RE: John Carter

Follow @empiremagazine

Forum Home

Register for Free!

Log In

Moderator Tickets

FAQ

Users Online

RE: John Carter

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Film Reviews >> RE: John Carter

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: John Carter - 29/3/2012 11:37:27 AM

yazoo88

Posts: 30
Joined: 19/3/2012

I thought the effects were of a high standard and enjoyed the battle scenes. however other than that I found the film quite unmemorable and I became restless part way through and no longer cared about the conclusion...which is unusual for me.

The only bit that will stay in my mind is the delightful 'Woola' the loyal creature (?) which follows JC everywhere. That made me smile and made the film a bit more bearable.

< Message edited by yazoo88 -- 29/3/2012 11:38:08 AM >

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 61

RE: John Carter - 29/3/2012 11:41:17 AM

Timon

Posts: 14541
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Bristol

quote:

ORIGINAL: spamandham

Looks like I was completely vindicated about this being a gigantic turkey, as it's on course to lose disney ~$200M. How the hell did this even get three stars?!

Because a film's box office does not reflect its quality.

_____________________________

"I put no stock in religion. By the word 'religion', I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called 'The Will of God'. Holiness is in right action and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves."

Twitter: @timonsingh

Post #: 62

EXCELLENT WORTH EVERY PENNY - 31/3/2012 3:35:11 PM

shamshad

Posts: 6
Joined: 9/10/2005

When I was a teenager way back in the early Seventies I read all of the John Carter of Mars books. There are a total of Eleven books.
I also read all of the NARNIA books and the DUNE series aswell. and many more. The most oustanding of them all were the Martian (JOHN CARTER) series by ERB. I had always dreamed that some day Hollywood would make a film of the series.

at last my dream came true and after nearly a Hundred years since when the first book was published, Hollywood delivered the goods.

And what a delivery, The movie was beyond my expectations an absolute gem.

Its a shame that the public did not go and see it, making it a flop.
the public at large dont understand that this is the origin of all that came after, eg, Superman, Starwars, Indian Jones etc. the list is endless. All sceince Fiction hero's start of with the John Carter of Mars books a hundred years ago.

I would recomend every body to go and see this movie, there is everything for everybody. sport this movie so Disney can make number Two.
A great story great special effects.. The person that I was sat next to in the cinema had said that he liked it so much that he had come to see it again.

I dont understand How Empire could give it only THREE stars when it deserves more. and the likes of THE GREY gets FOUR Stars ( an absolutly rubbish movie)

I again request aal you people out there to go and see it, before it is taken out of the cinemas

SOLI FIVE STARS

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 63

Curious and rewarding - 1/4/2012 11:02:49 PM

BatSpider

Posts: 170
Joined: 6/7/2010

Finally got round to seeing it, the fact it's box office bomb increased the curiousity value big time. And.... it's a strange one. In some ways totally unique, in others... a reminder of how often elements of the story have been ripped off. Whoever at Disney sanctioned $200million on it must have been out of their minds on crack as this was never going to win a mass audience. It's really old-old school. A lot of it makes zero sense even it its own fantastical world, it has a bit of a humour deficit, but it looks great, doesn't piss you off with a million pop culture references, and it the movie's best attraction is Lynn Collins. She, her passionate performance, and space warrior bikini outfits are stunning, and the best ever reason to get your ass to Mars.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 64

RE: Curious and rewarding - 2/4/2012 4:33:17 PM

Qwerty Norris

Posts: 3141
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh

Don't let the sympathisers fool you. It's rubbish. Not hateful or heartless rubbish, but long, boring & needlessly expensive rubbish. It may originate from the grandaddy of space opera, but the fact it took nearly or around 100 years for an adaptation to materialise is a problem as there is nothing in JC that offers a thrill or a surprise that hasn't been displayed in Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Star Wars, Avatar or various other similar efforts. On the evidence displayed, there is also absolutely no justification for the huge budget (bigger than Cameron's Dances With Smurfs & even the last Transformers film) and aside from the green alien thingys the likes of Willem Dafoe & Samantha Morton voice, you'll struggle to figure out where that 250 million production budget went. It certainly didn't go to the cast anyway, as the likes of Ciaran Hinds, Dominic West & James Purefoy look like they're paying with their lives to appear - all fixating a constant look of terrified embarrassment throughout. Tyler Kitsch does a good job of sucking the life out of the screen at every given moment, Lynn Collins can certainly wear a space princess dress very well, whilst dial-a-baddie Mark Strong is the best thing in it without even having to try. As for Andrew "I wouldn't know what to do with $5 million" Stanton, he better get used to smaller budgets. As his cavalier approach in using a huge level of finance for a disengaging, incoherent & long winded "adventure" is not only in no way merited, it has now made it even less likely for an expensive vehicle to be anything other than a new instalment in a well-worn money making franchise. That said, Disney did him no favours by executing a horrendous marketing plan (the lack of "of Mars" in the title is massively bewildering) and at least the green alien thingys look nicely rendered...
2/5

