Subscribe RSS
Comment RSSJohn Carter Review
9.03.12 # Review # 29 Comments
Our John Carter Review.
Director: Andrew Stanton
Starring: Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins, Willem Dafoe, Mark Strong, Thomas Haden Church
Release Date: UK & US – Today
There has been a lot of hullabaloo about the movie John Carter in the film industry and around the blogosphere the past couple of weeks.
Starring this action figure.
Mostly it’s been folks railing against Disney’s marketing decisions which included removing “of Mars” from the title and the failure to mention the film’s successful director, Pulitzer Prize-winning screenwriter, and arch-typical storyline that set the stage for 100 years of pop culture; everything from Flash Gordon to Avatar to Noah Wyle’s character from E.R.
But all of that negative press coverage has distracted from one very important thing: I just worked the world hullabaloo into a modern film review.
Also: the movie is not very good at all.
Except for this part. This part is very, very good.
If the original film trailer seemed like a mixed bag of things you’ve already seen in other movies, that’s because the entire film is that way. While some detractors would accuse John Carter’s creators of stealing — and others could accuse those detractors of being morons for not realizing Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote all these things a half century before the many rip-offs — the fact remains John Carter is a wet hot mess of half-formed ideas, shallow characters, and generic set pieces.
The film starts off with voice-over narration about the political history of Barsoom (Burrough’s mildly ridiculous name for Mars), accompanied with frenetic battle scenes involving characters you know nothing about and care for even less. The story then jumps to John Carter in 1881, narrowly escaping a mysterious pursuer who you also know nothing about. Then things jump again and Carter is seemingly dead (off camera) and his nephew is summoned to claim his estate, all the while the audience wonders, “what happened to those robed politicians on Marsoomenin (SP?), isn’t this movie about that stuff?”
Once Carter’s nephew picks up his journals and begins to read, the story does settle down into a straightforward narrative … by jumping back twenty years smack into the middle of a back story which in itself has another back story.
If this sounds confusing, that’s because it is, and things just get more confounding from there when the filmmakers introduce no less than six subplots that require copious amounts of grand exposition. The thing is, John Carter has a lot more in common with Attack of the Clones than the divisive stadium battle sequence you glimpsed in the trailer, it also boasts many of the same weaknesses that plagued that prequel and its ilk, Phantom Menace, Crystal Skull, The Matrix sequels et al …
The most glaring flaw is the lack of a truly decisive protagonist with a clearly defined objective. Sure, Carter’s Civil War history has given him a rich pathos for which actor Taylor Kitsch to brood with, but the screenwriters also used this fact to carve the central theme of the story: John Carter doesn’t take sides. Which, in an action movie translates to: John Carter doesn’t fight. And herein lies the problem. Self doubt and passivity are passable character traits for the protagonists of indie dramas, but make for very unheroic heroes. Sure Luke Skywalker whined a lot, but he was whining about not being able to take action. Likewise Neo wades through the necessary reluctance to create proper drama, but consistently pushes through his failures because he feels it’s the right thing to do. In John Carter, our hero constantly avoids conflict not because he hates violence but because he doesn’t like people telling him what to do, effectively turning our Christ figure (same initials, anyone?) into a pouty-mouthed diva.
The film also stars Willem Dafoe, seen here on the right.
To be fair, John Carter of Nazareth isn’t completely passive and does ultimately “take a stand” in the film. But this particular scene, a surprising powerhouse of editing between Carter slaughtering an enemy horde and a flashback of him literally burying his past, only serves as the exception that proves the rule. Seeing a hero be a true hero halfway through the film just makes you wish he’d been that way all along.
But even if Carter’s nature had been more clearly defined, he still would be a hero without a quest. Genre films like this, the ones with a strong foothold in Western story structure, need a specific endgame for the protagonist to strive for. In Star Wars, Luke must get the Death Star blueprints to the rebel alliance. In Lord of the Rings, Frodo must carry the evil ring to the only place where it can be destroyed. As for John Carter … he wants escape the army, and then he wants to escape the Tharks, and then he wants to travel down a mysterious river, and then he wants to save the princess, and then he finds out the Therns are going to destroy the universe so he hops around a lot and things blow up. And while these are fine pursuits for an action hero, in this case more is less as the story becomes so cluttered with mini-motivations the audience is left with no time to really sink their hearts into their hero’s plight.
Much more could be said about the film’s clutter of confusing characters, long boring scenes of exposition, and wince-inducing dialog (I know it refers to the sun, but naming a Martian city “Helium” allows for characters to say things like “I studied at the Science Academy of Helium!” and elicit awkward laughter from a crowded theater).
