"Franco's wizard simply does not inspire interest, confidence or amusement. The actors [sic] seem like an understudy filling in for a big star in a role that demanded one. There's no delight in Oz's deceptions, no sense that this guy could sell anything to anybody. His vocal readings have a sameness to them that is lulling." Hollywood Reporter
Ugh, another failed Oz try. You can't duplicate the magic.
He's just not very talented. He's cute, but he's not a great actor--he won't work on his actual craft as an actor because he's so busy being a dilettante in a hundred other fields.
Too bad. Some of the commercials look pretty good, particularly the black and white parts.
As of now, most of the reviews (2/3) are favorable. And almost everybody wants to see it, in any case.
It's a shame RDJ had to drop out. Franco aside, the cast is amazing.
This is why I keep asking: why is James Franco a star? He has no presence. He's a big nothing. Yet he's every fucking where.
What's amazing about the cast? Zach Braff?
Michelle Williams and Rachel Weisz!!!
Zach Braff? Holy shit....my expectations have now dipped quite a bit!
Seeing a screening on saturday and am now dreading it.
[quote]As of now, most of the reviews (2/3) are favorable. And almost everybody wants to see it, in any case.
63% is barely fresh.
And James Franco really does seem out of place in the commercials. I can't believe he was the best choice for the role. Maybe they thought he was a cheaper Johnny Depp.
Zach Braff's character is CGI.
63% by all critics, no matter who they are. Any asshole can put up a film blog. 29% by top critics.
Depp and Robert Downey Jr. turned down the role before it was offered to Franco, R10.
[quote]And almost everybody wants to see it,
I hate James Franco with the intensity of 1,000 suns; however, I'm interested in the Rachel Weisz / Mila Kunis subplot.
I dislike Franco but the movie seems like it could be interesting.
[quote]Zach Braff's character is CGI.
Well that explains Broken Hearts Club.
Cost $325 million to make (including marketing).
It was a stupid idea for them to try to make a spin off of a classic. It will be a flop for sure.
I really like Michelle Williams
Why is the monkey dressed like a porter? That's kind of racist.
Tracking is a way of predicting what a movie WILL do based on a lot of different metrics. Sometimes it's right, sometimes it isn't.
I am curious about this one. It really looks great visually.
"The original Wizard Of Oz was a flop when released"
Not really. It was nominated for Best Picture, won Best Song and made 3 million, after costing 2.8 million, on its initial release.
Its box office success snowballed in subsequent generations, but it was never a loser.
The original "Wizard of Oz" is overrated trash. It was groundbreaking when it was released, but I think it's boring and poorly made. Funny how the elderly critics cant stop themselves from invoking the original like it was some sacred cow.
[quote]Not really. It was nominated for Best Picture, won Best Song and made 3 million, after costing 2.8 million, on its initial release.
Financially it was a flop originally.
A movie had to make double it costs back then to break even.
Now I'm off to the Bev Center to buy a spiked baseball cap, just like my idol Justin Bieber, and also some hawt new jeggings! I hope everyone at the mall catches a look at my sick new "Hitler Youth" haircut!
JEALOUS MUCH? I THINK SO!!!
Calling "Wizard of Oz" a poorly made film on DL constitutes homophobic trolling. F&F please.
But it is, Blanche. It is a a poorly made film!
And Mariah has a cool new song at the end credits. Almost Ho-o-ome!
Sam Raimi's tentpole could open anywhere between $80 million and $100 million in North America, where it begins rolling out in theaters at 9 p.m. Thursday; the fantasy-adventure also makes a major push overseas.
Disney's 3D epic Oz the Great and Powerful should transform quickly into a box office wizard when opening around the globe this weekend.
The Wizard of Oz origins story is clicking with all demos -- including families -- and could debut anywhere between $80 million and $100 million in North America, according to prerelease tracking. Disney is predicting a more cautious $75 million, considering the bleak performance of the domestic box office so far this year.
Director Sam Raimi's Oz should score the third-best March opening of all time after last year's The Hunger Games ($152.5 million) and fellow Disney fantasy-adventure Alice in Wonderland, which debuted to $116.1 million in 2010.
