AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Yeah, every single person in that movie is a dick and Pilgrim is rewarded for being a complete dick.
It's, it's perfect I guess for Internet Cowboys, but it's not a great love story by any shot. To think it is would suggest that one has not in fact been in love before, imo.
Holy shit Lockout bombed hard. Made less than 7 mil over the weekend and the sad thing is it only cost 30 mil to make, minus the advertising which seemed to be pretty big. Oh well.
Like, I was born in 1989, and I'd say 88/89 should be around the cut off but according to wiki, it's like 1975 or some shit.
That being said, retro 80s was a thing last decade, so there's that I guess.
I'm an '85, myself, and it struck me as hipstery and ironic rather than loving if that makes sense. It was like being asked to deeply care about the characters on Portlandia.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
My roommates and girlfriend loved the film, but I couldn't stand it.
Just, everyone was a dickbag and I wanted them all to die and when they didn't I was angry.
And the fact that
Ramona and Scott end up together really grinds my gears because what has Scott done to "earn" that? Been a dick bag and lied the whole time. Ramona seemed pretty cool, but they nuked her character with the "Loser Nerd Jerkass Wins the Day".
Which, I think, is why the internet loves it so much: revenge of the nerds (no offense intended to my nerdly brethern and sister-en).
1980 here. I like the film for it's visual gags and unique style, and I laugh at the horrible humans behind the screen the way I laugh at monkeys fighting at the zoo.
I find their horribleness entertaining, not something I can relate to.
Summer of 81 for me. One of my first lingering memories was playing Mario on the NES. Good times.
I'M NOT FINISHED WITH YOU!!!
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
Scott Pilgrim basically made me want to go home and rub off all my skin with 80-grit sandpaper, kill a fatted calf, and salt the entirety of Canada and upstate New York.
I guess you could say it wasn't my thing.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
What's the great Millenial movie romance, then? Legitimately great, I mean, not just Twilight or one of those Nicolas Sparks things.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Is there one yet? We're fucking twenty, late twenties, early thirties.
Most of us, I'd wager, haven't really hit it in real life, much less need one on film.
But it isn't Scott Fucking Pilgrim, I'll tell you that.
I adored Scott Pilgrim. Every character is more or less an asshole, yes, but if I only watched movies where everyone was awesome, I'd have to leave out not just Scott Pilgrim, but Apocalypse Now, Taxi Driver, Pulp Fiction, The Godfather, every single film noir ever made...
I suppose you could say that in a lot of these movies we aren't supposed to like the people, but we are supposed to like Scott Pilgrim and everyone else, but even if that's right, I don't care what I'm supposed to do. If I can enjoy the movie even though the characters are assholes, then I'm going to enjoy the movie, dammit. In fact we already talked about that movie in this thread so here's what I said back on page one:
That's interesting, because although I'm of course a gamer, none of the video game stuff in Scott Pilgrim really resonated with me, aside from the coins every time he won a fight (those were kind of neat). The rest of it I could take or leave. What really made me fall in love was the pacing and general tone (sight gag after sight gag mixed in with relentless non-diegetic noises and constant magical realism) and the humor. What I sort of worry about is all the video game stuff turning people off by flipping the "this is for nerds" switch in their head. I think to enjoy Scott Pilgrim you really have to be totally open to it: I went in not knowing anything and had a lot of fun (which is pretty much how I view all entertainment), but if I were close-minded in any way I could see myself really shutting down. The movie does have in-jokes that only games are really going to get, and although I felt it would've been just as good without them, if I were a non-gamer, I might feel isolated and suspect that the movie's not for me in some way.
Which would be a shame, but I suspect that plus hatred of anything that looks like a "hipster" is what turns a lot of people off with that movie.
The romance movie of the millenial generation, though? Hell no. Off the top of my head, (500) Days of Summer would be one of the big contenders for that prize. Other movies that are probably better romances for people around my age: Adventureland, Y Tu Mamá También, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
Edgar Wright, the director, also co-created/directed the show Spaced, a thing that did everything Scott Pilgrim tried to do (and more), and did it right.
