Directed by: Andrew Stanton (WALL-E)
Starring: Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins, Samantha Morton, Willem Dafoe, Thomas Haden Church, Mark Strong, Ciarán Hinds
One of the year’s more pleasant surprises to date is Andrew Stanton’s John Carter—a nicely cast, superbly mounted sci-fi action film that manages to overcome an inflated running time and occasional bouts of cuteness by remembering and embracimg its pulp fiction roots as an “interplanetary romance.” (No, the use of Led Zeppelin’s “Kashmir” in the trailer does not extend to the film, which is almost a shame.) It’s an adaption of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ 1912 serialized novel A Princess of Mars—one might more readily call the film an elaboration, but not one that could be said to betray the source. If anything, it’s just possible that it improves on the book, which tends to jump into the story a little hastily—sometimes incomprehensibly. (The Burroughs contingent—they do exist — will possibly take issue with that.)
The film is reasonably Burroughsian, if not a to-the-letter version of the book at hand, although it gives the story a more complex background than the one found in the book. The film doesn’t have John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) realize immediately (and ridiculously) he’s been transported to Mars, and it brings in characters and events from later books. Even the presence of a young Burroughs (Darryl Sabara), though expanded from the character in the book, is in keeping with the source. But what matters, of course, is how well John Carter works on its own merits as a movie. Apart from the dubious notion of leaving the word “Mars” out of the title (it is the title that appears at the end of the film), I think it works pretty darn well.
The expanded opening sequences that establish the title character are quite good. In fact, they’re some of the cleverest, most accomplished filmmaking in the entire movie. If they somewhat recall last year’s Cowboys & Aliens, they do so to the earlier movie’s detriment. This is much nearer the mark of a credible Western atmosphere (so, for that matter, are many of the scenes on Mars), and is probably closer to what Cowboys & Aliens had hoped to be. It also serves to better explain — well, sort of — just how John Carter gets transported to Mars—or Barsoom as the natives call it.
Of coure, what really counts in a movie of this type is how the sequences on Mars fare. And by and large, the film manages to be both fantastic and credible enough. The green Martians (the ones with two sets of arms) look surprisingly real and solid. The story is agreeably complex, with its range of characters, societies and various mythologies nicely worked out without being overly explained. Most of the villains aren’t all that much to get excited about, although Mark Strong as the enigmatic, duplicitous Matai Shang, more than makes up for that. In fact, he often takes the film away from the somewhat colorless leads. (That’s always a peril of good villainy.)
The biggest drawback to John Carter is the most common one to films of this nature—the battle scenes. I won’t say that the battles depicted in the movie are in any way lacking in size, scope or believability, but I will say that they all overstay their welcome to that dangerous point where your mind is apt to start wandering. This is especially notable with the big final battle, not in the least because it’s too close to the better done and more interesting wedding-procession scene—where the constantly shape-shifting Matai Shang leads Carter through the crowds . All the same, as big-budget sci-fi action is concerned, the film is a good time—and considerably more thoughtful than most movies of this type. Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action.
Commenters email addresses are never displayed. Do not insert HTML code.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (without http://) and it will be active.
|
How to Willem Dafoe and Bryan Cranston fare? |
 Mar 13, 2012 at 2:58 PM |
|
Dafoe is fine or as fine as you can be voicing a green Martian. I admit I had to look up Cranston. He’s okay, not in the film much. |
Mar 13, 2012 |
|
How to Willem Dafoe and Bryan Cranston fare? |
Mar 14, 2012 at 10:53 PM |
|
Do I need to SHOUT? |
Mar 14, 2012 |
|
How do Bryan Cranston and Willem Dafoe fare? |
 Mar 14, 2012 at 1:35 PM |
|
Beats the hell out of me. Maybe Jeremy can answer. |
Mar 14, 2012 |
|
Dafoe is fine or as fine as you can be voicing a green Martian. I admit I had to look up Cranston. He’s okay, not in the film much. |
Mar 14, 2012 at 5:54 PM |
|
Which circle of hell is this? |
Mar 15, 2012 |
|
So I’m not the only one confused here? |
Mar 15, 2012 |
|
Well, you saw the movie. Maybe you can clarify how the pair in question fare. |
Mar 15, 2012 |
|
Do I need to SHOUT? |
Mar 15, 2012 at 3:52 PM |
|
Yes. |
Mar 15, 2012 |
|
I’m not the only one confused. |
Mar 15, 2012 at 7:47 PM |
|
Play no trump. Your lead. |
Mar 16, 2012 |
|
Coming soon, the John Carter audibook narrated by Omar Sharif, with thrilling contract bridge skirmishes. |
Mar 16, 2012 |
|
If they thought they could recoup some of the losses they’re taking on this (it’s now being called Ishtar on Mars), they’d probably try that. |
Mar 16, 2012 |
|
The Bridge is over, the bridge is over, biddybyby. |
Mar 16, 2012 at 4:32 PM |
|
Birdie num nums. |
Mar 17, 2012 |
|
It wasn’t enough that I had to watch The Party last weekend, huh? |
Mar 18, 2012 |
|
Would you rather I transcribed lyrics from Claudine Longet’s song? (I admit I have always enjoyed Steve Franken’s increasingly sloshed waiter, though. The fact that he has next to no dialogue doesn’t hurt him either). |
Mar 18, 2012 |
|
Would you rather I transcribed lyrics from Claudine Longet’s song? That really won’t be necessary. Really. Honest. |
Mar 18, 2012 |
|
I liked this film, and it’s definitely not deserving of all the hate heaped upon it. How much do other blockbusters cost these days? |
 Mar 19, 2012 at 2:30 PM |
|
What? Someone actually saying something about the movie? I’m shocked. (Yeah, shocked.) And stunned. (Very stunned.) Fact is, I liked it, too. I don’t understand the hate, but I do understand the studio being a mite miffed over $300 million worth of movie being unlikely to ever make back its cost. I partly blame them, though, for going along with the idea of ridding the title of “of Mars.” |
Mar 19, 2012 |
|
Not to beat a dead horse, but this movie, in spite of positive reviews such as yours, is losing money big time: “Critically-panned fantasy adventure film “John Carter” is expected to lose $200 million for makers Disney, dragging its whole movie budget into the red, the studio said Monday. Disney said it would take the huge operating loss on the movie, made by Oscar-winning director Andrew Stanton about a Civil War veteran transplanted to Mars, in its second fiscal quarter. “In light of the theatrical performance of John Carter ($184 million global box office), we expect the film to generate an operating loss of approximately $200 million during our second fiscal quarter ending March 31.” http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/19/john-carter-film-loses-200-million-for-disney/
|
 Mar 20, 2012 at 4:32 AM |
|
When folks start calling your movie Ishtar on Mars, you’re in trouble. |
Mar 20, 2012 |
|
He he. And in spite of that, I’d still like to see the film (and will). I never had any desire to see Ishtar at any time, however. |
Mar 20, 2012 at 6:40 AM |
|
Hey, I have a region 2 DVD of Ishtar that I bought so I could hear Tess Harper groan when her scene from it ended up in the clip reel when she was here for the 2007 Asheville Film Festival… |
Mar 20, 2012 |
|
I think Ishtar is underrated |
Erik Mar 27, 2012 |
|
Clapton knows, I’ve seen worse. |
Mar 27, 2012 |
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
