Box Office Breakdown- "Oz" on Top Again

This weekend, Oz the Great and Powerful topped the domestic box office with $42 million in it's second week, making for a total of $145 million and placing it at the top of the 2013 box office so far (though that's not saying much considering how many flops we've had this year).

Speaking of flops, Warner Bros. had it's fifth consecutive flops this year with The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, which grossed a terrible $10 million despite having big name stars like Steve Carrell and Jim Carrey. The film looked terrible, so I'm not surprised nobody flocked to see it, but it must sting for Warner Bros. They must be praying that their summer line up (The Great Gatsby, The Hangover Part III, Man of Steel and Pacific Rim) are successful.

This week's other new release, The Call, surprised many with a $17 million debut. The film had a solid marketing campaign that was bound to rouse some interest, even if it wasn't going to be a major blockbuster. It scored a B+ from audiences, via Cinemascore, which could mean solid legs.

As for the weekend holdovers, Jack the Giant Killer fells 36% and has grossed a weak total of $53 million so far. On the opposite side of the spectrum, Identity Thief continues to show great legs with audiences and added another $4 million to it's total tally of $123 million. But the most impressive hold, for me at least, is Silver Linings Playbook which took in an additional $2 million in it's 18th week of release. It's total gross is $124 million, which is pretty amazing.

After the jump, catch a preview for next week and the total Top 10-

Oz the Great and Powerful- Decent Fluff, But Nothing More

I wouldn't necessarily say that I was excited to see Oz the Great and Powerful, but that's not to suggest I thought it looked bad. My feelings on the actual film fall somewhere along the same line. Oz the Great and Powerful never quite achieves greatness, but director Sam Raimi brings enough charm to the production to brighten it up, even if it never quite shines. I resent the notion that big budgeted, tentpole films are nothing more than giant commercials but if there was any studio I could associate with that idea, it's Disney. So, it's nice to see the film get elevated from that low level.

To my surprise, the most enjoyable moments in the film come early on, before the trip to Oz. Our time spent in Kansas, which probably amounts to lower than twenty minutes, lays the groundwork for the film's major theme: greatness. It's a theme that's about as old as The Wizard of Oz itself, but the way Raimi sets the stage is so exciting and full of life that I completely bought into the idea of seeing this cliché of a plot device acted out for me again. The opening scenes also features gorgeous cinematography, an entertaining magic show sequence and some solid acting from it's cast, many of whom play dual roles in both Kansas and Oz a la the original. Yet, once the Wizard makes his move from black and white into the world of color, some of that charm gets lost amidst the special effects and stale plot.

As I expected, the story of how the vain and selfish carnival magician became a good wizard was incredibly predictable and formulaic, with just the right amount of drama, comedy and action to please the masses. Save for a few dramatic sequences that come off a bit overwrought, the blending of genres works fairly well. But, the film gets far too jumbled as it bounces around between the three witches at the center, with far too much time spent with Mila Kunis' Theodora, and not enough time spent with Rachel Weisz's Evanora. These pacing issues are especially troubling after  it becomes clear that Michelle Williams' Glinda is the most important of the trio, but the filmmakers wait almost an hour before introducing her.

This also brings up my other major problem with the film: it's too long. A convoluted storyline is made even worse when it seems to take an eternity finding out where it's going. The film spends too much time with characters that aren't important at all, throws in a second villain halfway through that just doesn't serve much of a purpose, and drags out the film's final battle to a point where I eventually stopped caring. I can't really say if this is a problem found in the editing room or in the script itself but, regardless, it's a problem that should have been addressed.

The performances in this film are uniformly solid, however, and it's clear that many of the actors involved are enjoying themselves, which made the film itself all the more enjoyable for me. James Franco is far from my favorite actor, but he never grated on my nerves this time and actually seemed like a solid fit to play the wizard. Weisz and Williams are also clearly having a lot of fun as their respective witches, hamming it up just enough so their performances never border on camp. Meanwhile, Zach Braff's voice work in the film only reinforces my belief that a voice acting category should be added to the Academy Awards. Hidden behind a CGI monkey, Braff's voice and unmistakable personality shine through, allowing him to steal the movie. The sole weak link is Kunis, though I certainly wouldn't blame her. Kunis does her very best with the material she's given, but shoddy script work hurts her performance.

The film's special effects are also absolutely astounding. Coupled with some truly impressive 3D, my eyes remained permanently glued to the screen, even as I found myself growing tired of this adventure in Oz. I was reminded of the special effects in Avatar with the way that Raimi creates a whole world to look at as opposed to just a giant CGI figure or two. There are also some great, practical sets that help balance out the visuals in the film, making the overall experience enjoyable even during it's weaker moments.

