Grimossfer Clever and entertaining enough to recommend even to members of the 1%

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Darin One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

blahblah-46867 I didn't watch this when it came out because of the so so reviews. And really there is nothing that great about this but it's good for a distracted light watch. The story is for children at core so the overall tone is very light. The visuals are nice but too CGI heavy. The acting is good and Michelle Williams is great and her character is the proper hero and leader. A lot of reviews here complained about Mila Kunis and James Franco. I thought she was fine and he was good as a charismatic conman who does just enough to get by but has a desire for greatness in his heart. I get the criticism about Franco though because his OZ seemed like a man who doesn't have much depth and isn't phased by much. There were some dramatic scenes and they played well but then he'd go back to his smiling, easy going self and at the end he seems like a better person but still a hero of the circumstances. But to me that seemed like of a character and tonal choice. I do wish they'd gone for a darker, scarier tone and a more adult version.

Sissy Taylor This is an awesome movie, so don't believe the haters. When I saw it was rated low, I was like "oh darn". Then I watched it anyways and it was much better than I thought it would be. I don't understand why it is so underrated. The "professional" reviewers are completely out to lunch. It worked for me because I like movies that take you to another world and this did just that. Folks should know that when The Wizard of Oz came out in 1939, it was anything but a success. The Wizard of Oz is an institution and Oz the Great and Powerful is very honorable prequel and reminds you why you love the original. The casting and performances are spot on in this movie. Okay, the wicked witch might not be so wicked, but Rachel Weisz is great and James Franco was a good pick for the role. He is totally awesome as usual – he is hot and a true talent, full of charm and humor. His innocence keeps it light. The movie is great fun. It engages the audience right from the beginning and never lets go. No matter what age bracket you are in, you'll enjoy it.

Filipe Neto This film, conceived as a prequel to the famous "The Wizard of Oz", 1939, shows us how the "sorcerer" goes to that fantastic land, and how he managed to become the greatest sorcerer in the country. Directed by Sam Raimi, this film has a script by Mitchell Kapner and David Lindsay-Abaire. The cast is headed by James Franco, Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams.This prequel was made almost a hundred years after the original film, probably due to the status of "classic" that it won through the decades. And the idea to revive Oz, decades after Dorothy's journey through the big screen, is quite good.The script is interesting and the story isn't bad, unrolling quite naturally from the moment the magic arrives in Oz. The biggest problem is that this film completely breaks with its '39 predecessor in a key point of the story: everything that Dorothy does in Oz never happened, it was just a dream but, in this film, the magic really goes to Oz, awake and aware, and the film never explains how. This would never be a problem if the rest of the film wasn't an attempt to prequel the first film but, if it's a prequel and Oz was a dream in the first one, it should have remained a dream in this film or, at least, the arrival of the magic should have been better explained.The actors generally fulfilled reasonably with their work. Rachel Weisz was excellent in the role of Evanora, and her British charm gave to the character an additional dose of calculism and cruelty that was very welcome. Michelle Williams also didn't disappoint as Glinda, managing to personify the qualities of her character. Mila Kunis is very good to roles with personality and great presence, but this isn't the case of Theodora, a woman highly influenced by her bad sister and suffering because of their impulses and passions. Perhaps this has posed problems for the actress, and the way she sought to overcome them has not been the best. The fact is that her character, initially too warm and bland, just improves when becomes a villain. James Franco was an extremely seductive and charming magician, but also opportunistic, hypocritical and more concerned with saving his own skin than helping others. The way he changes was well achieved by the actor, but his performance was generally irregular, with very good scenes followed by other totally uninteresting.The production gave the biggest attention to the sets and visual effects. Raimi knew that the public would require a re-creation, with current techniques, of the colorful and fantastic universe of Oz, and the computerized effects would be essential to achieve that. The result is excellent and worthy of being admired. The photography also helped a lot, and we must emphasize especially the way it helps to mark the "border" to the world of Oz, with a gradual change of color and screen format. The special effects were also made with great detail. The soundtrack, however, is absolutely disappointing. The music was an essential part of the first film, which had great musical moments, and there isn't a single decent musical moment in this film, and the main theme are too regular to be worthy of any positive mention.

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.