Un frustrado mago de circo de Kansas es transportado a una tierra mágica llamada Oz, donde tendrá que cumplir una profecía para convertirse en el rey, y liberar la tierra de las Brujas Malsa... Leer todoUn frustrado mago de circo de Kansas es transportado a una tierra mágica llamada Oz, donde tendrá que cumplir una profecía para convertirse en el rey, y liberar la tierra de las Brujas Malsanas usando sus grandes (pero falsos) poderes.Un frustrado mago de circo de Kansas es transportado a una tierra mágica llamada Oz, donde tendrá que cumplir una profecía para convertirse en el rey, y liberar la tierra de las Brujas Malsanas usando sus grandes (pero falsos) poderes.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Premios
- 6 premios ganados y 31 nominaciones en total
Abigail Spencer
- May
- (as Abigail Leigh Spencer)
Opiniones destacadas
Well, let's start with...
The Good:
The visual effects are 2nd to none. Raimi and his team have given their audience a bright and colorful world of wonder in a much more 'wowing' Land of Oz than that of the original film, and possibly even one that's more visually attractive than any other film to date. A very fun and crafty Rachel Weisz takes the role of Evanora and grips the audience with charm and viciousness in all the right doses. The supporting cast also performs pretty well, sometimes capturing that original 'Wizard of Oz' magic.
The Bad:
Going into this film with high expectations for the dialogue, & acting is going to leave you very disappointed. Two of the most featured roles of the film, Oz (played by James Franco) & Theodora, (played by Mila Kunis) are surprisingly and inexcusably portrayed very poorly. Franco's Oz is written to be about how you would expect him to be - complete with charm, wit, & deceit. However, the depth that you would expect to come with such an anticipated resurgence of a character is missing, & you can tell that Franco is having trouble buying into the role himself. The character quickly becomes stale at about 45 minutes in, and doesn't ever fully recover. Kunis feels the same - bored & devoid of passion for the lackluster lines given to her. Her character also has an issue with development, and is rushed from high to low so quickly that the audience doesn't have the opportunity to invest in her. The performances aren't the worst thing you'll ever see, but the lifeless script & awkward dialogue make it hard to stay focused. Even with a great script though, I feel as though Franco & Kunis weren't the best choices for their respective roles.
The Ugly:
The worst part of this movie is the story. It leaves you waiting for some kind of clever & unexpected plot twist, a little divulgence of the characters motivations, or even just some depth for the main focal points of the story. It's also somewhat obnoxious that this film takes elements of the original film that should have been left alone because the original film portrays Dorothy's entire journey as a dream in the end. (Such as transferring characters of "the real world" into characters of The Land of Oz) Without saying too much, I can tell you that this film is stuck somewhere between being a fun and family friendly revitalization of the original story and being a serious and intriguing fantasy film for a wide movie-going audience - and the formula just doesn't work.
Having said all of that, I do not regret having gone to see Oz: The Great and Powerful, as the visuals do a great job of making up for everything that didn't work. I will warn you though, that the films run time of just over two hours can be difficult to sit through at times. Don't be afraid to take a bathroom break when it gets dry, you probably won't miss too much.
The Good:
The visual effects are 2nd to none. Raimi and his team have given their audience a bright and colorful world of wonder in a much more 'wowing' Land of Oz than that of the original film, and possibly even one that's more visually attractive than any other film to date. A very fun and crafty Rachel Weisz takes the role of Evanora and grips the audience with charm and viciousness in all the right doses. The supporting cast also performs pretty well, sometimes capturing that original 'Wizard of Oz' magic.
The Bad:
Going into this film with high expectations for the dialogue, & acting is going to leave you very disappointed. Two of the most featured roles of the film, Oz (played by James Franco) & Theodora, (played by Mila Kunis) are surprisingly and inexcusably portrayed very poorly. Franco's Oz is written to be about how you would expect him to be - complete with charm, wit, & deceit. However, the depth that you would expect to come with such an anticipated resurgence of a character is missing, & you can tell that Franco is having trouble buying into the role himself. The character quickly becomes stale at about 45 minutes in, and doesn't ever fully recover. Kunis feels the same - bored & devoid of passion for the lackluster lines given to her. Her character also has an issue with development, and is rushed from high to low so quickly that the audience doesn't have the opportunity to invest in her. The performances aren't the worst thing you'll ever see, but the lifeless script & awkward dialogue make it hard to stay focused. Even with a great script though, I feel as though Franco & Kunis weren't the best choices for their respective roles.
