Originally Posted By kennect finally saw it. thought it wasn't too bad. in fact I sorta enjoyed it but not destined to be a classic by any means. why Disney tackled such to begin with is beyond me. wicked has a firm hold on the potential oz prequels already.
Originally Posted By HRM I saw it on the BIG SCREEN, but not 3D; didn't really care for it, but all my family like it alot. Maybe it was all the hype. Wonder how the DVD will do; I usually like the behind the scenes stuff.
Originally Posted By mawnck For me the 3D was just another disconnected element in the hot mess. "We now pause the movie for 20 seconds to throw a 3D effect in your face. BLAP!"
Originally Posted By kennect Oh I love gimmicks and expected such. I also love Sam Raimi's style. I remember him well from the ole good days like the original Evil Dead. More recently Send me to Hell(I think was the title). Certain parts did sort of remind of watching a glorified episode of Once Upon a Time. I did think they did a pretty good job of tying into certain elements of the MGM film.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: They sure did. This was a marvelous movie and I just love conjuring it up inside our crystal ball all the time.
Originally Posted By xrayvision >>Wonder how the DVD will do; I usually like the behind the scenes stuff.<< I have the DVD with digital copy. While there's no behind the scenes feature (other than bloopers), there is a cool mini-documentary about Walt's interest in the OZ books and his desire to make a live-action OZ musical and an OZ attraction within Disneyland's Storybook Canal boats ride.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Watched the film the other day. Looks great. Loved the China Girl. And the opening credits were very inventive. Storywise it was okay kind of boring at times. Franco was decent. Weiss did the best out of the three witches. And Kunis wasn't very good. Overall I'd give it a B.
Originally Posted By HRM I agree with your assessment; although I'd give it a C because I think it depended too much on the look of the film, too much special effects - not enuf story.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Saw it for the first time tonight on PPV cable. Viewed it, loved it, will purchase the DVD. In fact except for Lincoln, I thought it was without a doubt the best film I've seen in the past year. I saw Monsters U and enjoyed it, but thought "Oz, the Great and Powerful" was superior to it in just about every way. I'm starting to think there is an anti-Disney bias held by many critics. I wish I hadn't listened to them and would have seen the film while it was in the theaters. I'm almost thinking of seeing "Lone Ranger" to see if that film is also better than the reviews indicate.
Originally Posted By xrayvision RoadTrip, I too enjoyed seeing OZ in theaters and thus purchased the DVD. When you get the DVD, you'll probably like the bonus mini-docu about Walt's fascination for the OZ book series and Walt's desires for his studio to bring OZ to the big screen and to Disneyland.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>I'm almost thinking of seeing "Lone Ranger" to see if that film is also better than the reviews indicate.<< Trippy .. and this goes for everyone else too - Why depend on critics to judge whether you'll see it or not? Critics can eat dust. I don't let them determine what I see. And with that - I was surprised at how much fun and how well made the Lone Ranger was. That was one I'd see again in theaters, and without doubt - a Bluray purchase in to add to my collection. Oz on the other hand? Egads!! I really wanted to love it. I had such high hopes .. but Raimi's handling of the witches, and the plot overall .. really let me down. It was flatter than a pancake. I thought the way things were set up at the beginning of the film. And James Franco's effort ... I give kudos to. So ... no great '39 MGM follow up for me ... But Lone Ranger did not disappoint me at all.
Originally Posted By TheRedhead "I'm starting to think there is an anti-Disney bias held by many critics." I think that's silly. My family is far from anti-Disney (I'll show you my credit card statements). My kids hated it. My wife hated it. And I thought it was the worst thing Disney's put out in years. No offense.
Originally Posted By leemac <<And I thought it was the worst thing Disney's put out in years.>> There's a point - I suspect I'd agree. I found John Carter to be interminably dull but I appreciated the visual look. I found little to like in Oz - pretty awful in all respects.
Originally Posted By leemac <<But Lone Ranger did not disappoint me at all. >> It isn't even going to reach the $100m club in the US. It was down in 11th already on Friday. Ranger suffered from two aspects - appalling reviews and audience apathy towards the concept. There obviously wasn't enough interest from audiences when offered with other choices. I do read reviews (typically just Variety, THR and NY Times) and use them to inform my judgement. I'm sure a lot of others do the same.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I think that's silly. My family is far from anti-Disney (I'll show you my credit card statements). My kids hated it. My wife hated it. And I thought it was the worst thing Disney's put out in years.<< Exactly. All these "those Snobby Snoberton critics don't know anything!" comments are ignoring the mass of comments from average movie goers who didn't like Oz. Why is it so hard for someone to admit they liked a movie that wasn't very good? Why must they insist that since they liked it, it's actually a masterpiece and everyone who feels differently just doesn't know what they're talking about. If you enjoyed Oz, good on you, buy the blu-ray, rewatch it, and be happy. Nothing wrong with that. But you're enjoying a movie that just isn't very good. Nothing wrong with that, either, so why try and convince everyone else that they don't know what they're talking about?
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Why is it so hard for someone to admit they liked a movie that wasn't very good? Why must they insist that since they liked it, it's actually a masterpiece and everyone who feels differently just doesn't know what they're talking about.<< Thank you. You said it WAY nicer than I was going to.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Every single one of us have 'guilty pleasures,' especially when it comes to movies and television shows. Sometimes, trash is tasty. There are films I'm not proud of admitting I like, and nobody else is any different. I completely agree with ecdc's statement. Quit blaming the critics if you happen to enjoy a film they overwhelmingly hated.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros Just out of curiosity, have any of the tentpole films since Iger took a strong interest in the studio actually spawned a franchise? It seems like there have been relatively few sequels made, and those that were made are based on films from before 2005, and most of these sequels themselves were released before 2009. The only two exceptions to this rule are Cars (released May 2006, too early for Iger's involvement) and the first Narnia film (released in December 2005, also too early) Here's a list of the remaining theatrical sequels, all of which were based on pre-Iger films: POTC 2, 3, & 4 The Santa Clause 3 National Treasure: Book of Secrets High School Musical 3 (based on the Disney Channel franchise, which started before Iger could be involved) Toy Story 3 Cars 2 Monsters University The Avengers series was in production before Disney got involved, but they managed to get their share of the profits. Similarly, the new Star Wars movies will be based on a franchise that was long established before Disney took over It just kind of makes you think...
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "Why is it so hard for someone to admit they liked a movie that wasn't very good?" << Why is it so hard for some to admit that whether or not a movie is "good" is largely subjective? -Jeff
