Well, I enjoyed it, as a visual appealing cartoon with story twists that managed to surprise me at times. I take it you haven't seen it in 3D then?
Movie Reviews 2.0
- Thread starter Dresden
- Start date
Well, I enjoyed it, as a visual appealing cartoon with story twists that managed to surprise me at times. I take it you haven't seen it in 3D then?
Yep.
but did you see it in 3d
Are you implying 3D suddenly makes the script and acting better?
Come on, it was an truly awful movie.
Are you implying 3D suddenly makes the script and acting better?
No, but as 80 percent of my brain is dedicated to graphics processing, it counts for a lot! It's like going to the Grand Canyon. The script sucks: you drive there, you look, and you drive back. Going to see Paris: you travel there, walk around and look around a bit, eat something, maybe sleep there, travel back. Great script no? But still a great way to spend your day. Happiness doesn't always require high drama - in fact, it is often antithetical to it.
I liked it far better, as a story, than, say, Avatar. And I thought it looked more interesting too. I actually enjoyed it quite a lot, and I think I've seen a LOT of superhero movies that were entirely less interesting, story wise. Fun fact from Wiki: the story, written as a serial for a pulp magazine, is 100 years old, and when not long after its publication it was considered for adapting to film, it was rejected in favor of Tarzan, arguing that having a human being on Mars was too much of a stretch for the American audience.
Looking at reviews, critics seem equally divided, but most agree that it is a looker, technical marvel, etc. And on this forum, I thought there would be more people like me who can appreciate that.
It's not about a guy fighting in the U.S. Civil war, it is like FireFly, a hero who was on the losing side, and lost his family during the war. He's not helping blue dudes with six arms, he's helping human looking dudes in another type of civil war, and he is being helped in the end by green dudes with four arms. Admit it, if you've seen this movie at all, you were probably too drunk to follow the plot.
The main thing holding this movie back is quite simply the lead actors. They are good enough for the laughs, but can't pull off the scenes that require gravitas sufficiently enough.
I wish there were more films like this one, with lavish, fantastical settings.
So no, I don't agree with either of you. And considering the lead for the Total Recall remake, not having seen the latter, I can't imagine I'd like it more than Terminator: Salivation.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
The wife and I just saw John Carter, and we both enjoyed it! Great special effects, and Lynn Collins always looks great.
I think Disney marketed it very badly, as it's not a kid's film, but an old-school sci-fantasy romp. Think HG Wells or Jules Verne as a starting point, and it works much better. Disney were obviously hoping to make it the start of a franchise, but just pitched the publicity completely wrong.
Funilly enough, I just got around to watching Avatar (in 2D so no "ooh lookie, it's 3D"), and while I enjoyed large parts of that, there were lots of plot loopholes and quite a few annoying bits that IMO didn't make it any better than John Carter. I really liked the visualisation of the world, but there was a lot of cliche in there as well as lots of two dimensional and predictable characters.
I think Disney marketed it very badly, as it's not a kid's film, but an old-school sci-fantasy romp. Think HG Wells or Jules Verne as a starting point, and it works much better. Disney were obviously hoping to make it the start of a franchise, but just pitched the publicity completely wrong.
Funilly enough, I just got around to watching Avatar (in 2D so no "ooh lookie, it's 3D"), and while I enjoyed large parts of that, there were lots of plot loopholes and quite a few annoying bits that IMO didn't make it any better than John Carter. I really liked the visualisation of the world, but there was a lot of cliche in there as well as lots of two dimensional and predictable characters.
WhiningKhan
Regular
A few months ago, I realized that John Carter had been made into a movie and already exited the theatres. Got me a bit annoyed, he was the number one literary hero of my childhood and I used to dream they could some day be able to make a movie out of it.
Haven't still watched it though. In clips I've seen, Tars Tarkas and other greens look goofy, and of course Disney from Hollywood had to invent all sorts of silly robes and other garments on the characters, instead of the well-documented near-nudity of everybody in the books. A wasted opportunity at least regarding Dejah Thoris. (hint : https://www.google.fi/search?q=deja...gTXsoGoDg&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=987 )
Haven't still watched it though. In clips I've seen, Tars Tarkas and other greens look goofy, and of course Disney from Hollywood had to invent all sorts of silly robes and other garments on the characters, instead of the well-documented near-nudity of everybody in the books. A wasted opportunity at least regarding Dejah Thoris. (hint : https://www.google.fi/search?q=deja...gTXsoGoDg&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=987 )
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
They were never going to do it with the characters mostly naked. They wanted to get kids and families to go to it in order to maximise their profits. That probably explains the Disney logo over everything, which was part of their big marketing mistake, because it's not what anyone thinks of when they see "Disney movie".