_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. In The Fog
4. Good Vibrations
5. McCullin
6. Beyond the Hills
7. The Place Beyond the Pines
8. Wreck-it Ralph
9. Shell
10. In The House

Post #: 65

RE: Curious and rewarding - 2/4/2012 4:49:01 PM

superdan

Posts: 7200
Joined: 31/7/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris
On the evidence displayed, there is also absolutely no justification for the huge budget (bigger than Cameron's Dances With Smurfs & even the last Transformers film) and aside from the green alien thingys the likes of Willem Dafoe & Samantha Morton voice, you'll struggle to figure out where that 250 million production budget went.

Why does the budget matter? From a moviegoer's perspective, I mean. I don't really care if it costs $250m or $25k if I'm entertained (the bit where John Carter goes ballistic and tears the crap out of a tribe of green thingies for instance was one of the more exhilarating action sequences I've seen in the past 12 months). There's no doubt it's flawed, but accusations of overlong strike me as a little harsh when a bloated monster like Avatar (fully half an hour longer) became the biggest grossing film in history. Wrath of the Titans in contrast is a lean 99mins but could probably have done with at least another 20 minutes to allow a story to actually develop and seal some of the plotholes.

< Message edited by superdan -- 2/4/2012 4:51:01 PM >

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)

Post #: 66

RE: Curious and rewarding - 2/4/2012 6:46:22 PM

Qwerty Norris

Posts: 3141
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan

Why does the budget matter?

Because not only do we live in precarious economic times, to see such levels of money essentially wasted (both in a creative and commerce sense) is an insult to every film-maker or producer with lots of ideas but with precious little money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan

From a moviegoer's perspective, I mean. I don't really care if it costs $250m or $25k if I'm entertained (the bit where John Carter goes ballistic and tears the crap out of a tribe of green thingies for instance was one of the more exhilarating action sequences I've seen in the past 12 months)

Well I'm glad it worked for you, but every moment bored the arse out of me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan
There's no doubt it's flawed, but accusations of overlong strike me as a little harsh when a bloated monster like Avatar (fully half an hour longer) became the biggest grossing film in history.

Not really. It should be a 90 minute film, yet it clocks in at nearly 2 hours & 20 minutes - that's far too long for what it is.

Avatar by the way is also shite, but at least its spectacular in a set pieces & effects sense.

JC's green alien brigade look impressive (nurfs or something?), but aside from that there's next to nothing in it to proclaim that money was well spent.

_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. In The Fog
4. Good Vibrations
5. McCullin
6. Beyond the Hills
7. The Place Beyond the Pines
8. Wreck-it Ralph
9. Shell
10. In The House

(in reply to superdan)

Post #: 67

RE: Curious and rewarding - 2/4/2012 7:38:34 PM

superdan

Posts: 7200
Joined: 31/7/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan

Why does the budget matter?

Because not only do we live in precarious economic times, to see such levels of money essentially wasted (both in a creative and commerce sense) is an insult to every film-maker or producer with lots of ideas but with precious little money.

By that reasoning, if the US economy was in a healthier state the movie's shortcomings would be less of an issue. Or perhaps, if your economy is in the shitter you can only make a film with a large budget if it is guaranteed to make a lot of money.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan

From a moviegoer's perspective, I mean. I don't really care if it costs $250m or $25k if I'm entertained (the bit where John Carter goes ballistic and tears the crap out of a tribe of green thingies for instance was one of the more exhilarating action sequences I've seen in the past 12 months)

Well I'm glad it worked for you, but every moment bored the arse out of me.

Fair enough, though for all the problems I had with Avatar the budget was never one of them.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan
There's no doubt it's flawed, but accusations of overlong strike me as a little harsh when a bloated monster like Avatar (fully half an hour longer) became the biggest grossing film in history.

