Originally Posted By RoadTrip My wife and grand-daughters really enjoyed it. In fact my wife wants to see it again when I am with her. That doesn't happen very often. She must really like it!
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance I went last night with my daughter and husband. My five year old son didn't want to go cause the trailer scared him. It was better than I was expecting. Really ended up liking the monkey and china doll characters when I thought I'd hate both of them. Actually made me laugh at a few points. My husband and daughter both liked it a lot. The audience (which was full) seemed to love it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I went in skeptical. But the movie won me over pretty quickly as the opening credits were quite clever. I thought James Franco did a really good job as Oz and there were some fun Sam Raimi signature camera moves as well. I thought Alice in Wonderland was terrible and even though Oz the Great and Powerful has a similar CGI world look (it's always late afternoon with too many lens flares) it was a far better movie IMO. And happily there were no modern day lines of dialogue (or not that stood out to me anyway.) A very pleasant surprise.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>My five year old son didn't want to go cause the trailer scared him.<< I've noticed that a lot of the promos (or maybe I just watch too much Disney Channel) make sure to point out that it "has scenes that may be intense for young children". Is it actually that 'intense' or did they just feel obligated to point it out because of its rating (but it's only PG, so I have no idea)
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I didn't find it scary but we didn't see it in 3D. I think the flying baboons would have been a lot more in your face in a 3D showing and could be scary for little ones.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA David Edelstein (CBS Sunday Morning) called it 'hokey and joyless'
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Off to a good start 80 million US, 69 foreign. <a href="http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=oz.htm" target="_blank">http://boxofficemojo.com/movie...d=oz.htm</a> That opening likely means 200 million for its domestic run and another 300-400 from foreign
Originally Posted By LindsayC >"Besides the critics?" I wouldn’t say hate it, but I’ve rarely looked at my watch during a film as much as this one wondering if there was much more of it to go. I’m no critic - but if a film is supposed to have some element of the magical about it I would like a least a sense of wonder - or even basic charm for that matter. I found three things I enjoyed - the title sequence, the china girl (who was remarkable) and the (without spoilers) sequence of the Wizard’s plan being realized. Pacing is obviously not a concept that some directors understand - and dialogue not something screen writers understand either.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <When it comes to Avatar, I have to agree, one of the most disappointing movies. I'm one of the few who didn't like it at all.> Count me in that group. The eye candy was terrific, but when is Cameron going to realize that as a writer, he's a fine action director? I could barely get through the first part of Titanic, the writing was so bad. It got a lot better once the boat starting sinking, but hell - the movie up to that point lasted almost as long as some entire movies. Avatar's writing was probably even worse. Both movies had phenomenal visuals, but could have been so much better if Cameron had swallowed a little ego and hired a proper screenwriter. As for Oz, I'm on the fence. It's probably going to come down to "what else is happening next Friday?"
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Avatar's writing was probably even worse.<< No probably about it. Just a very poor excuse for a screenplay. "It's the future but we're still talking like working-class stiffs!" How novel....
Originally Posted By phantommanoraddict Yes, the opening credits were quite clever. It had a nice vintage feel while drawing you into the credits. Made me actually read the opening which was very entertaining. I thought James Franco did a really good job as Oz and his plan of attack was very ingenious. I can see why the trailers are now showing alot more scare tactics ... That means they really understand that some kids may be frightened by it. Imagine that ... a Disney film immersing you so much into the story that the little kiddies are "into it". Very nice job. There must be alot of unartistic critics out there, however. Give the movie some breathing room. It is a nice ride.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Cameron also has a problem with one-dimensional villains. It's too bad Billy Zane didn't have a mustache in Titanic, because he could've twirled it. And the head military guy in avatar barely had even one dimension.
Originally Posted By CuriousConstance "I've noticed that a lot of the promos (or maybe I just watch too much Disney Channel) make sure to point out that it "has scenes that may be intense for young children". Is it actually that 'intense' or did they just feel obligated to point it out because of its rating (but it's only PG, so I have no idea)" It wasn't that bad. A few of the scenes could be scary for little kids, my son is particularly sensitive when it comes to scary things, and he was actually the one who made the decision not to go because of something he saw in the trailer. He tends to make things scarier than they really are by convincing himself he'll be scared before he even knows for sure.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Off to a good start 80 million US, 69 foreign>> It went day and date in just about every major market except for France. The international box office was a little tepid considering you'd usually expect at least 60% to be international in this scenario. <<That opening likely means 200 million for its domestic run and another 300-400 from foreign>> It will need to have long legs to get to those numbers - particularly internationally where it has already opened almost everywhere. I think it will do more than Tron:Legacy ($400m total) but think it will struggle to reach $500m. Breakeven is over $600m. It may be able to continue to grab grosses through to Easter if it has strong enough word of mouth but it will be up against The Croods (although early reviews say this is another poor DWA film) and The Host shortly.
Originally Posted By leemac <<Is it worth to watch the movie in 3D?>> If you can get to an IMAX screen then I'd recommend it - IMAX is just perfect for these type of features. I saw the final film again on Saturday in IMAX. Finley makes a huge difference but the whole thing still left me flat - and frankly bored for much of it. There are some really nice elements like China Girl and I did feel the end sequence played out much better than when I saw an earlier draft. Franco isn't as bad as people made out. He definitely isn't leading man material but he does the best he can with the script he has. It still amazes me that you can have a Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright on staff and still can't write a compelling script or dialog. Mila Kunis can't act at all - she seems to think that anger and drama can only be generated by facial ticks. Thankfully Rachel Weisz and Michelle Williams were far better (and the latter had the hardest character to portray of the three as she was so two dimensional).
