Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Surprise! "Oz" blows, James Franco miscast

"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

by Anonymousreply 8606/03/2013

Ugh, another failed Oz try. You can't duplicate the magic.

by Anonymousreply 103/06/2013

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 Anonymousreply 203/06/2013

Too bad. Some of the commercials look pretty good, particularly the black and white parts.

by Anonymousreply 303/06/2013

As of now, most of the reviews (2/3) are favorable. And almost everybody wants to see it, in any case.

by Anonymousreply 403/06/2013

It's a shame RDJ had to drop out. Franco aside, the cast is amazing.

by Anonymousreply 503/06/2013

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 Anonymousreply 603/06/2013

What's amazing about the cast? Zach Braff?

by Anonymousreply 703/06/2013

Michelle Williams and Rachel Weisz!!!

by Anonymousreply 803/06/2013

Zach Braff? Holy expectations have now dipped quite a bit!

by Anonymousreply 903/06/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 1003/06/2013

Zach Braff's character is CGI.

by Anonymousreply 1103/06/2013

63% by all critics, no matter who they are. Any asshole can put up a film blog. 29% by top critics.

by Anonymousreply 1203/06/2013

Depp and Robert Downey Jr. turned down the role before it was offered to Franco, R10.

by Anonymousreply 1303/06/2013

[quote]And almost everybody wants to see it,

Oh, honey.

by Anonymousreply 1403/06/2013

I hate James Franco with the intensity of 1,000 suns; however, I'm interested in the Rachel Weisz / Mila Kunis subplot.

by Anonymousreply 1503/06/2013

I dislike Franco but the movie seems like it could be interesting.

by Anonymousreply 1603/06/2013

[quote]Zach Braff's character is CGI.

Well that explains Broken Hearts Club.

by Anonymousreply 1703/06/2013

Cost $325 million to make (including marketing).

by Anonymousreply 1803/06/2013

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 Anonymousreply 1903/06/2013

I really like Michelle Williams

by Anonymousreply 2003/06/2013

Why is the monkey dressed like a porter? That's kind of racist.

by Anonymousreply 2103/06/2013

The original Wizard Of Oz was a flop when released

by Anonymousreply 2203/06/2013

He ruins another incredible production and once again, his extremely talented co-stars have to save the day.

by Anonymousreply 2303/06/2013

I'm going to see it opening weekend. I'm looking forward to it. I'm a "friend of Dorothy."

by Anonymousreply 2403/06/2013

[quote]Why is the monkey dressed like a porter? That's kind of racist.

You're kind of an idiot.

by Anonymousreply 2503/06/2013

Tracking says an $80 million opening weekend.

by Anonymousreply 2603/06/2013

[quote]Tracking says an $80 million opening weekend.

It hasn't even yet opened.

by Anonymousreply 2703/06/2013

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 Anonymousreply 2803/06/2013

I am curious about this one. It really looks great visually.

by Anonymousreply 2903/06/2013

"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 Anonymousreply 3003/06/2013

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 Anonymousreply 3103/06/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 3203/06/2013

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!


by Anonymousreply 3303/06/2013

Calling "Wizard of Oz" a poorly made film on DL constitutes homophobic trolling. F&F please.

by Anonymousreply 3403/06/2013

But it is, Blanche. It is a a poorly made film!

by Anonymousreply 3503/06/2013

And Mariah has a cool new song at the end credits. Almost Ho-o-ome!

by Anonymousreply 3603/06/2013

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 Anonymousreply 3703/07/2013

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 Anonymousreply 3803/08/2013

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 Anonymousreply 3903/08/2013

They are already planning a sequel.

by Anonymousreply 4003/08/2013

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 Anonymousreply 4103/08/2013

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 Anonymousreply 4203/08/2013

Just bought my tickets!

by Anonymousreply 4303/08/2013

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 Anonymousreply 4403/08/2013

Jason Momoa would have made a good Oz.

by Anonymousreply 4503/08/2013

The movie is a big hit. Franco is now a A list Superstar!!

by Anonymousreply 4603/08/2013

Call my Jimmy....all is 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 Anonymousreply 4703/08/2013

R47, um, this movie is gonna be a huge hit.

by Anonymousreply 4803/08/2013

um r48 not for Jimmy and box office doesn't matter. It is the statues that count.

by Anonymousreply 4903/08/2013

Surprise? No surprise. Not at all.

by Anonymousreply 5003/08/2013

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 Anonymousreply 5103/08/2013

If they ever turn Wicked into a movie it better be the book version and not that stupid musical.

by Anonymousreply 5203/08/2013

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 Anonymousreply 5303/08/2013

[quote] As with Tim Burton's dreadful Alice in Wonderland, the visual effects are the star.

Fuck off r53

by Anonymousreply 5403/08/2013

The book version of Wicked would make a great movie. Much better than what they've made with Franco.

by Anonymousreply 5503/08/2013

Rooney Mara as Elphaba.

by Anonymousreply 5603/08/2013

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 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 Anonymousreply 5703/08/2013

Wendy Williams should have played Theodora, can you imagine her boobs green?

by Anonymousreply 5803/08/2013

I'm seeing it this weekend, Candy Crowley should have played Glinda.

by Anonymousreply 5903/08/2013

It doesn't have any real competition so it will open good but watch it drop like stone.

by Anonymousreply 6003/08/2013

Speaking of Raimi blockbusters, WEHT Toby Maguire?

by Anonymousreply 6103/08/2013

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 Anonymousreply 6203/08/2013

And yet it will gross over a billion dollars.

by Anonymousreply 6303/09/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 6403/09/2013

They need to make the actual OZ books like the LOTR trilogy. Enough with these crappy original screenplays. The books are incredible!

by Anonymousreply 6503/09/2013

[quote]I am curious about this one. It really looks great visually.

That's the worst part!

by Anonymousreply 6603/09/2013

Mila is a horrible actress.

by Anonymousreply 6703/09/2013

[quote]Mila is a horrible actress.

I agree. Why does Hollywood keep trying to make her "happen"?

by Anonymousreply 6803/09/2013

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 Anonymousreply 6903/09/2013

Michelle Williams looked stunning! It's a shame her role was so underwritten.

by Anonymousreply 7003/09/2013

[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 Anonymousreply 7103/09/2013

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 Anonymousreply 7203/09/2013

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 Anonymousreply 7303/09/2013

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 Anonymousreply 7403/09/2013

All of the bad Franco reviews compiled in one place.

by Anonymousreply 7503/09/2013

Poor Franco, it must hurt him to see Robert Downey Jr. walking away the only one getting raves for this movie.

by Anonymousreply 7603/09/2013

It has made almost $205 million already.

by Anonymousreply 7704/06/2013

Based on its big budget and ad blitz but definitely not like a Depp vehicle.

by Anonymousreply 7804/06/2013

actually, Box office is $421,041,000.

I saw it & I loved it

by Anonymousreply 7904/06/2013

As of April 7,

Worldwide: t $454,067,000 t

Production Budget: $215 million

by Anonymousreply 8004/07/2013

huge hit

by Anonymousreply 8104/07/2013

The movie is a hit because of the Oz association. The kids seeing this don't care about Franco.

by Anonymousreply 8204/07/2013

perhaps r82. But a hit is a hit for Franco.

by Anonymousreply 8304/14/2013

$233,007,000 t

by Anonymousreply 8406/03/2013

[quote]"Oz" blows

Me next, James!

by Anonymousreply 8506/03/2013

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 Anonymousreply 8606/03/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!