Badmovies.org Forum

This is the best pure popcorn movie I have seen in awhile, with engaging characters,
a charming fairy tale plotline, and some of the best CGI I have ever seen.  The giants
are pretty big and scary, however, so maybe not for kids under 10. The cinematography
is gorgeous and the combat scenes are really very well done. Not some deep, thoughtfu
work like SUCKER PUNCH,  but it was a great date movie, and a fun way to spend a
Saturday night after a stressful week.

4.5/5 :thumbup:

Glad to hear it's a fun one.  We are thinking about seeing it tomorrow afternoon (with the little ones, but they dig stuff like this).

I still like Abbot and Costello's version.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w30miI9Vgw0

 :thumbup:

Saw it (2D) yesterday.  Fun ride.  The little ones enjoyed it also.

It was fun seeing Obi Wan actually being heroic again.   :teddyr:

A film I had hoped to see opening weekend, but as another film came up. Thus, I plan on seeing it this next weekend. Though, that'll bump it up against "Oz : the Great and Powerful," which I also plan on seeing.

The story on this one is how much money they expect it too lose at the domestic boxoffice. For a film that supposedly cost $300 million to make, it grossed only $28 million on opening weekend. Which is $2 million less than expected. It may even come out losing more money than Disney's "John Carter of Mars" and Universal's "Battleship." Well, at least, they are spreading the Hollywood losses around. The problem is, while Disney had 'The Avengers" to make up it's loss, and Universal had its theme parks, what does Warner's have . . .? Maybe the latest "Superman," which will be out later this year.

The director Bryan Singer is also getting some of the blame for the loss, and while he is not one of my favorite directors, I think some of the blame may be a little misplaced. As really, what can a director do with a film that is so heavy with CGI.

And, of course, the take from the international boxoffice has yet to come in. Where they expect it to do better than it did domestically. Just like "John Carter of Mars" and "Battleship."

The problem I have, for all of the film's problem, is that the people who make films will look at its underperformance as a failure of the fantasy film genera. Which is actually one of my favorite film generas. Still, I'll come up with my thoughts on it later one, after I see it.

The way I see it $28 million is a lot of money.  Why shouldn't they be able to make money on that?  These movies aren't underperforming; they're over-budgeted.

I know I was surprised when I went to see it the weekend it opened and found the theater only about 1/4 full!

The theatre we saw it in was nearly packed...a few empty seats, but closer to full.

I think the bean counters are stupidly short sighted to look at opening weekend numbers.  As word spreads that it's a 'fun movie to watch,' people will go see it.  I see longevity, which can only come from an enjoyable movie, as a positive.

On the other hand, a movie that's hyped up, kills the first weekend, but does not live up to the hype and disappoints audiences might make good money initially, but....

Looking at numbers for what movies have made over say a ten year period (rentals and sales) renders opening weekend box office performance meaningless.  Lots of long term money makers have had sub par opening weekends.

Yet another way Hollywood style thinking is failing the movie industry...

It was okay.

I enjoyed the spectacle, but the story was pretty blah. And it just kind of ended out of the blue.

That being said, I really enjoyed John Carter.

I finally got to see it, and while I did enjoy it, I did think there were a number of problems, to whit . . .

1. The size differental between the heroes and the villains, which made (IMHO) . . .
a. the werewolf in "Red Riding Hood" and the witches in "Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters" more effective, which ...
b. made for some ineffective action scenes, which . . .
c. made for some ineffective death scenes,

2. Was it an A film trying to be a B film, or a B film trying to be an A film? In that, it reminded me of "Krull," which (IMHO) had the better written characters, which leads us to our 3rd problem.

3. Stanley Tucci's villain. A good actor, but a poorly written character, as were alot of the characters in the film, especially the secondary characters.

They Didn't Know Much About . . .
1. Horses
A cart horse is not a riding horse, nor is a riding horse a jumper. Normally, a riding horse that is still used for riding would not be used to pull a cart. Too spirited and not trained to the harness. Nor is a riding horse normally a jumper, because they are trained differently. But, I know why the filmmakers did what they did, so I have a greater problem with the next problem.

2. Military tactics
The Guardians' job is to die for the King or Queen, so when they saw that they could not outrun the giants, they should have peeled off and attacked. Led by the general. Not that they would have been successful, but they might have given the King more time to get away.

There were Likes.
1. The scenery. Apparently, it was filmed in Quebec. I have been there a couple of times, but never outside the cities.
2. The rapid firing crossbow. I'd like to get one for my apartment. I'd set it up on my balcony, so when I was attacked by giants . . . ?
3. The ending. I know there have been complaints about the ending, but I liked it. I've been there and seen them on display, and the way they are displayed is not the way they are displayed in the film. No doubt for security reasons.
4. Interesting. Very interesting. The more I think about it, the more interesting it becomes, even the problems. And that doesn't happen on alot of films.

