Oz The Great and Powerful

In my opinion, after "Spiderman 2" Sam Raimi has had no place behind the camera. "Spiderman 3" was horrendous. I didn't even bother with "Drag Me to Hell". His ego got the best of him, and it became extremely apparent. Remember the dancing scene in "Spiderman 3"? Need I say more?

Because of this, I had no interest what-so-ever to see "Oz: The Great and Powerful". But once again, my fiancée came to the rescue and dragged me to see it. Not really. We had a private screening at her theatre.

Ugh, just watching that trailer makes me cringe. For those of you who don't know, "Oz: The Great and Powerful" is the adaptation for the nonexistent prequel to "The Wizard of Oz" book series. Already, that raises a butt-load of red flags for me. Not only is this based off of a book series, but it is also a made up chapter of said series that has 13 other books they could have adapted. Now I'm not saying that this is all Sam Raimi's fault, but it is.

Some men just want to watch the world burn.

"Oz: The Great and Powerful" feels like one of those movies that was made just to make money. With no care to the audience at all. Much like "Spiderman 3". They knew they could make a lot of money with a prequel to one of the most revolutionary movies in the world, but didn't have the time or passion to make it worth the audience's while. For shame, Mr. Raimi. For Shame.

For my next movie, I'm going to make up a 

prequel to the Big Bang! No, not the TV Show.

The day I no longer get to see movies for free, is the day I stop seeing Sam Raimi movies. He's gotten so terrible. He should stick to making movies where women get beat up by ghosts and demons. And even then he should just stop.

My Grade: C-

Stan Lee Cameos

I'm just going to get right to it. Stan Lee's cameos in Marvel movies are terrible. They weren't that bad until the train wreck that is Spiderman 3. After that, with the exception of The Incredible Hulk, they have made me want to jump off a bridge.

There are a lot of people that do cameos in movies. One of my favorite directors, Alfred Hitchcock, is known for them. But the difference between the two is subtlety. The reason I have hated almost every one of Stan Lee's cameos since Spiderman 3 is the fact that they might as well be slapping you in the face.

Stan Lee's cameos used to be subtle. In X-Men he was just a hot dog vender. In Spiderman he saved a little girl! In the first Hulk, he was a security guard walking out of the building Dr. Banner worked in. A bit obvious, but you know what? I'll take it. But then you have Spiderman 3. Not only does he walk up next to Peter Parker and look at the same news feed that our hero is, but he also delivers a completely cheesy and unnecessary line.

"You know. I guess one person can make a difference. 'Nuff said."

SLAP! "Hey did you know Stan Lee is in this movie?" said the studio executive desperate for a gimmick.

One of the first things they teach you in film school is to never do anything that will remind your audience they are watching a movie. Now there are exceptions to the rule, like if you have a character that breaks the fourth wall on purpose and what not, but these cameos are on a whole other level.

Hitchcock's cameos were classy. He never made a big deal about them. He was always in the background somewhere. Never in the foreground. He would always walk on screen and walk off with out a word, or the camera would pan past him.

M. Night Shyamalan, a little less subtle, but he always gives himself roles that move the story forward. They are necessary roles. The give the story some development.

If Marvel just went back to giving Stan Lee background roles, things would be better. The only thing that bugged me in The Avengers other than an awkward shot (just nit picking right there) was Stan Lee's cameo. I instantly rolled my eyes as he came on screen and shook my head after he delivered his line.

Please, Marvel! Don't be so obvious when throwing Mr. Lee into your films!