Not really. It should be a 90 minute film, yet it clocks in at nearly 2 hours & 20 minutes - that's far too long for what it is.

Avatar by the way is also shite, but at least its spectacular in a set pieces & effects sense.

JC's green alien brigade look impressive (nurfs or something?), but aside from that there's next to nothing in it to proclaim that money was well spent.

It's full run time is just under 2 hours and 12 minutes. Take away the credits and it's just over 2 hours. That's hardly an overlong movie, especially in the sci-fi genre these days. It's not really much longer than Captain America, Reel Steel, X-Men First Class or Star Trek (to take some recent examples).

I get that you didn't like it by the way and I'm not trying to convince you you're wrong or anything. I just think having a pop at the budget and run-time is a bit of a weak brickbat in this instance.

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)

Post #: 68

RE: Curious and rewarding - 2/4/2012 7:43:52 PM

Deviation

Posts: 26905
Joined: 2/6/2006
From: Enemies of Film HQ

Coming from someone who still hasn't seen it here but I do think the running time criticism is valid if he found it overlong. It could have been only long 90 minutes or seven hours and a half, if it feels longer than it should be than it still is overlong.

Unless I didn't misread and misunderstood your comments.

_____________________________

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dpp1978
There are certainly times where calling a person a cunt is not only reasonable, it is a gross understatement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: elab49
I really wish I could go down to see Privates

(in reply to superdan)

Post #: 69

RE: Curious and rewarding - 2/4/2012 7:51:28 PM

superdan

Posts: 7200
Joined: 31/7/2008

I might have misunderstood and taken it too literally. I don't know, I just thought 2 hours was close to standard these days.

(in reply to Deviation)

Post #: 70

RE: Curious and rewarding - 2/4/2012 8:34:47 PM

Qwerty Norris

Posts: 3141
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh

quote:

By that reasoning, if the US economy was in a healthier state the movie's shortcomings would be less of an issue. Or perhaps, if your economy is in the shitter you can only make a film with a large budget if it is guaranteed to make a lot of money.

I'm not trying to bridge the relationship between the economies of Hollywood and the western world so to speak, I was merely stating that I find it insulting to see such money invested in a rubbish film bereft of anything I would consider value for money - something that has to be addressed given the monumental loss it has made.

quote:

Fair enough, though for all the problems I had with Avatar the budget was never one of them.

Of course it wasn't, it made all its money back and more!

quote:

It's full run time is just under 2 hours and 12 minutes. Take away the credits and it's just over 2 hours. That's hardly an overlong movie, especially in the sci-fi genre these days. It's not really much longer than Captain America, Reel Steel, X-Men First Class or Star Trek (to take some recent examples).

I would argue that for this kind of film, that is overlong - even if it is deemed the norm nowadays.

And aside from Real Steel (not seen that) all those examples you mentioned at least entertained in some degree, I'll admit though that's a subjective point of view.

quote:

I get that you didn't like it by the way and I'm not trying to convince you you're wrong or anything. I just think having a pop at the budget and run-time is a bit of a weak brickbat in this instance.

I disagree. If the running time's chopped by 40 minutes you'll immediately have a leaner piece that doesn't outstay its welcome anywhere near as badly. The budget also has to be scrutinised given how badly it has faired at the worldwide box office (the gift of hindsight or otherwise) and by that I do mean scrutinised rather than maliciously attacked. I went into JC wanting to be proved wrong, to be shown that the bad press it has received was down to those jumping on the populist band-wagon who were out for a negative story and not because it was an Andrew Stanton vanity project that Disney spectacularly failed to market properly...but sadly it is. Aside from the green aliens, there's next to nothing in JC that justifies that level of expense (and even then I wonder if they could have gone with suits and prosthetics instead). My point is, I don't believe that a $50 to $100 budget would have made any difference whatsoever to the fundamental problems of JC (hell, it might have entered the black that way), so to see the level that was spent feels shockingly cavalier, contemptibly obscene and morally wrong to me - even if it is Disney's own finance that they've wasted.

