Please log in to participate in this forum.
Why so much shit coming out of Tinsel Town.............
Is it the studios or the directors who most I have never heard of. Bunch of film school rejects.
Jun 21 - 12:25 PM
Expected an 80%, but didn't like it. Too childish, and a SONG?! I agree with the critics.
Jun 15 - 02:46 PM
Bad effort all around on this one...I always feel if i'm asking why did it get made?, after seeing it, the film is in a very bad place, and this one is in a real bad place, I can think of only the re-make of "Arthur" as anything nearly as bad and that's a drop in the bucket of bad compared to this loser. At-least "Arthur" had what's his name giving it a game try...39%...and dropping...
Mar 15 - 10:38 PM
Mar 10 - 06:57 AM
Alan H Wickman
This movie has 3 hurdles to overcome. The first is comparing it to the original "Wizard of OZ" which is one of the best movies made. The second is it has a contemporary competition with Wicked which was a great Play on on development of a twist on character perspective. The third is the absolutely poor casting and acting by Franco. If someone else would have played this role and done it well this would have been a much better film.
Mar 9 - 07:12 PM
Franco's acting was amazing.
Mar 10 - 10:59 AM
Interesting to note the GAP between the so called "professional critics" and the "critics"...Then an EVEN LARGER gap between the "professional critics" and THE AUDIENCE.
So with this much of a GAP, the only thing you can conclude is that the "professional critics" that get paid for their opinion really have their heads up their asses and are in their little world and have accually have conned their publications into actually paying them a salary. What's that say for the tabloids................
Mar 8 - 08:02 AM
I love how the audience totally disagrees with the arrogant know-it-all critics. It's the audience that truly counts.
Mar 8 - 08:01 AM
And that is why you should never go by 99% of the critics reviews. As you have pointed out Kathleen, These 'pro' critics are of a breed that spouts the diarrhea that dwells in their heads.
Like we give a damn what their opinions are!
Mar 8 - 08:11 AM
Jacklord Alan Keen
it's 56% not bad but the hell the witch looks less scary.....and i wanted her to be scary....i wonder if this movie would tell us the witch came to be...i hope...
Mar 7 - 11:53 PM
Trading Card Panda
In fact that witch in that picture looks like somebody they are trying to get me to want to bang...In a weird way, not something to leave me scared.
Mar 8 - 08:48 AM
56 %..I can't believe it..and I wanted to go see it
Mar 7 - 10:45 PM
forgive my ignorance but why are they rating it as "rotten" when it has 55% (ie: majority fresh reviews)?
Mar 7 - 05:44 PM
Hey, RJ. If I am not mistaken, in order to get a "fresh" rating, a movie must have a 60% or higher on the tomatometer.
Mar 7 - 06:42 PM
You are right dude
Mar 7 - 11:35 PM
Mar 7 - 01:37 PM
Mar 7 - 09:56 AM
I hope this film tanks. It looks like another special-effects spectacle show from Disney's live action film establishment. Why is a company that was once so gifted in animated movie-making so bad at live action? Lone Ranger looks like it's going to be crap, too. Disney soon needs to learn that spectacle and big names don't make a movie. I think if this is a box-office stinker, and if Lone Ranger underwhelms, then perhaps they'll put better people in place. And maybe that's just wishful thinking.
Mar 6 - 08:11 PM
Yeah, I think that's just wishful thinking at this point.
Mar 7 - 02:22 PM
Just because it had cool special effects doesn't mean it has nothing but that.
Mar 7 - 04:47 PM
Mar 6 - 07:50 PM
This is kind of weird. It's goes way up and then back down.
Mar 5 - 04:41 PM
77% and I'm guessing an $82 million opening weekend.
Mar 5 - 10:19 AM
The opening weekend will be pretty high. It's the second weekend thata counts. If it has a falloff of 50% by the second weekend, Disney's in trouble.
I'm wanting it to be a success financially, but artistically, it's a joy-ride film, not a story-telling film as was the Wizard of Oz. And it appears it's coming out tonight (Thursday) and I'm seriously thinking of driving the 5 minutes it takes to get to the theatre to see the 9 p.m. show.
Mar 7 - 04:17 PM
Mar 5 - 07:45 AM
Phillip Patricia Groom
56% The kids will eat it up.
Mar 5 - 12:14 AM
0%-100% hehe wanna bet I'm right
Mar 4 - 02:39 PM
I'm betting between 0 to -infinity or 101 to +infinity. You're on!
Mar 6 - 07:13 PM
70-80%. It's a fun and colorful movie. Nothing innovative like the "The Wizard of Oz", but it's a pretty good movie.
Mar 4 - 05:35 AM
Or: Sam Raimi's Oz had the potential to be much better considering the source material, excellent cast and crew. It will be entertaining, but only to the least demanding of viewers.
Mar 4 - 04:39 AM
Mar 7 - 04:18 PM
Consensus: Although expertly acted and cast, Sam Raimi's Oz is too shallow and colourful and ultimately, too thinly scripted, to be worthy of it's predecessors.
Mar 4 - 04:35 AM
How can a movie intended for kids be "too colorful"?
Who said it's for kids?!?! I'm 62!!!
Mar 7 - 04:20 PM
It's made for kids, and for people who want a taste of their childhood.
