"OZ the Great and Powerful" Official DL Review Thread
For those who've actually seen it, give us your reviews.
The film is a smash at the box office already. It's #1.
Is it really a smash? What rating? PG13?
I loved it
Why don't we just use the movie thread which already has 80 replies in it?
I thought this review in the other thread was dead-on:
The actresses all looked beautiful and were, for the most part, great.
Williams was gorgeous and REALLY delivered with what she was given. It's a shame her role is so underwritten.
Weisz was perfection.
And now Mila. This is gonna be a love it or hate it performance. I personally loved it, but I can understand the people who will loathe it.
If Franco had the ability to go over the top without it feeling ironic, and the film had used more practical sets, it could have been pretty fantastic.
As it is, it's an okay movie, nothing better.
[quote]Why don't we just use the movie thread which already has 80 replies in it?
Because it's filled with shit.
I liked it. There's been a lot of criticism about Franco's performance but I think he did an adequate job and he's still really cute. He's much better to look at onscreen than RDJ 's lined face (who was their first choice) and I can understand why a woman would go crazy over him which is kinda part of the plot.
It followed the original where everything is black and white before they trip into Oz. Oz looks Iike one big colorful fairy tale. The special effects were good.
What made the original Oz so endearing were the colorful characters like the strawman, the lion and the tinman and the friendship between them and Dorothy. There aren't too many endearing characters here except Zach Braff as the flying monkey in the porter's outfit who is Oz's servant. You feel sorry for him because he is actually treated like a servant by Oz as he struts around in his little porter's outfit carrying his master's bag. Then there is the tiny porcelain doll which to me was a waste of space.
This movie mostly centers around the three witches tale and all three actresses were very good and carried the film. I especially liked Rachel Weiscz. She can act circles around everyone. Michelle Williams held her own in their scenes together.
I found it enjoyable and thrilling in the end. There was some applause in the theatre at the end of the movie. I think it's a crowd pleaser. Lots of families there with their kids...which is what Disney wants.
[quote]It followed the original where everything is black and white before they trip into Oz.
We have to stop with the 'original' stuff. The 1939 loosely-based 'Wonderful Wizard of Oz' film is just one adaptation.
I'm hoping this starts a big Oz franchise. Robert Zemeckis is planning his own Oz film, which is going to be big a legal battle now, I'm sure. It was hard enough getting this film made and not getting sued by MGM. I hope "Wicked," the book, gets turned into a film as well.
It's high-time Baum's books are exposed to generations new and old.
It's no worse than any other DL thread, R5...
How was Kunis performance as the Wicked Witch of the West?
r8, we're here now, so get on with it. :)
[quote]The film is a smash at the box office already. It's #1.
Already? Gee willikers! Honey, it could be the worst movie ever made ,but there isn't a human alive except you apparently, who didn't think it would open at #1 opening weekend.
[quote]How was Kunis performance as the Wicked Witch of the West?
People are gonna love it or hate it. I thought she was great.
r11, go look at DL's other thread, which screamed that this film would bomb.
It was OK. A bit thin in plot and character development.
Michelle Williams was the surprise stand out.
Had the same kind of feel as that Amy Adams movie Enchanted.
All of a sudden there are movies I can take my 84 yo mother to.
She liked it, too.
Mila was okay in the beginning. I also don't buy her as naive and gullible. She's better towards the end. Michelle and Rachel are both fantastic.
Franco is just.... "cute". He's like that guy who thinks he can get away with everything by showing that big grin of his...it gets kinda old when you can't just smile your way through something.
My mother who absolutely loathed Burton's "Alice In Wonderland" (her favorite book), loved this. I made her aware of the initial mixed reactions to it, but she loved it. She said she would go see it again. She saw it in 3D, something she hates, but she still loved it regardless. She also loved James Franco, saying that he was cute. She always asks me, "Is he the one who played the boyfriend in 'Milk'?" She loves Michelle Williams ever since "Dawson's Creek". I was obsessed with the Baum books as a child, and because of that, she had to listen to my incessant discussions regarding them. Basically, she knew a lot about them beforehand, even the story of L. Frank Baum himself. She's a big fan of "Return To Oz" too.
"Return To Oz' has been the only film so far that was completely faithful to the books. That film would have performed well today. Audiences have been Nolan-ised. They'll take the griddy, adult-themed films that were previously handled largely as big family-friendly movies.