Costing $215 million to produce and rated PG, Oz begins playing in many North American theaters at 9 p.m. Thursday before opening everywhere on Friday morning.
Raimi's Oz also gets its start in much of the world this weekend, beginning with Russia, Germany, Australia, Korea and Italy on Thursday. On Friday, it expands to a total of 46 territories, including the U.K., Spain, Mexico, Japan and Brazil.
The film tells the story of how a fast-talking Kansas circus worker (James Franco) became the Wizard of Oz. The three witches central to the story are played by Mila Kunis, Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams.
The weekend's only other new wide release is Dead Man Down, starring Colin Farrell, Terrence Howard and Noomi Rapace. Directed by Niels Arden Oplev, who helmed the original Swedish version of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo that starred Rapace, the R-rated thriller is looking at a soft opening in the $6 million to $8 million range.
FilmDistrict acquired rights to Dead Man Down from IM Global, Original Films and Frequency Films.
Oz is the second tentpole of the year after New Line and Legendary Pictures' Jack the Giant Slayer, which opened to a troubling $27.2 million last weekend at the domestic box office. Oz will make life tough for Jack, which could decline more than 50 percent in its second outing.
Disney -- hoping for another Alice in Wonderland, which grossed north of $1 billion worldwide -- has spent north of $300 million on Oz when accounting for marketing costs.
The studio received word on Thursday that Oz has been given a March 29 release date in China, a coveted territory for Hollywood blockbusters. That's only four days after Jack opens in that country.
Opening in a limited run is Matthew Fox and Tommy Lee Jones' historical drama Emperor. Directed by Peter Webber, the film is set in Japan immediately following World War II. Roadside Attractions and Lionsgate acquired U.S. rights to the film from Krasnoff Foster Productions.
The people at Rotten Tomatoes had to dredge up 159 online reviews to give the film a 60% freshness rating, the lowest possible score to turn a splattered green failure into a juicy red hit.
Meanwhile, their Top Critics pan the film by a ratio of 26 fails to 12 hits, for an approximate rating of 30%
Saw it. Don't want to give any spoilers, but the motivation for evil/wickedness isn't that convincing. It feels like ten minutes were cut out somewhere that might make that seem a bit less ridiculous. The monkey is a very obvious Disney "we need to sell toys so get a wisecracking sidekick" addition.
Otherwise I kind of loved it. The last half hour of it is very impressive. The China Girl is a fantastic character in terms of visuals. Rachel Weisz in particular seems to be having a lot of fun with her role.
They are already planning a sequel.
Just saw it; thought Franco was kinda phoning it in--or maybe just seemed the same as he has in other films. I was surprised that the iconic shot in the trailer--where you see the swirling silouhette of the WW appear in flames--isn't actually in the film. Weird, because the payoff--when you do see the WW--is pretty well done, and could have easily stood more of a buildup. But watching it I thought it was a lost acting opportunity for Madonna, who could have played the hell out of it. Seriously. As it was, ________________ does a decent job.
I'll be very interested to see whether this rakes in $100 million for opening, as predicted. If it does, I'm guessing that people really do like 3D (I saw it in 2D).
The script was written specifically with Robert Downey Jr. in mind for the lead.
They tried everything to get him, but he passed. Johnny Depp was #2 choice, he also passed.
James Franco was way down on page 4 or 5 of the list.
Just bought my tickets!
It really does seem like Hollywood is trying to push Franco as a younger Depp - though I can't see him as a younger alternative to Downey.
From the previews, I kept thinking Downey would have been better - though a touch too old. I also thought Depp would have been a good choice. Funny to hear that they were the initial choices for the movie over Franco.
The movie is a big hit. Franco is now a A list Superstar!!
Call my Jimmy....all is forgiven...now that you are a complete failure and I'm an internationally acclaimed actress. I'll even let you hold the BAFTA for a few minutes (but not the Oscar.) You can sit on the porch with Adam and mama, they spend a lot of time talking about their failed acting dreams too. You'll fit right in.
R47, um, this movie is gonna be a huge hit.
um r48 not for Jimmy and box office doesn't matter. It is the statues that count.
