Movie Review: ‘John Carter’
Cast: Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins, Samantha Morton, Mark Strong, Dominic West
Plot: During the American Civil War a hot-headed marine named John Carter suddenly finds himself transported to Mars, where the residents are in the midst of their own war.
Review: To say that the road to the big screen for the titular sci-fi hero John Carter has been a long one is a massive understatement. The material has been available for around 100 years and the serious attempts to get a production underway began almost thirty years ago. Although the material is hardly widespread in this day and age the quality of it has endured and the market is open for a big budget family friendly adventure film. Something has obviously gone awry however, as Disney posted a loss of $84Million for the quarter after banking heavily on John Carter being a blockbuster.
This has partly been accredited to the marketing, with the head of Disney marketing being new to the industry and director Stanton often rejecting the studio concepts, insisting on creating his own. His attempts to evoke the same sense of wonder he felt at seeing the disconnected images of Star Wars for the first time, ignoring the fact that this style had long been abandoned in favour of Don LaFontaine’s narrative driven style for a very good reason. Likewise the billboard images also neglected to give the audience much information, even on the tone of the film, and was largely ignored. The decision by Stanton to shorten to title from John Carter of Mars down to simply John Carter was also a mistake. His reasoning that it gave the impression of an introduction to the character is sound, but it also strips the film of all the mystique and intrigue the original title had, and must assume some knowledge of behalf of the audience (which the billboards and trailers were not providing).
So that sums up why the movie failed to ignite the box office in the way that Disney had intended. But that doesn’t address the real reason we came here today: is it any good?
In some respects, yes. In others, a resounding ‘no’. Let’s start with the good. The movie is downright spectacular. The visual flair that served Stanton so well in his previous films WALL-E and Finding Nemo is definitely on show here. Even before we get to Mars the movie looks fantastic, with a rich and colourful art design creating an involving fantasy world. When the action jumps to the red planet things look even more impressive, and the design of the aliens and the technology is unique and fun to watch. It seems like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and steampunk got thrown into a blender. The action is also pretty rad, with John Carter’s interplanetary status giving him the ability to leap huge distances (and some how drop great distances without being hurt) and the routine is used to great effect.
Sadly visuals do not make a blockbuster and while the movie is all over that, it’s completely lacking in story and character. The plot follows the oh-so-familiar ‘chosen one’ tale without bringing anything new or unique to the table. The BR copy used for this review had a tendency to skip every now and then and nothing much was lost. We move from one character dealing out exposition to another with the gaps between the action and, well, anything interesting happening.
When the character of John Carter is introduced in the opening scenes he seems downright cool. The sequence where he busts away from his captors again and again is funny and exciting. Once he lands on Mars, however, he magically turns into a piece of cardboard, interacting with a bunch of cardboard aliens. This isn’t the fault of young, mostly up-and-coming cast members, they have what it takes to carry a film like this. The script doesn’t give them anything other than bland material to work worth. All the characters are pretty much the same people by the end of the movie in spite of everything that’s happened to them. One almost feels sorry for leads Kitsch and Collins – you can’t blame them for taking roles inpotential blockbusters John Carter and X-Men Origins: Wolverine as they should’ve both been opportunities that few actors would ever get. Maybe we should ignore these films and give them a third chance at earning their cred.
Also have the half the characters are green skinned, four armed aliens and I don’t want to sound xenoist but I couldn’t tell them apart.
For all the weaknesses the film doesn’t have anything that actually grates the audience – except the editing. The director and editor likes to pull this trick where the character retains the same pose through a transition to a new scene. For example, in an early edit John Carter goes leaping through a window and is then seen landing in a prison cell. A nice artistic touch to be sure, and maybe of good use if done for comedic effect once or twice, but it gets used again and again. What it actually does is cause the viewers brain to take a couple of extra moments to process that they are seeing a new scene and catch up with what it happening. This proves more frustrating than anything else.
Ultimately it’s a movie with a solid concept, art, casting but totally lacking in pace, engaging story and characters.
Score: FOUR outta TEN






“Totally lacking in pace, engaging story and characters”.
You must have been watching a different film, or could I possibly recommend less alcohol with your reveiwing evenings? 🙂
This solid family blockbuster is an engaging piece of science fantasy built upon the frame of a classic series of stories and done with attention to detail, reverence and sensibilities that show plainly the director’s background in animation. His transition to live action is done with class.
I could ramble on, but seriously, go and rent a copy. Make up your own mind because the media seem hell-bent on damning a fine piece of cinema. No conspiracies here, just puzzlement.
Go on. See it. You will not regret it.