< Message edited by Qwerty Norris -- 2/4/2012 8:38:10 PM >

_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. In The Fog
4. Good Vibrations
5. McCullin
6. Beyond the Hills
7. The Place Beyond the Pines
8. Wreck-it Ralph
9. Shell
10. In The House

(in reply to superdan)

Post #: 71

RE: Curious and rewarding - 2/4/2012 9:09:57 PM

superdan

Posts: 7200
Joined: 31/7/2008

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris
My point is, I don't believe that a $50 to $100 budget would have made any difference whatsoever to the fundamental problems of JC (hell, it might have entered the black that way), so to see the level that was spent feels shockingly cavalier, contemptibly obscene and morally wrong to me - even if it is Disney's own finance that they've wasted.

I suppose there's no real way of knowing if it would have looked better or worse with a much lower budget, though I don't think there's anyone (whether they've seen the film or not, or liked it or not) who thinks that $250m isn't a staggering gamble on a film that Disney clearly hadn't a fucking clue how to market. I guess this has been mentioned in the Musings thread, but I think the main thing that bothers me is that if it had done Avatar money (and I'd rather watch John Carter than Avatar again any day of the week) no-one would question the budget, but because it's 'only' taken $254+m worldwide it's considered a turkey measured purely against it's investment. A quarter of a billion gross is still an awful lot of money in my book. Doesn't mean it's a great film or anything of course, but it's not exactly a scathing indictment of the movie either.

(in reply to Qwerty Norris)

Post #: 72

RE: Curious and rewarding - 2/4/2012 10:20:54 PM

Qwerty Norris

Posts: 3141
Joined: 26/10/2005
From: Edinburgh

quote:

ORIGINAL: superdan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Qwerty Norris
My point is, I don't believe that a $50 to $100 budget would have made any difference whatsoever to the fundamental problems of JC (hell, it might have entered the black that way), so to see the level that was spent feels shockingly cavalier, contemptibly obscene and morally wrong to me - even if it is Disney's own finance that they've wasted.

I suppose there's no real way of knowing if it would have looked better or worse with a much lower budget, though I don't think there's anyone (whether they've seen the film or not, or liked it or not) who thinks that $250m isn't a staggering gamble on a film that Disney clearly hadn't a fucking clue how to market. I guess this has been mentioned in the Musings thread, but I think the main thing that bothers me is that if it had done Avatar money (and I'd rather watch John Carter than Avatar again any day of the week) no-one would question the budget, but because it's 'only' taken $254+m worldwide it's considered a turkey measured purely against it's investment. A quarter of a billion gross is still an awful lot of money in my book. Doesn't mean it's a great film or anything of course, but it's not exactly a scathing indictment of the movie either.

In fairness that is absolutely spot on, but the fact it bombed so badly makes it an issue for me that's very difficult to ignore if the film itself turned out to be crap (which I accept isn't the thoughts of everyone).

Like most fare, you can never really be certain how well it will be received at the box office. Yet I always felt JC was going to struggle given it hadn't established itself in a previous successful film or that the source material isn't exactly at the forefront of popular culture. I would have been at least a bit content with that situation had it contained at least some bang for my buck so to speak, but sadly for me, it didn't.

_____________________________

Qwerty's Top 10 of 2013 (so far)

1. Zero Dark Thirty
2. No
3. In The Fog
4. Good Vibrations
5. McCullin
6. Beyond the Hills
7. The Place Beyond the Pines
8. Wreck-it Ralph
9. Shell
10. In The House

(in reply to superdan)

Post #: 73

RE: John Carter - 7/4/2012 7:56:40 AM

Phubbs

Posts: 660
Joined: 3/4/2012

John Carter

Wow for a Disney film I was confused, really, I was honestly struggling to get my head around what was happening and all the odd names for various characters, places and creatures.

This hasn't done too well it seems, and I can see why really, the character of John Carter is very original and was actually created way back in the early 1900's. From what I can gather the film is actually pretty accurate to the characters story but there is one problem, this film has simply come out too late and merely resembles a mix of many other sci-fi films been and gone.

It was always gonna be hard to make this look really good and original and personally I think they kinda got it, kudos for trying but just falls short. Lets put all our cards on the table here, this film is basically 'Star Wars' with a bit of 'Stargate' and sprinkles of various 80's type fantasies. The whole film wouldn't look outta place stuck in the middle of 'Attack of the Clones', it just screams it from the first encounter with a four armed 'Thark' alien, the whole thing could just be another chapter in the Lucas universe.

