“He was always trying to f*&k the way out of himself. I have orgasms, he has wargasms.”
–O
What an awesomely cheesy line. Reminds me of “Do you know what happens to a toad that’s struck by lightning? The same thing that happens to everything else.” from the first “X-Men” film.
Despite how technically proficient Oliver Stone’s films tend to be, there is a rawness to them that’s refreshing, especially when compared to movies where most characters never even have a hair out of place. By way of example, I think that there were three or four instances of saliva-stringy kisses given, which is interesting because most directors wouldn’t let such shots out of the editing booth.
Another odd thing is that there are two African-Americans in the cast, a female bicycle messenger (who was in the film all of a minute) and an ex-Navy SEAL (who wasn’t in the film significantly longer) but it somehow felt organic, unlike in the case of “This Is 40,” which felt like a documentary on the mating rituals of the white and privileged (which I have learned includes an inordinate amount of whining).
Oliver Stone is a somewhat uneven director, though when he gets it right, as “Platoon” and “Wall Street” illustrate, he’s capable of great things. I haven’t seen “Natural Born Killers” in a while, but I recall it feeling like a bit of a knock-off of Quentin Tarantino’s style (which makes sense, since he wrote the story), which is almost an oxymoron, since Tarantino can hardly be called an original director.
Stylish, yes; original, not really.
I saw “Cabin In The Woods,” last week, though before the film there was a trailer for Stone’s latest film, “Savages.”
It stars Taylor Kitsch, of “John Carter,” and “Battleship,” John Travolta, and Benicio Del Toro.
”"John Carter’s” greatest problem rests less with actors, than with a studio that entertains the excesses of a director in matters relating to budget.”
When you think about Andrew Stanton’s “John Carter,” it’s hard to get beyond its monstrous budget. That’s a pity because, despite beginning somewhat awkwardly, it’s actually pretty entertaining.
“John Carter” looks like an epic. Huge “Martian” vistas fill the screen, and many wondrous beings and creatures are introduced to us, though Stanton can’t choreograph a fight scene seemingly to save his life.
What’s particularly strange is that the material seems that it should somehow be more personal, more intimate, than it ends up being. This is odd because, despite being called ‘John Carter,’ the character somehow seems almost secondary to all the chaos that goes on around him.
We soon meet John Carter, a soldier tired of fighting, who somehow loses his wife and daughter (in a fire, though the causes weren’t quite clear). Eventually he stumbles upon a ‘doorway’ to Mars, which is known to the Martians as Barsoom, where he ends up aiding Dijah Thoris, princess of the city of Helium.
Don’t you hate when, after seemingly never-ending warnings that if you did or said a certain thing, that you would come to no good end, happened to be right?
So, you not only have yourself eye-deep into a situation that’s unhealthy in the truest sense of the word, but you could have avoided the whole thing if you had listened to someone that perhaps knew a little better.
It’s hard to resist the urge to bitch-slap such people senseless, not only because of the seemingly almost unbearable level of arrogance emanating from them like flop sweat, but because they HAPPENED TO BE RIGHT.
So, forgive me in advance if I sound like the aforementioned person, but box office receipts have started to come in from the opening of “John Carter,” and it’s not looking too good, which is to be expected when a film about a Dr. Seuss character is eating your lunch.
Now keep in mind that I am not saying that “John Carter” it isn’t entertaining or well-done. After all, I intend to see it this weekend, and suspect that I will have a good time.
Reviews that I have stumbled upon have been pretty positive, though not overwhelmingly so.
What I am saying is what could have possibly compelled the powers-that-be at Disney to spend +$200 million on a film with a relatively unknown lead actor (Taylor Kitsch), based upon a series of novels, the ‘Warlord of Mars’ series by Edgar Rice Burroughs, that most people don’t know of, or that evoke little in the way of buzz.
The first thing that Disney’s “John Carter” has to do–attract enough viewers to justify its $200 million dollar price tag–is what it probably will have the most trouble doing, which is to appeal to the greatest amount of individuals as possible.
This problem came into rather sharp focus when I was watching “The Dark Crystal” last night, which started me thinking of “John Carter.” ” The Dark Crystal,” which essentially is the Muppets with subtext, nonetheless convincingly evokes the feel of a fantasy world beyond the experience of most viewers, which is something that “John Carter” will have to do, and make a huge profit while doing so.
Ryan Reynolds As The Next Batman!? Really?
Heck, he even was interesting in last year’s “Green Lantern.”
The problem is that I am not entirely sure that Reynolds can headline a movie, primarily because he hasn’t been too successful at it yet (which is not to say that he shouldn’t be given the opportunity to do so, but I suspect that he doesn’t want to get into a Taylor Kitsch-type situation, where you headline one, or even two, big multi-million dollar films that both end up as failures (To be fair to Taylor Kitsch, “Battleship” and “John Carter” failed for reasons that had little to do with him–one was too silly to make a movie about in the first place, the other too obscure–but it doesn’t change that he probably will not be offered any tentpoles anytime soon).
After all, Reynolds already has “Green Lantern,” which while not as spectacular a box office failure as “John Carter,” was still a failure.
Read more of this post
Share this:
Like this: