I stand by the insantity statement. If not for this then for something else...I'm sure of it.

Alright, watched it myself last night.

I agree with Frank. This movie does have heart and it's how the SW prequels should have been shot. It does have an old-school epic feel.

I have only read the first book in the series, but I found the film to be very much in the spirit of the book. The sets and costumes where great as were the CGI on the Tharks. It was refreshing to see old-timey pulp heroes and villains rocking the bare chest, colorful cape/shoulder pad look. I'm so sick of the 'organic', gazillion-moving-part robot look that's in every movie now (including half the trailers I saw...Avengers, Battleship...they seem to be fighting the transformers...yawn).

The wife really enjoyed it as well, and she's not a big fan of these type of genre films. They did a good job with the pacing, characters, and included several laughs without getting all slapsticky. The Kantos Kan rescue was worth the price of admission alone.

Glad I didn't take the 5 year old to see it though. Tharks shooting their own hatchlings, dead wives and children, etc would have been a bit much. Also, there were a few bits that the film could have fleshed out more...such as the 9th ray. He'd be a bit lost.

John Carter's fight with the Warhoon is the closest to a live action Frazetta painting that's been put to film. Fantastic.

I'd rate this up there with the best genre films based on books of the past 10 years. Lord of the Rings, Spider-Man 2, John Carter.

That list is incomplete without Bubba Ho-Tep.
www.imdb.com/title/tt0281686/

SuperflyTNT wrote:


Every list is incomplete without Bubba Ho-Tep.

repoman wrote:


You want to watch the first couple of episodes of Tru Blood. Especially ep 4 or so :)

Finally got to see it last night, and I enjoyed it. No, it is not one of the truly great Hollywood genre films like The Dark Knight or Star Wars, but it is enjoyable and fun, and nowhere near the train wreck some have made it out to be. The movie I would say it is most similar to in quality is 1999's The Mummy, which is fun but falls down a bit under detailed analysis. While the Mummy is probably a tighter script and has more humor, the action is better in John Carter. I will get a copy for home viewing and watch it every few years like I do with The Mummy.

Still waiting for Barney's verdict ...

there's no way I'm seein' that movie. I'll see Jump Street first.

especially if you're saying The Mummy is better which I HATED

Yeah... Barney's not interested in seeing any new IPs or ideas. He's just into seeing sequels and prequels this year. :)

ugh, I hate sequels and prequels. I prefer IPs. But trumping both of those, I prefer great movies and I don't think John Carter will be that.

Hey, I have the opportunity to see 4 movies in short order. Here are the ones I will see and I PROMISE that if I were to see a 5th movie, it would be John Carter.

Today: 21 Jump Street
Friday: hunger games (looks great)
Monday: The Lorax (i don't expect it to be great but surely better than JohN Carter)
Tuesday; Safe House (same)

After those four, John Carter is top of my list until something better comes out.

Wow Barney. I expected you to be a bit more open minded when it comes to movies. To judge John Carter without seeing it well that smacks of "Pulsipher-ism" (just made that up).

Besides, you dis Carter and then list 21 Jump Street the movie as something you'd prefer. What? 21 Jump Street was iffy at best 20 years ago on Fox. Remaking this is about as great an idea as the Yogi Bear movie.

Hunger Games looks great? Yah perhaps if I was 15 and didn't know that the movie was originally titled "The Running Man".

Lorax better than John Carter? Lets see..on this hand Ultra Hot Martian Princess...and on this hand grumpy teddy bear with Wilfred Brimley mustache selling a leftest world view...gimme the Princess.