LikeLike
John Carter was a wonderful film, and exceptional film,that died at the box office due to poor marketing and advertising by Disney. I have seen the film on many occasions with both family and friends who absolutely loved John Carter It was a beautiful story and had an incomparable cast! (if you loved the HBO Rome series, you will love this cast!) The characters were all fantastic. It was just an extremely well made and directed film by Andrew Stanton. A story that you want to go back to time and time again. There is a huge fan base all over the world for John Carter. The DVD was number1 in sales, and has now grossed nearly as much as other films which are considered ‘hits’. Take a chance and buy the DVD and see for yourself. Take us BACK TO BARSOOM!
LikeLike
I don’t know where you’re getting your figures from, but even when you combine box office and home media sales ‘John Carter’ is comparing poorly to the average movie takings. The Blu-ray is currently selling less copies than pre-orders for ‘The Three Stooges’.
LikeLike
Maybe you too should do some checking gfunk. You have looked at DVD only figures for North America. Blu-ray adds a big boost to those numbers and if you could check out International sales (only available if you pay for them)you would see just how well this movie is doing in the world wide home market.
LikeLike
I did look at international figures, and even then ‘John Carter’ is very, very far away from being a “hit”.
LikeLike
Its revealing to see the number of bad reviews for this film. A lot of this review is positive, but it lacks on two chief points. First of all, there is the criticism that John Carter offers nothing new. Perhaps. EXCEPT that this movie is one that Edgar Rice Burroughs fans have wanted to see made since 1912. Animator Bob Clampett was the first to try in the early 1930s, before Walt Disney made Snow White the first animated feature. And over the years many others, including stop-motion animator Ray Harryhausen tried. The problem, much like that of bringing the Lord of the Rings to film, was film technology. In the meantime, directors like George Lucas and James Cameron and many others mined many of the story points of “A Princess of Mars” for their own movies. The truth is that “John Carter” IS the original and all the others are copies and Lucas and Cameron over the years … as well as Siegel & Schuster who created Superman … and Alex Raymond who created Flash Gordon … and J. Flint Dille who created Buck Rogers … and many others have acknowledged this in interviews over the years.
But its not true that the movie brings nothing new to the audience either. And its in the area of character and story (that the reviewer couldn’t see) and in the visuals that this movie soars. Its interesting that many of the other reviewers have criticized the movie on the basis that the story is TOO COMPLEX. Some have even compared it to David Lynch’s “Dune” which was so complex that there was a handout in theatres explaining all the terms and characters. Not true either. Even the reviewer’s criticism is self-contradictory. How can the movie be completely lacking in story … completely? … and still be the “oh so familiar ‘chosen one’ tale the reviewer claims? And just because the reviewer can’t tell one green skinned, four-armed character from another, I’m afraid the reviewer’s own remark about hating to sound xenoist betrays him. The main Thark characters of Tars Tarkas, Tal Hajus, Sola, and Sarkoja are very clearly defined and instantly recognizable by the clearly defined voice characterizations and even the look and movements of them. As for the other characters, they are no less defined than the characters of the Avengers. Truthfully, comparing the two movies which needed to introduce a number of characters and give them all screen time, John Carter was far more successful in making me relate to their characters in the midst of a complex storyline.
As for story, there are four main Barsoomian people groups. The Tharks, the green skinned, four armed characters , a primitive race who in the movie are waiting for the two main factions of red Martians to defeat each other so that they can prevail. The red Martians are divided along two city kingdoms of Helium and Zodanga with the Zodangans wasting the planets resources to fuel their city and their airships while the Heliumites seek to use science for the solution to their problems. And the Therns are a race who serve a mysterious goddess Issus that feeds off the destruction of planets and have decided that the predator city kingdom of Zodanga must take control of Mars (Barsoom). Its into this world that John Carter enters as he is transported from a 19th century earth. Along the way, he finds Woola (the fastest creature on Barsoom totally loyal to John Carter that has 10 legs, the size of a Shetland pony, several rows of sharp teeth, and an appearance something like a mix between a bulldog and a frog) and he finds romance after losing his wife and child on earth (the core of the story) and upsets the plans of the Therns.
LikeLike
Let me say that John Carter is one fantastic movie that has a good plot and superb special effects .It would have done a lot better at the box office if Disney changed the movie name to John Carter of Mars or a Warlord of Mars and dId a better job marketing the movie.
LikeLike
I certainly agree that ‘John Carter of Mars’ would’ve been a title to draw in some interest. The title as it is would only work with name brand recognition, and that’s a small market for this particular film.
LikeLike
John Carter was a financial ” hit ” all over the world except th US and with DVD and Blu-Ray sales exceeding $40 million in the US alone, it’s probable that it has now made over $500 million worldwide. Amazing numbers considering the critical mauling it has gone through since before its release. It’s a wonderful movie ( even if a lot of critics just don’t get it ) full of great characters, superb performances ( special mention for Lynn Collins who is an absolute star ) and a good old adventure story.
LikeLike
With only 63% on Flixster it’s not just the critics who didn’t like it.
Is there some kind of organised effort to try and discredit reviews against this movie or something because you people are starting to weird me out. If you like the movie so much then go and enjoy it instead of trying to convince people who didn’t otherwise.
