John Carter

Totally forgettable and full of stereotypes

Edgar Rice Burroughs wrote his series of John Carter novels before space flight was more than a fancy. This movie is more adventure and romance and very little (if any) actual science. This movie is the best production of A Princess of Mars, the first story in the series, that I've seen. If you're a fan of the John Carter novels then you will probably get some enjoyment from John Carter. While there are some differences you'll meet some familiar characters and recognize quite a few relevant plot points. Not a great film, but not a bad one, either.

We sat down and watched this movie on Blu-ray yesterday evening to nicely end our little excursion day. This is a good film but it could have been (much) better. The film itself and its special effects are quite good. I would say that the special effects are very good. The airships are very cool looking. The design nicely captures the retro atmosphere of the book without looking silly. I think they made the green men too slim though. I have always pictured them as way more bulky and monstrous. I like Woola’s appearance although him moving around at “supersonic” speeds is a bit over the top. However, why is it that every film-company/producer/director/whatever now thinks that he can take an old classic, slam on the name in the title, and then do what the hell he likes with the material? This film has borrowed the basic idea and the names from Edgar Rice Burroughs John Carter book but almost nothing else. At most 10% of the story of the books is in the movie. The rest is pure invention and it does not improve the story. As a matter of fact it turns what was a good story into a standard unintelligent Hollywood faire. Been there, seen that, done that. The examples are plentiful, the white apes the size of dinosaurs, the city of Zodanga moves around (what the f…), most of the plot as I said before is invented, the Therns have a completely different role etc. etc. I especially dislike how they have made John Carter, the honorable gentleman from Virginia, into a fairly plain American guy who at first refuses to do the “right” thing. And what about these bloody wife and child flashbacks? That’s just disturbing. None of this improves the movie. It got 6 stars, it could have gotten 9 or 10 if it had followed the books properly. It is Disney’s own fault that this movie was a disappointment at the box office, they screwed with classical material…again.

r96sk7/10

Nov 12, 2020

View on TMDb

Unfulfilled potential, still narrowly liked it. 'John Carter' can feel underdeveloped and underwhelming, you could even argue it aimed to replicate 'Avatar', but there's enough there that allowed me to find a fair amount of enjoyment. Taylor Kitsch is alright, I rate him, but a more convincing lead performance was necessary in my opinion. The rest of the cast, despite some well known names, fail to deliver anything noteworthy. Willem Dafoe works as Tars Tarkas, though only due to his distinctive voice; none of his dialogue etc. stand outs. The likes Samantha Morton, Mark Strong and Bryan Cranston give forgettable performances; arguably not their fault. The premise has all the possibilities to be great, sadly the film fails to make their mark with it. The ending is extremely rushed, even for a 132 minute production. Visually it's good, but that's one of very few plus points - I haven't got many truth be told, but anything less than a 7* feels harsh.

GenerationofSwine1/10

Jan 14, 2023

View on TMDb

Dad raised us on what he lovingly called "Pulp Trash Novels" and that carried over to adult life where they are proudly displayed along side academic books. Actually they take the top shelf. So, walking into this I was scared and unfortunately I had every right to be. Now I am fine with artistic licenses, I wasn't expecting it to be exactly like any of the books. But I was expecting it to at least follow the source material a little, something more than just the names. In short, I was expecting a John Carter movie in more than just name only. And, frankly, this didn't even feel like a movie based on pulp adventure novels, which for me was a key point, it could take all the liberties it wanted so long as it still played out like a pulp adventure novel. Unfortunately, it fell short on this. And, to make it even worse, it was boring. If you like the source material, if you like adventure for really the sake of adventure and escapism, then stay away, stay far, far away.