Likewise, much could be said of the film’s fine special effects and cinematography.
But in the end it’s all just so much wasted effort for a big-budget misfire that leaps for greatness and lands just this side of horrible.
Our Grade: C-
are u serious the movie was awesome man ……
I frankly agree, it was a different story, and a pretty good movie.
Your rhetoric compels me. I love it now!
how does john, a cowboy, know what mars is?
You didn’t pay attention to the movie too well. If you look in his office, he has been all over the world, and has maps of the Earth and the Stars. Plus he’s rich and must be well educated.
Just got home3 from watching it, you could not be more wrong, it was awesome, hopefully the other John Carter stories make it to the big screen with the same team/cast in place.
Saw it friday – and loved it. Dont really get the harsh tone from nearly every single “official” movie-critic.
Heard one saying on TV, that he enjoyed the movie and was drawn into the story, but it wasn’t an art-movie, so he gave a really bad grade. WHY? If you enjoy a movie and find the story exciting, then it should be have a nice grade!
In my book it’s 8/10. A really solid family movie!
@jam: I believe most of the planets, except for Pluto, had been discovered by the late 1840s. John Carter is less of a cowboy and more of a down-in-out gentleman, so it stands to reason he could figure things out, especially with the Martian scientist to help him.
@NEPatsFan1972: I’m glad you liked the movie, but keep in mind it’s possible to like something that is objectively bad. I really love Birdemic: Shock and Terror, but it’s not a good film at all. While you are entitled to your opinion, saying that I am wrong because you enjoyed the film is fallacious logic. Unless you can tell me how I am wrong you should entertain the possibility that poor editing, dialog, and the story problems I mentioned in the review (dating back to Aristotle, by the way) don’t matter in your viewing experience. Which is your prerogative, but really quite disheartening.
frz0r: The problem you address is an epidemic in the world of journalism right now, spread through the internet by the various “critics” which are basically folks with no education in the craft of storytelling just ranting at a fifth grade writing level (no, really, if you copy and paste Harry Knowles’ writing into a website that reads and grade prose, his “work” is always marked as fifth grade).
Anyway. I agree with you. Whether or not a film is “artsy” does not determine its quality.
On another note, at the end of your comment you state that John Carter is a good family film. I was curious about your thoughts on the secondary (yet very important) theme about an outside source creating evil in the world? If you notice, the Tharks claim to be responsible for all war and dissension on Mars and claim to be headed to Earth next, hinting that humans would do just fine if left alone. I found this idea really quite appalling for children. It’s the whole “the devil made me do it!” idea. It’s similar to Disney’s The Little Mermaid, which was a wildly popular movie for children which promotes rebellion against authority figures for the sake of romantic love, even if those authority figures were correct and your actions threaten to destroy you, your loved ones, and the entire world.
@ dalmatianjaws.
Thus I love analysing children’s movies and showing how messed up the writing is, this is not the idea from Disney’s perspective. Does that make i.e. The Little Mermaid a bad movie for youngsters? I’d argue no, because they don’t see that side of the story – all they do is being entertained with a romantic story. Should all entertainment be clever and educating? I hope not! Therefore regarding your statement of the Tharks (wasn’t it the Therns?) is a bit misplaced. Anyway I think they were to be seen as evil-mongers, not as “true” evil.
That being said, did anyone go to see John Carter expecting an educating and profound story? I went to be entertained by a light fun action story and to be impressed by the visuals. Both of which I found the movie did to the fullest. If I had kids I’m convinced they would have loved this movie – it is a good mixture of fun action/adventure, western. And by that standard the movie should be rewarded with better critics.
Reviewing it thinking its the new Citizen Kane is just dumb. A movie should be reviewed in the context of what it is. That said I agree that John Carter had its shortcomings, but nothing I found disturbing enough to offset my movie experience.
(English is my 2nd language – some spelling errors might occur).
Your comment about the film being objectively bad is rather ludicrous. For starters no film can be “objectviely bad” (sadly even “Attack of the Killer tomatoes”). Like anything film reiviews are completely subjective and therefore a matter of opinion. For the most part, there are many intellgent, thoughtful people out there who enjoyed this film. Likewise, I have found most of the complaints about this film to be petty and rather vacuous. Bottom line, I enjoyed this film. I’ve read several of the Barsoom stories and felt that the film did them justice; if not being completely faithful to them. Incidentally “Barsoom” is no more ridiculous a name than “Mars”. Again, your opinion; like your not particularly appreciated review of this movie (from looking at most of the comments beneath it).
