"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
Surprise! "Oz" blows, James Franco miscast
|by Anonymous||reply 86||06/03/2013|
Ugh, another failed Oz try. You can't duplicate the magic.
|by Anonymous||reply 1||03/06/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 2||03/06/2013|
Too bad. Some of the commercials look pretty good, particularly the black and white parts.
|by Anonymous||reply 3||03/06/2013|
As of now, most of the reviews (2/3) are favorable. And almost everybody wants to see it, in any case.
|by Anonymous||reply 4||03/06/2013|
It's a shame RDJ had to drop out. Franco aside, the cast is amazing.
|by Anonymous||reply 5||03/06/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 6||03/06/2013|
What's amazing about the cast? Zach Braff?
|by Anonymous||reply 7||03/06/2013|
Michelle Williams and Rachel Weisz!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 8||03/06/2013|
Zach Braff? Holy shit....my expectations have now dipped quite a bit!
|by Anonymous||reply 9||03/06/2013|
[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.
|by Anonymous||reply 10||03/06/2013|
Zach Braff's character is CGI.
|by Anonymous||reply 11||03/06/2013|
63% by all critics, no matter who they are. Any asshole can put up a film blog. 29% by top critics.
|by Anonymous||reply 12||03/06/2013|
Depp and Robert Downey Jr. turned down the role before it was offered to Franco, R10.
|by Anonymous||reply 13||03/06/2013|
[quote]And almost everybody wants to see it,
|by Anonymous||reply 14||03/06/2013|
I hate James Franco with the intensity of 1,000 suns; however, I'm interested in the Rachel Weisz / Mila Kunis subplot.
|by Anonymous||reply 15||03/06/2013|
I dislike Franco but the movie seems like it could be interesting.
|by Anonymous||reply 16||03/06/2013|
[quote]Zach Braff's character is CGI.
Well that explains Broken Hearts Club.
|by Anonymous||reply 17||03/06/2013|
Cost $325 million to make (including marketing).
|by Anonymous||reply 18||03/06/2013|
It was a stupid idea for them to try to make a spin off of a classic. It will be a flop for sure.
|by Anonymous||reply 19||03/06/2013|
I really like Michelle Williams
|by Anonymous||reply 20||03/06/2013|
Why is the monkey dressed like a porter? That's kind of racist.
|by Anonymous||reply 21||03/06/2013|
The original Wizard Of Oz was a flop when released
|by Anonymous||reply 22||03/06/2013|
He ruins another incredible production and once again, his extremely talented co-stars have to save the day.
|by Anonymous||reply 23||03/06/2013|
I'm going to see it opening weekend. I'm looking forward to it. I'm a "friend of Dorothy."
|by Anonymous||reply 24||03/06/2013|
[quote]Why is the monkey dressed like a porter? That's kind of racist.
You're kind of an idiot.
|by Anonymous||reply 25||03/06/2013|
Tracking says an $80 million opening weekend.
|by Anonymous||reply 26||03/06/2013|
[quote]Tracking says an $80 million opening weekend.
It hasn't even yet opened.
|by Anonymous||reply 27||03/06/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 28||03/06/2013|
I am curious about this one. It really looks great visually.
|by Anonymous||reply 29||03/06/2013|
"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.
|by Anonymous||reply 30||03/06/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 31||03/06/2013|
[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.
|by Anonymous||reply 32||03/06/2013|
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!!!
|by Anonymous||reply 33||03/06/2013|
Calling "Wizard of Oz" a poorly made film on DL constitutes homophobic trolling. F&F please.
|by Anonymous||reply 34||03/06/2013|
But it is, Blanche. It is a a poorly made film!
|by Anonymous||reply 35||03/06/2013|
And Mariah has a cool new song at the end credits. Almost Ho-o-ome!
|by Anonymous||reply 36||03/06/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 37||03/07/2013|
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%
|by Anonymous||reply 38||03/08/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 39||03/08/2013|
They are already planning a sequel.
|by Anonymous||reply 40||03/08/2013|
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).
