Sunday, March 11, 2012

'Lorax' Beats 'John Carter'

I think that title says volumes. Rotten Tomatoes is giving John Carter a 49% at the moment, and for a movie that supposedly cost a quarter of a billion dollars to make, you know heads are gonna roll if it tanks.

"Tank" is a relative term, of course, but if I had to bet, given what I'm hearing?

A so-so, not-bad-to look-at-shrug ain't gonna power the thing into the blockbuster heights.

Remember, the rule of thumb for a big Hollywood movie to turn a profit is that it makes back 2-1/2 times its cost. John Carter took in about $30M, plus or minus. Contrast this with Avatar, which collected $77M its opening weekend. 

I expect the chances of John Carter pulling in $625M to be, um, less than good.

Supposedly doing much better overseas; still, it doesn't sound promising for Carter and company.

The reviews I've read, including some by folks I tend to trust, indicate that the money is indeed up there on the screen, it is visually terrific, but that the writing and acting are pedestrian; the plot a colander; and there are more surprises in a bowl of oat bran with skim milk. Your twelve-year-old son will love it, and maybe it'll tweak your inner twelve-year-old, but ...

Too bad. 

I expect I'll see it, but I'm not in a hurry. 

Well. The Avengers is still a possibility ...

No comments: