The longer clip makes it look even worse. And the Star Wars ripoffs are really apparent.

Yes, George Lucas gets that a lot. The Lord of the Rings movies totally ripped off Lucas' Willow.

Saw it. Liked it.

I saw it and liked it, though the non-human animated characters were all a lot more expressive and interesting than the human characters. With the exception of John (Taylor Kitsch) Carter himself, who is pretty good, most of the humans are remarkably wooden. The six-legged dog-thing steals the show completely. Still an enjoyable evening at the movies, overall.

Saw it. Not great but pretty good and certainly better than how its going to be treated after its failure at the box office.

Mike

John Carter reminds me a lot of Rocketeer a pretty good movie that bombs in the theater for who knows whatever reason, but it is still great fun.

I heard a review on MSNBC a few hours before we went to see JC friday night. she claimed it was unwatchable and said she saw many people "walk out of the theater."

Seriously, walk out of the theater bad? Reviewers don't use terms like that lightly right? I started thinking it must be as bad as everyone has been saying. Everyone who hadn't actually seen it.

I almost didn't go.

That's all I need. Drag the wife to another Jonah Hex or Last Airbender. But we went anyway, she knows I'm a huge fan of the books, and have been looking forward to it.

But it was fun. I liked it a lot.

Not the greatest movie ever made to be sure, but it was a pretty good adaptation I thought, certainly not bad enough to "walk out of. I enjoyed it as much as the Sherlock Holmes sequel, and more than the gawdawful American remake of Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Hell most genre films I saw last summer like Green Lantern, Thor, Xmen, Cowboys and Aliens, were not any better or worse than John Carter and none of them were "walk out of the theater," bad either.

The Rocketeer wasn't laden with CGI.

If Rocketeer was the exact same story, same dialogue, same actors, same everything, except it had CGI, would it matter?

From a visual standpoint if CGI turns you off than I can appreciate that. My girlfriend is an artist and CGI usually turns her off a movie. On the other hand I could care less what it looks like as long as everything else is up to scratch. Perhaps it's an artists thing, being more visual people.

Would it make a difference if a movie set in 1938 Hollywood had CGI? Uh, think about it.

I don't see what difference it makes to the story. They didn't have jet packs in 1938 either, or at least nothing that worked as well as the one in the movie. Whether CGI existed or not during the time the film is set is irrelevant. They used CGI in Lord of The Rings as well but I didn't see any of the Hobbits checking their e-mail.