|by Anonymous||reply 41||03/08/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 42||03/08/2013|
Just bought my tickets!
|by Anonymous||reply 43||03/08/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 44||03/08/2013|
Jason Momoa would have made a good Oz.
|by Anonymous||reply 45||03/08/2013|
The movie is a big hit. Franco is now a A list Superstar!!
|by Anonymous||reply 46||03/08/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 47||03/08/2013|
R47, um, this movie is gonna be a huge hit.
|by Anonymous||reply 48||03/08/2013|
um r48 not for Jimmy and box office doesn't matter. It is the statues that count.
|by Anonymous||reply 49||03/08/2013|
Surprise? No surprise. Not at all.
|by Anonymous||reply 50||03/08/2013|
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???
|by Anonymous||reply 51||03/08/2013|
If they ever turn Wicked into a movie it better be the book version and not that stupid musical.
|by Anonymous||reply 52||03/08/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 53||03/08/2013|
[quote] As with Tim Burton's dreadful Alice in Wonderland, the visual effects are the star.
Fuck off r53
|by Anonymous||reply 54||03/08/2013|
The book version of Wicked would make a great movie. Much better than what they've made with Franco.
|by Anonymous||reply 55||03/08/2013|
Rooney Mara as Elphaba.
|by Anonymous||reply 56||03/08/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 57||03/08/2013|
Wendy Williams should have played Theodora, can you imagine her boobs green?
|by Anonymous||reply 58||03/08/2013|
I'm seeing it this weekend, Candy Crowley should have played Glinda.
|by Anonymous||reply 59||03/08/2013|
It doesn't have any real competition so it will open good but watch it drop like stone.
|by Anonymous||reply 60||03/08/2013|
Speaking of Raimi blockbusters, WEHT Toby Maguire?
|by Anonymous||reply 61||03/08/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 62||03/08/2013|
And yet it will gross over a billion dollars.
|by Anonymous||reply 63||03/09/2013|
[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'.
|by Anonymous||reply 64||03/09/2013|
They need to make the actual OZ books like the LOTR trilogy. Enough with these crappy original screenplays. The books are incredible!
|by Anonymous||reply 65||03/09/2013|
[quote]I am curious about this one. It really looks great visually.
That's the worst part!
|by Anonymous||reply 66||03/09/2013|
Mila is a horrible actress.
|by Anonymous||reply 67||03/09/2013|
[quote]Mila is a horrible actress.
I agree. Why does Hollywood keep trying to make her "happen"?
|by Anonymous||reply 68||03/09/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 69||03/09/2013|
Michelle Williams looked stunning! It's a shame her role was so underwritten.
|by Anonymous||reply 70||03/09/2013|
[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.
|by Anonymous||reply 71||03/09/2013|
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!
|by Anonymous||reply 72||03/09/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 73||03/09/2013|
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.
|by Anonymous||reply 74||03/09/2013|
All of the bad Franco reviews compiled in one place.
|by Anonymous||reply 75||03/09/2013|
Poor Franco, it must hurt him to see Robert Downey Jr. walking away the only one getting raves for this movie.
|by Anonymous||reply 76||03/09/2013|
It has made almost $205 million already.
|by Anonymous||reply 77||04/06/2013|
Based on its big budget and ad blitz but definitely not like a Depp vehicle.
|by Anonymous||reply 78||04/06/2013|
actually, Box office is $421,041,000.
I saw it & I loved it
|by Anonymous||reply 79||04/06/2013|
As of April 7,
Worldwide: t $454,067,000 t
Production Budget: $215 million
|by Anonymous||reply 80||04/07/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 81||04/07/2013|
The movie is a hit because of the Oz association. The kids seeing this don't care about Franco.
|by Anonymous||reply 82||04/07/2013|
perhaps r82. But a hit is a hit for Franco.
|by Anonymous||reply 83||04/14/2013|
|by Anonymous||reply 84||06/03/2013|
Me next, James!
|by Anonymous||reply 85||06/03/2013|
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."
|by Anonymous||reply 86||06/03/2013|