कंसास का एक निराश सर्कस जादूगर, जादूई रुप से ओज़ की जादुई भूमि पर चला जाता है, जहां उसे उसकी शक्तियों का उपयोग करके दुष्ट जादूगरनियों को हराना होगा.कंसास का एक निराश सर्कस जादूगर, जादूई रुप से ओज़ की जादुई भूमि पर चला जाता है, जहां उसे उसकी शक्तियों का उपयोग करके दुष्ट जादूगरनियों को हराना होगा.कंसास का एक निराश सर्कस जादूगर, जादूई रुप से ओज़ की जादुई भूमि पर चला जाता है, जहां उसे उसकी शक्तियों का उपयोग करके दुष्ट जादूगरनियों को हराना होगा.
- पुरस्कार
- 6 जीत और कुल 31 नामांकन
Abigail Spencer
- May
- (as Abigail Leigh Spencer)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
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.
if You didn't Know that this Movie was Directed by Sam Raimi, You wouldn't Know that it was Directed by Sam Raimi. All of the Style is in the CGI. It has a Certain Eye Candy Appeal that also Lacks Warmth, Depth, and Anything Resembling a Soul.
But here it is. A Mega-Million Dollar Spewing of the Plasticized, Industrial Art that has become the Standard for This Type of Thing. The Other Worldliness of the Superhero and other Fantasies. It can Work Very Well in Limited Quantities but when that's All there is, that's All there is.
James Franco is a Movie Star (and some may question why) and Not an Actor, so He can by No Stretch of the Imagination Pull off the Charm Needed for the Wizard. He Grins and Smirks and All the Women On Screen, and in the Audience, are Supposed to be Charmed Out of Their Pants. Right.
The Prequel has its Moments of Appeal, but Hardly Awe Inspiring. The Witches are Interchangeable Bores. The Flying Monkey is OK and the China Doll is the Most Memorable. There are a lot of Explosions and Fireballs to Pump the Sub-Woofers and Danny Elfman's Recognizable Style is Noticeable from the First Few Notes (did someone say repetition).
Overall, the Movie can be Recommended in a Gaudy kind of Display with Enough Color to Capture the Eye, but the Movie is Not that Captivating. It is such a Mediocre Movie that Slightly Betrays the Source Material and is Another Expensive Extravaganza that is by Most Accounts Disappointing and Adequate at Best. That's not much for Disney and the Pile of Gold it put out for this Thing.
But here it is. A Mega-Million Dollar Spewing of the Plasticized, Industrial Art that has become the Standard for This Type of Thing. The Other Worldliness of the Superhero and other Fantasies. It can Work Very Well in Limited Quantities but when that's All there is, that's All there is.
James Franco is a Movie Star (and some may question why) and Not an Actor, so He can by No Stretch of the Imagination Pull off the Charm Needed for the Wizard. He Grins and Smirks and All the Women On Screen, and in the Audience, are Supposed to be Charmed Out of Their Pants. Right.
The Prequel has its Moments of Appeal, but Hardly Awe Inspiring. The Witches are Interchangeable Bores. The Flying Monkey is OK and the China Doll is the Most Memorable. There are a lot of Explosions and Fireballs to Pump the Sub-Woofers and Danny Elfman's Recognizable Style is Noticeable from the First Few Notes (did someone say repetition).
Overall, the Movie can be Recommended in a Gaudy kind of Display with Enough Color to Capture the Eye, but the Movie is Not that Captivating. It is such a Mediocre Movie that Slightly Betrays the Source Material and is Another Expensive Extravaganza that is by Most Accounts Disappointing and Adequate at Best. That's not much for Disney and the Pile of Gold it put out for this Thing.
A Fresh Take on the World of Oz - 8/10
I've often wondered why Oz the Great and Powerful receives such mixed reviews. Going into it, I understood it wasn't meant to rival the timeless charm of the 1939 classic The Wizard of Oz or the beloved Broadway phenomenon Wicked. Instead, I approached it with an open mind, and I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this visually stunning and emotionally engaging prequel.
This film offers a fascinating origin story of how the Wizard arrived in Oz and laid the foundation for the events we know so well from the classic movie. While it may not be considered "true canon," it feels far closer to the spirit of the 1939 film than Wicked, especially with its creative use of book-inspired characters like the China Girl.
Speaking of the China Girl, she absolutely stole the show for me. Her character was not only visually remarkable but also emotionally impactful, bringing out a softer, more vulnerable side of the Wizard. Her story added depth and warmth, turning what could have been a simple CGI companion into one of the movie's standout elements.
What I loved most was the film's respectful nods to its source material. From subtle homages to the original film to clever integration of book references, there are countless details that fans of the Oz universe will appreciate. It also provides a unique take on the relationships and rivalries between the witches, offering another layer of intrigue to Oz's complex history.
If you're looking for a vibrant, imaginative return to the land of Oz, this movie is definitely worth your time. It's not a musical, aside from one brief moment that feels like a loving tribute to the 1939 classic, but it doesn't need to be. The dazzling visuals, engaging story, and well-placed Easter eggs make it a delightful experience for both new and longtime fans of Oz.
