John Carter (Andrew Stanton, 2012)

[Emilio]

Old fashioned high adventure - think Errol Flynn meets 'Lawrence of Arabia', is nowhere near as bad as one might be led to believe. If you like genre, this is superior to the 'Star Wars' prequels, 'Narnia' and other 'LOTR' clones. It lacks the overwhelming action scenes as seen in 'Avatar', yet fortunately it also lacks its videogame aesthetics. I prefer this dusty immersive classical look. In a sense it's a throwback to Disney movies like '20.000 Leagues...'

Too bad about the 3D conversion though, which only serves to fill the studio's pockets and darken the great cinematography. It's useless, catch it in 2D, if you can.

[mfunk9786]

Andrew Stanton is a hell of a talent, hopefully his past work gets people into the theater for this. I'll certainly be seeing it!

[Andre Jurieu]

I'm mildly intrigued by this, if only to figure out how Tim Riggins landed on Mars. It's probably more of an indication of how warped my mind is, but that's honestly what I keep wondering whenever I see the commercials for this one.

[ianungstad]

Unless the movie departs from the novel, that question is never really answered. There's some mumbo-jumbo about magic indian caves but that's hardly explained in a way that makes any sense. I'm surprised the novel has such a cult following, frankly I thought it was terrible.

[dad1153]

Will catch it on a matinee Sunday morning (in 2D). Six bucks and waking up early on the weekend is already more enthusiasm than I thought "John Carter" would ever get from me.

[knives]

Unless the movie departs from the novel, that question is never really answered. There's some mumbo-jumbo about magic indian caves but that's hardly explained in a way that makes any sense. I'm surprised the novel has such a cult following, frankly I thought it was terrible.

I always imagined a reverse Superman since that's basically what it reverse is. That said Heavy Metal already did such a good adaptation that I'm not terribly interested in what looks like generic kitsch.

[mfunk9786]

generic Kitsch

[stwrt]

Looks like the arena scene in Attack of the Clones but a lot longer.

[jojo]

Unless the movie departs from the novel, that question is never really answered. There's some mumbo-jumbo about magic indian caves but that's hardly explained in a way that makes any sense. I'm surprised the novel has such a cult following, frankly I thought it was terrible.

One could argue that the majority of pulp fiction were "terrible" on an objective level. The John Carter series was never meant to be taken too seriously.

[Jack Phillips]

Unless the movie departs from the novel, that question is never really answered.

It does, and it is.

[Finch]

Disney announces $200m loss on JC. Not seen the film so can't/won't comment on its worth but I have seen the ads and trailers and have to agree with the piece that Disney's marketing for this thing was so abysmal that I lost any interest that I originally had in the film. Compare the marketing for John Carter to Prometheus and the gap couldn't possibly be any greater. The film may well be flawed but Disney clearly had no clue how to sell this.

[Professor Wagstaff]

The sincerity of John Carter is what got me through this film. From the first scene I already found myself hopelessly lost in the plotting and mythology of the universe, which includes the baffling names and terminology that comes with it (this kind of science fiction mythology really isn't my thing anyway). The dramatics were ludicrous, the acting laughably bad (Lynn Collins in particular), but somewhere around the halfway point I found myself wrapped up in this campy mess of a film because, I think, the content was taken so seriously by the Stanton and his leads that I couldn't help but be charmed by their debacle. At its best, it played like a an enjoyably cheesy, low-grade gladiator film. I'm sure Stanton's staging has something to do with that, emphasizing the elaborate costumes and production design, lots of melodramatic exchanges, and loud, over the top performances.

[dad1153]

Saw this Saturday morning (matinee pricing) at a fairly-packed Times Square theater and the movie went over really well. While all the flaws mentioned are valid (campiness, weird-sounding names of things/places/Martians, etc.) I think "John Carter" overcomes them because, like Brad Bird in "M:I-Ghost Protocol," Andrew Stanton directs the hell out this flick (Eric Zumbrunnen's editing zips along) so you don't have time to rationalize that what you're watching doesn't make sense because you're having too much fun watching it happen. All the action bits and pieces seem inspired by the newest "Star Wars" trilogy, from the arena battles to the racing-like flying contraptions. While Lucas long ago forgot how to injec anything resembling fun into his space opera epics though Stanton trips over himself trying to stack-up the fun and exciting pieces.