So, yes I liked and enjoyed it, but there were problems with it. So, I can understand why people did not enjoy it.

How about this:  It's a good movie if you don't think too hard about it! :teddyr:

Works for most people, indy. And for me some of the time, but I like to think about the films I see. For the more I think about a film, the more I find in it, and the more I find in it, the more I enjoy it or not. And the more I thought about this film,  the more I thought it was a good film. Not perfect, but good.

Even less of a 'problem' than you might think.  Yes, modern horses have diverged into particular 'types' suited to specialised purposes.  Back when horses were in common use as draft animals, many farmers could not afford to have specialised horses for each job so the one or two they did have had to be jacks of all trades in effect and serve as riding horses and pull farm devices to work the farm and take the family into town/to church on Sunday - and as often as not providing recreation in the form of racing and hunting cross-country.  Strong, reliable, and maybe just a little 'fancy'.  These types of horses still exist in rural areas; there are still horse show divisons for them at some country fairs: they are called "General Purpose" animals.  Generally cross-breds heavier than most straight riding horses and lighter than a full draft and often a bit "showy" too.  In America the Morgan breed is probably the most familiar example: individuals did it all (there is a modern-day versatility competition for Morgans where they run a half-mile trotting race in harness, a half-mile running race under saddle, a pleasure class under saddle, and compete in a stone-boat pull. http://www.vtmorganheritagedays.org/justinmorganperformance.html  (http://www.vtmorganheritagedays.org/justinmorganperformance.html) )

 :lookingup:  Oh dear: you hit my combined professional/passion button - I don't often get to run with that on this board!  :teddyr:  (I have had Morgan horses for over 40 years and breed and train - mainly Thoroughbreds - for jumping and Dressage.  It is what I do.)

I'll shut up now and go back under my rock... :smile:

My bias might be showing here (  :wink: ):

Connemara's Do It All (http://www.acps.org/connemaras/doitall.htm).  It's my understanding that in the Old World, they've been known to pull a farm implement or two as well (http://www.acps.org/connemaras/definition.htm).

 :thumbup:

I read an interview somewhere where Tucci basically said 'cgi and 3d sucks and isn't fun to film.'  I haven't seen the movie but it seems like his frustrations may have translated t an otherwise great actor not doing a good job on this one.

I see our friends at The Asylum are planning the release of Jack The Giant Killer soon: but I remember a film with that title from the 1960s.  :question:

You are correct, Trevor. "Jack the Giant Killer" from 1962 w/ Kerwin Matthews as the hero, Judi Meredith as the heroine, and Torin Thatcher as the villain. An almost forgotten film, both then and now, but for those who have seen it, including myself, one of the best fantasy films to come out of the '60's. And unlike this year's film, which is actually based on the English folktale "Jack and the Beanstalk," this one was actually based on the English folktale "Jack the Giant Killer." See it, if you can.

As a Superman fan; they better not mess up another Superman movie.

With stop-motion FX by Jim Danforth, if memory serves.  I believe Columbia sued United Artists because they thought Jack the Giant Killer was too similar to The 7th Voyage of Sinbad.  That's probably why few people have seen it. 

It was released on DVD awhile back.  I still need to see it.

JACK THE GIANT KILLER played on TCM sometime last year. I thought it was great.
CAPTAIN SINBAD is another cheaper fantasy flick from that era that's pretty entertaining.

      Lois Lane is a redhead.
Jimmy Olsen is a girl.
Perry White is black.
That's just for starters.

Whoa! That is some major changes. The trailer is out for the film, and while I have not seen a "Superman" since  Christopher Reeve put on the cape and tights. the film is suppose to be one of the darkest versions yet. Maybe a darker version for a darker time. If there is any good news, Superman, as an adult, is played by Henry Cavill, and while I don't know how he'll be in the role, I do know that he is one of the few actors that I have seen who is equally capable of playing the hero or the villain in the film. And Warner Bros. needs a hit.

I saw the original last year when Rifftrax did it live.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wax2LMLqdps

I really liked the adventure.

I loved the giants.

I ate too much popcorn.

Studios and producers expect too much when it's only three days after release and they're already screaming, "We didn't get back our investment!" and blogs yell, "It's bombing, OMG RUNNNNNN!!!!1!!!"

I agree.  This is made even more ridiculous when you consider that it was projected to make 30-35 million on opening weekend, and it GASP! only made 28!  Whoa.  That's pretty weak, eh?

As of a couple of days ago, it was at $119 million, so I predict it will have no trouble making back the investment plus a tidy profit.

It's a sad state, in my opinion, where a movie can be #1 on its opening weekend and get the kind of blasting this one has gotten for not doing good enough.  Good grief.

as I said in another thread, I found the plot too childish, the rhyming went on my nerves, the giants don't look realistic (like their skin is made of potatoes) and the 3D effects were mostly unnoticable except for a few scenes

The giants were earth elementals made flesh, they're supposed to look ugly. :wink: