I usually prefer to read the book before I watch the movie based on it, but "The Princess of Mars" by Edgar Rice Buroughs is still in the queue on my Kindle. It's not that I didn't want to read it, it's that I still haven't made it through the giganto book I'm reading (and yes, I'm still working on that book).
Okay, let's deal with this movie being a flop. Did it make back all of it's money playing in theaters in the United States? No. So, the media started calling it a flop and Disney supposedly fired the head of their film division over this. Supposedly. By the day this dropped on DVD, this movie which had cost about $265M to make had grossed $70M in the U.S. and $230M world-wide. Now, you're probably thinking, "300 is more than 265, so how can this be a flop?" Exactly. It's a political maneuver to write off on taxes. It's been out on DVD for a while now and has sold like gangbusters. Plus, Disney is still going to release the video game - they would be stupid not to since when doing the CGI, they were doing it with a mind towards using the collected works in a video game. All this really means to Disney, is that they can get out of their contracts to do sequels, which is too damned bad (not even counting that they've spent all that money on the CGI that could be used again - sure they would need to add new stuff, but they would already know how the aliens worked and have models, etc).
This is a Disney movie, so no profanity or illicit sex scenes. I'm pretty sure that the Buroughs book didn't contain these either, so I wasn't terribly put off by that. I am always more concerned with Disney movies that they will be formulaic. And while this is not the worst thing in the world, if it's completely obvious from the beginning, especially to the point where it becomes cliched, it's horrible to watch. Now, I won't say that you can't predict certain story elements of the movie, but it wasn't bad at all. Actually, a buddy of mine who thinks this is one of the best sf films in years and also loves the books claims that the book is even more predictable, because written about a century ago, it has oft been copied in style. So, perhaps this film is predictable because we're so familiar with the copycats of the original story.
This movie had a real grit to it, which I mean as a compliment. Part of it takes place on Earth, in the "Wild West" in the last part of the 19th century, a time which in movies past is often portrayed as full of happy-go-lucky and/or down-on-their-luck former gunfighters ride through the scrublands for days or weeks without a bath, yet still look clean and clean-shaven. This movie brings a fair bit of reality to the look of that time period of American history. I can't really speak to the Mars part, or I should say Barsoom, as I've never been and all I've ever seen of footage of the planet has failed to capture any of the four armed aliens or the communities or anything.
If its not already obvious (I think that it is), I liked this movie. If Disney changes their mind and makes sequels, I will watch those, too. It is a grand and weeping sf story in the Space Opera vein, a la Star Wars: A New Hope, but with better acting. Did I just say that? I don't think it's a better story, nor do I love it more, but come on, you can't tell me that Mark Hamill is a brilliant actor. That doesn't mean I love Luke Skywalker any less, in fact I find the portrayal quite endearing (in a way that Lucas totally missed when using Jake Lloyd and Hayden Christainsen).
John Carter on IMDB
No comments:
Post a Comment