Search this Topic:
Jul 2 12 10:42 PM
I thought it was great. It is easily my favorite sci-fi film in years; perhaps decades. You and your wife's opinion don't carry any more weight than my own.I (an ERB fan) liked it, and my family (all ERB non-fans) liked it too. I really think it is among the best ERB adaptations, even if I include all the Tarzans I've seen. We all want a sequel. I'm surprised JC is getting flack form self proclaimed fans.The Earth back story works well, Tarzan is equally tragic in having lost his biological parents (which he never feels connection to) but in also losing Kala his adoptive mother (which he does/did.) Plenty of times in the series Tarzan thinks Jane is dead, and that creates an emotional/vengeance impulse for him. Thus it does not feel as if the loss of family does not fit into a ERB pulpy storyline such as this.The reluctant soldier aspect, which is not in the novel, gives Carter a dimension that would otherwise be missed. It's fine, does not feel alien to ERBs themes, and it fits in today's liberal attitude toward war/peace. Nothing wrong with that, (isn't The Mad King also a reluctant soldier of sorts?)Some of the complaints here (the Virgina joke) seem silly to me. In school we nicknamed people according to the city they were from, wasn't meant to be ha-ha funny. 20 years later I still think of them by their nicknames. The complaint of a lack of a visually lush landscape also seems pretty insignificant; the Barsoom presented is a compromise between what we know of Mars and what ERB described in the novels. It is a perfectly valid interpretation. Lawrence of Arabia (mentioned) is not a lesser movie because it takes place in a desert. Yes, it was shot by David Lean (and this wasn't,) would we only have gotten Nicholas Roeg to shoot John Carter. If the movie had presented a more alien Barsoom (not Mars), there'd be complaints about that. (I know I felt weird in Captain America when all that anachronistic technology was being presented, it took me out every few minutes.)Also, look at things like At the Earth’s Core, The Land that Time Forgot and The People that Time Forgot which attempted richer landscapes (with a smaller budget): while these are fun and imaginative it does not necessarily make them better films. At the Earth’s Core (1976) was filmed one year before Star Wars (1977) and I think John Carter is the better for having been made after that (even if it seems that the inspiration 'inspired' the original.)
We are, hopefully beyond that threshold, even if we did get Flash Gordon (1980) after SW.
I thought it was great. It is easily my favorite sci-fi film in years; perhaps decades. You and your wife's opinion don't carry any more weight than my own.
Jul 2 12 11:18 PM
gorgozilla wrote:Colossus Rex wrote:
Well, I just saw this on Blu-ray and enjoyed it just fine. Maybe it goes on a bit too long, and maybe the Green people seem too much like Gungans from Phantom Menace, and sometimes you wonder why you you should prefer one city of Red people to the other city of Red people. (You are told that one group is a "scavenger" city but beyond that... )That's the only problem I had with the movie. The designs for the green Martians were insufficiently monstrous. I read that they were redesigned from the iconic Frazetta depiction (based on detailed descriptions in the books) because of the difficulty of animating lip movements for speech from mouths that had big tusks growing out of them. I understand that. But they still could have stuck with the wide-set, beady birdlike eyes of Burrough's aliens, rather than making them more human-like.
Colossus Rex wrote:
Well, I just saw this on Blu-ray and enjoyed it just fine. Maybe it goes on a bit too long, and maybe the Green people seem too much like Gungans from Phantom Menace, and sometimes you wonder why you you should prefer one city of Red people to the other city of Red people. (You are told that one group is a "scavenger" city but beyond that... )
Jul 3 12 2:46 AM
Jul 4 12 4:31 PM
Jul 5 12 10:39 PM
Bud Brewster wrote:Let me guess. Is THIS what some of us meant when we suggested Mars should have had more color?That's pretty much what we got in Avatar -- but one of the folks above said it looked like a cartoon. Guess you can't make everybody happy, eh?__
Jul 9 12 3:15 PM
Also, look at things like At the Earth’s Core, The Land that Time Forgot and The People that Time Forgot which attempted richer landscapes and saturated colors (with a smaller budget):
The color on those movies is beautiful. AlLIEN resulted in the 80's being a "lost decade" for color photography in sci-fi films. It wasn't until the mid-90's that the whole "blue and smoky" fad finally ended.
Jul 9 12 5:31 PM
Jul 12 12 4:30 PM
http://Cinemadave.Livejournal.com"...for those who enjoy the entire experience of movies, from the promotional hype to the criticism given at the dinner table....."
Aug 10 12 10:14 PM
Aug 11 12 5:47 AM
Aug 11 12 2:45 PM
Servant of Legendre wrote:But all the stuff with the Therns and their 'serving the Goddess' became, I think, just too bewildering for the casual viewer. Too much was left unexplained.
In short, it was no FLASH GORDON. On the plus side, it made me want to read the books.
Aug 14 12 6:12 AM
Oct 7 12 6:52 PM
Nov 23 12 12:54 PM
Nov 26 12 2:23 PM
Nov 26 12 2:37 PM
jamesenstein31 wrote:This was a pleasant surprise, certainly not the turkey that has been described virtually EVERYWHERE else. JOHN CARTER remains surprisingly faithful to the original stories in both incidents and characters, but even a well-read fan will find themselves lost, due to some structural problems, which are the film's lead issues. At over two and a half hours, the film has trouble with pacing and some additions(such as Carter's backstory and a few modern revisions) do not hold water. However, the spectacle of the thing, made me wish I had seen it on the big screen.
I'm usually in agreement with the percentages on Rottentomatoes, since they are usually more or less accurate, however this film, which flawed and not a great film, is not deserving of the many knocks afforded it.
I hope to write a lengthier review later on my blog.
Nov 27 12 8:23 PM
Dec 10 12 3:52 PM
Dec 17 12 12:04 PM
Shonokin wrote:Your thoughts pretty much mirror my own Bud. I had 35 years of build up and expectations. But I went in absolutely knowing it wouldn't equal that. I enjoyed it quite a lot. What Disney marketing did to the film is shameful.
Feb 3 13 9:14 AM
Carl Eyesnheart wrote:
Could that be it? They knew they wanted THE AVENGERS to do ridiculous business in every single aspect, so they threw more money at that, and took the toys and such away from JOHN CARTER? Or they didn't want that much merch on the shelves?
© 2013 Yuku. All rights reserved.