The Ugly:
The worst part of this movie is the story. It leaves you waiting for some kind of clever & unexpected plot twist, a little divulgence of the characters motivations, or even just some depth for the main focal points of the story. It's also somewhat obnoxious that this film takes elements of the original film that should have been left alone because the original film portrays Dorothy's entire journey as a dream in the end. (Such as transferring characters of "the real world" into characters of The Land of Oz) Without saying too much, I can tell you that this film is stuck somewhere between being a fun and family friendly revitalization of the original story and being a serious and intriguing fantasy film for a wide movie-going audience - and the formula just doesn't work.
Having said all of that, I do not regret having gone to see Oz: The Great and Powerful, as the visuals do a great job of making up for everything that didn't work. I will warn you though, that the films run time of just over two hours can be difficult to sit through at times. Don't be afraid to take a bathroom break when it gets dry, you probably won't miss too much.
A magician finds himself transported to the magical land of Oz, where witches, flying monkeys and yellow brick roads exist. He is mistaken for the saviour of Oz and must decide whether or not to stay and be king, or leave and find his way home.
I love Sam Raimi, the man and his invented work with a camera are what made me want to get into filmmaking in the first place. So to see him handling big projects like this (and Spiderman) was a joy for me to see. Oz the Great & Powerful is a CGI heavy film that demands a creative eye behind the lens. After his work on big budget films like Spiderman, it seemed like an easy choice for Raimi to be the one behind Oz and for the most part, it works. The films shortcomings keep it from being really magical and memorable, like the original from 39, but Oz has enough whimsy to keep the kids entertained and the adults smiling.
The land of Oz is indeed magical, with vibrant colours around every corner, memorable spots like the poppy fields and the dark forest for us older viewers, but even in saying all that I can't help but feel how fake it all is. This film suffers from the same troubles that plagued Burton's Alice in Wonderland, the visuals, although great for the story, add no sense of realism to the image. I hate overly used CGI in films to the point of noticing the awkward placement of actors in front of the green screen. The first major offender of this is Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, none of the actors made me believe they were in the settings they were. Both Wonderland and Oz have this same feeling.
While I'm getting the negatives out of the way, I must say that what everyone is saying about Mila Kunis is true, she was miscast in this role. I think she was chosen more for her beauty and star power than her acting abilities, which is sad cause it looks like she really is trying here. The story for her character here is a sad one and the second half I think suffers a bit because the threat from her is not really present. I don't really know why I'm tip-toeing around the issue because those who know The Wizard of Oz, know that Dorothy kills one witch with her house and the other with water, leaving Glinda the good witch in a bubble as the saviour. Seeing the Kunis character go in the direction she does didn't really effect me as much as I wanted it to. Consider that the failure of the script more so than the actors. Not enough time is really given to her for her transformation to affect the viewer.
The film opens in black & white and and the transformation to colour had a smile on my face. Despite the "fakeness" of some of the scenes (not all) Raimi does a decent job of not letting the effects overpower the film. Raimi steers the film in the right direction, but it is James Franco's shoulders it has to rest on. He is the type of actor that comes off as not really caring. It works in some films like Pineapple Express and he does manage to turn in some great performances, look at 127 days or Freaks & Geeks for that. Unfortunately I don't know if he has enough charisma and power to command a film like this. At times it looked like he was in the role, other times it felt like he couldn't care. Maybe it's his acting style, I can't really put my finger on it, but clearly Raimi sees something in him because he has worked with him previously on the Spiderman films.
