I'll give it a shot.
I'll give it a shot.
Turns out the Graun wasn't impressed
One out of Five. Ouchies.
I just saw the movie - I liked it! :)
Yes, it is very Disnefied, and yes, it appears that huge chunks of the story were skipped and whatnot, but because I haven't read the books, it seemed fine to me and a lot of fun. Of course, it was also the first film I ever watched in 3D and that added a lot of fun factor to it. I probably could have watched anything in 3D and I would have thought it was great.
I'll give it this, it made me interested in reading the book which I will pick up this weekend. So, there. :p
From editor Lou Anders on Facebook:
I thought John Carter was great. It's scored 72% with audience members on Rotten Tomatoes, but only 50% with critics. Why the discrepancy? Because it doesn't look like every other rehash of Alien/Aliens or Bladerunner that they've been trained to expect SF cinema to resemble. John Carter is more akin to Lynch's Dune, or a played-for-straight Flash Gordon. I'm tired of marines in space fighting HR Giger-inspired creations. More outside that mold please!
Can't disagree with that, myself.Quote:
I really liked it, and like it more with each passing hour. If you plan on seeing it, please see it in the next week or so where your $$ will make a difference. As to the story - they basically looked at all three of the first novels and assembled a coherent single movie out of the material available. It's surprisingly faithful in places, takes liberties in others. I rather liked John Carter's backstory (as he's now another favorite character of mine, The Outlaw Josey Wales) and thought some of their additions were very good. I'm also very pleased with things they kept I thought for sure would be lost.
Have not seen it yet but still looking forward to it, reviewers, especially for SF films, almost never get it right. Does anyone recall the dreadful reviews Star Wars (A New Hope) got from the NY Times?
I don't see what's so dreadful about the NYTimes review of Star Wars (link to review here). The initial reviews for Star Wars were very positive, and the film was even nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture in 1977.
I think Anders's analysis is also off. There have been plenty of popular, critically acclaimed science fiction movies that have not been rehashes of Alien or Blade Runner (E.T., Back to the Future, Terminator 1 and 2, Jurassic Park, 12 Monkeys, Star Trek, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, etc.). According to the NYTimes, Disney was hoping that John Carter would be their Avatar.
I thought he was thinking recently? A generalisation, I know, but I take his point.Quote:
There have been plenty of popular, critically acclaimed science fiction movies that have not been rehashes of Alien or Blade Runner
The story I was told was that 3D was 'made to happen', even though Stanton didn't really want it.Quote:
Disney was hoping that John Carter would be their Avatar.
Don't think Stanton's the scapegoat here. With a better advertising campaign, it could've worked.
I've got this one on my list because is such a mash-up of genres, or it appears that way. I'm not familiar with the John Carter series. Yes, I've had my head in the sand. I admit to loving Poul Anderson's Virgin Planet, a kind of SF tech meets swords tale.
Yeah, I'm going to see this in an hour, or so. I've not read any Burroughs, so I've no expectations on the film. Honestly, I'm looking for mere fun with the 3D, and something reasonably entertaining. We'll see how it goes; I'll report back.
Go, Pete! Be interested to read what you think.
How many very recent, critically-acclaimed science fiction movies fit Anders's description? I'm having trouble coming up with any. The closest I can think of is District 9, and I'm not sure it's really what he is talking about.