Edgar Wright, the director, also co-created/directed the show Spaced, a thing that did everything Scott Pilgrim tried to do (and more), and did it right.
Wow, retrospectively there actually are a ton of stylistic similarities between those, I never really recognized it before.
Though, I have to say I actually did really enjoy Scott Pilgrim. I'm a sucker for things that put style over substance, though.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Spaced is pretty excellent, and presages a bunch of Edgar Wright's later work.
500 Days of Summer is such a sexist pile of garbage though. And also just Annie Hall, only less self-aware. Beautifully shot though.
Spaced is pretty excellent, and presages a bunch of Edgar Wright's later work.
500 Days of Summer is such a sexist pile of garbage though. And also just Annie Hall, only less self-aware. Beautifully shot though.
Ugh, I've seen a few people say this sort of thing, and it seems to me to be a huge misreading of the film. I think this article says it fairly well, or maybe I'm thinking of something else I read, but in short, I think that if you see (500) Days of Summer as sexist, it's likely because you're taking Gordon-Levitt's character's viewpoint as authoritative rather than as deeply flawed. The movie is very much from his perspective. It's not just that he's the main character: we see inside his head multiple times, the entire narrative is framed in terms of a portion of his life (note the title, for instance: it's 500 days of Summer not because she only lives for 500 days or something but because the movie is about him and the 500 days he spent with her), if you read it otherwise it's a pretty dumb movie, etc. Given this framing, I think it's an excellent movie, because it's as far from being sexist as you can get. It's mocking (or perhaps a more neutral word like "examining" would be better) his view of the world, and of Summer. He doesn't get her. He doesn't get anything. She's some mix of Manic Pixie Dream Girl and classic Romantic Movie Dream Girl.
What's funny is that, like the article I linked points out, his character ties some of his silly views on romance to a gross misreading of The Graduate. And now fast forward to today, and people are similarly misreading (500) Days of Summer, except instead of turning a deconstruction of a romance into a romance like he did with The Graduate, they're turning the deconstruction that is (500) Days of Summer into a traditional romance, and when you do that, I agree that it's super sexist, beginning with the bitch quote the movie starts with and continuing with, like, everything that happens.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Spaced is pretty excellent, and presages a bunch of Edgar Wright's later work.
500 Days of Summer is such a sexist pile of garbage though. And also just Annie Hall, only less self-aware. Beautifully shot though.
Ugh, I've seen a few people say this sort of thing, and it seems to me to be a huge misreading of the film. I think this article says it fairly well, or maybe I'm thinking of something else I read, but in short, I think that if you see (500) Days of Summer as sexist, it's likely because you're taking Gordon-Levitt's character's viewpoint as authoritative rather than as deeply flawed. The movie is very much from his perspective. It's not just that he's the main character: we see inside his head multiple times, the entire narrative is framed in terms of a portion of his life (note the title, for instance: it's 500 days of Summer not because she only lives for 500 days or something but because the movie is about him and the 500 days he spent with her), if you read it otherwise it's a pretty dumb movie, etc. Given this framing, I think it's an excellent movie, because it's as far from being sexist as you can get. It's mocking (or perhaps a more neutral word like "examining" would be better) his view of the world, and of Summer. He doesn't get her. He doesn't get anything. She's some mix of Manic Pixie Dream Girl and classic Romantic Movie Dream Girl.
I guess my problem is that the movie seemed to be taking a more objective perspective than that. Annie Hall, for instance, is clearly in its protagonist's head from beginning to end, the narrative framed and arranged as one long monologue, with the fictionalization and metaphorization of the story and of Annie clearly something the film is aware of and intends, from restaging an argument with a new ending to Annie having an out-of-body experience during sex to "I'm into leather". It's presented, arranged, and explained by Alvy Singer.
