Critic Review - Entertainment Weekly

Kitsch looks marvelous, but that's the problem: He looks a little too marvelous. He's all sexed up with little to do.

March 7, 2012 Full Review Source: Entertainment Weekly | Comments (21)
Entertainment Weekly
Top Critic IconTop Critic

Comments

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis


This is a review? All he did was basically say that Kistch looks too good. Seriously!

Mar 7 - 03:37 PM

LoserUser72

Stephen Gust

You do know that each critic is only displayed with a small quote from their entire review... You can click the button that says "Full Review" before saying stuff like that.

Mar 7 - 05:15 PM

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis

I did, it's basically the same thing. His main problem was the way Kitsch looked.

Mar 7 - 06:22 PM

w@velength

In Your Dreams

Yeah, you didn't read it.

Mar 7 - 07:26 PM

Stephen Baker

Stephen Baker

Stupid is as stupid does.

Mar 7 - 07:38 PM

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis

Yeah I did. You should check out some of the comments, some people complained about the same thing I did.

Mar 7 - 07:36 PM

Curtis O'bryant

Curtis O'bryant

Why this movie is not only going to bomb but know it looks to have a rotten score on RT. ouch.

Mar 7 - 03:39 PM

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis

How can you say that? You have no idea.

Mar 7 - 03:40 PM

Keith Lanfear

Keith Lanfear

This coming from the guy who liked "The Lorax"

Mar 7 - 04:15 PM

Stephen Baker

Stephen Baker

It's a 50/50 rating you fucktard, that means 1 of every 2 critics will like it. You stupid fucks who comment on these rotten reviews is so amusing.

Mar 7 - 07:39 PM

Chaotic

Chris Burge

Very immature comments on here. So he liked The Lorax, so what? What the hell does it do with John Carter?

Mar 7 - 04:19 PM

Stepping Razor

Stepping Razor

Probably a waste of time trying to explain it to them. Their many posts are so full of illogic that they probably wouldn't be able to understand what a logical fallacy is, nor care to.

Mar 7 - 09:34 PM

Stuffy McStufferson

Stuffy McStufferson

Most of your arguments are logical fallacies, anyone examining your persistent reasoning that the book doesn't matter can figure this one out. Not to mention your insistence that those knocking critical reviews explain what they liked about the film when you can't explain what you disliked about it.

Mar 11 - 11:32 AM

w@velength

In Your Dreams

Bull Shit. You're the one hating on a guy for doing his damn job. So you don't agree with him, too bad, he's entitled to his opinion. You on the other hand are NOT entitled to yours. A movie should stand on its own separate from the source material, period. And Razor isn't obligated to explain what he disliked about the movie because his beef isn't with the movie, it's with toolbags like you trolling every negative review of John Carter like you work for Disney (which you probably do.)

Mar 11 - 05:17 PM

w@velength

In Your Dreams

But you're the one hating on a guy for doing his job. So you don't agree with him, too bad, he's entitled to his opinion. A movie should stand on its own separate from the source material. Obviously it should borrow from the source, but in the end they are two distinct mediums with different obligations. For instance, Razor isn't obligated to explain what he disliked about the movie because his beef isn't with the movie, it's with toolbags trolling every negative review of John Carter like they work for Disney (which they sometimes do.)

Mar 11 - 05:25 PM

Matthew Donald

Matthew Donald

Have you read the book?? He is naked have of it!!

Mar 7 - 04:51 PM

Matthew Donald

Matthew Donald

This review sucks!!! Dude have you read the book?? John Carter is naked half of the book!!

Mar 7 - 04:52 PM

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis

Film Critics aren't required to read the source material (yeah it sucks).

Mar 7 - 05:08 PM

Stepping Razor

Stepping Razor

As is the case with your many other posts, the book is irrelevant. This is John Carter the movie.

Mar 7 - 09:35 PM

Stuffy McStufferson

Stuffy McStufferson

It's not irrelevant if the filmmakers made the film to follow the book. As the book is considered a classic and as the book has inspired almost all popular sci-fi that has come into existence since this makes the book above suspicion and therefore anything the movie does that the book did places it similarly above suspicion.

Mar 11 - 11:34 AM

w@velength

In Your Dreams

"Above suspicion"? So by your logic, any faults of John Carter are also faults of the book. Thanks for the clarification. I'll be sure to tell people how much the book sucks as well when I'm busy ragging on this movie. Now, onto your broken logic: people use their imaginations to create images in their heads when reading text on a page. John Carter (a movie) doesn't afford such luxury. What you see on screen is what you see, take it or leave it. SO YEAH, the faults of the movie bring it down and have nothing to do with the book, champ.

Mar 11 - 05:21 PM

Daniel Davis

Daniel Davis

I did. You should read some comments on the review, some of them complained about the same thing.

Mar 7 - 07:35 PM

Stepping Razor

Stepping Razor

"All sexed up with nowhere to go. Walking with a bland actor over my shoulder..."

Mar 7 - 09:32 PM

Dan Benge

Dan Benge

Nailed it. Whenever the Tharks appeared on the screen, the movie became fun and enjoyable ("Virginia!")

Whenever John Carter was on the screen, the film was dragged down by an actor who had absolutely no personality.

Mar 10 - 08:49 PM

Find us on:                     
Help | About | Jobs | Critics Submission | Press | API | Licensing | Mobile