We saw it for what it was: flat, uninspired and a mishandled attempt to adapt a classic piece of sci-fi.
LikeLike
You thought it was flat and uninspired; I, however, thought it was a rousing adventure story that made me feel like I’d been on a grand adventure, too. But then, I go to movies primarily for their escapist entertainment value, so the fact that a movie taps instead into heroic archetypes that have existed for centuries doesn’t detract from my enjoyment in any way. I don’t demand a lot from movies beyond a good heroic tale. (Strangely, I’m generally not a fan of the “sword and sorcery” genre, which if you judged only by Disney’s trailer for John Carter is the category you’d have put it in. I was very happily surprised when the movie turned out to be so much more.)
I do agree with you, however, that John Carter is visually stunning. I’ve watched it numerous times and have introduced many friends to it, who also loved it. It is truly beautiful on the big screen.
If you found the tale lacking in character and plot, then perhaps you didn’t enjoy Star Wars: Episode 1, either, which drew heavily on Burrough’s source material from the original “John Carter” books and featured one of the flattest performances by a lead actor that I have ever seen. Yet most of us love it for its campy cheesiness. John Carter the movie, however tragically named and marketed, had a similar “Saturday matinee” feel to it with fairly old-fashioned (many would say outdated) concepts of loyalty and courage. Or perhaps a more apt comparison would be to compare it to “A Princess Bride” or “The Fifth Element,” which had poor financial success initially, struggled to find their audiences, but are now widely deemed cult classics.
There is a reason the “oh-so-familiar ‘chosen one’ tale” is familiar, and that’s because so many fans love it, no matter how many times it’s rehashed. Many of the recent rebooted superhero franchises are far more flat and uninspiring than was John Carter. I’m not saying it’s a perfect movie – it has its flaws, that’s for sure – but for me, the entertainment value and the beauty of this film far outweighed any occasional lapses. It is certainly not deserving of the vitriol that has been heaped upon it by the common press, nor by movie-goers who were determined from the outset to dislike it.
LikeLike
Yikes, I wouldn’t go so far as to compare it to ‘Star Wars Episode 1’. ‘John Carter’ didn’t have the worlds most exciting characters, but at least the characters acted with some motivation.
‘The Princess Bride’ does feel like it’s cut from the same cloth style-wise, but it has a certain spark – a wry sense of humour, the right combination of talents – that elevates it above the rest.
When I comment on ‘John Carter’ being a overly familiar character arc is because they don’t make any effort to expand it beyond that simple description. Films like ‘The Matrix’ and ‘Lord of the Rings’ use the same motif, but make it feel unique and fresh. John Carter may as well have been renamed John Smith for how generic he felt.
LikeLike
The main problem with this movie is director andrew stanton and his writing team. They took a great story and ruined it. completely changing practically every element from character to plot then put in some stuff from the second book and changed THAT as well. The fact is he made a piss poor adaption ans I truly hope he does NOT get to do a sequel.
LikeLike
I thought John Carter was a fun and entertaining movie! It’s rated around 88% on Amazon.com, by approximately 750 reviewers, and I’ve always found that people that actually spend money on movies and take the time to review them are more reliable than “critics” who just give you one personal opinion of a film.
I saw John Carter 6 times at the box office, and I’d recommend that all sci-fi fans watch it, because it is fun and entertaining with great special effects!
LikeLike
I’m glad to here you say that, given that I’m not a professional critic. No, I’m just a guy you spent the money on the movie because I wanted to watch it. Then I spent money on this website so that I could voice my opinion and I get nothing in return.
So…by your logic that makes my review twice as valid. Thanks!
LikeLike
Yooooouuuuuu got a lot of comments for this one, it seems… I completely agree with what you said about the marketing for this movie. There was just no information given about it, and calling the film simply “John Carter” was not significant to the wider audiences. I assumed there was some sort of reason why they did this that had more to do with the filmmakers’ love for the project than marketing, which is nice, but weird for Disney, and I was right.
But, the point is that I had no idea what the heck I was walking into when I got dragged to the movies to see it, and I didn’t like that feeling very much. That said, having no idea what it was kind of made it more enjoyable, but I probably wouldn’t have gone to see it if my mum hadn’t been paying… which is definitely not a good thing in terms of marketing.
I did enjoy it, though, but because I didn’t know what I was watching, it took me a while to interpret the genre, or something, and then because of that, some of the things that happened were a little ridiculous and jarring. Like how quickly he got used to the gravity difference. That was really skimmed over, and I kept having to remind myself that the film appeared to be some sort of family film and that it was made by Disney…
It was very pretty, though. Very, very pretty. OH! And I could not for the life of me remember where that actress was from. Wolverine. Now I know. Thanks for that. Haha.
Corina 🙂
LikeLike
Pingback: ‘John Carter’ Sequel: A Fanboy Delusion « Funk's House of Geekery