500 Days, on the other hand, frames things from the perspective of an omniscient narrator, and the time-jumps from (day) to (day) are authorial, not related to Levitt's character's state of mind or subjective take on his own story. When, after sex, a song-and-dance number breaks out, it feels like an authorial description of Tom, not a self-interpretation. Indeed the character simply isn't self-aware enough to make such an examination work--he is a flawed and deluded person who would never have been able to tell his story, certainly not the way it appears in the film. Look at the scene when we see the contrast between Tom's fantasy and an objective reality--if the film were actually from his perspective, that sort of division would not be possible.
I agree the film is critical of Tom and his absurd romantic notions; but the objective authorial framing prevents me from laying the shoddy characterization (particularly the female lead) at Tom's feet. There's nothing in the film to suggest that Tom himself is limiting my view of that character; in fact, the objective narrator himself at one point narrates over a missed opportunity for characterization. It doesn't feel like we're missing the bits that would flesh out the MPDG (who here is really just the traditional male-cad-who-likes-things-casual minus the penis) because Tom is withholding them from us but because the film is withholding them from us.
I also think, as a lesser complaint, that the film makes it too easy to take Tom's side uncritically, as evidenced by the many reviewers who missed the movie's intentions.
What's the great Millenial movie romance, then? Legitimately great, I mean, not just Twilight or one of those Nicolas Sparks things.
I would vote for the Scott Pilgrim books. In which the whole point(Scott growing up and learning not to be a dick) is more pronounced and doesn't happen at the last minute so you can relate to him and even champion him and Ramona is a character and not a prize.
Also what the fuck? Everybody is not a dick in the movie! Everyone in the band, Nick, and Knives are all totally likable and Wallace is the kinda asshole that is lovable.
And as the entire point of SCvTW is arrested Development and nostalgia of course Millinials love it! Arrested Development's their deal and for some reason they love nostalgia.
I'm 22 and my similarly aged friends talk constantly about playing Nintendo as a kid.
My 1 year old cousin has spent a year tracking down a gameboy color! Something he doesn't even remember.
Liked it, didn't love it. I didn't really get any sense of the mind-bending shocks that I'd been expecting based on the hype. I'd seen the trailer so I knew there was some sort of human organistaion behind the horror but I don't consider that a spoiler since it was established in the opening few minutes - it was premise, rather than twist. The only real surprise to me was when it became clear that there were genuine supernatural elements involved and after that it felt like a fairly standard Ancient-Evil-meets-bureaucracy arrangement, which has been a Whedon staple since forever. I dunno, I've never been a big horror fan, so maybe I didn't appreciate the whole deconstruction of the genre thing as much as others did.
And as the entire point of SCvTW is arrested Development and nostalgia of course Millinials love it! Arrested Development's their deal and for some reason they love nostalgia.
I'm 22 and my similarly aged friends talk constantly about playing Nintendo as a kid.
My 1 year old cousin has spent a year tracking down a gameboy color! Something he doesn't even remember.
How has your 1 year old cousin spent a year tracking down a Gameboy Color?
0
Options
Linespider5ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGERRegistered Userregular
edited April 2012
John Carter finally came to my town this weekend.
Now, I understand some people have some criticisms about the movie that are reasonable. But I'm here to tell you it is one of the best movies of the year.
Ross and others mentioning some pacing issues. Possibly. Maybe it's not really for me to say. I've always been rather of the opinion that if a movie delivers in the end, my initial feelings starting out are usually unimportant. Although it is somewhat jarring when one of the very first lines of dialogue in the movie is a man in armor screaming directly at the camera.
And yet...from there footing is found. I won't get into all of it, because I'm not sure how many would bother to read it.
John Carter is a man damaged by loss, and disillusioned from helping others thanks to being an exceptional man who has had a history of being used to achieve aims he wanted no part of. It's telling that in the beginning of the movie, he's already found his treasure, but merely finding treasure does not make one a hero. Carter is a man who is done being used, seeking the security of cynicism to protect himself from a world made of roles he no longer wishes to fulfill.