Where the acting does work, marvellously and in every scene is Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams. Two polar opposites that look like they actually enjoy the characters and the movie they are in. They elevate the material a bit to make the drama more tangible. Whereas without them I think the film would have fallen more flat. The drama and character choices didn't really bring me into the story. The film didn't feel like it took chances, or tried to have complex situations for the characters. It had mapped out beats, hit them and marched on.
It was nice seeing some nice Raimi touches in the final product. More than 25 years later and I still smile when I see Bruce Campbell getting hit in the face, knowing full well that it is Sam Raimi on the other end of the camera hitting him. Surprisingly, moments did indeed feel Evil Deadish to me, with the flying witches holding out their hands in a deadite possession form. But I digress. Oz is a good film, with weaknesses that bring it down. Raimi and two witches try their best to elevate some bland material and in the end we are left with a film that is neither great, nor memorable....just satisfactory enough.
I love Sam Raimi, the man and his invented work with a camera are what made me want to get into filmmaking in the first place. So to see him handling big projects like this (and Spiderman) was a joy for me to see. Oz the Great & Powerful is a CGI heavy film that demands a creative eye behind the lens. After his work on big budget films like Spiderman, it seemed like an easy choice for Raimi to be the one behind Oz and for the most part, it works. The films shortcomings keep it from being really magical and memorable, like the original from 39, but Oz has enough whimsy to keep the kids entertained and the adults smiling.
The land of Oz is indeed magical, with vibrant colours around every corner, memorable spots like the poppy fields and the dark forest for us older viewers, but even in saying all that I can't help but feel how fake it all is. This film suffers from the same troubles that plagued Burton's Alice in Wonderland, the visuals, although great for the story, add no sense of realism to the image. I hate overly used CGI in films to the point of noticing the awkward placement of actors in front of the green screen. The first major offender of this is Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, none of the actors made me believe they were in the settings they were. Both Wonderland and Oz have this same feeling.
While I'm getting the negatives out of the way, I must say that what everyone is saying about Mila Kunis is true, she was miscast in this role. I think she was chosen more for her beauty and star power than her acting abilities, which is sad cause it looks like she really is trying here. The story for her character here is a sad one and the second half I think suffers a bit because the threat from her is not really present. I don't really know why I'm tip-toeing around the issue because those who know The Wizard of Oz, know that Dorothy kills one witch with her house and the other with water, leaving Glinda the good witch in a bubble as the saviour. Seeing the Kunis character go in the direction she does didn't really effect me as much as I wanted it to. Consider that the failure of the script more so than the actors. Not enough time is really given to her for her transformation to affect the viewer.
The film opens in black & white and and the transformation to colour had a smile on my face. Despite the "fakeness" of some of the scenes (not all) Raimi does a decent job of not letting the effects overpower the film. Raimi steers the film in the right direction, but it is James Franco's shoulders it has to rest on. He is the type of actor that comes off as not really caring. It works in some films like Pineapple Express and he does manage to turn in some great performances, look at 127 days or Freaks & Geeks for that. Unfortunately I don't know if he has enough charisma and power to command a film like this. At times it looked like he was in the role, other times it felt like he couldn't care. Maybe it's his acting style, I can't really put my finger on it, but clearly Raimi sees something in him because he has worked with him previously on the Spiderman films.
Where the acting does work, marvellously and in every scene is Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams. Two polar opposites that look like they actually enjoy the characters and the movie they are in. They elevate the material a bit to make the drama more tangible. Whereas without them I think the film would have fallen more flat. The drama and character choices didn't really bring me into the story. The film didn't feel like it took chances, or tried to have complex situations for the characters. It had mapped out beats, hit them and marched on.
It was nice seeing some nice Raimi touches in the final product. More than 25 years later and I still smile when I see Bruce Campbell getting hit in the face, knowing full well that it is Sam Raimi on the other end of the camera hitting him. Surprisingly, moments did indeed feel Evil Deadish to me, with the flying witches holding out their hands in a deadite possession form. But I digress. Oz is a good film, with weaknesses that bring it down. Raimi and two witches try their best to elevate some bland material and in the end we are left with a film that is neither great, nor memorable....just satisfactory enough.
Oz the Great and Powerful .. or maybe not so great, but still highly watchable.