Mar 7 - 04:48 PM
Mar 3 - 04:27 PM
50%, considering the releases of other Joe Roth fantasy productions, "Alice in Wonderland" and "Snow White and the Huntsman".
Mar 3 - 04:12 PM
So far, it's at 70%, but I read the reviews by Urban Cinefile. I guess I don't understand how their review constitutes "fresh." They seemed pretty unimpressed.
Never mind. Only 1 "Top" reviewer has weighed in so far, and they gave it a rotten tomato. Lets wait until Friday, when the Top Reviews come out. I don't think Time, The New York Times and Ebert are going to be casting any love potions at the movie.
Mar 3 - 03:10 PM
Damn. Every time a positive review comes out, so does a thumbs down one. Down to 58 today.
Mar 7 - 04:21 PM
Mar 3 - 01:46 PM
60%. Just from the trailer I can already tell that I won't like how much green screen is used in the film. Also, does anyone not think that Mila Kunis is right for that part? These are just my thoughts on the trailer.
Mar 3 - 08:30 AM
I don't even know if James Franco is right for his part.
Mar 4 - 08:37 AM
Not the schmuck on Gypsy
Mar 9 - 06:46 AM
It looks terrible, so I'm not expecting much.
Mar 2 - 12:50 PM
It'd be great to see it end in the 70's or 80's. I have some hope for this one.
Mar 2 - 07:46 AM
Currently it is at 7.7/10 yet considered rotten, there are films in the 80% area that aren't at 7.7
Mar 1 - 04:21 PM
60% and up
Mar 1 - 04:13 PM
Mar 3 - 03:49 AM
Anywhere between 50-75.
Mar 1 - 02:17 PM
Mar 1 - 03:15 AM
Feb 28 - 11:12 PM
Feb 28 - 07:55 PM
I have no idea nor does it matter I've liked films with rotten rating's and hated films with fresh rating's. I hope that I like it & from the trailer's it hit my soft spot for these type of film's.
Feb 28 - 03:08 PM
Prob in the 51-57%. I could see it in the 6os but prob not.
Feb 28 - 02:37 PM
Anywhere from 30-80%. It could be great; it could be horrible.
I don't think the trailers are as bad as some people are saying they are.
Feb 28 - 01:27 PM
you're really going out on a limb there...
Mar 2 - 04:37 PM
The trailers aren't "bad"; they're entertaining enough. It's just that they're banal. They seem more like a spoof on "The Wizard of Oz" they way the "Scary Movie" franchise is a spoof on every bad horror movie. And I say that as someone who has gone on record as saying that my favorite movie of all time is the (original) Wizard of Oz. The trailers have too many "played-for-laughs" moments.
Mar 3 - 03:05 PM
That's the same way I felt about the Jack trailers. I got the impression I had already seen the best parts of the movie. But I'll probably still see it . . unless it comes in at less than 60%. In that case I'll wait for the DVD so the green screen effects won't be so irritating.
Mar 3 - 04:07 PM
So will I, Sara. There's nothing like still having a kid inside you when you're old. That's what makes life fun!
Mar 7 - 04:22 PM
Somewhere in the 50s, possible the 60s.
Feb 28 - 04:13 AM
I'm with Alex and Davida. 40-50. But only if the movie is better than the trailers, which lack the ability to put you under any kind of magic spell whatsoever.
Special effects don't ruin a move at all - Avatar, Lord of The Rings had plenty of special effects, but pulled you into a world where you could get lost in the movie. However, if they're just there for people to remark "cool" or "amazing," they kill the magic that Oz should create.
Feb 27 - 08:20 PM
From the trailers, and the heavy pre-hype, I'd say 40%. It has a phony, trying to hard, saccharine feel to it sadly. Of course I'm not a little kid either.
Feb 27 - 12:20 PM
Lord Diego John Tutweiller of Trolldonia
You make a good point. A lot of critics probably won't like it because it goes against the rustic charm of the original. Too much CGI and whatnot.
Feb 27 - 02:58 PM
Ehhh...DIsney's latest blockbuster March releases have been mediocre at best (Alice in Wonderland, John Carter, Race to Witch Mountain, Shaggy Dog, College Road Trip). I'm going 40%.
Feb 27 - 11:58 AM
John Carter was great.....
Feb 28 - 11:56 AM
I was totally shocked that I liked JC much better the second time around. And I really like Alice
Mar 3 - 04:09 PM
Feb 27 - 08:22 AM
Feb 27 - 01:02 AM
I think that some critics will be swept away by story, and others turned off by the special effects. My guess would be 70%
Feb 26 - 10:10 PM
I think people will be surprised. I'm will say 90%
Feb 26 - 07:40 PM
Feb 26 - 01:31 PM
Feb 26 - 10:37 AM
Feb 26 - 09:59 AM
I think the rating will be fresh. The tomato meter will be between 70-75%.
Feb 25 - 11:17 PM
yeah i'd go with this. somewhere around 70%. I think Sam Raimi will push it over being Mediocre.
Feb 26 - 07:58 AM
Big Fat Jewish Guy
High 50's to mid 60's. Looks mediocre at best. Of course, I'm no fan of the original.
Feb 25 - 08:04 PM
Sam Raimi is a very good director. I expect this to at least be fresh. I'll take a gamble and say 80%.
Feb 25 - 06:53 PM