Tools
John Carter is based on Edgar Rice Burroughs’s Barsoom series, the first volume of which, A Princess of Mars, was originally published a century ago. The Barsoom books inspired most of the stuff you consider to be the sci-fi canon—Star Wars, early Star Trek, Dune, even He-Man. So how does an adaptation of a 100-year-old book—one that has been relentlessly strip-mined by everyone from George Lucas to David Lynch—manage to be so goddamned entertaining?
The answer, of course, involves Pixar. WALL•E director Andrew Stanton surrounded himself with a crew of skilled visual storytellers (and a few nonvisual storytellers, too, like nerd-friendly Pulitzer Prize–winning novelist Michael Chabon) to approach the characters with respect. The basic framework—a former Confederate soldier accidentally is transported to Mars, where he lands in the middle of a war between Red, White, and Green Martians that threatens to destroy the planet—is directly from the book. But rather than clinging desperately to some of the text’s pulpy quirks, Stanton streamlined the story, with Pixar’s near-perfect discipline, for a visual medium.
Stranger Personals
The pleasures are many. Mars, with its ships that travel on light and its four-armed warrior races, is endlessly beautiful to look at. (Although with the wide-screen shots of armies at war and desolate landscapes, the 3-D is more overwhelming than stately.) And Taylor Kitsch’s lovable performance as Carter, with his John Wayne cadence and his outright joy at learning that due to Mars’s lighter gravity he can leap great distances and punch with the force of a dozen men, like a reverse Superman, is the glue that holds everything together. John Carter gets silly at times (and there are a few stretches of dialogue laden with goofy names like “Tars Tarkas” and “Princess Dejah Thoris of Helium” that will elicit thunderous eye-rolls from non-nerds) but it’s ultimately a love letter to childlike wonder at the impossible made real. ![]()
Fun movie, and Lynn Collins was absolutely stunning. But this movie was originally shot in 2D, and framed and composed for 2D, and intended to be displayed in 2D. Only later was a conversion to 3D created. It sucks.
I shoot movies and commercials for a living, and much of the work of shooting in 2D is about creating a sense of dimensionality. Backgrounds are placed far away and out-of-focus foreground elements are added. But this is terribly distracting in 3D! It ruins the 3D effect! Watch Hugo: when two people are talking on screen, in the tight shots you don't typically see the shoulder of the person over whose shoulder you are looking; instead you just see a clean single. Why? Because the blurry foreground shit fucks up the 3D effect!
In 2D it is visually exciting to cut cut cut! from one shot to another, but in 3D you need a few seconds for your eyes to adjust to/be able to see the 3D in each new shot. That type of editing just doesn't work in 3D! It ruins the 3D effect! You fuckers!
The 2D version costs half as much and is twice as enjoyable. Seriously.
No, like Superman. A reverse Superman would be one of the martians being transported to Earth and barely able to move due to the increased gravity.
Carter's jumping ability - starting at long bounds and quickly escalating to cartoonish proportions took basically all seriousness out of the movie for me. It was disappointing to see Bryan Cranston and Dominic West wasted in this movie.
Kitsch was great as the brooding, post-jail Riggins. He broods much worse over his dead wife and child (which could be his sister, or his parents, whatever, that exposition was left on the cutting room floor) in Carter. The love story between him and the girl is preposterous (she falls in love literally the second they meet)
Agreed with @1 rubus above: 3D movies focus waaaay to much on ultra-narrow focus shots which maximize the 3D effect.
9
(And, Disney expects to lose $200 million on this piece of excrement, making it one of the biggest flops in cinema history. Think Cutthroat Island, or The Adventures of Pluto Nash. Or Ishtar. That laughably bad. It's not just those elitist critics piling on, either. The people have spoken with their wallets: moviegoers are avoiding it like the plague. The Mouse Empire will likely see an 80 to 120 million dollar loss during the current quarter, alone. Disney shares were down nearly 2% this AM over the news.)
Mind blown. So was my husbands. The acting is fine, the story is great, the visuals are fantastic and I love the cgi.
But then again - we are roleplaying nerds who love pixar, fantasy and sci fi movies - how could we NOT love JC?











RSS
Comments (14) RSS