Franco plays the little man behind the curtain, while Kunis, normally a favourite of mine, appears to be stuck in that tornado. Neither manage to defy gravity but the rest of the cast were pleasant, especially Weisz - even with her Emperor-like green force lightning.
It would have been a more visually stunning Oz had the effects been simplified. Conversely, the story lacked depth and with some rather clumsy dialogue (especially for Kunis), it was all perhaps a little too light and "Disney".
Doesn't quite get the ruby slipper, but maybe 3 out of 5 wands.
Franco plays the little man behind the curtain, while Kunis, normally a favourite of mine, appears to be stuck in that tornado. Neither manage to defy gravity but the rest of the cast were pleasant, especially Weisz - even with her Emperor-like green force lightning.
It would have been a more visually stunning Oz had the effects been simplified. Conversely, the story lacked depth and with some rather clumsy dialogue (especially for Kunis), it was all perhaps a little too light and "Disney".
Doesn't quite get the ruby slipper, but maybe 3 out of 5 wands.
Oz the Great and Powerful is, although admittedly very imperfect, a grand, colourful and often immersive adventure.
As usual, Sam Raimi's energy shines in the action and horror, with the Dutch tilts and sudden zoom ins bringing a sense of camp and unease into the tension. The flying monkeys brought back the trauma from the original in such an overkill fashion where their terror is mostly concealed and portrayed in silhouette until around the halfway mark. James Franco as Oz was a surprisingly good fit, with him able to pull off portraying a sympathetic con-man. Although portrayed mostly through CGI, the land of Oz looks dazzling most of the time, and then there are a few times where it looks distractingly too glamorous and over-polished. Make-up and costumes are mostly on point, harkening back to the aesthetic of the original with more modern capabilities, although the same could be said with a lot of other aspects of the film.
Although the CGI is used to great effect in many ways throughout the movie, it eventually ends up feeling a bit overused, especially in the final battle between two of the witches. The story revolving around how certain characters from the original film behaved before the events of that film ranged from feeling plausible to almost downright silly. Oz as the con-man was a good connection to the deceptive yet humble wizard in the original, yet the portrayal of the wicked Witch of the West as a heartbroken, temper-tamtrum-a-minute villain with an obsessive relationship to the wizard just doesn't feel like it matches up with the purely maniacal and unhinged character from the original. Each of the romantic aspects of the movie come off as weird fan-fiction where I feel like it just doesn't work. Sometimes a few of the actors looked like their heart wasn't really in it either.
Overall, though not particularly an amazing prequel, it's a technically impressive one with a good cast, decent story and great direction.
As usual, Sam Raimi's energy shines in the action and horror, with the Dutch tilts and sudden zoom ins bringing a sense of camp and unease into the tension. The flying monkeys brought back the trauma from the original in such an overkill fashion where their terror is mostly concealed and portrayed in silhouette until around the halfway mark. James Franco as Oz was a surprisingly good fit, with him able to pull off portraying a sympathetic con-man. Although portrayed mostly through CGI, the land of Oz looks dazzling most of the time, and then there are a few times where it looks distractingly too glamorous and over-polished. Make-up and costumes are mostly on point, harkening back to the aesthetic of the original with more modern capabilities, although the same could be said with a lot of other aspects of the film.
Although the CGI is used to great effect in many ways throughout the movie, it eventually ends up feeling a bit overused, especially in the final battle between two of the witches. The story revolving around how certain characters from the original film behaved before the events of that film ranged from feeling plausible to almost downright silly. Oz as the con-man was a good connection to the deceptive yet humble wizard in the original, yet the portrayal of the wicked Witch of the West as a heartbroken, temper-tamtrum-a-minute villain with an obsessive relationship to the wizard just doesn't feel like it matches up with the purely maniacal and unhinged character from the original. Each of the romantic aspects of the movie come off as weird fan-fiction where I feel like it just doesn't work. Sometimes a few of the actors looked like their heart wasn't really in it either.
Overall, though not particularly an amazing prequel, it's a technically impressive one with a good cast, decent story and great direction.