I wouldn't say that Oz the Great and Powerful is a bad film, though I can't say I'm itching to watch it again. It's a film that I've seen, and I'm happy I saw it, but my life remains unchanged now that I've seen it. Beautiful visuals aside, nothing really stands out amidst the somewhat bland story. But, if you're looking to take a nice trip to the movies, you can do much worse than a return to the city of Oz.

OVERALL GRADE: C+

Our Top Story Tonight: Tom Hooper Circling Freddie Mercury Biopic

As always, Friday is a pretty dull day for film news but we weren't left without two interesting tidbits of information.

The most interesting news of the day, in my opinion, was that Oscar winning director Tom Hooper (The King's Speech) is looking to reunite with Sacha Baron Cohen in the long awaited Freddie Mercury biopic. The project has been in development for a few years now, with Cohen (who Hooper directed in Les Miserables) attached since it's inception. Hooper has been offered a number of projects recently, but it seems likely that he's picking this one. I'm happy to see this project finally getting some traction, and Hooper is a solid directorial pick, but I don't particularly have much else to say about it.

There's only one other piece of news so I'm just gonna include it here: with Spielberg apparently dropping his planned Moses film, it appears that Ridley Scott is preparing a movie called Exodus about the Biblical figure, and Ang Lee being looked at to pick up where Spielberg left off on the other project. Not only that, but Christian Bale is being pursued to star in Scott's project. Personally, I don't think we really need one Moses flick, let alone two, but it's nice to see all these great directors taking on the projects. That being said, something tells me we won't be seeing Bale in the project as he will be filming David O. Russell's Abscam film and is also reportedly in talk for O. Russell's next film.

That's it- there won't be any news tomorrow (it's Saturday, and there is rarely ever news...) but I'll be back on Sunday with the box office and a new segment. Have a good weekend!

Our Top Story Tonight: "Jurassic Park 4" Finds a Director

It was announced today that Collin Trevorrow, who directed the sci-fi indie comedy, Safety Not Guaranteed, will be at the helm of next summer's Jurassic Park 4. There isn't much else to say about the film, other than that it is being prepped for release next June, with Steven Spielberg producing.

Now, I'm no film producer, but two things stick out to me about this announcement. For one thing, I don't see how directing a well received mumble core flick served as an indicator that Trevorrow would be a good fit for this extremely expensive franchise. Second, I find releasing the film next June, almost a month after the Godzilla reboot dominates theaters, to be a huge mistake. But, truth be told, I'm not excited for Jurassic Park 4 in the slightest. The original is great, but the franchise has been milked and I have no desire to revisit it. But, Saftey Not Guaranteed had some great dialouge and the interactions between the characters felt genuine. So, maybe if Trevorrow can bring some of that to a big budget dino flick, we'll be in for something more interesting.

Check out more news after the jump, including a major casting update and word on Ang Lee's next project...

A Defense of Nicolas Cage

No actor in Hollywood has a reputation like Nicolas Cage. His many recent flops- The Wicker Man, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance and Trespass, to name three- have become the basis for memes, Youtube mashups and constant mockery on Internet message boards. Truthfully, these films are pretty bad. But I'm not defending those films. I'm defending Nicolas Cage, because I think he's one of the best actors working today, even if he's going through a bit of a dry spell when it comes to making quality films. But I'm also calling out the message board dwelling naysayers who mock this Oscar winning actor. How many films from his filmography have they seen? Because I'd be willing to bet that, had they seen some of his work from the 80s, 90s and early 2000s, they'd think twice before watching "Nicolas Cage Loses His Shit" for the umpteenth time. 

Roger Ebert once said: "There are often lists of the great living male movie stars: De Niro, Nicholson and Pacino, usually. How often do you see the name Nicolas Cage? He should always be up there. He's daring and fearless in his choice of roles, and unafraid to crawl out on a limb, saw it off and remain suspended in air... However improbably his character, he never winks at the audience. He is committed to the character with every atom and plays him as if he were him." Now, say what you want about Nicolas Cage. If you come to the end of this essay and still vehemently disagree with me, then fine. I can't persuade you. But any legitimate fan of cinema must appreciate or, at the very least, respect the views of Roger Ebert. This is a man who has been working as a film critic for almost 50 years. He's  one of, if not the most, revered film critics of all time and his passion for movies is plainly visible in everything he writes. While it's highly unlikely you'll find yourself in agreement with every one of his reviews (hell, he's practically my idol and even I don't agree with him all the time), he never just talks out of his ass. His opinions are informed and well reasoned. Can the same be said for the men and women that constantly mock Nic Cage? 

Now, I'm not gonna even try to defend Nicolas Cage's recent films. They are terrible through and through. But what I am saying is this: Are you making an informed decision by jumping onto the Wicker Man hating bandwagon? Let's take a look: