John Tyler

The Emerald City of Oz looked FANTASTIC. I have a feeling you didn't see the same film I did.

Apr 13 - 04:29 PM

Cynthia Klenk

Went to see it last night in 3D - this is a great and powerful ride, pure and simple. You get on and suspend your belief, forget technicality - and just let your heart go free. I love "Wicked" and have seen it 8 times, I love the original, own it and cherish it, and will cherish this movie (and I'm sure, its sequels) as well. L. Frank Baum's creation has been honored with this movie. And right tribute was also paid to the MGM Oz. I particularly loved the black and white going to magnificent color, and the stylistic use of art deco. Its ok to let your inner child out. Send your adult "you" out of the room.... And just enjoy!

Mar 23 - 01:39 PM

Shawn Dougherty

Some seriously bad CGI. I know it's not supposed to look "real," but does it have to look like Disney's Song of the South with cartoon birds in the background. You can create a beautiful fantasy land and not have it look like CGI 101.

Mar 23 - 01:11 AM

Austin Williamson

This is the Land of Oz. It isn't supposed to look real, "The Wizard of Oz" was only given so much to work with at that time.

I'm sick of realism, something like the Oz universe doesn't need that. The books L. Frank Baum left behind are children's stories where Oz is a magical place cut off by the rest of the world. "The Wizard of Oz" treated it as "Dorothy in Wonderland", "Oz, The Great and Powerful" establishes Oz as a place unlike any other.

Both of them are great movies, but you have to understand there shouldn't be a demand for something to look real in a place like Oz. It's silly and gives off the sense that you're just targeting random things about the film in order to defend "The Wizard of Oz". Which is stupid, because in no way shape or form is this trying to copy or ruin it.

Mar 18 - 05:59 AM

Sean Moore

I loved the original in every way and the production values were smokin' the folks playing the flying monkeys scared the sh$t out of me...I think that's the first and maybe hardest problem to overcome even with state of the art CGI the original was so "perfect" you can only look silly compared to that work of art. And let's face it 1939 was a very good year for film..

Mar 15 - 10:45 PM

ray landry

Not true. The CG doesn't look real or innovative, but it's not supposed to be. It's supposed to be eye candy, and it delivers. Just because it has the word "Oz" doesn't mean it has to be a masterpiece, it tried to be a fun movie and they did a good job.

Mar 10 - 10:57 AM

Adam Padilla

CGI is lame. I prefer the old school effects.

Mar 10 - 05:05 AM

William Johnsten

I agree, I liked The Wizard of Oz's effects better, and I didn't think the original looked all that great by today's standards either.

Mar 9 - 05:50 PM

Li Wright

Agree with Jeff. I could see the actors not focusing their eyes on the objects and each other. As if they were looking away in a distance.

Mar 9 - 03:46 PM

Jason Koo

Exactly. this is the first movie that i ever saw that made the green screen so obvious. The angle movement, the awkward blur in the feet and shoulder area and the DOF in the back made the whole CG seem so cheap, as if it were the CGI done in the 90s. However, cg wise, everything else was okay. The monkey's facial expressions for example was just perfectly done.

Mar 8 - 09:56 PM

Keith DeWeese

This "CGI fest" isn't supposed to look real. "Real" is constantly obvious, painted backdrops? "Real" is obviously plastic flowers and leaves? "Real" is the over-saturation of technicolor? "Real" is sequins instead of rubies? Ironic that the whole point of both films is that it doesn't matter what artificial means is used to an end as long as the end is the good and higher mind; however, that seems to get lost in all this "tempest in a teacup" nonsense about which special effects are more valid: Those of the good ol' days (and surrounding the cult of Judy G.) and those of today. I've always loved the 1939 film, and I especially love it because I can hear the clinking of glass when Billie Burke hits her head-chandelier with her magic staff; but, it's not like the film was the 2nd Coming, and it took quite awhile to become the "classic" that so many think occurred the moment MGM released the film. And talk about obvious and over-laden special effects! C'mon! Give this Disney effort a break. It's one of the best films that tired studio has produced in a long time.

Mar 8 - 08:37 PM

Robert Adams

Not that I want to criticize a classic. It was incredibly imaginative and an astounding achievement for 1939. But even on a small screen you can tell the actors were standing in front of painted backdrops and all the characters were people in costumes. This one made the land of Oz much more real, and CGI doesn't get better than the porcelain girl and the talking monkey.

Mar 8 - 08:07 PM

Patric McLeod

I'm not sure why Jeff's comment is so hard to understand, but let me elaborate.
In the original WOZ (Wizard of Oz), all the characters were live. They didn't have anything "fake" except the tornado (and those birds in the trees at the entrance to the Petrified Forest). So every single creature (even the flying monkeys) were actual human beings inside costumes. Therefore, they all moved like real humans because they WERE real humans, and hence, no need to suspend belief for any special effects.

The human eye is capable of seeing differentiations in, say color, that approach millions, whereas digital cannot yet remotely approach that (even with Photoshop and using the RAW format). Same for movement.
So, when you're watching a movie, there are movements that just don't look real. That's called CGI.

Mar 3 - 03:41 PM

hollis mills

uh are you retarded, i get that you are trying to make fun of it but you can do better

Mar 2 - 06:08 PM

Lee Augustus

I agree

Mar 2 - 04:50 PM