Wuchak7/10

Mar 12, 2025

View on TMDb

**_Overstuffed story is entertaining Sci-Fi/adventure with good cast and spectacular visuals_** The eponymous 19th century character (Taylor Kitsch) is mysteriously projected to Mars, where he encounters a tribe of tall green creatures with four arms and a beautiful princess (Lynn Collins). He's subsequently caught in a war between left and right factions of the planet. Sab Than (Dominic West) is the leader of the red faction and wants to marry the princess while a mysterious race seems to manipulate things in the background. This is a dense and entertaining adventure/fantasy based on Edgar Rice Borroughs' "A Princess of Mars" from 1912 with bits from subsequent ones in the series. The visuals, sets, props, costuming, cast, locations and so on are top-of-the-line and often spectacular. Kitsch and Collins, for example, are stunning examples of masculinity and beauty respectively. What's more, there's some quality mindfood to mine, like Matai Shang's comment to Carter that every world they're involved with has the same conflict of extremes (red vs. blue, right vs. left) and the Therns "manage" it. They tend to stay in the shadows cultivating controlled chaos through manipulating the indigenous populace. They somehow feed off of this and have done so for eons – prolonging the eventual destruction as long as possible, like rationing food. For those who nitpick the film for supposed plot holes, these can mostly be explained. For instance, the complaint that the 9th ray can't stop a bullet. But why would we presume that an energy field could stop a physical projectile? Obviously the 9th ray force-field only blocks the same type of energy it's comprised of; that is, 9th ray energy. There's no inconsistency in the film. At no time do we observe the 9th ray portrayed as an omnipotent weapon. It's powerful and versatile, obviously, based on how it's employed in technology, but it's not all-powerful. If the Therns or anyone else using the 9th ray could use it to stop a sword or bullet, they would. But allowing it to be that all-powerful would make it TOO powerful. The movie wisely doesn't do this for the same reason Superman has kryptonite. Then there's the complaint that Carter appears super strong when it comes to fighting Tharks and twirling a huge boulder, but he can't break a simple chain. Believe it or not, this actually isn't a problem and is scientifically viable. Carter's not any stronger on Mars than he is on Earth. If he can't break a thick iron chain on Earth, he can't do it on Mars either. However, because Mars has lower gravity he seems super-strong when it comes to ANY ACTION INVOLVING WEIGHT. Although this is ridiculously exaggerated in the movie (like his absurd leaps), it fits the pulp fantasy tone. So it's actually logical that he can lift heavy things but not break an iron chain. One has nothing to do with the other. Lower gravity would simply have no influence on whether or not Carter can break an iron chain. One last supposed plot hole is how the Therns are immortal, but then one or two get shot to death. This is easy: Being immortal in this case doesn't mean they can't be wounded or die; it just means they can't die of aging. While the Therns claim to be immortal Carter proves they can be mortally wounded at the beginning of the film, which is why he later points out: "Immortal ain't bulletproof. I shot one of you back on Earth." If the Therns present themselves as eternal in the sense of being impossible to kill, it's obviously to create and perpetuate a superstitious belief in their manipulated subjects. Then there's the criticism that the movie screeches to a halt when the head Thern (Mark Strong) has a walking conversation with Carter. Wow, I can't believe this complaint because I found this sequence the most intriguing one in the film and it morphed the movie from mindless fantasy-adventure-on-another-planet to something deeper. The sequence simultaneously reveals the mystery of the Therns while being ambiguous enough to keep the viewer scratching his/her head and searching for more concrete answers (which, I'm sure, would've been answered in sequels). At this point in the movie it becomes clear that Mars is a stage and the Therns work behind the scenes to (try to) manipulate the players for their own ends. But they're not omnipotent or immortal in the sense that they cannot be killed. They can be resisted and thwarted, even defeated. Their existence is dependent upon their _deceiving_ people into believing lies, myths and half-truths; or just keeping them ignorant. When you relate this to our lives on earth it becomes even more profound. We're being manipulated by "Therns," whether political, commercial, academic, religious or spiritual, but most people don't even realize it. Worse, many deny it despite the evidence. It runs 2 hours, 12 minutes, and was shot in Arizona, Utah and New Mexico with studio work done in England. GRADE: B+