I saw it with friends. The theater was packed. Loved Franco and Mila but everyone did a great job. I wish Michelle Williams had more to do, but what she was given was fine. People applauded at the end.
He's playing a con artist, and I guess Franco's 'big grinned' standard performance works perfectly for this.
Everyone wants to see Franco fail.
Franco was OK, but he lacks sincerity.
The three women were the real stars of the movie.
Franco was terrible - another "sleepwalking smugly" performance by this phony. Kunis is rapidly looking like a used-up alcoholic whore. Set designs and effects look cheap. Bad plot. The whole thing is a disaster.
Franco looks too young. It was like a kid playing a man's hole.
What movie did you see R21. Sounds like you just have beef with Franco. He did a good job and the set and effects were great and lush.
Oh, and I like that the character that Michelle Williams played in the BW Kansas set-up was going to marry a guy named Gale. If she had a sister Emma, this would have been Dorothy's mother in some alternate universe where professor Marvel/Oscar would have been here to know both of them.
Interesting choice of name.
The land of Oz was beautiful, but you do lose that sense of wonder due to it clearly being CGI. It's not as bad as Burton's Wonderland, though. The CGI in that movie was just awful.
I wish filmmakers used practical sets more, and just used cgi to enhance what's already there.
The worst thing about Burton's "Alice In Wonderland" was the story and script. It had nothing to do with the book. It was a disaster.
NY post gave it 1 of 5 stars. I think OP must be a publicist for the movie. Paid whore.
Are you in Manhattan R17?
I thought Mila, before she goes evil, was the weakest performance. The movie was good in the B&W part, but then initially lags in the color part, and then takes off quite nicely.
The CGI stuff at the beginning of the OZ part was just distracting.
I liked the way the story dovetails into the story in the Wizard of OZ.
[quote]Franco looks too young.
Nah....he was just right. This is the story pre-Dorothy. And its convincing that its an attractive young Oz that women can fall for and cause others to go batty for.
Besides, RDJ and Depp are getting up too old to carry these kind of movies now and they need new blood. Whether it's Franco or someone else...
Oz the Great and Powerful is perfectly adequate for people who don't believe every trip down cinema's memory lane amounts to sodomy of their childhood.
Of course the old queens here will be screaming bloody murder about how this movie shits on the original masterpiece. But if you released the original today, it would be laughed out of theaters. It's embarrassingly bad.
What a fucking Frau thread.
LOL, I posted here R32 and even I actually agree with you 100%
R32 & R33--- a bunch of whining ninnies.
Is Rachel Weiscz bisexual?
[quote]go look at DL's other thread, which screamed that this film would bomb.
And go back and read my post that said it could be the worst movie ever made but it was guaranteed to open at number one. That was the point, many films have bombed but still managed to pen at number one.
I didn't love it, but I didn't hate it, either. Franco is a bit miscast, but he gives it a game try, so it's not the disaster others are claiming it to be. The women -- especially Weisz -- are wonderful. Major problem is the script, which lacks strong character development and devotes the entire 2nd act to exposition, slowing down the film's momentum.
I enjoyed it! I think a lot of the hate is residual hate from pre-conceived notions of what the movie would be. People hated it so much before they saw it, they don't want to admit they were wrong.
It's not perfect or anything, but it's a fun ride. Franco is indeed miscast, but he's passable.
Kunis seems sedated in the beginning, but gives the kids what they want in the end.
Weisz is gorgeous and amazing.
Williams is perfect. I agree with those who say her role is underwritten, though.
"Franco is indeed miscast, but he's passable."
That's unacceptable. Learn how to cast movies or get out of the business.
Here's Frank Morgan. I'm thinking a good match might have been in the Zach Galifianakis/ Jack Black/ Ricky Gervais vein.
R31 is right on the money. But also there are some people who just want to see Franco fail for some reason. Sorry chickadees, he's a star.
Michelle Williams is extremely pretty.
"...but gives the kids what they want in the end."
Way to sell it to the gays.
I've heard that the only saving grace of the movie is Rachel Weisz.
[quote]Michelle Williams is extremely pretty.
Yes, she is. I didn't really notice that until the Marilyn movie.
[quote]I've heard that the only saving grace of the movie is Rachel Weisz.
