Nothing but flowers
I legitimately do not know how much of the "regular" moviegoing public reads about movies and the making of movies and the buzz about movies and all of that. I guess that's another way of saying that I don't know what the regular moviegoing public is like. I can only guess based on what I see and overhear when I go out to the movies. Otherwise I'm pretty much insulated by knowing smart and relatively movie-literate people. So I was going to say that John Carter will be forever known more as an expensive boondoggle than as a real movie. But I don't know. It's probably going to make eighty or ninety million in this country, more abroad, and I don't know if all of that trade-paper/movie-blog ink/pretend-ink will translate to actual public perception being any different than, say, Prince of Persia.
In any case, it's a shame, both the gossip-rep and the potential for Persia-level popular indifference, because Andrew Stanton's version of John Carter of Mars is pretty fun. There's a certain kind of sci-fi/fantasy/adventure filmmaking that I thrill to, usually old-fashioned spectacle delivered with dizzying rollercoaster speed and inventive variety, like the last forty minutes of Attack of the Clones, the second half of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, or the climax of Avatar (or really, the climax to almost any James Cameron movie). John Carter has the materials for this level of spectacle, and doesn't meet those lofty standards (possibly because they weren't trying to do that at all, but it's definitely in that sincere-pulp-fantasy wheelhouse). But it's that kind of deal: sumptuous visuals seemingly (or in this case, actually) ripped from the pages of pulp novels and a total lack of concern for appearing silly.
In that sense, while I wasn't impressed by the marketing campaign for John Carter that apparently doomed it to box-office underperformance, I understand why Disney had some difficulty with it. It's a style of movie that has had a few massive successes that are usually lucky enough to feature a prime Harrison Ford performance or a decades-established brand (and John Carter, despite its nerd cred, is not a brand), or it pretty much just disappears if it makes it to the screen at all. It's not as contemporary as Marvel Comics movies, it's not bro-friendly like Transformers movies, it doesn't have the faux-gravitas of a Lord of the Rings movies... John Carter is pretty nerdy straight-up fantasy craziness with different Martian species and a chase romance and creatures galore.
On that level, I really enjoyed it, while noticing that this was not the slickest, smoothest pulp concoction I've experienced. I'm surprised to read that apparently Andrew Stanton got carte blanche while making the movie; that makes sense for the visuals and budget and ambition, but it feels a little like something that has been futzed with. Not to a crippling degree, but here and there. It's strange, really, how it almost alternates between really great moments that you'd expect from a Pixar guy and then passages of lumpiness and repetition. For example, the movie opens with the kind of clunky pre-credits sequence that you see in a lot of B-movies desperate to patch something spectacular into the first reel... before launching into a really cool and interesting prologue showing how John Carter gets to Mars (including two or three of the movie's biggest laughs via expert matched smash cuts). Then Carter gets to Mars and there's some really cool stuff as he's getting acclimated to the planet, but then the movie spends a good chunk of time with Carter getting imprisoned, then lionized, then re-imprisoned, then re-lionized, etc., by the Tharks, the awesome alien-looking Martians. It's all pretty cool, but it doesn't feel like the story is moving forward, and the part of the story that does move forward concerns the humanoid Martians who are rendered far less interestingly than the Tharks.
Eventually it streamlines a bit more, and props to the movie for finding excitement in exploring a new world rather than constant smashing and exploding and killing (though there is a fair amount of that). But the story doesn't feel as organic as the best sci-fi/fantasy I've seen, and, you all know I'm not saying this as a backhanded compliment or to be ironic or something, it's not as complex as what the Star Wars prequels are up to, and there isn't anyone as charismatic as Ewan McGregor or Natalie Portman on screen, either. I mean, Taylor Kitsch, who I guess I should call Gambit rather than Tim Riggins to be honest about what I really know him from, is fine -- kind of cool, even. I also liked his X-Men Origins: Wolverine co-star Lynn Collins, which I did not expect because, you know, she also fell somewhere between unscathed (Hugh Jackman, Keamy) and, uh, entirely scathed (Will.i.am) on the Wolverine call sheet. Speaking of Hugh Jackman: yeah, that kind of guy is the kind of guy this movie could use.
But it has creatures! And awesome ships and special effects! You just kinda have to get on its wavelength. That's what I might've said about Avatar, too, but Cameron really does have a second sense for making nerdy shit really palatable to as many people as possible. I can see more of the seams in John Carter, even if this movie's silly, occasionally laughable dialogue is not any worse than Cameron's silly, occasionally laughable dialogue.
Marisa and I went to see that movie at the Ziegfeld with Burroughs super-fan Nathaniel, Gambit super-fan Sara, and tolerator of Mars nonsense Katie, and then she and I tried to go see Being Flynn the next day, but someone pulled the fire alarm at the AMC 68th Street when we were an hour into it, and then AMC spent an hour lying about when the movie might come back on, and we had to leave. It held my attention for that hour, and De Niro was good, and also frankly it's good to see Olivia Thirlby in literally anything else after Darkest Hour. But it's not the kind of movie I particularly want to re-watch for an hour just to get to the final 40 minutes, so whether I ever see the rest may depend on whether I have opportunity to slip into it after another movie, and/or Netflix streaming.