I actually enjoyed seeing a protagonist seeking justification before accepting his role in a story.
John Carter also has led me to wondering exactly how many Fantasy and Science Fiction stories begin through an unintended cultural taboo broken or transgression carried out.
The movie itself is...beautiful. The costume work is stellar, and it was early in the movie when I began to notice the designs all Jaddaks wear, the shoulder frill of the White Ape. There's just a ton of well done work hanging off everyone. Although the big stuff happens on Mars, the events in the American west as well as in New York are not dull. The movie never drags, or seeks to tire you without anything unnecessary. Unlike TRON: Legacy, which has a weak middle in the End of Line club battle, or Pirates of the Caribbean Curse of the Black Pearl, which has high points that make several other spots along the way seem like irritating diversions to chew up time until the return of the plot, John Carter lets nothing go to waste. Although there are a number of secondary characters I would've liked the chance to know better than the movie got to let us.
I need to mention a moment in the beginning of the movie that made my jaw drop and I almost dropped my beer as well: The introduction of Deja Thoris, Princess of Mars, where the director Andrew Stanton has the balls to give a nod to David Lynch's Dune.
And that kind of clinched it for me. The plot that unfolded before my eyes is ostensibly a love letter to every sci-fi failure of the last 30 or so years, be it Dune, or Flash Gordon, or Krull, or Ice Pirates, by actually being able to complete the reach for greatness that these others grasped for with varying degrees of success and incompetence. I won't say it's what Stanton wanted, but when I do my Space Adventure Film Festival, I'll start with Flash Gordon and end with John Carter. It'll be like watching a series of rough drafts until the polished capstone arrives at the end.
I've heard from a number of people that they really liked John Carter. It sounds like I should go see it. It's unbelievable how hard it has flopped domestically, I gather it is doing much better outside the US though.
My zombie survival life simulator They Don't Sleep is out now on Steam if you want to check it out.
Liked it, didn't love it. I didn't really get any sense of the mind-bending shocks that I'd been expecting based on the hype. I'd seen the trailer so I knew there was some sort of human organistaion behind the horror but I don't consider that a spoiler since it was established in the opening few minutes - it was premise, rather than twist. The only real surprise to me was when it became clear that there were genuine supernatural elements involved and after that it felt like a fairly standard Ancient-Evil-meets-bureaucracy arrangement, which has been a Whedon staple since forever. I dunno, I've never been a big horror fan, so maybe I didn't appreciate the whole deconstruction of the genre thing as much as others did.
This is pretty much exactly how I feel. They broadcast the "twist" so hard from the beginning that it isn't surprising in the slightest. And the ending is exactly what I expected from Whedon.
There were some really funny parts, but I find Whedon's humor hit or miss so there wasn't quite enough for it to carry the movie for me. It's definitely one of the best slasher movies I've ever seen, but that isn't much of a compliment. I would have liked it a lot more if it had actually run with its high concept, instead of just using it for the occasional burst of meta humor.
I will give it credit for surprising me with one thing though:
My roommates and girlfriend loved the film, but I couldn't stand it.
Just, everyone was a dickbag and I wanted them all to die and when they didn't I was angry.
And the fact that
Ramona and Scott end up together really grinds my gears because what has Scott done to "earn" that? Been a dick bag and lied the whole time. Ramona seemed pretty cool, but they nuked her character with the "Loser Nerd Jerkass Wins the Day".
Which, I think, is why the internet loves it so much: revenge of the nerds (no offense intended to my nerdly brethern and sister-en).
I liked
The alternate ending where Scott ended up with Knives better. Although an ending where he didn't end up with either of them might have worked better albeit not be as satisfying.