The film flopped with the public at the box office and the critics’ reception was extremely mixed (51% liked it), so Dalmatian Jaws’ review is not off-base.
Please explain why for every negative comment on these reviews there are about a dozen times more positive ones about the film. The bottom line is that most detractors of the film either don’t understand films of this kind of genre just wanted to stick it to the film for not being perfect and having a 250Mil price tag. Bottom line: This film deserved a lot better than it got from many critics. The ones who get sci-fi for the most part, liked the movie if not loved it (and a number of them did loved it). The rest can go back to reviewing action movies based upon video games and kiddie toys.
“Please explain why for every negative comment on these reviews there are about a dozen times more positive ones about the film.
People have bad taste? I don’t know, you tell me.
“The bottom line is that most detractors of the film either don’t understand films of this kind of genre just wanted to stick it to the film for not being perfect and having a 250Mil price tag.”
I love films of this genre. And I tend to read old sci-fi stories, including Princess of Mars, a lot.
“Bottom line: This film deserved a lot better than it got from many critics.”
Not sure about that.
“The ones who get sci-fi for the most part, liked the movie if not loved it (and a number of them did loved it).”
Genre has no bearing on this.
“Your comment about the film being objectively bad is rather ludicrous.”
Why?
“For starters no film can be “objectviely bad” (sadly even “Attack of the Killer tomatoes”).”
Oh.
Wait, why not? Aren’t there set rules to shot composition, lighting, editing, scene construction on a script level, etc? Sure all rules can be broken, but they are there for a reason and should never be ignored.
“Like anything film reiviews are completely subjective and therefore a matter of opinion.”
Yes, when you break apart society and thought to its smallest possible parts, everything is subjective. You prove this point simply by virtue of the fact that you’re arguing with me without backing up any of your statements in regard to the artifact in question (John Carter). But a more rational, day-to-day, “zoomed out” view on life argues otherwise. There are standards to be maintained. A thousand years of storytelling history are not to be ignored. Is this a paradox? Sure. Maybe. I don’t know or care. The point is, when it comes to MAKING something, there are standards to be maintained, otherwise there wouldn’t be any discussion about, well, anything.
“For the most part, there are many intellgent, thoughtful people out there who enjoyed this film.”
A few fallacies implied here. (1) That being intelligent and thoughtful necessitates good taste in movies, (2) that there are more thoughtful and intelligent people that like this movie rather than not (something that’s impossible to calculate accurately), (3) it doesn’t take into account that there are many intelligent and thoughtful people who DIDN’T like the movie.
“Likewise, I have found most of the complaints about this film to be petty and rather vacuous.
Are you talking about me? Then I guess asking for a straightforward narrative, character empathy, and decisive plot propulsion is petty? Well okay then. I’m petty.
“Bottom line, I enjoyed this film.”
Never the bottom line when it comes to critique and discussion. Otherwise there is no rudder with which to guide culture. I’m not saying it’s okay to like something regardless of quality, I’m just saying you should be aware there are more important things than someone’s transient amusement.
“I’ve read several of the Barsoom stories and felt that the film did them justice; if not being completely faithful to them.
This is a broad statement that I cannot confirm or deny because I’m not sure what it means.
“Incidentally “Barsoom” is no more ridiculous a name than “Mars”.”
Then why do we call it Mars and not Barsoom?
“Again, your opinion;”
Yes. But opinion and truth are not mutually exclusive.
“like your not particularly appreciated review of this movie (from looking at most of the comments beneath it).”
Agreed. Isn’t it depressing?
Movie Critic’s are so far off base with John Carter it’s ridiculous.
I almost didn’t go to see this movie because of all the harsh reviews but noticed that Yahoo users were tracking at 7.8 out of 10. Quite a discrepancy! And wow was I ever rewarded with a great movie.
Seriously though, it’s not even close. It makes me wonder if some of these critics even saw the movie.
I saw the movie and, having been to a few packed critics screenings over the past couple of years, I can tell you they almost certainly did see it.
Are critics infallible? Far from it. Should you make your own decisions? Absolutely. Did Roger Ebert and his ilk seriously damage our culture with the “thumbs up/thumbs down” simplicity of film reviews, creating a mindset that there is some invisible bar that must be crossed for a film to be “worthy” of existing?
ABSO. FREAKING. LUTELY.
Which is why this comment thread is so awesome. Discourse is VERY important.
