Funny because SchumacherH8ter''s review doesn't even reflect the public's opinion of the film. At least that's the opinion I got from reading all of those highly positive Amazon.com reviews of the movie (which waits it's score at 4.5). Sure Amazon is only a website, but a lot of people buy from it, and obviously most customers who purchased/saw the movie were more than pleased.
Also I'm glad I saw it in theaters. Seeing it on DVD again, reminded me of underrated it really was. Not forgettable in the least.
I don't mind that people dislike it, but if someone calls it crap, I won't be afraid to defend it.
The most irrelevant possible collection of reviews you could offer would be those of the people who purchased it at Amazon. How many people do you think purchased the DVD unless they saw it and liked it in the theaters? However, I went to Amazon and checked the most recent ratings. The DVD received 5121 reviews. Out of those, 917 gave it 4 out of 5 stars, 1235 gave it 3, 1280 gave it 2 and 1289 gave it 1. I'm not sure in what universe that averages out to 4.5, but close to 60% of the respondents rated it 2 stars or less.
ADDENDUM: There was more than one link for this DVD at Amazon. Curiously enough after going back and taking another look, I found several different review ratings. The one I cited above remains the largest sample, which tends to lead me to trust it as the most accurate of purchasers' opinion. However, I find this a curious credibility issue with Amazon's ratings.
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken
I don't care about reflecting the opinion of the public. I do care about expressing my own opinion and my opinion is that John Carter wasn't a very good movie.
Joel Schumacher is history's greatest monster!-Robot Chicken https://twitter.com/SchumacherH8r Next-up: The Oogieloves
Funny because SchumacherH8ter''s review doesn't even reflect the public's opinion of the film. At least that's the opinion I got from reading all of those highly positive Amazon.com reviews of the movie (which waits it's score at 4.5). Sure Amazon is only a website, but a lot of people buy from it, and obviously most customers who purchased/saw the movie were more than pleased.
Also I'm glad I saw it in theaters. Seeing it on DVD again, reminded me of underrated it really was. Not forgettable in the least.
I don't mind that people dislike it, but if someone calls it crap, I won't be afraid to defend it.
John Carter wasn't Razzie material, but it was at best a rather complete waste of 2 hours of my life and on the whole, utterly forgetable. A tip of the hat here to SchumacherH8ter for a spot on review.
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken
As of right now, the movie has grossed back its budget worldwide. Unless you focus on domestic grosses only, this is no longer among the biggest flops.
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter
Why was Ciaran Hinds in this? Why does it feel like he's in everything?
It wasn't that, most people say the trailers weren't very well done. In turn however most people I know of said they were pleasantly surprised as a result since they thought it was going to suck.
That theory is very interesting and most likely true. Like the article said (and HeadRAZZ also said in this Forum) the problem for JOHN CARTER was the title. Although you can't trust the younger generation to know about the old source material, hearing the title BATTLESHIP at least you have some idea of what it's about. Also, their trailers had probelms. The one for BATTLESHIP played up similarities to TRANSFORMERS, but the one for CARTER showed some of the details that audiences would assume were ripped-off* from other movies (mainly PRINCE OF PERSIA) making it look less exciting.
*I know, the book was written in 1912, but you have to know the risks. If you're worried about adapting something 100 years old, knowing that it's likely to look unoriginal, then don't adapt it.
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Here's a LINK to read a berry interesting article in The L.A. Times (the movie industry's Local Paper of Record) asking why JOHN CARTER got an avalanche of bad publicity when it bombed, while BATTLESHIP (whose b.o. and budget numbers are berry similar -- and which also, coincidentally, stars Taylor Kitsch) got away almost scott free...
To answer the poll... No, it shouldn't be nominated for Worst Picture. Worst Actor? Maybe. Taylor Kitsch wasn't that bad, but I'll wait until I see BATTLESHIP to decide. Worst 3D? Although I didn't see it in 3D, the shots seemed like they must've looked good. But those who actually see it in 3D have to decide.
Is this the world we live in? Why is it that the highest grossing movies tend to be the best and the not that bad, while the worst and the not that good (like this) are the flops? This is a masterpiece compared to most live-action Disney movies. It sends a wrong message.
Time to rip into John Carter. Before I do though, I'll note this: It's easily the best movie I'm reviewing this week. Especially since the rest of this week's movies all get F's!
The first scene where John discovers he can jump well is handled well. I actually got excited for it. The special effects are handled well here as well. The Tharks look great. Some of the action scenes are good like the end fight. And, I'd be negligent if I didn't mention that Woola, John's alien-dog thing, is the best character in the movie. He deserves a better movie to be in than this.
Lynn Collins is kinda stiff as Dejah, a Martian princess. She has some funny faces though. The screenplay is surprisingly bland when you consider that one of the writers has a Pulitzer. The film has one of the biggest non "mo-crap" examples of "uncanny valley" in recent memory with the Thark babies. They look ugly and their cries are scarier than some horror movie villains.
Taylor Kitsch gives one of the blandest performances in ages. He seems rather non-plussed about seeing a giant green alien. He's not as bad as he was in Battleship, but that's not saying much. I thought that he was decent in that sh*tty Wolverine spin-off though. The 3-D here isn't at the same level as Clash Of The Titans, Green Lantern, or Last Airbender, but it's close. The pacing here is even worse than in Three Musketeers. It's two hours 12 minutes, but feels closer to three hours. But almost all the blame can be laid at Andrew Stanton's feet. His direction is realy crappy and he "helped" with the marketing that killed the film.
Why was Ciaran Hinds in this? Why does it feel like he's in everything? Grade: C-
Next-up: The Vow!
Joel Schumacher is history's greatest monster!-Robot Chicken https://twitter.com/SchumacherH8r Next-up: The Oogieloves
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Furl
Google Boomarks
Google Buzz
MySpace
Newsvine
reddit
StumbleUpon
Twitter
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Post Options
Quote 
Topic: Forum Members' Discussion of JOHN CARTER
