Just saw John Carter...

I have been staying away from this thread because I hate spoilers. Well I just saw the film and now I'm going to check out the comments above. But before I do I just want to say that I am totally baffled that anyone would say this movie was bad. Awesome film. If this film is suffering because of bad reviews, that is a travesty. And anyone complicit with that travesty should be ashamed of themselves, Barney.

lol, I never said it was bad! I said the trailer was horrible and makes the movie look like a pile.

i love you

ITS BAD OK! BARNEY'S REVIEWERS SAID SO! THEY ARE NEAVER WRONG! FOR GODS SAKE JUST LEAVE ROTTEN TOMATOES ALONE!

Black Barney wrote: lol, I never said it was bad! I said the trailer was horrible and makes the movie look like a pile.

i love you

Your complicity in the travesty lies in letting them influence your decision to not see the film, evil man.

I'm afraid I cannot love you.

Since we're still talking about it, I'm going to repost my review written near the beginning of this thread right after I saw it...which after all the discussion is still exactly how I feel about it:

Well I saw it on the weekend and it's ok. There IS probably 250 million worth of special effects and it's an epic story told on a grand scale BUT it's souless. It fails because you don't care about the characters. The only emotional attachment I felt was to that big 'ol alien puppy dog.

I couldn't have cared less about anyone else. It's dazzling eye candy though and that alone made me take another look at the old 1979 SPI board game John Carter: Warlord of Mars. What's that you say?! A-NOTHER board game from that era that only produced war and fantasy games!!! Why there seems to be more every day from the golden age of gaming.

I can't say the cardboard chits and paper map hold up well today though :-p.
So to recap....John Carter: wonderful eye candy with a convoluted paper thin plot and souless characters = box office bomb.

Black Barney wrote: lol, I never said it was bad!

You said it will have a bad script and bad characters.

S.

mikecl wrote: Since we're still talking about it, I'm going to repost my review written near the beginning of this thread right after I saw it...which after all the discussion is still exactly how I feel about it:

Well I saw it on the weekend and it's ok. There IS probably 250 million worth of special effects and it's an epic story told on a grand scale BUT it's souless. It fails because you don't care about the characters. The only emotional attachment I felt was to that big 'ol alien puppy dog.

I couldn't have cared less about anyone else. It's dazzling eye candy though and that alone made me take another look at the old 1979 SPI board game John Carter: Warlord of Mars. What's that you say?! A-NOTHER board game from that era that only produced war and fantasy games!!! Why there seems to be more every day from the golden age of gaming.

I can't say the cardboard chits and paper map hold up well today though :-p.
So to recap....John Carter: wonderful eye candy with a convoluted paper thin plot and souless characters = box office bomb.

I'll be curious to see how this contrasts with Wrath of the Titans.

Hatch, that's more than fair. I can't see everything and you're right that I am letting people that were 'meh' about the movie influence me not wanting to see it. I'm not going to play Operation Raccoon City for the same reason.

And doesn't RottenTomatoes say it's more good than bad? It's over 50% so more than 1 in 2 critics liked it.

Sag, wasn't I infering that from the trailer tho? I think I'm being taken out of context. Movies with strong characters and great scripts don't have trailers like that.

Why I liked the film:

Action films suck when they only document physical feats. But they work when there is enough of a plot to give the action a sense of urgency and purpose. And that tension and purpose needs to find its way into the protagonist. A convenient example is the first Bourne Identity film. The process of Bourne discovering who he is is bound to the overall plot, and the result is that the action has some intensity. The same thing with Die Hard. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples you nerds can call to mind.

John Carter had this too. He is an outsider by choice. But then you discover that his choice is is his way of coping with a profound loss. The film was a story of him rediscovering a cause (a person) worth fighting for, and allowing himself to commit to something (someone) again. There might be a bit more to it, but that's what I got in a nutshell. Though simple, there was enough plot and character to make the action compelling. Add to it some twists and surprises (like how all appeared lost in the penultimate scene) and some dynamic action, and you've got a solid action film. I think the film is even more than good given that there were some scenes that seemed hopeless turned around in an epic resolution.