I'm trying not to be too negative because the effects aren't all that bad, yep its stuffed full of cgi but I've seen worse and some of the creations are actually pretty cool, the huge white furry-ish beasties in the arena battle (Attack of the....I think you know) actually look pretty sweet methinks. The 'Tharks' are very obviously cgi but again look nice with some good imagination used, I liked all the beasts of burden throughout and that fat ball of blubber dog thing was kinda neat in a very 80's sidekick type of way. Bad side to effects would be the pretty dodgy looking blue/green screen usage from time to time and the way 'Carter' leaps around like a flippin rubber ball, I know he has agility due to the gravity or whatever but really? that high? that far? what is he a human sized flea!?

Visually the film is solid, even the film posters are quite nice, not much evidence that it actually takes place on Mars in my opinion but hey. Other problems take shape in the poor casting, West is a Sheffield lad and should stick to British TV drama's, Collins as the Princess is so very annoying all the way through and has waaaay too much makeup on and the hero 'Carter' (played by someone called Kitsch) is possibly the first action hero in a blockbuster that is kinda ugly and doesn't have excessive pretty muscles! actually that's kinda original.

I'm kinda split 50/50 with 'Carter', on one hand it is your very typical cgi filled piece of glossy trash that really is quite a scene for scene blatant rip off of the Star Wars prequels (AOTC), but on the other hand I like some of the imagination used and the design of certain creatures.

I also gotta give kudos for taking on an old, and in my opinion, difficult universe with a tricky plot that basically revolves around a man having an out of body, spiritual/astral projection 'experience' for no apparent reason...to Mars, which is teeming with life, apparently, and aiming it at younger folk.
Did it succeed? hmmm well no, problem being I think kids may get distracted by the wave of stupid names, choppy story and its actually a bit violent in places. Adults will have issues for probably all the reasons I have mentioned above, bottom line, its nothing new but I still kinda liked it in spots. Sequel? ended that way (who'd of thought it) and I'm OK to see it.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 74

RE: john carter - 9/7/2012 11:36:22 AM

blackduck

Posts: 1559
Joined: 1/10/2005

Didn't deserve to bomb as bad as it did, but it's no lost classic either.

Plotwise it didn't make a huge amount of sense, really struggles to figure out what motivated anyone beyond moving the plot along. For example the green guys , when recruted for the big battle at the end by JC nobody seems too bothered that he'd killed a whole pile of them earlier that day.

The dog thingy was cute though.

They missed a trick by not going for a retro feel, the ship designs etc were fantastic, this should have been the new flash Gordon. A few nods and winks to the audience and this film could have coasted on audience good will, shame.

_____________________________

I am but an egg.

Post #: 75

RE: john carter - 9/7/2012 1:11:07 PM

jackcarter

Posts: 1707
Joined: 12/1/2006

finally saw this the other day, not bad *** is about right...

some thoughts: absolutely didn�t need the opening - itd be like if The Matrix had opened with Morpheous and Co battling the machines... Mars couldve done with looking more Marsy (as in Red Planet)....and the Lost guy wouldve been a better Carter

and regarding the marketing hurting the movie - yes it really shouldve had Mars in the title - 'JC of Mars' or 'JC and the Princess of Mars' (or maybe they couldve even got away with calling it 'Barsoom' - like 'Avatar'), and couldve done with a decent poster reflecting its SF pulp origins like this one:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/coolproduction/ckeditor_assets/pictures/5681/original/JCMondoImax.jpeg?1329859205

< Message edited by jackcarter -- 12/7/2012 3:04:29 PM >

(in reply to blackduck)

Post #: 76

RE: john carter - 12/7/2012 1:52:39 PM

TragicRomantic

Posts: 77
Joined: 7/7/2012
From: Elysium

A horrible soulless experience.

_____________________________

Life,love and film-enjoy all like fine wine
Silence the doubters
Embrace the lovers
Ignore the haters

(in reply to jackcarter)

Post #: 77

RE: John Carter - 28/7/2012 11:57:08 PM

moviebuff73

Posts: 118
Joined: 7/6/2012
From: diss

just watch john carter on dvd & it's a great movie. on the plus side - good story, visually stunning & plenty of action and on the negative side - maybe abit too long.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 78

Utter tosh - 2/9/2012 9:53:13 PM

spilsburt

Posts: 8
Joined: 22/10/2007

What started well quickly turned into a jumbled mess of slow dialogue and terrible action sequences. One of the worst scenes was a huge battle scene, which blended with slow flashbacks, totally sapping the sequence of its energy. Watched Battleship the same night and enjoyed it so much more.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 79

RE: Utter tosh - 21/10/2012 1:35:25 AM

jobloffski

Posts: 1836
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: elsewhere

Sadly the makers of John Carter didn't have the sense to make a more literal adaptation of the book (including Carter being a swaggering hero of almost ridiculous proprtions, and giving the film the first person voiceover it needed to get across how lunkheaded Carter can be and knows he is and how rushing in to do the derring do often makes things worse, necessitating more derring do to put things right).