Surprise? No surprise. Not at all.
I'm wondering if Oz will hurt or help the chances of Wicked being made into a movie? I suppose if it does well financially it might actually help???
If they ever turn Wicked into a movie it better be the book version and not that stupid musical.
It's on track to an 80 million dollar weekend, not bad for non-holiday weekend. As with Tim Burton's dreadful Alice in Wonderland, the visual effects are the star.
[quote] As with Tim Burton's dreadful Alice in Wonderland, the visual effects are the star.
Fuck off r53
The book version of Wicked would make a great movie. Much better than what they've made with Franco.
Rooney Mara as Elphaba.
I reluctantly saw "Oz" tonight and it wasn't near as bad as I was expecting. Rachel Weisz was outstanding, and James and Michelle Williams did okay too (with their fairly one-dimensional characters). I was surprised to find that the weakest link was handsdown Mila Kunis. I love her, but she just plain sucked in this film (there was no nuance to her character...one minute she's good and the next she's bad). Even "China Girl" and the monkey sidekick weren't as annoying as Kunis' Theodora.
Anyway, I can't say the $20 ticket was worth it (for the IMAX showing); however, if you're wiling to refrain from comparing "Oz" to the 1930s classic, its not that bad.
Oh, and Rachel Weisz seriously steals every scene in which she appears.
Wendy Williams should have played Theodora, can you imagine her boobs green?
I'm seeing it this weekend, Candy Crowley should have played Glinda.
It doesn't have any real competition so it will open good but watch it drop like stone.
Speaking of Raimi blockbusters, WEHT Toby Maguire?
The reviews aren't as bad as I thought, 59%, nearly fresh. I imagine it'll be like Tim Burton's Alice, a lot of people hate it but I think it's visually stunning. I won't see it in the theater, but I'll definitely download it in HD.
And yet it will gross over a billion dollars.
[quote] I was surprised that the iconic shot in the trailer--where you see the swirling silouhette of the WW appear in flame
You obviously don't understand the term 'iconic'.
They need to make the actual OZ books like the LOTR trilogy. Enough with these crappy original screenplays. The books are incredible!
[quote]I am curious about this one. It really looks great visually.
That's the worst part!
Mila is a horrible actress.
[quote]Mila is a horrible actress.
I agree. Why does Hollywood keep trying to make her "happen"?
Mila's gorgeous, and that really came through on the big screen in "Oz"; however, when the likes of Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams are gorgeous AND talented, it highlighted what lousy actress Mila is. Never thought I'd see a movie where someone was worse than James Franco.
Michelle Williams looked stunning! It's a shame her role was so underwritten.
[quote]Ugh, another failed Oz try. You can't duplicate the magic.
The film is going to make over a billion dollars. It will be extremely successful. It's already making a ton of money.
Mila can't act for shit, and she's the worst part of the film. It's like she's reading off cue cards. Dumbest casting EVER!
I love Mila in general, but she was embarrassing here.
The movie on the whole sucks, but there are a few nice moments.
A lot of the magic of Oz is taken away when it's so obviously filmed in front of a green screen.
R71, popular doesn't necessarily mean good. The Boston Red Sox sold millions of dollars in tickets last year and they were still a shitty team. A piece of shit movie that makes millions is still a piece of shit movie.
All of the bad Franco reviews compiled in one place.
Poor Franco, it must hurt him to see Robert Downey Jr. walking away the only one getting raves for this movie.
It has made almost $205 million already.
Based on its big budget and ad blitz but definitely not like a Depp vehicle.
actually, Box office is $421,041,000.
I saw it & I loved it
As of April 7,
Worldwide: \t $454,067,000 \t
Production Budget: $215 million
The movie is a hit because of the Oz association. The kids seeing this don't care about Franco.
perhaps r82. But a hit is a hit for Franco.
Me next, James!
R64 (I know it's been a long time, but I can't bring myself to read threads that might include James Franco unless I'm desperately bored or have many, many other things that I'm trying to postpone), the word "iconic" has been completely corrupted by those who write the headlines for AOL. They seem to believe that it now has the slightly overlapping meanings of "evocative" and "fairly famous."