Film: John Carter (2012)

Anthony G Williams

Greybeard
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Messages
1,225
Location
UK
Well, I finally got around to seeing Disney's notorious "flop", based on the first of the century-old Barsoom novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs. Just in case there is anyone who is unaware of the basic plot, it concerns an American soldier who had fought in the Civil War of 1861-65 who finds himself suddenly transported to Mars - but a Mars unlike the one that we now know. It has a breathable atmosphere and populations of both humans (or humanoids - they have some non-human characteristics in Burroughs' stories) and Tharks; giant green six-limbed beings, intelligent but primitive. Their name for their planet is Barsoom. To be fair to Burroughs, little was known about surface conditions on Mars 100 years ago and the existence of a canal-building civilisation on the planet was widely believed even by serious astronomers (ironically, their opinion shifted against this idea around the time the Barsoom stories were first published).

I read the books as a youngster, far too long ago to recall anything much about them other than the intriguing nugget that the apparently "human" women laid eggs rather than giving birth to babies. I do recall being struck by the energy, enthusiasm and inventiveness of the tales, plenty by themselves to carry along young and uncritical readers, even though I knew at the time that these stories were now firmly in the "fantasy" category as Mars was really a dead planet. They made for great escapist fiction: what lad wouldn't want to be reborn as a super-warrior on an alien planet, fighting for a beautiful princess? I needn't say anything else about the plot, as that sums it up well enough for this review.

The film received a very mixed critical reception when released and its financial failure led to the resignation of the head of Walt Disney Studios. So I was curious to see whether I agreed with the critics or the supporters and watched it with an open mind. I was prepared to like it, but I have to say that on balance I agreed with the critics. The structure of the film is messy and sometimes difficult to follow and the pace is frantic, skipping rapidly through a series of improbable events without much explanation. In the battle scenes I was usually unsure of who were the "good" and "bad" humans as they looked and dressed much alike; I could never distinguish between the "good" and "bad" flying machines they used either. The character-building is weak to put it mildly, with Taylor Kitsch as the hero making little impression (someone with more screen presence, like Chris Hemsworth who made such an impressive Thor, might have made a difference) although Lynn Collins is fine as Deja Thoris - unlike most actresses, she has enough muscle to make the sword-wielding seem feasible. The strength of the film is, as one might expect, in the visual spectacle: the Tharks, the strange flying machines, the dramatic-looking cities (including a moving one), and the fighting. Lots of fighting. The overall impression I was left with was of much jumping and dashing around and whirling of swords.

To be fair, the film-makers had the usual problem in adapting a decidedly outdated novel: do they try to make sense of it for modern viewers, or do they stay faithful to the novel and produce something which is frankly rather ludicrous? On this occasion I think they tended towards the latter end of the spectrum. It was just about watchable for the spectacle, but left me unengaged and unimpressed. This was intended to be the first of a trilogy, but that now seems highly unlikely to materialise.

Incidentally, those who like the basic plot idea might enjoy reading a more modern and realistic (if such a term can be appropriate for this kind of fantasy) approach to the same theme, not set on Mars but on an initially undefined world: this is the seven-book Gandalara Cycle by Randall Garrett and Vicki Ann Heydron, published in the 1980s. I have reviewed the first three novels on this blog in December 2011 and July 2012, and they are great fun - undemanding escapist entertainment.

(An extract from my SFF blog: http://sciencefictionfantasy.blogspot.co.uk/)
 
I really, really liked it when I watched it earlier this year. The movie is great fun in my mind and its strange that adventure movies are frown upon these days. I for one would have liked to see this cult film soaring in the sky and producing other movies as this one is far better than any other films that has been made from the same subject.
 
I enjoyed it for what it was but wouldn't go out of my way to see it again. I'd give it 5 out of 10.
 
I really, really liked it when I watched it earlier this year. The movie is great fun in my mind and its strange that adventure movies are frown upon these days. I for one would have liked to see this cult film soaring in the sky and producing other movies as this one is far better than any other films that has been made from the same subject.