The ending was changed signifcantly from the book, to quite damaging effect, and worst of all, instead of creating new visuals for the film and promoting it as the precursor to Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers (human transplanted to other world, episodic adventures that have cliff hanger after cliff hanger as things seem impossible to get out of, but then...), and the source of SHITLOADS of the adventure style of the star wars films (as well as words a bit like Jedi, Padawan, and the actual word Sith featuring in the books), what did Disney do?

Disney produced a film designed to look like the films that owe their existence to John Carter. Hence the 'attack of the clones-alike' and the Avatar evoking visuals.

If you are making a film that is based on the adventures of a character whose exploits practically began a genre and inspired practically everything about the genre, most notably the episodic serials that then inspired Star Wars, you make a film that is a film of the first book, not a streamlined, cliffhanger removing, ending changing version of, and you FUCKING TELL PEOPLE that before Before Luke Skywalker, Before Flash Gordon, Before Buck Rogers, Before that prince guy from Dune, Before that dick, whatever his name was in Avatar, before ANY sci fi hero known for derring do, there was John Carter.

I'm sure that's the sort of thing that was pitched to Disney. And if it wasn't, why not? You make the proto-typical sci-fi hero film, your target market is the people who like things like Star Wars, and having intended to market that way, you don;t homage the copyists, you make the film that tells the actual story that has the giant shoulders the others are standing on and in marketing it, you skewer in advance criticism of it being like other films in some ways by pointing out John Carter is to the sci fi genre what Sherlock Holmes is to the detective story.

< Message edited by jobloffski -- 21/10/2012 1:47:34 AM >

_____________________________

Yes, dreamers dream and doers do. But if dreamers DON'T dream, doers don't have anything TO do. Everything that is only here because people exist, only exists because someone thought of it., or in other words, dreamed it.

Post #: 80

AVATAR IT AIN'T....... - 26/10/2012 6:58:50 PM

ROTGUT

Posts: 291
Joined: 14/7/2008

This film feels like it was made about 30 years too late. Burroughs may well be one of the prime historical inspirations behind all modern SF films and literature, but now because Lucas, Spielberg, Cameron etc, etc, have all beaten him to the cinematic punch, John Carter turns out to be a very, very average movie indeed. Not too difficult to see why audiences didn’t really buy into this either. There’s too many characters to keep track of, a so so plot , a cookie cutter leading man as the hero and some absolutely CLUNKING dialogue (You are a Jeddak of Helium! WTF?). Taylor Kitsch seems to play exactly the same sort of laid back, stoner action man in every film that I’ve seen him in and in this he’s no different – and I’m fairly sure that William Dafoe was buried in the story somewhere as one of the four armed aliens. But Mark Strong is completely wasted as the leading villain and the whole thing has a distinctly old fashioned feel that can’t really compete with the modern high tech sheen of something like The Dark Knight Rises or the Avengers. Plus points? It’s adequately directed, but a more adventurous director would surely have given the whole thing a bit more visual oomph and style – Stanton doesn’t have much real conviction in what he’s presenting here and seems content just to throw everything up there on screen – martians, cute comedy dog sidekick, daft looking costumes, battles and disposable alien hardware. Everything about this film should aim toward the iconic but instead all we get is the forgettable.
At least Lynn Collins is a hot looking Dejah Thoris, seemingly (and pleasingly) having stepped straight out of a 1960’s Boris Vallejo painting. If you’re in a VERY, VERY undemanding mood and there’s nothing else to watch – you could do worse. TWO STARS

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 81

Good film - 4/12/2012 6:15:12 PM

rcrofty7

Posts: 12
Joined: 19/3/2008

Shame Disney messed up by only showing it in 3D.

(in reply to Empire Admin)

Post #: 82

Big old pile of crap - 18/3/2013 10:47:25 AM

chris wootton

Posts: 382
Joined: 15/9/2006

The acting by the Lynn Collins and Taylor Kitsch was absolutely bloody awful