PlatinumRead Just so...so bad

Listonixio Fresh and Exciting

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

invisibleunicornninja This movie is boring and forgettable and not worth talking about. Its not terrible, there's just nothing here.

Jack Venturo Can you guess what my favorite movie is? STAR WARS! Well no that's my favorite saga. My favorite stand-alone movie is "The Wizard of Oz". I have a bit of a movie memorabilia collection in my studio. Don't you judge me! Needless to say I was very excited as well as very skeptical about this so called unofficial prequel. Especially in this troubled CGI world of ours and most of all when I saw "Trailer no.1". at the point where "and the producer of Alice in Wonderland" came up on the screen I cringed and had nightmares of crazy moving cameras and fancy creatures with sparkly heads and fluid faces and 3D headaches. And then the river fairies come into the shot and those weird piranha plants and I knew! Deep down I knew! They would ruin my OZ with CGI!But those where little nothings in the scheme of the grand canvas that is "OZ the Great and Powerful"Jack "The Film Lover" says... I loved this movie. I sat back and watched it with one eye closed expecting to see something bad! You know, kind of like waiting for toast to pop out. But nothing really bad happened. It had a good story and good points, and it was fun! I loved all the nods to "The Wizard of OZ", and loved that we are introduced to things that you will see in the next movie. You get some questions answered and even though we all know the rules you still get a couple of surprises. "Only bad witches are ugly" and boy are they ugly!There are so many layers to the OZ films that once can go crazy psycho analyzing them! That actually would be a fun night. Even though we now have a backstory to why the witch hates pretty girls, why there is a feud between her and OZ why is the wizard a man behind the curtain? There are still so many unanswered questions… Is OZ a real place? If Dorothy went there, saw Oscar the Wizard who IS still there, and came back then it must be a real place Are the ruby slippers the only way out? Their power is the power to leave OZ? The witch's plan was to leave and come here to the real world? If so would they be going to Kansas? Why two different people almost 50 years apart both got sucked into the OZ Vortex in the same state? Is Kansas a wormhole to a parallel universe where your farmhands are animals and creatures? Or is it children's limbo! Where the dead go to wait to be judged? But it wasn't Dorothy's time yet so they sent her back? In a parallel land that still has North, South, East and West? Blow your mind!Jack "The Filmmaker" says… I had problems with some things… I had a problem with the lion, don't ask, just watch it and get back to me. I had a problem with the CGI! Not the characters themselves, the monkeys where done right. I mean the landscapes and moving parts and extravagant camera movements that are so far-fetched the people themselves must be CGI to be in them! When the Director of photography says the phrase… "Camera cranes can't go that high!" and the Director says "Who needs a camera ANIMATE IT!" we have a problem! I feel weird about James Franco! I like him, I hear he will be in a movie and I say "WHY?" then I watch it and can't picture anyone else in it and he does a good job. He was wholesome in this with a big dash of con man and it worked. The witches where amazing, Mila Kunis was acting like something else we have never seen and she didn't sound like Meg! (Family Guy) Which is a plus! WITCH is a plus, which old Witch? The Wicked Witch! (…and now that song is stuck in your head)Jack "The Parent" says… DUH Take the kids… Well take MY kids because they all loved it! They are 4, 9 and 10 years old. We saw it in 3D so be careful of the jump at your face elements, there are some jolts that make you sit back like the monkeys and the witch at some points. And there is a bit of some tear-jerking moments at the end but aside from that it's a good story for them to follow.In a magical world not everything is what it seems, not everyone is telling the truth and you should not try to be someone you are not for the sake of a loved one. Be yourself and do your best with what talents you have. You don't have to have magic powers to save the day! You can be anyone's hero if you believe in yourself!

Realrockerhalloween The prequel detailing the life of Oscar Diggs before he became the great and terrible Oz. Not a bad film as it was painted by critics. James Franco have a rousing performance and was quite charming. The tributes were easy to spot and set up the next film quite nicely. Though the relationship between the two main leads needed a little work to make it believable.The effects were cgi and could be used a few touch ups in key scenes. Music and costumes are splendid.No Oz film will ever reach the success as the Judy Garland version had, but I go into these movies to see new fresh takes and how the writers will reinvent the story. It created a family friendly movie you can watch without insulting the intelligence and be entertained. In my book it deserved an Oscar for attempting such a grand master piece.

mark.waltz Don't look for "Wicked" in this prequel to the 1939 classic, loosely based upon other L. Frank Baum stories. This stars James Franco as the future wizard of Oz who manages to break away from a black and white/non- widescreen Kansas tornado and fly into the colorful but often sinister land of Oz where he meets three beautiful women of various stages of morality and goodness. Then, there's a cute winged monkey, a seemingly sweet (but annoying) china doll and other familiar looking old friends from the original "The Wizard of Oz".Two sisters (Mila Kunis and Rachel Weisz) are running the Emerald City when the king of humbug arrives, and it is obvious that they are the future demonic rulers of the west and east. Who is who is not obvious, although the presence of Glinda is clear, if not as glamorous in Michelle Williams' hands as it was in Billie Burke's. Far more sinister to meet modern experience expectations, that is to the film's detriment. Obviously rushed out to capitalize on the success of Broadway's "Wicked", it makes that slightly over- rated musical seem a classic. This gets often overly silly and frequently mean-spirited, something that the charm of the original managed to avoid thanks to its innocence. The character of Theodora, the name given to the witch of the West, is simply turned into a vindictive crone, consumed with revenge over unrequited love towards the wizard. By adding a romantic attachment with two of the witches goes against the grain of the original story. The witch of the west seems to cackle out of nowhere, even when loosing her cause, and isn't at all as fascinating as Margaret Hamilton's witch or Elphaba of "Wicked" fame. Getting to know the witch of the east is a little more interesting, especially for those who have not seen "Wicked", although no reference is given to how she ended up ruling Munchkin City. References are hinted at that the Wizard knew Dorothy Gale's parents, but nothing is further explored in that realm. Certainly, 1939's MGM classic became famous slowly over time (thanks to TV), but that most likely will not happen with this film.