The Average and Incapable Oz

Disney's "Oz the Great and Powerful" opened with a strong weekend, making upwards of $80 million. That's the important thing, really. Not if it was a quality film or if it stunk, not any of the politics behind it, just if it makes money. A quality film would indeed be a good thing, but a film that makes money is the best thing, or else we might not see any investment in the parks for a while.

As a Disney die-hard, hopefully you enjoyed some aspect of "Oz", because it's going to be around for a while (and it's probably going to be the thing in the parks they invest money in). Disney's strategy is to put tons of money into a select few films that it can then turn into brands and make gazillions off of in synergy, from rides, to toys, to sequels and more. They wanted to do that with "John Carter." It didn't work.

"Oz" didn't break the coveted $100 million mark, but it did have the "best release of 2013," as the headlines say (a title that fits into the category I like to call "the tallest midget awards").

As things go, that which is popular is rarely high in quality (Cars 2). Thus is the case with "Oz." You can feel the attempt to appeal to the masses at every turn with the movie trying to be many things at once. When you try to please everyone, you dissapoint all.

"Oz" has its moments. I audibly laughed just once, but that's pretty good, considering I'm jaded in that department. I saw it in IMAX 3D (so, anyone want to pitch in a couple bucks for my rent this month?), and thought paying the extra for 3D was worth it (not the "IMAX" though. They need to have universal standards on screen size). This movie actually used the 3D to both add depth and pop things out at you like spears and hats and such. Sometimes it was gimicky, but it overall wasn't too distracting.

James Franco, who plays the title chracter, does an OK job, but you can feel that his heart isn't into it. Rachel Weiz as Evanora is OK, until she tries to be dramatic about something, and it doesn't quite come off the right way. Mila Kunis as Theodora is great at the beginning, but then, something happens to her character, and her whole performance would seem corny even on a daytime soap. The witch that truly shines is Michelle Willams as Glinda the Good Witch, who immediately sees through Oz's shenanigans, yet keeps her faith in him. Her performance is engaging and she's pulls off being convincing and cute at the same time.

Just like in the original film adaptation of the L. Frank Baum novels, the characters that exist in Kansas also inhabit Oz. Glinda is the lost love of Oz from back home and Zach Braff, who plays Oz's under-loved assistant in Kansas, shows up as a flying monkey (sans fangs and bloodlust) in a bellhop uniform, whom Oz learns to love. He provides some comic relief by keeping Oz honest, and didn't bother me much. The other character that goes along the for the journey with Oz and appears in Kansas as a crippled girl who asks Oz to grant her the ability to walk, is the China Girl. She's cute enough for being a completely CG'ed character, but does little to advance the plot beside helping Oz to realize his faults.

The movie is no doubt gorgeous, but some odd casting decisions as well as an uneven script leaves one wanting. Disney put itself in a tough place in terms of critical acceptance, as its predecessor is one of the most beloved films. They did an OK job with this one, with its greatest weakness being uneveness. That's OK though, because they'll get the chance to make it better with the second, third, fourth, fifth and six itterations. Because "Cars 2" and "Pirates 4" were such critical darilings. Right...

Posted with Blogsy

The First Ten, The Best Ten

Everything good must come to an end.

For Pixar, that fact of life seemed not to apply to its first 10 films. Then they were bought by Disney, John Lasseter took around 30 other jobs on top of his main gig as chief creative officer at the animation studios, and the main vision and values that made the first ten films fantastic was lost in dollar signs and work schedules that wouldn't fit into a 10-day week.

I've written about "Cars 2," and how it ruined the studio's perfect record.  Those with taste can agree that the movie abandoned all of the things that make a Pixar film great (intelligence, wit, originality, lack of pandering). It proved that, maybe after the "Toy Story" franchise, Pixar should avoid sequels (we'll see if they get away with the technicality of making a prequel with "Monster's University").

Originality is where Pixar thrives (and another things "Cars 2" lacked), and I hoped that with the original story of "Brave," the studio would return to to it's pre "Cars 2" back-to-back original hits, "WALL-E" and "Up" (Toy Story 3, though a sequel, was also extremely original).

I was let down.

"Brave" was great, but as many reviewers wrote, held to Pixar standars, it was average to below average. It has a 69/100 score on MetaCritic, meaning the majority of its review are positive. "Toy Story" has a 92. The only Pixar film to have scored lower than "Brave" is, you guessed it, "Cars 2."

The same things that made "Cars 2" a failure also made "Brave" below average. All the hype about "Brave" centered around the fact that it is Pixar's first film with a woman in the lead role. You couldn't escape the comparison's to "The Hunger Game's" Katniss Everdeen . Disney princesses have always taken heat for being damsels in distress who need men to complete them (by people who have too much time to analyze entertainment. To blame a lack of feminine power on Disney is lazy and insulting to women. Independent thought it not exclusively a male trait.) so it started to feel like the story was engineered to create PR buzz. 


When you get down to brass tacks, every Pixar film has the exact same story line. Things are good, a conflict is presented, the characters must go on an adventure, there's a chase scene,  the good guys just barely win, and things end up hunky-dory (The three "Toy Story" films have literally the exact same plot). It's the nuances in both the characters and stories that make the films great, and "Brave" lacked those just as "Cars 2" did before it.

"Cars 2" was made because young boys everywhere eat up "Cars" merchandise like it's free candy laced with nicotine. Then Disney has Pixar make a film with a female princess that can sell merchandise to the other half of the adolescent world? Seems suspicious. And most of all, it seems more like a reaction to criticism than pure innovation that's unaffected by what studio heads feel is popular.


I will now turn to the upcoming (hopefully) original films Pixar will be releasing in the near future: The Good Dinosaur and The Untitled Pixar Movie That Takes You Inside the Mind, along with the 2015 Lee Unkrich film inspired by Die de los Muertos. If they are made without pandering and without consideration of how merchadise will sell, they will be great. If not, they'll still be good, but they won't be truly be Pixar.

The Coming Of Cars Land

Cars Land and the Realization of a Park

My distaste for Disney California Adventure Park is not something I shy from, but it may be something I abandon come June 15.

That's when the results of park's gigantic, $1.1 billion  renovation will open to the public. This means the new Buena Vista Street, with its classic, 1920's Hollywood theme, and Cars Land, Radiator Springs and all, will open to the public.

It marks the final stage of a re-imaging of California Adventure that brought us The World of Color, The Little Mermaid, and the re-theming of Paradise Pier, all welcome additions what was a less-than-thrilling park on opening day a little more than 11 years ago.

It says a lot about the park's (lack of) original vision that Disney was willing to cough up over a billion dollars to do something for the underwhelming park.

Personally, the only thing that's been there from day one that remains fresh is California Screamin' (the video was shot before the Paradise Pier makeover), which itself has had a design overhaul. I still stand by my statement that there is no place for a story-less river raft ride in a Disney park (That means you too, Kali!).

But alas, with the addition of Cars Land, the new Buena Vista Street, and everything else that has been added since the park's lackluster launch, The Disneyland Resort may actually become a two-day park, instead of a one-and-a-half day outing, where you visit California Adventure on your way to the airport.

I know I'm ready to be impressed with the new additions. How do you feel about them?