theodora is a quiet, reserved witch. The loose strap keeping her hat from falling off symbolizes her keeping herself from losing her temper (red hat = anger) and reflects her laid-back manner. Later, when she decides to lose her temper without going back to being calm and pretty, she wears a black (evil) hat with a choker-tight strap. This shows that her patience has shortened (as has her strap). Also, she needs a tighter strap from that moment on since she gets angrier more easily, so she rejects any breathing room that may calm herself down. Just a thought. :) Anyway, Happy Easter!