Weisz is fabulous, but so is Williams. Kunis is definitely screechy, but isn't that what the Wicked Witch of the West is supposed to be?
Franco is Franco.
Just got back from seeing it. I'd give it a solid B. The visuals are amazing...it's interesting to think what the original Wizard of Oz might have looked like if it were made today instead of the 30's.
I thought the acting was all ok...no one really knocked my socks off...with the exception of the china doll girl. i totally fell in love with her. the witches were fine...they seemed more like mean sorority sisters than truly evil witches. and Michelle mostly looked forlorn as the camera closed in on her face. I don't really remember her having many lines.
The suspense was gone from the beginning because we all already know how the story is going to turn out, so that sorta kills the drama. I liked Zach as the monkey, though Oz was not especially kind to him.
I actually wanted to see more of the munchkins...it took a long time before we got to them. They were one of the hooks that helped connect me to the original.
Though the music was by Danny Elfman, I don't remember any of it, and barely noticed it throughout.
The China girl was the same girl from the beginning who wanted Oz to make her walk.
Am I being Captain Obvious?
The film has already made $150,178,000. It almost made back what it cost to make in less than a week.
I thought it sucked. Horrible writing and flat acting, except Rachel Weisz who has some panache. Franco seemed really awkward and inert. Mila Kunis sounds like a mall rat. Monkey and doll were annoying. Michelle Williams was forgettable. No charm or joy, just a lot of CGI.
I'm ashamed that some of you went to see it, and on opening weekend, too.
It took me about 45 minutes to get past how woefully miscast James Franco was. Franco has 2 expressions and they both got quite a work out.
Though I did try to imagine RDJ in this and really did not think he would have been that much better.
Maybe Hugh Jackman would have worked, but I guess he was busy.
Disney has another OZ sequel in the planning stages.... Tick Tock.
R51 Plenty of source material. But make them get Hugh Jackman. He was in the play about The Boy from Oz ;)
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz (1900)
The Marvelous Land of Oz (1904)
Queer Visitors from the Marvelous Land of Oz (1905, comic strip depicting 27 stories)
The Woggle-Bug Book (1905)
Ozma of Oz (1907)
Dorothy and the Wizard in Oz (1908)
The Road to Oz (1909)
The Emerald City of Oz (1910)
The Patchwork Girl of Oz (1913)
Little Wizard Stories of Oz (1913, collection of 6 short stories)
Tik-Tok of Oz (1914)
The Scarecrow of Oz (1915)
Rinkitink in Oz (1916)
The Lost Princess of Oz (1917)
The Tin Woodman of Oz (1918)
The Magic of Oz (1919, posthumously published)
Glinda of Oz (1920, posthumously published)
Excellent movie and James Franco was a revelation in this. Good job to everyone.
[quote]I'm ashamed that some of you went to see it, and on opening weekend, too.
Get a life.
The entire cast signed on for sequels.
R55 Does not mean they have to keep them. Just means the studio has first option on their services for the sequel.
Why wasn't the opening in sepia? Is that one of those legal things?
Whenever Kunis was yelling and screechy, all I could hear was Jackie from That 70s Show being screechy.
Were the 3 witches supposed to be sisters or were only 2 of them sisters?
Glinda wasn't one of the sisters.
Meh. Whatever gets Wicked made.
What is Glinda's connection to the other witches then? Were there only 3 witches in Oz? What makes someone a witch?
R62, stay tuned for the sequel.
r45, you can tell that they wanted to skirt the movie version with the munchkin song which sounded ever so like the original but just enough different to avoid copyright probs.
That and the freaking MGM lion logo showing up all over the place. When Theodora and Evanora fly to the Poppy Gate of Oz to watch the flying baboons attack the straw man army, they could be in Vegas at Trop and the Strip. It was jarring.
BTW, the reason the MGM Grand in Las Vegas is lit up green is because it originally had an OZ theme. The MGM Grand billed itself as The Emerald City. Hence...
Williams was quite good in the Marilyn Monroe picture, she didn't look like Marilyn but so what, it was a GREAT performance in a so-so movie.
The script was the weakest link. Not clever or witty. The laugh lines fell very flat. Franco not charismatic enough to be Wizard. When will someone actually translate the pz books to the screen? Those plots are interesting!
R45 yes it was interesting to note that in the original all of the horses had to be live and painted by hand.