I had low expectations going in, but I liked the film. It did have flaws, I agree with Anthony's comment that the structure was a bit of a mess particularly at the start when they couldn't seem to decide how to start the film and offered a half-dozen opening scenes on different planets and set many years apart. I thought it was an enjoyable adventure film, I thought Taylor Kitsch was good in the lead role and they managed the rare feat of having CGI comic relief that wasn't annoying (it probably helped that it couldn't speak, George Lucas should take note). I liked the pulp SF setting, it's a bit unfortunate that the original material has been used as inspiration for so many SF films over the years that going back to the original could feel a bit cliched.
 
I agree with those who say it's a flawed movie and with those who enjoyed it anyway. It in no way deserves to be a special "bomb" - there are so many movies so much worse that do so much better. But not that I mean that as damning with faint praise - I actually had fun with it, to my surprise. If you're looking for a great movie or the definitive sacred treatment of Burroughs, then this isn't it, but if you're just looking for something often Burroughs-ish and fun (and really visually appealing), then this will deliver.
 
It was a far better film than Prometheus, but it's Prometheus that will be getting a sequel. John Carter's big problem was not that it was a bad film - it's not, it's very good one - but that it was a) badly marketed, and b) an adaptation of a story that has been mined by cinema and tv sf for a century. There were a couple of longeurs, but the script was cleverly done - I particularly liked the nested structure - and the film looked gorgeous. It's been sadly under-rated by most, and criminally attacked by some.
 
I think a lot of the problem was just generational. Nobody is really interested in a 100+ year old story. I know this is overly simplistic, but most people today simply have no knowledge of Edgar Rice Burroughs, let alone John Carter. A shame really. The books are fun to read, but you have to check your 21st century baggage at the door.
 
I think a lot of the problem was just generational. Nobody is really interested in a 100+ year old story. I know this is overly simplistic, but most people today simply have no knowledge of Edgar Rice Burroughs, let alone John Carter. A shame really. The books are fun to read, but you have to check your 21st century baggage at the door.

Except the film wasn't early twentieth century. They had cleverly updated it for a modern audience. Unfortunately, while they could remove the sexism, they couldn't remove people's memories of all the bits of the story that have been used in other movies and tv programmes...
 
Except the film wasn't early twentieth century. They had cleverly updated it for a modern audience. Unfortunately, while they could remove the sexism, they couldn't remove people's memories of all the bits of the story that have been used in other movies and tv programmes...


I think he was referring to the fact that Prometheus is from the widely wildly popular Alien franchise, and John Carter is a story that most younger people have never heard of.
 
I think he was referring to the fact that Prometheus is from the widely wildly popular Alien franchise, and John Carter is a story that most younger people have never heard of.

The Alien franchise is more than thirty years old, and the last film in it was released 15 years ago.
 
The Alien franchise is more than thirty years old, and the last film in it was released 15 years ago.
They still get shown quite frequently on TV, though, so there's a fair chance that today's youth will at least know about them. Who would know about ERB except SF geeks like us?
 
Fair point. Though Tarzan is even better known than Alien. And there have been a few recent crossover comics series with John Carter and Carson of Venus (not to mention the 1970s John Carter Marvel series) - so comics fans will know of him.
 
If you look on Amazon, the last couple of years have seen a number of omnibus editions of John Carter comic adaptations.
 
I think my point was that the "mainstream" audience will have no reason to be familiar with Burroughs' Mars tales and therefore no motivation to see the movie. More folks on the street will have knowledge of Ellen Ripley than John Carter.
 
The movie had many of the forms, but nothing of the substance. It felt like a paint-by-numbers production. "Okay, we did that, and that, check, check, check." The books were packed with decorative language and superlatives and people making long-winded speeches while facing off for battle. All in all, not bad for a book that really can't be made into a movie. John in the heat of battle surrounded by a rampart of fallen warriors was right out of the book, though. I can appreciate the alterations made in an attempt to elevate the stories above simple escapism/action, but they didn't work.

The one gag that made me laugh out loud was when Tarkas smacks Carter on the back of the head for leading the army into the wrong city.
 
Tarzan has no problems selling as film,animation,comics. It doesnt matter ERB isnt as known as he was when he was one of the bestselling authors in the world. The film could have been hit no matter its quality.

It had flaws but it updated John Carter first book well and was enjoyable film.

Anthony dont dimiss books you dont remember, i have read Princess of Mars first time only this year before i saw the film even and i thought it was a wonderful,vivid,timless quality to its adventure. It still strong,fun read today. Its not serious SF but wonderful sword and planet.
 

Back
Top