The ultimate movie discussion thread

GDPofDRC wrote:

John Carter, was not as bad as I thought it might be. In fact didn't warrant the brutal panning it received at all imo. That said it looked okay or as good as a desert western can, had moments of marginal excitement, several very borrowed plot elements, below average acting and an average to good story. It was a C.

I really like Lynn Collins.

I liked that movie. More than anyone else I have come across. It wasn't great, but it wasn't near as bad as suggested.

I remembering mentioning that seeing Lynn Collins wearing what she does for the entire movie is enough to enjoy the movie.

GDPofDRC wrote:

John Carter, was not as bad as I thought it might be. In fact didn't warrant the brutal panning it received at all imo. That said it looked okay or as good as a desert western can, had moments of marginal excitement, several very borrowed plot elements, below average acting and an average to good story. It was a C.

I really like Lynn Collins.

The plot elements were original because the book was out way before any of the high profile sci fi movies.

Ali wrote:

GDPofDRC wrote:

John Carter, was not as bad as I thought it might be. In fact didn't warrant the brutal panning it received at all imo. That said it looked okay or as good as a desert western can, had moments of marginal excitement, several very borrowed plot elements, below average acting and an average to good story. It was a C.

I really like Lynn Collins.

The plot elements were original because the book was out way before any of the high profile sci fi movies.

Yeah it was written in like 1910, long, long time ago.

None of that makes the movie any better because this is the 2012 movie, John Carter, judged as such.

GDPofDRC wrote:

None of that makes the movie any better because this is the 2012 movie, John Carter, judged as such.

It made me appreciate it a little bit more. Knowing that it was the original story of it's kind and heavily influenced other movies. I dunno, but I found that to be pretty cool and a + for the movie.

Innovative for 1910's literature for sure.

GDPofDRC wrote:

Innovative for 1910's literature for sure.

I can't help but appreciate it helped get the wheels turning in the minds that created Star Wars. It's an original in a genre I find very interesting. I'm not saying it makes the movie itself any better, which is what you are saying and I get that, but it does make me appreciate the story more. I know that sounds weird, but that's just how it is for me.

No, I get that. But to have it come to full fruition on film in 2012.... the effort missed the boat.

GDPofDRC wrote:

No, I get that. But to have it come to full fruition on film in 2012.... the effort missed the boat.

The movie could have been alot better, I'll agree with that. It was a miss, just not near as bad as many people made it seem.

The movie was fine, the marketing campaign by Disney and the pointless name change was the problem.

Ali wrote:

The movie was fine, the marketing campaign by Disney and the pointless name change was the problem.

If I remember right it didn't seem to come out at a good time either. I don't remember what other movies came out at the same time but I remember thinking at the time it wasn't good timing.

The marketing and name of the film have no actual bearing on the film itself, those are superficial elements all together.

GDPofDRC wrote:

The marketing and name of the film have no actual bearing on the film itself, those are superficial elements all together.

They had a huge impact because the box office numbers were so poor it was deemed a flop and the head of Disney had to resign because of it.

OU wrote:

Ali wrote:

The movie was fine, the marketing campaign by Disney and the pointless name change was the problem.

If I remember right it didn't seem to come out at a good time either. I don't remember what other movies came out at the same time but I remember thinking at the time it wasn't good timing.

I guess I was wrong. I looked it up and it wasn't up against anything big.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2012/03/box-office-john-carter-lorax-thousand-words.html

Ali wrote:

GDPofDRC wrote:

The marketing and name of the film have no actual bearing on the film itself, those are superficial elements all together.

They had a huge impact because the box office numbers were so poor it was deemed a flop and the head of Disney had to resign because of it.

None of that has a single thing to do with the actual quality of the movie.

fuck, this is just as pointless.

If Disney hadn't of screwed up the marketing campaign John Carter wouldn't have been such a disaster. It also didn't help that Taylor Kitsch isn't a big enough star to carry a movie on his own yet.

Hmmmmm. I don't know what to think about that.

It looks good, I am sure Sam had alot of fun with the dark fantasy elements.

Ali wrote:

It looks good, I am sure Sam had alot of fun with the dark fantasy elements.

Looks like it could be good. Looks like they did a good job creating the world. Fingers crossed that Mila gets naked.

The Dictator - It was funny sure but Sacha really works better with mockumentary style movies that aren't scripted. 3.5/5

The Rum Diary - Very dissapointing, Depp's choice in movies continues to decline. 3/5

American Pie Reunion - Perhaps it's the nostalgic feeling the original two hold in my heart or the fact I am still an immature child but I loved it. Also any movie which features natural tig ol bitties is always a winner in my book. 4/5

Waiting - Pretty average comedy with a couple laugh out loud moments here and there, nothing special. 3/5

I saw Gattaca for the first time the other day and I really liked it. Uma Thurman was stunning back in the day.

I got a total of 10 blu ray DVDs for $55.50 after tax(free shipping). Picked up 5 for me and 5 for my nieces.