Currently streaming on Disney+, Oz the Great and Powerful is a magical adventure that deserves a second look. Give it a watch-you won't be disappointed!
I've often wondered why Oz the Great and Powerful receives such mixed reviews. Going into it, I understood it wasn't meant to rival the timeless charm of the 1939 classic The Wizard of Oz or the beloved Broadway phenomenon Wicked. Instead, I approached it with an open mind, and I was pleasantly surprised by how much I enjoyed this visually stunning and emotionally engaging prequel.
This film offers a fascinating origin story of how the Wizard arrived in Oz and laid the foundation for the events we know so well from the classic movie. While it may not be considered "true canon," it feels far closer to the spirit of the 1939 film than Wicked, especially with its creative use of book-inspired characters like the China Girl.
Speaking of the China Girl, she absolutely stole the show for me. Her character was not only visually remarkable but also emotionally impactful, bringing out a softer, more vulnerable side of the Wizard. Her story added depth and warmth, turning what could have been a simple CGI companion into one of the movie's standout elements.
What I loved most was the film's respectful nods to its source material. From subtle homages to the original film to clever integration of book references, there are countless details that fans of the Oz universe will appreciate. It also provides a unique take on the relationships and rivalries between the witches, offering another layer of intrigue to Oz's complex history.
If you're looking for a vibrant, imaginative return to the land of Oz, this movie is definitely worth your time. It's not a musical, aside from one brief moment that feels like a loving tribute to the 1939 classic, but it doesn't need to be. The dazzling visuals, engaging story, and well-placed Easter eggs make it a delightful experience for both new and longtime fans of Oz.
Currently streaming on Disney+, Oz the Great and Powerful is a magical adventure that deserves a second look. Give it a watch-you won't be disappointed!
Oz the Great and Powerful tells the story of how the great wizard Oz from the Wizard of Oz came to be. It follows the young Oz (James Franco) as he is swept away to an enchanted land ending up in the middle of a power struggle between three witches. The young Oz is a trickster who deceives those he wants and/or needs for his own ends. This attitude has consequences and those consequences are what drives the story forward.
James Franco plays the young Oz brilliantly. The character is a shallow small time magician and the story shows how he comes full circle to be the Great and Powerful Oz from the Wizard of Oz. Unfortunately, his change happens after taking a grievous toll. The three witches who Oz comes to affect are Theodora (Mila Kunis), Rachel Weisz (Evanora), and Glinda (Michelle Williams). The three play their parts and give great performances to add to their resumes.
For those who watched and loved the Wizard of Oz in their childhood, this movie is the perfect prequel. Watching it as an adult was a treat. The writers did well to adapt the script to make it a worthy prequel. In addition, the movie does well to entertain both children and adults. It slots in perfectly as the precursor to the Wizard of Oz.
The film didn't have the best reception but I encourage you to ignore this. The directing is probably the weakest link in this movie, but the story and actors more than makeup for this. The character development is amazing and shows exactly why things were they way they are in the Wizard of Oz. Simply stated Oz the Great and Powerful is truly a prefect prequel.
James Franco plays the young Oz brilliantly. The character is a shallow small time magician and the story shows how he comes full circle to be the Great and Powerful Oz from the Wizard of Oz. Unfortunately, his change happens after taking a grievous toll. The three witches who Oz comes to affect are Theodora (Mila Kunis), Rachel Weisz (Evanora), and Glinda (Michelle Williams). The three play their parts and give great performances to add to their resumes.
For those who watched and loved the Wizard of Oz in their childhood, this movie is the perfect prequel. Watching it as an adult was a treat. The writers did well to adapt the script to make it a worthy prequel. In addition, the movie does well to entertain both children and adults. It slots in perfectly as the precursor to the Wizard of Oz.
The film didn't have the best reception but I encourage you to ignore this. The directing is probably the weakest link in this movie, but the story and actors more than makeup for this. The character development is amazing and shows exactly why things were they way they are in the Wizard of Oz. Simply stated Oz the Great and Powerful is truly a prefect prequel.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाThe Tin Man is the only one of Dorothy's three companions in The Wizard of 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.
- गूफ़When 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.
- क्रेज़ी क्रेडिटThe 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.
- इसके अलावा अन्य वर्जनThe 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.
- कनेक्शनFeatured in Fantástico: 17 फ़रवरी 2013 को प्रसारित एपिसोड (2013)
- साउंडट्रैकAlmost Home
Performed by Mariah Carey
Written by Simone Porter, Justin Gray, Lindsey Ray, 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
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- आधिकारिक साइटें
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Oz, el poderoso
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- उत्पादन कंपनियां
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- बजट
- $21,50,00,000(अनुमानित)
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $23,49,11,825
- US और कनाडा में पहले सप्ताह में कुल कमाई
- $7,91,10,453
- 10 मार्च 2013
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $49,33,11,825
- चलने की अवधि2 घंटे 10 मिनट
- रंग
- ध्वनि मिश्रण
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 2.39 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें