Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Well Buena Viista has released Lincoln and The Help and those weren't positioned as mega tent poles.
Originally Posted By FerretAfros They were just the distributor for those films. I believe both were produced by Dreamworks
Originally Posted By phantommanoraddict The ones that diss the movie are incorrigible. It is a friggin' movie to entertain the masses, for god's sake! Those that have imagination and compassion will embrace it and see the artistic nature unfolding. Those that pan it, not only have their right to an opinion but what is the REAL reason why don't they like this movie? Could they have done better as a "wicked witch" if THEY were in the movie and a REAL actor? Do they even have an acting job/experience? Have we seen these naysayers onscreen? Come on, people, this is a movie, a prequel, a retelling of BEFORE the 1939 classic. "Wicked", the play, was a good, nice concept. "The Wiz" (play version) was innovative for its time. "The Wiz" as a movie, in my opinion, was just OK. How many prequels to the original "Wizard of Oz" is there really a comparison to? Granted, I thought Eddie Murphy's interpretation of the "Haunted Mansion" was deplorable. So will Del Toro come up with a fantastical reimagined "Haunted Mansion" ala "Pan's Labyrinth" (which was pretty awesome, BTW). Come on ... this is good stuff. No need to compare 1939 Technicolor Hollywood to 2013 CGI storytelling. It is a nice visual to what should be a nice interpretation to Braum's book. Franco did a good job as title character. The three witches did their part. It is a good interpretation.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>It is a friggin' movie<< <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irony" target="_blank">http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Irony</a>
Originally Posted By leemac <<I don't understand this. Only 10 movies last year did over $600WW. Only 13 did over $500WW>> Welcome to Iger's vision for the Studios. He thinks Disney should dominate the $1bn club hence why he is happy to throw any $200m+ on every single feature. It looks like Oz was $275m before marketing and distribution which will have added c.$125m. Based on the usual box office split the film will need to make over $800m at the box office to break even. I guess Maleficent will have a similar budget - with a first time director too. Gulp.
Originally Posted By oc_dean >>Those that have imagination and compassion will embrace it and see the artistic nature unfolding.<< I have imagination .. I have compassion! (I liked "Hello Down There" with Tony Randall for christ sake!) With that said - Michelle, Rachel, and Mila sucked. (Mila particularly before her transformation, and Michelle all the way. Just made me cringe. I'm not a "tough film critic" ... But if someone's performance sucks ... I'm going to feel that it simply sucks. Not "trying to be", or force anything. Raimi could have done better!
Originally Posted By leemac <<Its opening was slightly below 80 at 79. Only Wolverine opened 85 and finished below 200.>> Even though Wolverine was universally panned by both critics and audiences it was a summer release and therefore easier to maintain momentum. Q1 this year has been pretty woeful from a box office perspective so it needs to keep momentum up. The 3D mix was very good (over 50%) so that is one bright spot and IMAX was another strong performer (although there has been no product for those screens).
Originally Posted By leemac <<Michelle all the way>> She was given absolutely nothing to work with IMHO. Her character was banal. She deserved a whole lot better.
Originally Posted By Yookeroo "The ones that diss the movie are incorrigible." Or have different tastes than you.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>The ones that diss the movie are incorrigible.<< And obsequious, purple and clairvoyant. Dang, now I REALLY want to see it. Wouldn't be able to hear the dialog over my coughing though.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <"The Wiz" as a movie, in my opinion, was just OK.> What's the REAL reason you don't like that movie?? I haven't seen the new Oz yet, but why couldn't people who have feel the same way about it as you do about The Wiz?
Originally Posted By leemac ^^ Don't feed the troll. It seems Sam Raimi has time to trawl message boards now.
Originally Posted By Witches of Morva ORWEN: Sam Raimi is actually a good director who knew just what he was doing when he directed this movie. I wish he would direct the second movie, too, but he has his reasons for not wanting to do that and I respect him. As for Michelle Williams, I have always liked her a lot and her interpretation of Glinda was just right--properly reserved and noble. For her to have been any different wouldn't have worked for the story. Everybody was very good with their parts and I'm glad the movie is making so much money.
Originally Posted By phantommanoraddict <"The Wiz" as a movie, in my opinion, was just OK.> <What's the REAL reason you don't like that movie??> What I didn't mention clearly when I said this was that I saw the play "The Wiz" first well before "The Wiz" the movie came out and was totally blown away by the actress (Stephanie Mills), who I thought was cast perrfectly for the part. Diana Ross as a young Dorothy just didn't cut it for me just as Eddie Murphy was cast in "The Haunted Mansion" movie. I thought the script for "The Haunted Mansion" was a perfectly told story, just that Eddie Murphy was totally miscast. As for this new version of "OZ", I think each of the actors contributed their respective parts to make a very believable story unfold. The main goal was to explain how the Wizard got that way and all the other actors were supporting characters. Mila's cackle and wicked performance was a pleasant surprise, especially since her character came across as being possibly Glinda when we first meet her. Then when we meet her sister, it alludes to the possibility that her sister is the Wicked Witch but eventually ends up being Mila's character. To me, that was a brilliant way to develop each character's persona. I still think the movie was very well done.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Okay, fine. But it's perfectly legitimate for someone to think the current Oz doesn't work because Franco doesn't work, just as you thought The Wiz didn't work because Ross didn't work. I agree with that, by the way (among other reasons - I love Sidney Lumet, but what a strange choice to direct a musical). And I haven't seen the new Oz yet, so I don't really have a dog in this fight; I'm just saying that someone reacting to it the way you reacted to The Wiz is perfectly legit; they're not a "bad viewer," nor do they have to have some ulterior motive (aka "REAL reason") - they just may have reacted that way.
Originally Posted By basil fan Excuse me for commenting on such old posts, but I didn't read this topic until after seeing the movie. >> I really don't get this ... Why WOULDN'T you want someone who sees 150 movies a year tell you where a particular one fits on the quality scale? Why WOULDN'T you want the plane to be flown by a pilot, the heart surgery to be done by a heart surgeon, or the climate change conclusions to be drawn by climatologists? Seeing heart surgery compared to film-viewing really gave me a chuckle. There is no element of personal taste in surgery, of enjoyment based on opinion. It's like the customers who ask me how a certain dish we sell is--I want to laugh in their faces. As if I could tell them what they'll like. Nor do I dress according to the fashionistas. Nor do I listen to the top recording artists. Nor did I go out and get bangs because all the posters say it's the "in" cut. Some things are a matter of personal taste. The pilot can fly the plane; be my guest. But don't choose my vacation destination for me, thank you very much. Guilty! The Disney Villains <a href="http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/disney/villain.html" target="_blank">http://www.whatsitsgalore.com/...ain.html</a>
Originally Posted By dagobert I have just seen Oz. I really don't get why it got so many good reviews over here. It was so boring. It will definitely fail over here. And the 3d was terrible.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost >>>Why WOULDN'T you want the plane to be flown by a pilot, the heart surgery to be done by a heart surgeon, or the climate change conclusions to be drawn by climatologists?<<< I would want them to be experts in their field, but these people are experts in watching movies and they only have their individual taste to fall back on. Couple that with the desire to please their audience and you have the makings for less then accurate determinations. A pilot wouldn't do loops to show you how skilled they were. A heart surgeon wouldn't leave in the middle for a bucket of popcorn and a climatologist, would rely on science to determine weather formations. Movie reviewers are much more inclined to be on someones payroll or have biased opinions not necessarily based on fact.