And that kind of clinched it for me. The plot that unfolded before my eyes is ostensibly a love letter to every sci-fi failure of the last 30 or so years, be it Dune, or Flash Gordon, or Krull, or Ice Pirates, by actually being able to complete the reach for greatness that these others grasped for with varying degrees of success and incompetence. I won't say it's what Stanton wanted, but when I do my Space Adventure Film Festival, I'll start with Flash Gordon and end with John Carter. It'll be like watching a series of rough drafts until the polished capstone arrives at the end.
The reason for this is that nearly every sci-fi epic of the past 50 or so years has freely lifted bits and pieces from the Barsoom series and woven them into their own narratives.
0
Options
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I've heard from a number of people that they really liked John Carter. It sounds like I should go see it. It's unbelievable how hard it has flopped domestically, I gather it is doing much better outside the US though.
I've heard from a number of people that they really liked John Carter. It sounds like I should go see it. It's unbelievable how hard it has flopped domestically, I gather it is doing much better outside the US though.
I thought it was so so bad. I mean, terrible.
And I thought the first half was a terrible movie and the second half was a great movie.
My roommates and girlfriend loved the film, but I couldn't stand it.
Just, everyone was a dickbag and I wanted them all to die and when they didn't I was angry.
And the fact that
Ramona and Scott end up together really grinds my gears because what has Scott done to "earn" that? Been a dick bag and lied the whole time. Ramona seemed pretty cool, but they nuked her character with the "Loser Nerd Jerkass Wins the Day".
Which, I think, is why the internet loves it so much: revenge of the nerds (no offense intended to my nerdly brethern and sister-en).
I liked
The alternate ending where Scott ended up with Knives better. Although an ending where he didn't end up with either of them might have worked better albeit not be as satisfying.
Hmm, I think that might be better. I'd find an ending where he ended up with no one, but understood why, would be pretty satisfying, at the very least that would give him some kind of growth and character arch.
My roommates and girlfriend loved the film, but I couldn't stand it.
Just, everyone was a dickbag and I wanted them all to die and when they didn't I was angry.
And the fact that
Ramona and Scott end up together really grinds my gears because what has Scott done to "earn" that? Been a dick bag and lied the whole time. Ramona seemed pretty cool, but they nuked her character with the "Loser Nerd Jerkass Wins the Day".
Which, I think, is why the internet loves it so much: revenge of the nerds (no offense intended to my nerdly brethern and sister-en).
I liked
The alternate ending where Scott ended up with Knives better. Although an ending where he didn't end up with either of them might have worked better albeit not be as satisfying.
Hmm, I think that might be better. I'd find an ending where he ended up with no one, but understood why, would be pretty satisfying, at the very least that would give him some kind of growth and character arch.
To say that Scott ended up with Ramona is to confuse an ending with a beginning.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
My roommates and girlfriend loved the film, but I couldn't stand it.
Just, everyone was a dickbag and I wanted them all to die and when they didn't I was angry.
And the fact that
Ramona and Scott end up together really grinds my gears because what has Scott done to "earn" that? Been a dick bag and lied the whole time. Ramona seemed pretty cool, but they nuked her character with the "Loser Nerd Jerkass Wins the Day".
Which, I think, is why the internet loves it so much: revenge of the nerds (no offense intended to my nerdly brethern and sister-en).
I liked
The alternate ending where Scott ended up with Knives better. Although an ending where he didn't end up with either of them might have worked better albeit not be as satisfying.
Hmm, I think that might be better. I'd find an ending where he ended up with no one, but understood why, would be pretty satisfying, at the very least that would give him some kind of growth and character arch.
To say that Scott ended up with Ramona is to confuse an ending with a beginning.
Cabin in the Woods
...I dunno, I've never been a big horror fan...
That's why it was only a "liked it/didn't love it" movie to you.
Yeah that's what I figured, and I'm cool with that. I guess I was kind of expecting/hoping for something more there for the more general moviegoer too, that's all.
Posts
It's, it's perfect I guess for Internet Cowboys, but it's not a great love story by any shot. To think it is would suggest that one has not in fact been in love before, imo.