Can I ask you what exactly you liked about the movie? Not for the sake or arguing but because I’d really like to know. Be as specific as possible please, seeing as I didn’t like it at all I really want to see this movie from another set of eyes to understand what the audience connected with.
This review is very misleading. The movie is exceptionally made, but it is different than modern movies. Please go see it for yourself. This is a wonderful film bringing to light something that has been locked away in books for too long. The film is a great tribute to the genius of Edgar Rice Burroughs… a great interpretation of what was possibly in his visions. It’s a great chance to also educate the populace about the origin of such insightful ideas that have shown up in the later movies. And the director didn’t try to “correct it” with our modern understanding, which others mistakenly have.
And the beginning wasn’t confusing… it was good. (But different than the norm.)
Here is a breakdown of the John Carter script that says it much better than I can.
http://badassdigest.com/2012/04/08/film-crit-hulk-smash-hulk-vs-the-john-carter-script/
Suffice to say, it is a modern movie because it was made last year. Is it in someways a throwback? Yes. Does that give it the right to be bad? No.
I saw it with my sons on friday night we spent the rest of the night talking about all of the great parts, then on saturday I took my wife and their girlfriends to see it, and they loved it to. None of us found the beginning confusing and even it someone did it was all explained at the end. It makes me wonder if you even watched the entire movie or it you had to rush back home to start slamming it.
I’m glad you got your money’s worth of enjoyment, especially with ticket prices so high.
But again, see some of my previous comments as to why enjoyment does not necessarily equal quality (Though you should ask yourself, should it?)
The key word in your comment is “explained.” You said it wasn’t confusing because it was explained at the end. This insinuates ex positional dialog and, having seen the movie, I know that’s definitely what you’re talking about. One of the key tenets of good cinema is “show, don’t tell” which is something this movie failed to do.
The movie was AMAZING. The review is completely wrong. Im just saying that i havent seen a movie like this one since transformers so i think it is another movie for my top 10 xD
I’d love to hear your thoughts as to why. While you’re at it, I’d love to hear your thoughts as to why Transformers is a good movie as well.
the movie is great, but i try to search a movie but until now i did not find because i don’t know the title but i remember the story, it’s about a rich girl meet a good looking man but he is poor working at the carnival, when the girl first saw the guy he like the good looks and guy in love with the girl. anybody know the title of the movie, becuase i dream about it..
thanks
super movie and the actors are fantastic highly recommend this film without taking great ROMANIA
I thought your review was spot on
Thank you, my lone compatriot.
I am definitely not a movie critic, nor do I understand the ins and outs of movie making/script writing, but I agree with Dalmatianjaws’s critique. His argument is logical and appears to be accurate with plenty of examples to prove his point.
With that being said, this is a movie to go to see if you want to experience something that is visually stimulating and, at times, quite entertaining. Do I believe that this movie was outstanding and should be the basis for which all other movies of this genre to be built around? No.
In my OPINION, I believe this is a movie to watch if you want to turn off your brain for a couple of hours and just enjoy the experience. I also believe that this entire genre of movies should be viewed in that same way – these aren’t movies designed to evoke deep thought, rather, they are designed to be fun and make money (again…my opinion). I understand that Burroughs most likely had other ideas/goals in mind when writing his stories, but in today’s world it’s about the bottom line and how much money it can/will make.
I had rather low expectations for this movie because of what I heard from the critics, but I feel that that just made my movie experience better – I was delightfully surprised by how much I enjoyed the film.
Form your own opinions and don’t rely so heavily on what other people have to say. Now do what I say and check out John Carter – especially Lynn Collins!
I really liked this movie. Sure there are parts that you’ve seen in other movies, but if you made a movie you would do the exact same thing. It is hard to come up with original ideas now. Now as much as I liked the movie, there are some parts I didn’t like for example: when his nephew goes to his weird tomb or whatever and minds his name is the key and then his uncle is on the other side already out of the tomb. I didn’t think that made much sense but other wise, good movie. I really liked that John married the princess(sorry I forget her name) in the end. I knew they would fall in love from the beginning. I think the acting was really good, but I think the costume for that shape shifting guy was very, odd. It reminded me of a munk or valdamort from Harry Potter. Great movie though I recommend this to all of my friends and I hope you’ll do the same.
Leave A Comment
Author Notes
Post By Dalmatian Jaws
9th Mar
Recent Posts
Featured Posts
New Comments
Search
Sequel Updates
Remake Updates
Popular Posts
Popular Top Tens
...more
Theme by M.Hutagalung|Due to the amount of speculation and hearsay, site should be read for entertainment purposes only