Edelstein on "Oz": The not-so-great

(CBS News) This weekend there's a brand-new movie out that has our David Edelstein thinking of a Hollywood classic:

Oz the Great and Powerful. Say it out loud with me: "Oz the Great and Powerful!"

I bet you're smiling! Those words conjure up so much: Judy Garland in pigtails, Ray Bolger pointing at his straw head, Bert Lahr's juddery fisticuffs. I can't go into much more, for legal reasons.

See, all of the "Oz" books by L. Frank Baum are in the public domain, meaning they're free for anyone to adapt. But Warner Brothers owns the rights to the 1939 movie "The Wizard of Oz" and is a tad sensitive -- by which I mean, rarin' to sue ya' -- when it comes to using its images in connection with Disney's "Oz the Great and Powerful." (I love saying that.)

The good part is that the new movie isn't a desecration of "The Wizard of Oz." Disney didn't have the legal rights to desecrate it.

The bad part is . . . the movie.

OK, it's not bad. It's just poky. And joyless. And it could have used songs like that other picture.

21 Photos

"Oz the Great and Powerful" premieres in Hollywood

View the Full Gallery »

James Franco honored with Hollywood Walk of Fame star
"Oz the Great and Powerful:" Critics agree, not so great and not so powerful
Watch: Mila Kunis helps reporter through awkward interview
Almanac: "The Wizard of Oz"
Watch: The story behind "The Wizard of Oz"

But there's actually a great premise: the journey from Kansas to Oz of the wizard himself, played by James Franco as a traveling-carnival magician who works most diligently to trick women into bed.

Mila Kunis and James Franco in "Oz the Great and Powerful."

/ Walt Disney Pictures

The obvious comparison isn't to "Oz," but Mark Twain's prankish "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court." Which is fine!

The problem is, Franco is weirdly lackadaisical, as well as the least convincing actor talking to sidekicks to be computer-generated later I've ever seen.

Or maybe it's a sign of mental health given how annoying they are.

There is, however, a wowza trio of witches -- Mila Kunis as Theodora; Rachel Weisz as her sister, Evanora; and Michelle Williams as Glinda. Which one turns into the Wicked Witch of the West and why is quite an original idea: Hell hath no fury et cetera et cetera . . .

I won't spoil anything, but will say if you buy this version, it turns out all the bad stuff in "The Wizard of Oz" was because because because of the wonderful wizard's overactive sex drive.

Take that, Warner Brothers!

For more info:

• "Oz the Great and Powerful" (Official website)
• David Edelstein at New York Magazine

[julianpenrod]

What many don't seem to realize in cases like this is that this isn't intended to be joyful or insightful or even engaging. It's purpose is only as a platform for the computer generated animation. And that's it. And it's produced by individuals who are bound and determined not to give it anything more. Too much story or emoting and people might not pay as much attention to the flying monkeys! Or their target audience might get overwrought with having to hear people speak sentences of more than five words and invoking subtle and profound considerations rather than having another explosion. The result is a generally spiritless exercise in excess. Basically, another "John Carter". A recognizable property, with a lot of potential for special effects, and with possibilities for strong emoting, but given over to special effects. In the end, even the four armed reptilian tharks didn't seem more than window dressing and, for the type of production, the fully clothed Leia of "Star Wars" had more sensuality than the half naked Dejah Thoris. What a toll they take by emphasizing the special effects so slavishly. Lack of essence can genuinely wreck a film, people come away feeling empty and don't know why. So they fill it up with food or video games or looking at the movie again. They don't realize that, in fact, genuine depth, meaning, significance, sentiment, emotion have largely been banished from everything the corporate world is putting out. Trying to mentally and spiritually starve the people into becoming the mindless thrill slaves the New World Order wants. In fact, no movie made after 1968, and a fair number during the Sixties up to that, was anything better than garbage compared to what came before. There is a genuine initiative by so many to provide only trash in "entertainment" today.

[Jojo_Jones]

I agree with your opinion of the picture, but I enjoyed some tributes to the 1939 film, such as seeing Glenda (then Billie Burke) arrive in a bubble. But that film wasn't perfect, either. Dorothy in the book is a little girl. Judy Garland, no matter how tightly they bound her bosom, was obviously a young woman.

[Noval53]

Well hey; this one is not a kid's movie. I suppose you would have liked it better if Barney was singing or maybe the Muppets took over Oz kicking the munchkins out.