It's Wayne's World except with dickier characters and references already way more dated than music will be.
That being said, retro 80s was a thing last decade, so there's that I guess.
I'm an '85, myself, and it struck me as hipstery and ironic rather than loving if that makes sense. It was like being asked to deeply care about the characters on Portlandia.
Just, everyone was a dickbag and I wanted them all to die and when they didn't I was angry.
And the fact that
Which, I think, is why the internet loves it so much: revenge of the nerds (no offense intended to my nerdly brethern and sister-en).
I find their horribleness entertaining, not something I can relate to.
I guess you could say it wasn't my thing.
Most of us, I'd wager, haven't really hit it in real life, much less need one on film.
But it isn't Scott Fucking Pilgrim, I'll tell you that.
I suppose you could say that in a lot of these movies we aren't supposed to like the people, but we are supposed to like Scott Pilgrim and everyone else, but even if that's right, I don't care what I'm supposed to do. If I can enjoy the movie even though the characters are assholes, then I'm going to enjoy the movie, dammit. In fact we already talked about that movie in this thread so here's what I said back on page one:
The romance movie of the millenial generation, though? Hell no. Off the top of my head, (500) Days of Summer would be one of the big contenders for that prize. Other movies that are probably better romances for people around my age: Adventureland, Y Tu Mamá También, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
Edgar Wright, the director, also co-created/directed the show Spaced, a thing that did everything Scott Pilgrim tried to do (and more), and did it right.
Wow, retrospectively there actually are a ton of stylistic similarities between those, I never really recognized it before.
Though, I have to say I actually did really enjoy Scott Pilgrim. I'm a sucker for things that put style over substance, though.
500 Days of Summer is such a sexist pile of garbage though. And also just Annie Hall, only less self-aware. Beautifully shot though.
What's funny is that, like the article I linked points out, his character ties some of his silly views on romance to a gross misreading of The Graduate. And now fast forward to today, and people are similarly misreading (500) Days of Summer, except instead of turning a deconstruction of a romance into a romance like he did with The Graduate, they're turning the deconstruction that is (500) Days of Summer into a traditional romance, and when you do that, I agree that it's super sexist, beginning with the bitch quote the movie starts with and continuing with, like, everything that happens.
I guess my problem is that the movie seemed to be taking a more objective perspective than that. Annie Hall, for instance, is clearly in its protagonist's head from beginning to end, the narrative framed and arranged as one long monologue, with the fictionalization and metaphorization of the story and of Annie clearly something the film is aware of and intends, from restaging an argument with a new ending to Annie having an out-of-body experience during sex to "I'm into leather". It's presented, arranged, and explained by Alvy Singer.
500 Days, on the other hand, frames things from the perspective of an omniscient narrator, and the time-jumps from (day) to (day) are authorial, not related to Levitt's character's state of mind or subjective take on his own story. When, after sex, a song-and-dance number breaks out, it feels like an authorial description of Tom, not a self-interpretation. Indeed the character simply isn't self-aware enough to make such an examination work--he is a flawed and deluded person who would never have been able to tell his story, certainly not the way it appears in the film. Look at the scene when we see the contrast between Tom's fantasy and an objective reality--if the film were actually from his perspective, that sort of division would not be possible.
I agree the film is critical of Tom and his absurd romantic notions; but the objective authorial framing prevents me from laying the shoddy characterization (particularly the female lead) at Tom's feet. There's nothing in the film to suggest that Tom himself is limiting my view of that character; in fact, the objective narrator himself at one point narrates over a missed opportunity for characterization. It doesn't feel like we're missing the bits that would flesh out the MPDG (who here is really just the traditional male-cad-who-likes-things-casual minus the penis) because Tom is withholding them from us but because the film is withholding them from us.
I also think, as a lesser complaint, that the film makes it too easy to take Tom's side uncritically, as evidenced by the many reviewers who missed the movie's intentions.
