James Franco Reviews ‘Man of Steel,’ Proceeds to Slam ‘Spider-Man’

James Franco Reviews 'Man of Steel,'

Actor claims Sony remade 'Spider-Man' franchise 'before the corpse was buried'

James Franco doesn’t have a lot of down time these days. From museum art installations to directing and starring in various Hollywood features, the 35 year-old actor remains one of the most vocal performers in show business, whether his publicist likes it or not.

Enter Tuesday’s “Man of Steel” review.

Having recently critiqued Baz Luhrmann’s “The Great Gatsby” for Vice magazine, Franco decided to weigh in on Warner Bros.’ $225 million blockbuster, which he actually liked.

“‘Man of Steel’ is great because it delivers everything it should,” he wrote after the film’s London premiere. “It made Superman cool again.”

SEE ALSO: James Franco Asks for $500,000 in Crowdfunding

But then he threw in a little bit of kryptonite.

In an effort to explain why Hollywood continues to make and remake these big-budget films, Franco wrote “The answer is, of course, money. We are in the film business, and the studios are owned by large corporations who want to make money.”

“When movies become so big that they can make $200 million in one weekend like ‘The Avengers’ did,” he continued,  “everyone from studios to filmmakers are going to want to get in on making comicbook movies.”

SEE ALSO: “Man of Steel” Soars to $129 Million Opening

Franco admitted he, too, got swept up in the comicbook biz, having starred in Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man” franchise in the early 2000s, but went on to question the financial motives of Sony and Columbia Pictures, who recently rebooted the popular franchise “before the corpse was buried.”

“I don’t really feel much distress over its being remade,” he said of the new Spider-Man films, “but what is interesting to me is that it has been remade so quickly — and the reasons why.”

Another interesting piece in the “Man of Steel” review (which isn’t so much a review as it is all things related to ‘Man of Steel’ for Franco) — the actor recalled his first encounter with “Man of Steel” star Henry Cavill, whom he met on the set of the 2005 film “Tristan and Isolde.”

“He wanted to be Superman more than anything in the world,” he said of the young Cavill.

Despite not entirely understanding “the cheesiness of the character’s suit and his douchey invincibility,” Franco said he couldn’t be happier for the British actor.

“The night of the premiere I saw Henry from afar on the red carpet and knew this was the moment his whole life had been building toward. His dream had come true.”

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 13

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Mohammad Farooq says:

    It’s the simplest of Superhero stories, with effective usage of flashbacks in between, explaining everything that could cross your mind, in just one Sci-fi’d adventure. Super-man origins or Man of Steel as it is called is Mesmerizing. A good start to a promising series.
    Superman isn’t some cult classic that is on display here, just a great start to a promising series. Special effects were mesmerizing and dialogues were not typical superhero-tailored. Calvin makes a Superman that realizes his potential and is faced with dilemmas, and is aptly portrayed by him.

    It’s good entertainment. Nothing really new here of course, but instills faith in the idea of Human spirit, and even an alien can vouch for it.
    My detailed review…

  2. Brad Whitney says:

    Amazing Spider-man was not great, but it was far superior to Spider-man 3!

  3. Dan Delago says:

    Funny how he forgets to mention his big-budget Disney film, ‘Oz the Great and Powerful.’ He reteams with Sam Raimi who directed the first three Spider-Man movies. There was no real reason to remake the classic ‘Wizard of Oz.’ It was purely done for money.

  4. +wz says:

    Sorry rOn, but he was correct in stating it made Superman cool “again.” Personal opinion as to whether Superman was ever cool to begin with, doesn’t count as a factual, especially when arguing against someone elses opinion. Reeves superman was an icon in the 80’s, people loved him. The comic book persona has had an on again off again love affair in American Pop Culture. He has been cool before, otherwise he never would have made it to this level of a remake.

  5. Henry Deas says:

    This showes the scope of James Franco…amazing

  6. rOn says:

    He’s actually wrong, it made Superman cool for the first time. Great movie. Btw his new movie This Is The End is insanely funny!

  7. gil says:

    Mr Franco is correct. Rather than let the option to the Spider Man franchise expire, Sony elected to produce a subpar movie,The Amazing Spiderman, which really in my opinion may have destroyed the franchise

  8. mremanne says:

    Why didn’t he rewiew his own new movie, “This Is The End”? I think we would of found that much more entertaining.

  9. Nathan Elder says:

    Does James Franco not understand that Spiderman was rebooted so quickly because if they didn’t, Sony would’ve lost their license to the franchise and Disney would be making Spiderman movies instead? For someone who’s in Hollywood, he sure doesn’t know much about how Hollywood works. He should read more Variety.

    • foljs says:

      “””Does James Franco not understand that Spiderman was rebooted so quickly because if they didn’t, Sony would’ve lost their license to the franchise and Disney would be making Spiderman movies instead?”””

      That’s a reason to make a Spiderman movie.

      Not a reason to reboot the series.

      They could have kept the license without a reboot — continuing the previous movies.

    • michael says:

      No, you’re both correct. They made the film to make money. Because if they didn’t make the film they would lose the franchise, ergo they would lose the opportunity to exploit the Spiderman franchise for financial gain. So he wasn’t wrong, he just wasn’t specific. But the bottom line is that Sony wants to continue to make money from Spiderman, so they had to do it now and not 3 years from now.

      • Nathan Elder says:

        Michael, I realized that. So no, he isn’t wrong, but I felt he oversimplified a situation that had a lot of facets to it.

More Film News from Variety