I wasn't impressed when I saw the trailer for this picture prior to watching "Act of Valor" a few weeks ago, in fact I didn't even know there was a film in the works adapting this Edgar Rice Burroughs creation of a century ago. I might have passed on the movie, but was influenced by the glowing reviews of a number of posters here on the IMDb. Just got back from seeing the picture, and this is where you'd probably expect to see me join the chorus of folks dazzled by the brilliance of the picture. Sorry, it just didn't do it for me. Now I'm not going to slam it as a terrible movie, waste of time, wasted two hours of my life business like a lot of haters do when they don't like a picture. There are things I liked and things I didn't, and the negatives tip the scale for me.
That's primarily because the film seemed to rely too much on the big battle scenes and over the top action sequences that apparently appeal to a movie going public that's considerably younger than myself. It seems to me that pictures today try to outdo every one that went before in the visuals department, and I don't think that should be the standard for effective story telling. Burroughs himself proved that by the longevity of his books, the first of which in the Barsoom series was called "A Princess of Mars", the basis for this story.
Additionally, there were aspects of the story that were hard to follow, particularly when the shape shifting character was involved. Interestingly, this aspect of the movie (the hard to follow part) doesn't bother a lot of movie-goers on this board who give the picture high praise, but I REALLY want to know what's going on in a story. Repeat viewings may clear up some of my confusion, but that shouldn't be a requirement to totally enjoy a picture.
Giving credit where it's due though, I liked the way the picture brought the Tharks to life, excellent characterizations and CGI work there. The battling sky-ships were also handled exceptionally well, along with all the other special effects. It's just that special effects aren't all that necessary for me. Probably the most interesting aspect of the movie was the way the story book-ended Edgar Rice Burroughs himself as a character in the story.
Interestingly, this very morning I watched the 1951 movie "Quo Vadis", and in one of many odd occurrences I seem to experience lately, that movie which takes place in the year 68 AD in Imperial Rome, offers a number of scenes involving gladiator combat against wild animals in an arena for the entertainment of the masses. Back then, the opponents were real, lions and wild bulls, and the spectators clamored for blood. "John Carter" reinforces the idea that everything old is new again, and replacing ancient Romans with Tharks as Carter (Taylor Kitsch) and Sola battle those big white eyeless apes is an updated appeal to fans who expect something new and different every time out. For younger fans, I can see how this would be exciting stuff, and I don't mean any disrespect when I say it's all been said and done before. At least in the case of Burroughs' novels, they were said and done a hundred years ago.
That's primarily because the film seemed to rely too much on the big battle scenes and over the top action sequences that apparently appeal to a movie going public that's considerably younger than myself. It seems to me that pictures today try to outdo every one that went before in the visuals department, and I don't think that should be the standard for effective story telling. Burroughs himself proved that by the longevity of his books, the first of which in the Barsoom series was called "A Princess of Mars", the basis for this story.
Additionally, there were aspects of the story that were hard to follow, particularly when the shape shifting character was involved. Interestingly, this aspect of the movie (the hard to follow part) doesn't bother a lot of movie-goers on this board who give the picture high praise, but I REALLY want to know what's going on in a story. Repeat viewings may clear up some of my confusion, but that shouldn't be a requirement to totally enjoy a picture.
Giving credit where it's due though, I liked the way the picture brought the Tharks to life, excellent characterizations and CGI work there. The battling sky-ships were also handled exceptionally well, along with all the other special effects. It's just that special effects aren't all that necessary for me. Probably the most interesting aspect of the movie was the way the story book-ended Edgar Rice Burroughs himself as a character in the story.
Interestingly, this very morning I watched the 1951 movie "Quo Vadis", and in one of many odd occurrences I seem to experience lately, that movie which takes place in the year 68 AD in Imperial Rome, offers a number of scenes involving gladiator combat against wild animals in an arena for the entertainment of the masses. Back then, the opponents were real, lions and wild bulls, and the spectators clamored for blood. "John Carter" reinforces the idea that everything old is new again, and replacing ancient Romans with Tharks as Carter (Taylor Kitsch) and Sola battle those big white eyeless apes is an updated appeal to fans who expect something new and different every time out. For younger fans, I can see how this would be exciting stuff, and I don't mean any disrespect when I say it's all been said and done before. At least in the case of Burroughs' novels, they were said and done a hundred years ago.