I would vote for the Scott Pilgrim books. In which the whole point(Scott growing up and learning not to be a dick) is more pronounced and doesn't happen at the last minute so you can relate to him and even champion him and Ramona is a character and not a prize.
Also what the fuck? Everybody is not a dick in the movie! Everyone in the band, Nick, and Knives are all totally likable and Wallace is the kinda asshole that is lovable.
I'm 22 and my similarly aged friends talk constantly about playing Nintendo as a kid.
My 1 year old cousin has spent a year tracking down a gameboy color! Something he doesn't even remember.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
They/we are a very Nostalgic group. I own a record player and it's not weird for gods sake.
I mean, I know there were a few people buying new cassette tapes recently. That's when they've gone over the deep end.
Anyone want to beta read a paranormal mystery novella? Here's your chance.
stream
taking that VHS out of its case and sticking it in the player felt good.
How has your 1 year old cousin spent a year tracking down a Gameboy Color?
Now, I understand some people have some criticisms about the movie that are reasonable. But I'm here to tell you it is one of the best movies of the year.
Ross and others mentioning some pacing issues. Possibly. Maybe it's not really for me to say. I've always been rather of the opinion that if a movie delivers in the end, my initial feelings starting out are usually unimportant. Although it is somewhat jarring when one of the very first lines of dialogue in the movie is a man in armor screaming directly at the camera.
And yet...from there footing is found. I won't get into all of it, because I'm not sure how many would bother to read it.
I actually enjoyed seeing a protagonist seeking justification before accepting his role in a story.
The movie itself is...beautiful. The costume work is stellar, and it was early in the movie when I began to notice the designs all Jaddaks wear, the shoulder frill of the White Ape. There's just a ton of well done work hanging off everyone. Although the big stuff happens on Mars, the events in the American west as well as in New York are not dull. The movie never drags, or seeks to tire you without anything unnecessary. Unlike TRON: Legacy, which has a weak middle in the End of Line club battle, or Pirates of the Caribbean Curse of the Black Pearl, which has high points that make several other spots along the way seem like irritating diversions to chew up time until the return of the plot, John Carter lets nothing go to waste. Although there are a number of secondary characters I would've liked the chance to know better than the movie got to let us.
I need to mention a moment in the beginning of the movie that made my jaw drop and I almost dropped my beer as well: The introduction of Deja Thoris, Princess of Mars, where the director Andrew Stanton has the balls to give a nod to David Lynch's Dune.
And that kind of clinched it for me. The plot that unfolded before my eyes is ostensibly a love letter to every sci-fi failure of the last 30 or so years, be it Dune, or Flash Gordon, or Krull, or Ice Pirates, by actually being able to complete the reach for greatness that these others grasped for with varying degrees of success and incompetence. I won't say it's what Stanton wanted, but when I do my Space Adventure Film Festival, I'll start with Flash Gordon and end with John Carter. It'll be like watching a series of rough drafts until the polished capstone arrives at the end.
This is pretty much exactly how I feel. They broadcast the "twist" so hard from the beginning that it isn't surprising in the slightest. And the ending is exactly what I expected from Whedon.
There were some really funny parts, but I find Whedon's humor hit or miss so there wasn't quite enough for it to carry the movie for me. It's definitely one of the best slasher movies I've ever seen, but that isn't much of a compliment. I would have liked it a lot more if it had actually run with its high concept, instead of just using it for the occasional burst of meta humor.
I will give it credit for surprising me with one thing though:
I liked
Nintendo ID: Incindium
PSN: IncindiumX
The reason for this is that nearly every sci-fi epic of the past 50 or so years has freely lifted bits and pieces from the Barsoom series and woven them into their own narratives.
I thought it was so so bad. I mean, terrible.
And I thought the first half was a terrible movie and the second half was a great movie.
That's why it was only a "liked it/didn't love it" movie to you.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I don't think you understand how films work.