My main beef with "John Carter" (not enough to sink the movie but a constant reminder of its ultimate status as a troubled production) is with the Tharks. They're like the Navi race in "Avatar" and any in a gazillion movies/TV shows/books (most of them, ironically, inspired by Burrough's 'Barsoom' series of books) that seem savage at first but, with the lead of an above-average outsider (usually a Caucasian male like John Carter), rise against more technologically-advanced opposition and win in the end (sorry for spoiling, but really?). I don't like the Tharks' CGI design, the whole

Spoiler

'Sola is Tars Tarkas' real daughter'

angle, the so-predictable-I-cheered-when-it-was-over-really-quickly

Spoiler

Tal Hajus challenge (think Indy with the sword fighter in "Raiders...").

Thankfully the supporting human cast is aces. James Purefoy could have stolen the movie if his Kantos Kan character had been given more screen time, but the few times he's on the movie embraces its own cheese. I'd love it if Mark Strong one day appears on a role that isn't just two-dimensional attractive evil. But, for the most part, the human-looking Martians act like they're in "Gladiator" or HBO's "Rome" than a space flick (which sells the illusion of this being otherwordly stuff based on writings from the early 1900's).

Taylor Kitsch (who sounds like the guy that did Batman's voice on the 1990's animated cartoon) knows what kind of movie he's in and doesn't overdo it. His best scene (the montage when the movie

Spoiler

cuts back and forth between his slaughter of bad guys and his tragic backstory back on Earth

) is, not surprisingly, a physical one in which lack of words enhance his presence. I wish his John Carter was a little more stunned/surprised when he finds out where he is and how he got there because he goes from being an enslaved prisoner to hero in too fast a story beat. Lynn Collins is fucking awesome though (ignoring the 'I'm a scientist' parts, which are laughable), a sexy-looking woman who looks like a (slightly-older than average for this type of flick) Princess and a warrior the next. The final act of the movie (which seems inspired by 1980's "Somewhere In Time") wouldn't work if you didn't buy that Carter and Dejah Thoris have made a really emotional connection.

A few hours after I saw "John Carter" I caught Zulawski's "On the Silver Globe" (1988) at the BAM retrospective of his career. I fucking hated it (most batshit and pretentious flick I've ever seen, and at 166 min. running time about 160 minutes too long!) but I'm not sure if part of my dislike for "Silver Globe" is that, hours before, I saw in "John Carter" a space fantasy epic that bent over and backwards trying at all possible moments to entertain me by putting $250 million up on the screen for me to have a good time. You can't go from 200 cinematic MPH to 3 MPH back-to-back on the same day and not get sci-fi whiplash.

[Gregory]

Don't know if there are any readers of Michael Moorcock on the forum (I suspect there probably are), but I found this comment of his from the Tor website pretty compelling:

I was assured by Michael Chabon that the film was made with love by real 'Barsoomheads' and he's right. It's astonishingly faithful to the books with additions which generally make it a better movie. I've seen it twice -- once in 3D and once in IMax. I'm looking forward to seeing it again as soon as the DVD comes out. My only complaint is that Disney seemed determined to sink this film and didn't put out any marketing. Pretty much everyone I know who's seen it loved it, including many women who normally don't like most SF. It's what I hoped STAR WARS would be like when I first saw it. I was disappointed by SW but fell in love with JOHN CARTER. Extraordinary wrong-footing by Disney who will almost certainly get their money back in spite of their failure of nerve.

Years earlier he'd seemed doubtful that Carter's adventures would ever be successfully be brought to the screen but said:

I would love to see the moody landscapes of the Red Planet populated with baroquely armoured Tharks and their noble human foes, the ancient towers of gorgeous Helium rising into the thin air, the horrors of the River Iss, the lazy curve of fliers as they stream across the skies beneath the twin moons of Mars. It would need the same sort of loving attention as that which brought The Lord of the Rings to the screen, but it would definitely beat anything Star Wars has yet been able to offer. If they ever do decide to make the movies, I hope the writers, director and producers will read [Burroughs biographer Richard A.] Lupoff ’s excellent account of the stories and their merits before they begin.