Think of making that movie without computers.
Richard Roper said the movie would have been better if they made it only with the technology available when they made the original Wizard of Oz.
[quote]The film has already made $150,178,000. It almost made back what it cost to make in less than a week.
You do realize that about 50% of the domestic gross goes to the theater owners, right?
[quote]the Marilyn Monroe picture
Picture? That Hitler's a bad egg.
[quote]Why wasn't the opening in sepia?
Why should it be?
It's not the train wreck people were expecting. It'll make over a billion worldwide.
There will be sequels
I guess Home Shopping Network knew what they were doing when they spent 24 hours last week hawking the Oz crap.
[quote]You do realize that about 50% of the domestic gross goes to the theater owners, right?
It's a sliding scale, hon. The foreign gross is going to be huge. It hasn't even been a week, and it's bringing in the major $$$. Wait until it goes on DVD/Blu-ray/Digital/VOD in a couple of months!
The Oz franchise is going to be the new Harry Potter. Mark my words.
Actually, OZ isn't as well known internationally as Alice in Wonderland. I wouldn't count on the foreign grosses to be that big. It's not going to hit a billion dollars.
The toy sales are going to be ridiculous. I haven't seen so much crap for a film since perhaps Harry Potter. Even with Harry Potter, I don't remember the kinds of crap this Oz film is churning out. Disney sure knows what it's doing. They have Oz now, and Star Wars.
[quote]Actually, OZ isn't as well known internationally as Alice in Wonderland.
You're such an idiot.
I saw it today and agree with those who say it isn't perfect but it was fun. It helped a LOT that we saw it in digital IMAX 3-D. The visuals were always worth looking at. Franco is passable, nothing to get angry at. I was most disappointed in Kunis. She doesnt have the acting chops to pull off the role, especially when she isn't given enough to work with anyway. It was hard to tell why she cared so much about Oz so quickly. Better writing could've really helped during that section of the film, or a better actress could've brought something to the table that wasn't in the script. I doubt I would be nearly as kind to the movie if I hadn't been immersed in the sound and visuals of the IMAX theater.
Wait....there's going to be a dolls of that zany monkey in a porter suit and the china doll on the shelves of Wal-Mart as we speak!
Trolldar lights up this thread like a Christmas tree. R70/R71/R74/R76/R77 - are you a Disney shill or something?
[quote]Oz even released the same weekend as Alice. But that Tim Burton pic offered not only worldwide star Johnny Depp but also one of the first truly rich 3D experiences and scored a $116 million domestic debut and went on to earn a superb $1 billion worldwide, making 2/3s of its money overseas. This Oz wizardry was less appealing with James Franco who struggles to open box office solo. Whether this pic earns back its hefty cost depends largely on overseas grosses - and I’ve been warning that the Land Of Oz is not the globally familiar place in literature Wonderland was and is.
So far it's not even close to making the kind of money Alice did. $70 million overseas when it opened in most markets isn't that great.
I know I face ridicule, but I have read there is 1%/Illuminati symbology in this movie, but I have yet to see it. Full disclosure: I saw odd symbolism in the recent Batman movies, especially "The Dark Knight", in which Batman is essentially George Bush, invading citizens' privacy and bending the law because he just has to, to "protect everybody". Last summer's "Rises" had Batman protecting stockbrokers as the greedy underclass rioted!
So, based on what I've read, "Oz" suggests women can't rule harmoniously and will screw each other over for a man, the characters have no problem with a slave monkey in a porter suit getting treated like shit...Any more unpleasant or peculiar symbolism?
[quote]Trolldar lights up this thread like a Christmas tree. [R70]/[R71]/[R74]/[R76]/[R77] - are you a Disney shill or something?
Is there a rule that you could only post once per thread? Jesus Christ, Trolldar trolls are so tiresome.
There is no "slave monkey". Oz saves his life and the monkey (played by Zach Braff!) puts itself in his debt. Like Dobby from HP.
I saw it today in IMAX 3-D, and I thought it was good, not great. I agree with R66 that the script is weak. The 1939 classic seemed to frame and box-in this movie. Some lines were lifted right from it, but also there were threads in the plot that echo the earlier movie -- except here, instead of killing the Wicked Witch of the West near the end, they banished both bad witches from the Emerald City.