You're safe to watch it. I actually ended up buying it. You won't find a better looking sci-fi movie anytime soon, and that alone makes up for any flaws for me (just like after reading the books several times, while there were plenty of things that annoyed me to no end, the first movie was still a delight to watch as it simply looked better than my imagination had managed to make it look).
Yes, near nudity would have been better, but they've gone for a light-hearted classical Rome style that still shows plenty of skin. Dejah Thoris, imho, as a character in this movie, between being a fighter and a scientist only manages to look sexy in a more or less accidental fashion, but this is really a matter of personal taste as well.
Thars Tarkis (and all his people) end up pretty convincing, imho. They are extremely well animated, with great attention to detail for their four arms. I really liked them, one of the best 'alien' races in any movie I've seen.
Basically everything in this movie that was touched by Pixar is great, imho.
Does anyone seriously expect any Hollywood actress to spend an entire movie topless??
Also, the design for the green man wasn't particularly strong IMHO; first they shouldn't have incorporated the stilts that the mocap actors used into the lower legs, and second the faces were far too anthropomorphic with completely human eyes, teeth and mouth.
I also think the script and the marketing campaign were both inherently flawed...
Also, the design for the green man wasn't particularly strong IMHO; first they shouldn't have incorporated the stilts that the mocap actors used into the lower legs, and second the faces were far too anthropomorphic with completely human eyes, teeth and mouth.
I also think the script and the marketing campaign were both inherently flawed...
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
Legend
The original designs for the Avatar aliens made them not very human at all, and the test audiences hated them. If you make the aliens too alien, the audience can't understand their facial expressions, empathise with them or understand their motivations. It's fine if they are just going to be monsters, but if you want them to be allies or significant characters, the audience needs to "get their looks" on a fundamental level.
That's why even when we can now put totally realistic-looking aliens on the screen, movies tend not to.
I have to say I was late to the party here, but I just watched TDKR and I don't think it was anywhere near TDK personally. It was entertaining and good for a comic book movie, but not good for a generic movie. Perhaps it messed with me since I recognized so many places in the movie though. That goes along with Bauman's comment that it is just another city now, not the gothic gotham of old.
I'm perfectly familiar with these concepts. After all I've been a character artist for more than a decade by now
Still, I think the designs were flawed. There's more than enough middle ground between far too humanized and monstrous, especially here - after all in Avatar they had to sell a love story between a human and an alien, too. But with John Carter, the tharks are meant to be allies only as the love story is with the completely human Dejah.
In fact I think this contributed to the movie's failure to some extent as well. They weren't characteristic enough, the large tusks weren't part of the facial features the way the na'vi had their oversized eyes, cat-nose and ears integrated to a strong design. They looked strange and unconvincing in the trailers.
I would mostly put it down to the different experiences of the directors with creature design - Cameron has been about realism for decades, whereas Stanton only worked with highly stylized, cartoonish designs through all his career.
(And to be fair, Cameron's other personal designs in Avatar didn't work that well - the six-legged wolves and lion-tiger thing weren't up to the level of the other creatures IMHO)
So much John Carter talk? I'm actually not offended by the ridiculous premise. It was just an incredibly poorly executed movie. Some of the effects were good, but the overall art design wasn't to my liking. Just about the only good scene in the whole movie is when he jumps up the airship to rescue the "princess" or whatever she is. It could have been a much better movie, but it was overall awful. I hated Avatar, so whether I liked it better than that doesn't matter much.
I just rewatched the final Harry Potter movie last night in 3D, and the movie both holds up very well to repeat viewing, and looks great in 3D, almost a new experience.
@Davros: watching a movie means watching every second of it, or you're not to be taken seriously. Blinking is allowed, but only if timed judiciously ...
@Davros: watching a movie means watching every second of it, or you're not to be taken seriously. Blinking is allowed, but only if timed judiciously ...
Similar threads