[Emilio]

Don't know if there are any readers of Michael Moorcock on the forum (I suspect there probably are), but I found this comment of his from the Tor website pretty compelling:

I was assured by Michael Chabon that the film was made with love by real 'Barsoomheads' and he's right. It's astonishingly faithful to the books with additions which generally make it a better movie. I've seen it twice -- once in 3D and once in IMax. I'm looking forward to seeing it again as soon as the DVD comes out. My only complaint is that Disney seemed determined to sink this film and didn't put out any marketing. Pretty much everyone I know who's seen it loved it, including many women who normally don't like most SF. It's what I hoped STAR WARS would be like when I first saw it. I was disappointed by SW but fell in love with JOHN CARTER. Extraordinary wrong-footing by Disney who will almost certainly get their money back in spite of their failure of nerve.

Years earlier he'd seemed doubtful that Carter's adventures would ever be successfully be brought to the screen but said:

I would love to see the moody landscapes of the Red Planet populated with baroquely armoured Tharks and their noble human foes, the ancient towers of gorgeous Helium rising into the thin air, the horrors of the River Iss, the lazy curve of fliers as they stream across the skies beneath the twin moons of Mars. It would need the same sort of loving attention as that which brought The Lord of the Rings to the screen, but it would definitely beat anything Star Wars has yet been able to offer. If they ever do decide to make the movies, I hope the writers, director and producers will read [Burroughs biographer Richard A.] Lupoff ’s excellent account of the stories and their merits before they begin.

Great find, thanks.

[The Narrator Returns]

An excellent article on the film, it's flop status, and whether audiences were wrong about it.

[jbeall]

Seems fair. I watched it last night, and while it felt like way too much material crammed into 132 minutes, it was certainly better than Prometheus in that it doesn't pretend to be anything more than what it is.

[LavaLamp]

This is a re-post of one I made on another website a while back:

Though I missed John Carter in the theatre, I did see it twice on DVD. Incredible film, which truly exceeded my expectations. Amazing effects, incredible scenery, & good plot. I'm a fan of the original Edgar Rice Burroughs Mars novels, and IMHO the film makers were very true to these original stories, while at the same time changing some things to make things more "cinematic":

- The green four-armed Tharks and the red-skinned/blue-blooded (but otherwise human-looking) people were close to what ERB described in the original books, and the vehicles/other tech seemed similar to the books as well. Also liked the elaborate costumes, amazing city-scapes, deserts, etc.

- The CGI was amazing, and you could really see texture in the skin of the Tharks, the fur of the white apes, etc.

- Though the whole film was excellent, two of the scenes that really stood out for me were the one where John Carter stayed behind to fight off all the evil Tharks alone (that were led by the bald Thern), as well as the arena scene, where JC fought against the large, four-armed white apes.

- I liked how they changed the explanation as to how JC was transported to Mars to make it more pseudo-scientific/magical, i.e., the medallion was what transported his "consciousness" to Mars; in the original ERB novel, I don't think much of an explanation was given here.

- I liked the fact that they carried over being able to leap very high in the film, since this is exactly what was described in the ERB books. If JC hadn't had this extra advantage while on Mars (due to the change in gravity?!), then I don't see how he would have been able to defeat his much more powerful enemies. I.e., if he had just been a regular non-super powered guy wandering around Mars, IMHO he would've been taken out by the Martians very early on...

As to why JC didn't do better at the box office despite being such an incredibly visually stunning & amazing movie, I have some theories - some of these have already been mentioned:

1) Timing: The film was released in March, and though that would initially seem like a great time for release since it didn't have to compete against the blockbusters that were coming out in May - July, I'm not sure it was the right move. If the film had instead been released in August (while people were still in the mode of seeing summer films) it may have done better. Then again, maybe not...

2) Obviously, the title. After seeing the film, I really can't believe it was called "John Carter" instead of "John Carter of Mars" or, even better, "John Carter, Warlord of Mars". Though we fans of the ERB novels & Marvel comic would have been familiar with the story, the general public had no clue that John Carter was a sci-fi film. In any case, adding "Mars" to the title would certainly not have caused the film to do any worse at the box office than it already did. And, it was interesting that at the very end of the film (before the credits), they did show the title "John Carter of Mars"...As it stood, when an average joe off the street hears the name "John Carter", they would probably think of Noah Wyle's character in ER....

3) I had read the ERB novels years before seeing the film, and really enjoyed the world that was created; very bizzare & definitely sci-fi, but with an archaic, old-fashioned vibe/tone. IMHO the film was an extremely faithful representation of the world that was described in the novels, and that may have been the problem & may explain why people couldn't relate to the film..In the early 21st century, it's tough to relate to a story that was published 100 years ago...

In any case, it's unfortunate that the film didn't do better at the box office, which means there won't be any sequels...