The original movie was no picnic to for the screenwriters. It is a fascinating read to learn about the twists and turns that script took.
Franco did a credible job, the witches were good (Weisz was the best, followed by Williams; Kunis was weakest at the start). I liked Zach Braff; the china doll was fine.
I did like the touch of having the WWotW's tears scarring her face. I was wondering if they were going o acknowledge her aversion to water.
I just wish she still had the scars after her transformation.
It was very dull and uninspired until the final showdown. The colorful OZ scenery was technically pretty, but it was visually sanitized and soulless. Franco was ok, but seemed rather lethargic in the role. He lacked personality or energy. Tony Cox steals the show as a grumpy Knuck.
[quote]There is no "slave monkey". Oz saves his life and the monkey (played by Zach Braff!) puts itself in his debt. Like Dobby from HP.
He is a metaphor. The real slave monkey he represents is the working class.
I don't mind having the show spoiled for me, so I'll post my questions here for those who have seen it.
1) How does this show take into consideration OZ was all in Dorothy's dream? She woke up at the end of the movie, and Oz was actually that traveling salesguy who wasn't still in Oz, he was leaning on her window sill. The wicked witch was Almira Gulch on a bike in Kansas who tried to steal Toto. Yet if she's in Oz when Oscar gets there, how can she be on the bike in Kansas later on? Is the dream element here not in the original Baum books and this movie is going on the books or something? The whole dream thing is dismissed?
2) I heard they set the ending up for the Wizard of Oz, meaning Rachel is going to be crushed and Dorothy arrives, etc. Yet Disney has given the go ahead for a sequel. This is speculation but what do you think the sequel will be, something in between or when Dorothy arrives or maybe when Oscar gets on his balloon at the end of the original and leaves Oz?
It was enjoyable. Visually stunning. The story was utterly predictable, but the acting was good. I'd have made Glinda more ethereal.
There also seemed to be cuts regarding Theodora's story. It is obvious the instant Evanora appears who the real wicked witch is but other than being her sister, there is no real indication of why Theodora would be "wicked deep down" other than a very brief flash of temper and Evanora saying so. A broken heart after one lie from Evanora is too pat an explanation. Hitler didn't become Hitler because he didn't get into Art School.
One inexplicable disappointment but perhaps to leave room for another prequel was, well, something very important to the original story was missing.
1. It doesn't really treat Oz as a dream, though just like the Wizard of Oz, the people Oz knows in Kansas show up as characters in the land of OZ.
2. The movie doesn't set up a sequel, though there's clearly more story to tell. There's a big gap in time between when this ends and when Dorothy shows up so I'm guessing they have a lot of options (there are a lot of OZ books).
My guess? Weisz is gonna go after those silver slippers Glinda was wearing at the end.
Nope, I watched really closely to see if any of the witches wore silver slippers (I guessed ruby would go the way of the WWotW's hooked nose). Glinda's shoes were white. Not silver. Not arguably silver. They were white patent boots.
They never showed Evanora's shoes really; her skirts always covered them. She needs a new power source so that could be the next movie.
R91, Glinda is clearly wearing the silver slippers in the scene when Oz takes her behind the curtain.
Perhaps, but that doesn't fit the big story either.
Evanora stole them from Glinda and rather than take them back (after suggesting how powerful they must be) she puts them on Dorothy? Presumably to avoid a fight with Theodora in Munchkinland where Glinda says Theodora has no power?
God I'm gay.
It turns out that the "ruby slippers" were actually stolen from Benedict XVI.
Some of the film was visually stunning in 3D, but I thought the acting was anemic pretty much throughout. Franco was virtually a two-dimensional character, with none of the depth of "Dorothy" in the original; and Mila Kunis just didn't project menace. (Remember the scene where Auntie Em morphs into a witch?) The CGI characters, like Finley the monkey, were absolutely terrific; it's amazing how sensitive CGI is to facial expression at this point.
The matinee that I and the BF went to was nearly empty. But this movie is far less scary than the original. Kiddies may find it dull, I think.
R31- that's your take- I think it remains one of the best movies ever made- for many reasons not worth mentioning to you. It continues to charm audiences world wide as well.
I thought some of the links in the screenplay was clever, with the girl in the wheelchair playing the doll with the broken legs. I like how they foreshadow that there are lions an scarecrows in OZ, and I guess the sequel will bring up the tin man as well as why the the WW of the W switches from flying baboons to flying monkeys, as well as the ruby slippers.
