John Carter
1/4
Starring: Taylor Kitsch, Lynne Collins, Samantha Morton, Mark Strong, Ciaran Hinds, Dominic West, James Purefoy, Willem Dafoe
Rated PG-13 for Intense Sequences of Violence and Action
When it comes to big budget movies, Hollywood wants to make sure that they're getting it right. With all that money at stake, it can't be just a shameless money grab. They have to make sure that people will actually like the movie. Despite there being exceptions to this (like the "Transformers" franchise), big budgets mean, at worst, a decent time at the movies. Unfortunately for Disney, "John Carter" is one of those exceptions.
There's far too much plot for this movie's good. There's enough story and subplots running around for a four hour miniseries. That, by the way, is not the film's only problem, but it is there. What I could figure out a Civil War soldier named John Carter (Kitsch) is looking for a cave made out of gold, and he ends up finding a medallion that takes him to Mars. There, he ends up in what is really a three-way battle between the natives.
The biggest problem is that Taylor Kitsch, who plays the title character, is horrible. He can't act, and in an attempt to become intense, he growls his way through his lines. Lynn Collins isn't much better, although she can act (she was quite good in the little seen "Bug"). The supporting characters, played by Ciaran Hinds, Mark Strong (once again playing a villain), and Willem Dafoe (in a voice role) are adequate. The best performance (actually, the only good one), is given by James Purefoy, who is clearly enjoying himself. In a note of irony, he's playing the second-in-command to Ciaran Hinds, just like he did in the HBO series "Rome" (Polly Walker also has a role, but it's just voice acting and it's really small).
Sure, the movie is visually dazzling, but that can be said about any big budget endeavor. It's also hampered by awful 3D. The film constantly looks dark and blurry, and it bleeds out any possible enjoyment from the film. I'm not a fan of 3D, but with a budget this high, I expected it to be actually decent.
This is a movie that is going to make Disney very nervous. It's obviously intended to be the start of a franchise (iMDb already has a sequel listed, though without a set release date). But despite all the buzz they've generated about it, it won't stop word from spreading about how lame the movie is. What does it say about a movie when the most sympathetic character is a 600 pound worm with the personality of a border collie?
"John Carter" is directed by Andrew Stanton, who made two of the most beloved Pixar films, "Finding Nemo" and "Wall-E." Based on this, he should stick to animated films. This is a terrible movie. The plot only makes sense half of the time, the acting is lackluster and there are plotholes everywhere. But worst of all, the movie is just plain boring. Even with so much going on, it's a $250 million sleep aid.
Starring: Taylor Kitsch, Lynne Collins, Samantha Morton, Mark Strong, Ciaran Hinds, Dominic West, James Purefoy, Willem Dafoe
Rated PG-13 for Intense Sequences of Violence and Action
When it comes to big budget movies, Hollywood wants to make sure that they're getting it right. With all that money at stake, it can't be just a shameless money grab. They have to make sure that people will actually like the movie. Despite there being exceptions to this (like the "Transformers" franchise), big budgets mean, at worst, a decent time at the movies. Unfortunately for Disney, "John Carter" is one of those exceptions.
There's far too much plot for this movie's good. There's enough story and subplots running around for a four hour miniseries. That, by the way, is not the film's only problem, but it is there. What I could figure out a Civil War soldier named John Carter (Kitsch) is looking for a cave made out of gold, and he ends up finding a medallion that takes him to Mars. There, he ends up in what is really a three-way battle between the natives.
The biggest problem is that Taylor Kitsch, who plays the title character, is horrible. He can't act, and in an attempt to become intense, he growls his way through his lines. Lynn Collins isn't much better, although she can act (she was quite good in the little seen "Bug"). The supporting characters, played by Ciaran Hinds, Mark Strong (once again playing a villain), and Willem Dafoe (in a voice role) are adequate. The best performance (actually, the only good one), is given by James Purefoy, who is clearly enjoying himself. In a note of irony, he's playing the second-in-command to Ciaran Hinds, just like he did in the HBO series "Rome" (Polly Walker also has a role, but it's just voice acting and it's really small).
Sure, the movie is visually dazzling, but that can be said about any big budget endeavor. It's also hampered by awful 3D. The film constantly looks dark and blurry, and it bleeds out any possible enjoyment from the film. I'm not a fan of 3D, but with a budget this high, I expected it to be actually decent.
This is a movie that is going to make Disney very nervous. It's obviously intended to be the start of a franchise (iMDb already has a sequel listed, though without a set release date). But despite all the buzz they've generated about it, it won't stop word from spreading about how lame the movie is. What does it say about a movie when the most sympathetic character is a 600 pound worm with the personality of a border collie?
"John Carter" is directed by Andrew Stanton, who made two of the most beloved Pixar films, "Finding Nemo" and "Wall-E." Based on this, he should stick to animated films. This is a terrible movie. The plot only makes sense half of the time, the acting is lackluster and there are plotholes everywhere. But worst of all, the movie is just plain boring. Even with so much going on, it's a $250 million sleep aid.
Comments
Post a Comment