Big whoop! Return to Oz is one of my favorite films, and that pretty much bled money at the Box Office, too.
To be fair, I haven't seen "Mars Needs Moms". But some people really seem to love to hate it.
like Brandon Gray
"Mars was severely limited by its premise, which was better suited to a television cartoon, and its execution looked awkward, incoherent and creepy in the marketing."
Dave White
Though not directed by Robert Zemeckis (the evil performance-capture devotee who inflicted The Polar Express and the Jim Carrey version of A Christmas Carol on the world) he did produce it, and on top of its main crime of being unimaginative and cobbled together from chunks of other movies, it ices its fallen failure cake with that same creeped-out, dead-soul facsimile human being quality of those earlier endeavors.
And Select posters at Cartoon Brew
...didnt like it at all. the designs are ugly and unappealing, the story is cliched , the ‘animation’ soulless...
...It is the single closest thing to the literal equivalent of pure bile that a movie could aspire to be. Sour, burning, painful, and acidic in the way that it thrives on disintegrating the very notion of integrity into absolute nothingness...
Okay, so here's my question: What's the big deal?
So you have a movie that's in the red at the Box Office, and expensive to boot.
Seems to me, "Mars Needs Moms" has been outdone in all those respects. Also, Box Office Returns are no indication of quality, since beloved movies from "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" to Disney's "Pinocchio" lost money in their initial theatrical runs.
I dunno. Maybe all this critical/internet backlash for "Moms" stems from a resentment toward Motion Capture features in the first place. But my question is, if "Mars Needs Moms" is really such a thoroughly awful whatever, why is it such a point of fascination? Cuz nowadays, who gives a damn about Howard the Duck, either way?
like Brandon Gray
"Mars was severely limited by its premise, which was better suited to a television cartoon, and its execution looked awkward, incoherent and creepy in the marketing."
Dave White
Though not directed by Robert Zemeckis (the evil performance-capture devotee who inflicted The Polar Express and the Jim Carrey version of A Christmas Carol on the world) he did produce it, and on top of its main crime of being unimaginative and cobbled together from chunks of other movies, it ices its fallen failure cake with that same creeped-out, dead-soul facsimile human being quality of those earlier endeavors.
And Select posters at Cartoon Brew
...didnt like it at all. the designs are ugly and unappealing, the story is cliched , the ‘animation’ soulless...
...It is the single closest thing to the literal equivalent of pure bile that a movie could aspire to be. Sour, burning, painful, and acidic in the way that it thrives on disintegrating the very notion of integrity into absolute nothingness...
Okay, so here's my question: What's the big deal?
So you have a movie that's in the red at the Box Office, and expensive to boot.
And it's stars are creepy puppet people.
Or maybe critics dislike it since the emphasis is more on spectacle than story.
Or maybe it is just a generally horrible, inept movie.
Seems to me, "Mars Needs Moms" has been outdone in all those respects. Also, Box Office Returns are no indication of quality, since beloved movies from "The Rocky Horror Picture Show" to Disney's "Pinocchio" lost money in their initial theatrical runs.
I dunno. Maybe all this critical/internet backlash for "Moms" stems from a resentment toward Motion Capture features in the first place. But my question is, if "Mars Needs Moms" is really such a thoroughly awful whatever, why is it such a point of fascination? Cuz nowadays, who gives a damn about Howard the Duck, either way?
No comments:
Post a Comment