The flying baboons were because they can't saying flying monkeys.
In the book, the flying monkeys are actually referred to as winged monkeys.
There were winged monkeys and winged baboons in "Oz the Great and Powerful."
[quote]It's a sliding scale, hon. The foreign gross is going to be huge.
You know that studios make even less than the reported foreign gross, right? They get about 40%, out of which they have to pay P&A, tariffs, translations, and other fees not included in the film's budget. They are usually lucky to get 15% back.
Talking to people who know nothing about show business is like talking to the autistic.
r102 is throwing a temper tantrum. Honey, the film is on its way to being a phenomenal hit. Get over it.
[quote]Talking to people who know nothing about show business is like talking to the autistic.
Sucks to be you since 99.9% of the people on the planet don't give a shit about show biz.
Does Franco suck cock in this one too?
r62 - Glinda in the Oz books is really a sorceress not a witch. She defeated the witch of the north, but leaves the west and east so that Ozma, the princess of Oz can unite the kingdom to defeat them. She teaches the wizard magic but she is still the most powerful in Oz.
Glinda is sort of a god like character as she knows all but knows that magic cannot fix everything.
I love that Ozma changes back into a girl after being turned into a boy. It was the first ftm/mtf story.
Return to Oz is the best Oz movie.
So r102, if a film shows $60 million boxoffice overseas, the studio will only see $20 million out of that?
I'm always curious about how much they will pay for promotions overseas?
I love that there's actually a loony DL Oz fangurl who gets his panties in a bunch anytime somebody even remotely criticizes the film. Over THIS kiddie movie of all things?
And R102 is a 100% right about movie finances, no matter how many times the Oz troll at R103 stomps his feet and hisses.
[quote]Glinda's shoes were white. Not silver. Not arguably silver. They were white patent boots.
They were white patent leather boots at one point in the movie. But at the end, as R92 notes, they were white pumps.
Robert Downey Jr would have been great in the role of Oz.
[quote]It turns out that the "ruby slippers" were actually stolen from Benedict XVI
I love you R94!
Paul Giamatti should've played Oz
I finally saw it and I kinda liked it. Franco is like the movie sometimes good and sometimes bad. Rachel is grat and Mila is okay if you don't compare her to the sublime Margeret Hamilition.
While Mila and Rachel look like beautiful movie stars Michelle doesn't get the same treatment they give her a bad wig with inconsistent hair-styling also bad lighting. Of course she is still beautiful...
I liked it better the 2nd time. Might see it one more time in Imax...
This isn't based on any of the Oz books is it?
Its kinda amazing they made a prequel to a 70 year old classic and it doesn't suck...
I enjoyed it, but it wasn't a film I would choose to see again. Some of it was great, but most was weak.
It's a good movie, but I think it needed some real fine tuning. It needed a better screenplay and better acting. Franco was OK but could have been better. Mila was miscast.Zach Braff managed to be less anoying than expected and Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams were perfect.
Well, they're doing the first book next, so they'll have actual source material to work with. It won't be an original screenplay.
Too bad they can't recast Franco.
Why can't they r120? He'll have a minor role in the sequel anyway. The one who was horrible cast was Kunis.
Kunis can be good in the right role, but she was just bad here.
She did the Wicked Witch of the West all wrong. She kept making her voice go into this deep husky screech, when she should have gone high.
She's too young to be playing that role. She looks like a little kid. It was completely ludicrous.
Finally caught this on cable.
Good lord it was awful.
I think the little china girl is about the only thing that I didn't hate.
Awful casting, awful acting, awful effects, awful plot, ... just awful.
Seriously, it was just awful.
Oh thank god - I read the beginning of this thread and it was all - "Oh this was good!" and "Finally, something I can take my 122 year old mother to" and "The three women were fantastic" of course I'm paraphrasing but.... WTF? PR shills? DL'ers with excruciatingly bad taste? The mentally and cinematically challenged?
Anyway, this movie was just about unwatchable. Leonard Pinth Garnell bad.
I watched it the other night on cable. Evanora did not have silver slippers on at any point.
Everyone involved should be embarrassed.
I can't believe this movie did as well financially as it did. It's almost depressing.