Feared I'd be giving this the thumbs down but it turned out that I really liked it.Probably wouldn't have bothered if it hadn't been for the presence of James Franco who, though not everyone's idea of eye-candy, in my books works an alluring presence in any film - and he has such a beguiling smile too.
A supposed prequel to you-know-what (which has, incidentally, never had particularly great appeal for me) this film depicts the arrival of the self-absorbed Wizard in that land - which has been long anticipated by its inhabitants - and the meeting and confrontation with three sister-witches, one of whom is transformed into the Wicked Witch of the West in the story that we all know. Through his battles the Wizard is torn between revealing that he is, in reality, not the omnipotent figure everyone expects him to be, and trying to maintain the illusion that he is indeed this all-powerful figure for as long as possible. The film only gets saccharine-heavy at two or three points, notably in the closing moments, but pleased to say that otherwise sentiment is kept largely at bay.
I thought the 3D special effects were outstanding and are exactly what a fantasy like this needs. Performances were all good. Story also pretty good but the biggest let-down for me was the utterly banal script. Not one single witticism and not one memorable line. I'd have thought that the premise of this film would have cried out for self-regarding comments or (implied) winks at the camera - particularly for the delectation of adults who are familiar with the 1939 film, though I am aware that for copyright reasons these film-makers had to tread very carefully in avoiding overt reference to the much earlier work (though we do get the Munchkins, flying monkeys - well, at least one of them - the Yellow Brick Road, the Emerald City as well as the aforementioned Wicked Witch). But I'd have thought there'd have been enough writers around to have come up with something to raise a knowing smile every now and then. If there were any, I missed them.
On the whole I certainly did enjoy it. Whether I'd feel the same if it were not for Franco's starring role or, even moreso, if I'd seen it in flat 2D, I can't say. All I can report is that in terms of my own satisfaction it earns a good ................7/10
I saw it this weekend (2-D version) and was surprised I liked it as well!
ReplyDeleteSo - it wasn't just me then, S/b! That's very re-assuring. Generally reviews here haven't been that positive but you and I aren't going to say we didn't like something when we did, and vice versa.
DeleteHmmm... this just doesn't appeal to me at all - but then, like you neither did the "original" which I saw once and almost instantly forgot.
ReplyDeleteYou have reminded me I've note been to cinema in ages - since my third viewing of the Hobbit back in January. Must re-acquaint myself with the silver screen!
It was a pleasant 'find' , Andrew. Some have seen it and died NOT care for it so who can guess how you'd react?
DeleteSo you've actually PAID to see 'The Hobbit' three times? Goodness me. By no means a bad film - in fact it's pretty good, but I wouldn't dole out cash to see it again. Still, 'Jeder nach seinem Geschmack' or, in English - 'Chacun a son gout'. ;-)
Other than this review, the only reason for me to go would have been James Franco.... yes please!
ReplyDeleteSadly with my eyes, 3D gives me nothing but a headache and eye strain.
Pleased that you're also an admirer of Mr F, Jase. I don't think there are as many of us around as he deserves.
DeleteYes, I know you've mentioned your eyes before. I wish I could say I'd gladly swap your physical woes for my own (getting slowly more numerous with time) but I don't think I would, from what I know. Meanwhile I'll count my diminishing blessings, the fact that I never get headaches being just one of them.
Bingo!
ReplyDeleteI movie I have seen!
I found it fun, and I thought it did a good prequel job. I am fascinated how the OZ characters got into the American psyche. Even more - why the books (13 of them) have not.
Congrats, Dr Spo, though more to myself than to you, if I may say.
DeleteIt's satisfying to have hit on a film at last that YOU were attracted to. Glad that you also liked it.
13 Oz books? I had no idea. I read the original 24 years ago, and which I've just located and got beside me now (high time for a re-read!) - and, I see, you are quite correct. So as a matter of some urgency (before it gets too late) I'd better put this in my re-read pile ('Mary Poppins' has also been there some time) and, one way or another, fit in in with my 3rd re-read of Proust's 'A la Recherche..... (Life is WAY too short!)
I did not dislike the movie but my rating would have come in south of 7/10. Perhaps if I had seen it in the 3D format I'd have enjoyed it more. There were a number of times I thought; "I bet that looks good in 3D.". Of course if I am thinking that I must not be too engaged in the story.
ReplyDeleteYes, H.K. Have to confess that a large chunk of my admiration was for the 3D effects. I've not usually gone along with all the hype in favour of this format but this film (along with, perhaps, 'Hugo') are the ones that stand out as giving a particular bonus to its viewing. Having said that, I did find the storyline more than a little entertaining too.
Delete