Then there was TMBG and then we went to the Bronx to look at flowers for Rayme's birthday!
In any case, it's a shame, both the gossip-rep and the potential for Persia-level popular indifference, because Andrew Stanton's version of John Carter of Mars is pretty fun. There's a certain kind of sci-fi/fantasy/adventure filmmaking that I thrill to, usually old-fashioned spectacle delivered with dizzying rollercoaster speed and inventive variety, like the last forty minutes of Attack of the Clones, the second half of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, or the climax of Avatar (or really, the climax to almost any James Cameron movie). John Carter has the materials for this level of spectacle, and doesn't meet those lofty standards (possibly because they weren't trying to do that at all, but it's definitely in that sincere-pulp-fantasy wheelhouse). But it's that kind of deal: sumptuous visuals seemingly (or in this case, actually) ripped from the pages of pulp novels and a total lack of concern for appearing silly.
In that sense, while I wasn't impressed by the marketing campaign for John Carter that apparently doomed it to box-office underperformance, I understand why Disney had some difficulty with it. It's a style of movie that has had a few massive successes that are usually lucky enough to feature a prime Harrison Ford performance or a decades-established brand (and John Carter, despite its nerd cred, is not a brand), or it pretty much just disappears if it makes it to the screen at all. It's not as contemporary as Marvel Comics movies, it's not bro-friendly like Transformers movies, it doesn't have the faux-gravitas of a Lord of the Rings movies... John Carter is pretty nerdy straight-up fantasy craziness with different Martian species and a chase romance and creatures galore.
On that level, I really enjoyed it, while noticing that this was not the slickest, smoothest pulp concoction I've experienced. I'm surprised to read that apparently Andrew Stanton got carte blanche while making the movie; that makes sense for the visuals and budget and ambition, but it feels a little like something that has been futzed with. Not to a crippling degree, but here and there. It's strange, really, how it almost alternates between really great moments that you'd expect from a Pixar guy and then passages of lumpiness and repetition. For example, the movie opens with the kind of clunky pre-credits sequence that you see in a lot of B-movies desperate to patch something spectacular into the first reel... before launching into a really cool and interesting prologue showing how John Carter gets to Mars (including two or three of the movie's biggest laughs via expert matched smash cuts). Then Carter gets to Mars and there's some really cool stuff as he's getting acclimated to the planet, but then the movie spends a good chunk of time with Carter getting imprisoned, then lionized, then re-imprisoned, then re-lionized, etc., by the Tharks, the awesome alien-looking Martians. It's all pretty cool, but it doesn't feel like the story is moving forward, and the part of the story that does move forward concerns the humanoid Martians who are rendered far less interestingly than the Tharks.
Eventually it streamlines a bit more, and props to the movie for finding excitement in exploring a new world rather than constant smashing and exploding and killing (though there is a fair amount of that). But the story doesn't feel as organic as the best sci-fi/fantasy I've seen, and, you all know I'm not saying this as a backhanded compliment or to be ironic or something, it's not as complex as what the Star Wars prequels are up to, and there isn't anyone as charismatic as Ewan McGregor or Natalie Portman on screen, either. I mean, Taylor Kitsch, who I guess I should call Gambit rather than Tim Riggins to be honest about what I really know him from, is fine -- kind of cool, even. I also liked his X-Men Origins: Wolverine co-star Lynn Collins, which I did not expect because, you know, she also fell somewhere between unscathed (Hugh Jackman, Keamy) and, uh, entirely scathed (Will.i.am) on the Wolverine call sheet. Speaking of Hugh Jackman: yeah, that kind of guy is the kind of guy this movie could use.
But it has creatures! And awesome ships and special effects! You just kinda have to get on its wavelength. That's what I might've said about Avatar, too, but Cameron really does have a second sense for making nerdy shit really palatable to as many people as possible. I can see more of the seams in John Carter, even if this movie's silly, occasionally laughable dialogue is not any worse than Cameron's silly, occasionally laughable dialogue.
Marisa and I went to see that movie at the Ziegfeld with Burroughs super-fan Nathaniel, Gambit super-fan Sara, and tolerator of Mars nonsense Katie, and then she and I tried to go see Being Flynn the next day, but someone pulled the fire alarm at the AMC 68th Street when we were an hour into it, and then AMC spent an hour lying about when the movie might come back on, and we had to leave. It held my attention for that hour, and De Niro was good, and also frankly it's good to see Olivia Thirlby in literally anything else after Darkest Hour. But it's not the kind of movie I particularly want to re-watch for an hour just to get to the final 40 minutes, so whether I ever see the rest may depend on whether I have opportunity to slip into it after another movie, and/or Netflix streaming.
Then there was TMBG and then we went to the Bronx to look at flowers for Rayme's birthday!