Beautiful yet vapid prequel to "The Wizard Of Oz" that is plague by not only by the numbers script but the questionable judgment of the people behind the scenes of the making of the film. The CGI effects are good and the characters created by those effects are cute but they are not strong enough to hide the films real problems. The script is so by the numbers that you can envision the twist and the ending five minutes into the film. Prequels are generally predicable because it set before the events of a prior movie but this film just did not have any originality to it and was just lazy in its set up. The script is not the only problem here; some of the casting is also off by a large margin as well. James Franco was not the first actor to be considered to play the character of Oscar Diggs but you can see a hundred better actors who could have done the role justice before you can ever think of Franco in the role and he does not disappoint in proving how miscast he is. Franco is terrible, so terrible that he is distracting to the film. He definitely does not care about his performance and it shows. Franco just swaggers in as if he is above the material and the actors around him while in reality, his performance is worse that the script of this film. Making his character so unlikable that you really do not want to watch or care about him. While Franco is in his own little world, Mila Kunis just looks lost in her performance. She is not believable as the wicked witch of the west and just comes across as lightweight compare to her sisters played by Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams who are both much better actors than this film deserved. Weisz in particular gives the film's best performance because she at least makes an effort with the lazy script she has to work with and just has fun with it. Her character is the typical Disney villain but in Weisz's capable hands, she becomes more and that does translate on screen. You as an audience member are swept off your feet by Weisz's enthusiasm for her role and the movie becomes better off because of it. Williams does the same, making her sweet tooth character a joy to watch as well and brings a real sincerity to the role which is a god sent because of how insincere Franco is in his.
It is a beautiful movie and the CGI does not give you a headache but other those things and the efforts of Weisz and Williams, The movie has too many strikes against it thanks to the script and the miscasting of Franco and Kunis.
It is a beautiful movie and the CGI does not give you a headache but other those things and the efforts of Weisz and Williams, The movie has too many strikes against it thanks to the script and the miscasting of Franco and Kunis.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaThe Tin Man is the only one of Dorothy's three companions in El mago de Oz (1939) not to be directly referenced in this film. The Tinkers are a loose reference to the Tin Man, written in for this adaptation. A Quadling also says that he can work with iron.
- ErroresWhen Oz and Theodora flee from the crash site, Theodora's boots are flat; moments later, when he boosts her into the cave, the boots have high heels.
- Créditos curiososThe opening credits are seen in a 1930s nickelodeon, with certain credits having their own qualities:
- James Franco's credit appears in a puff of smoke
- Mila Kunis' credit appears alongside a couple dancing (whose shadow turns into that of the Wicked Witch)
- Rachel Weisz's credit is held by monkeys
- Michelle Williams' credit is contained within a bubble
- Zach Braff's credit appears with a puppet of Finley
- the make-up credits Greg Nicotero and Howard Bergman are seen with an eye mask
- VFX supervisor Scott Stokdyk's credit is seen within an optical illusion
- composer Danny Elfman's credit is seen with a trumpet
- the costume designers' credits are seen fitting clothes on an elephant
- production designer Robert Stromberg's credit is seen in China Town
- cinematographer Peter Deming's credit is seen with the projector
- the screenwriters' credit is seen within a tornado
- and director Sam Raimi's credit is seen within a crystal ball.
- Versiones alternativasThe film was also shown in 3D. Some shots displaying 3D effects are exclusive to the 3D version, being altered or removed in the 2D cut.
- ConexionesFeatured in Fantástico: Episode dated 17 February 2013 (2013)
- Bandas sonorasAlmost Home
Performed by Mariah Carey
Written by Simone Porter, Justin Gray, Lindsey Ray, Tor Erik Hermansen (as Tor Erik Hermansen), Mikkel Storleer Eriksen (as Mikkel Eriksen), and Mariah Carey
Produced by Mariah Carey and Stargate for 45th & 3rd Music LLC
Courtesy of Island Records
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Sitios oficiales
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Oz the Great and Powerful
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 215,000,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 234,911,825
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 79,110,453
- 10 mar 2013
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 493,311,825
- Tiempo de ejecución2 horas 10 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta