Explore
 Lists  Reviews  Images  Update feed
Categories
MoviesTV ShowsMusicBooksGamesDVDs/Blu-RayPeopleArt & DesignPlacesWeb TV & PodcastsToys & CollectiblesComic Book SeriesBeautyAnimals   View more categories »
Listal logo

John Carter review

Posted : 2 years ago on 31 March 2022 08:24

Of course John Carter is a long way from flawless, but it is also not that bad but you wouldn't think so looking at its box office failure, its reputation and also how terribly marketed it was. Sure the plot is thin as ice in places with scenes that go on for far longer than they needed to, and it is also predictable and with the odd convoluted part, with the many logical lapses not helping in its favour. Particularly at the end, which gave off a sense that the film didn't know how to end itself. The script is uneven too, a fair bit of it is actually quite intelligently handled with some entertainment and suspense but there are other points where the dialogue does make one cringe and you do wish you learnt more about the characters and that the romance wasn't so disjointed and forced. John Carter however does look incredible, the backdrops and scenery are bursting with colour and detail and don't look fake at all and the special effects are equally impressive and not cartoony at all, they are at least well modelled and move easily. Michael Giaccino's music score is outstanding being full of bombastic energy and sweeping intensity, doing all that while fitting with the action and not swamping it. There is plenty of action and it is action that is a feast for the eyes and choreographically is very well-executed, the best of them dazzlingly so. Of the characters, the most enjoyable one was Woola, a very cute and very funny dog creature- the CGI for the character is very well done and some of the best of the film actually- that children and adults alike will take a shine to. Andrew Stanton, considering that his field is more in animation and that the crew for John Carter is so huge, had a very daunting task and does so bravely, though with the odd understandable occasion where he seemed out of sorts with the live actors. While the story may not be the greatest, John Carter shouldn't be taken too seriously, it was intended to be harmless family fun and is so and it has an earnest, old-fashioned approach that works and in keeping with the source material. The performances are not bad at all, Taylor Kitsch does start off for a while ill at ease and over-serious but once he relaxes he does make for a likable hero. Lynn Collins is both feisty and human, and the supporting cast all make an effort to make much of little with Willem Dafoe, Mark Strong(in a role that suits him to a tee) and Ciaron Hinds being the most successful. In conclusion, not flawless by any stretch of the imagination but far from a disaster either. 7/10 Bethany Cox


0 comments, Reply to this entry

John Carter review

Posted : 10 years, 10 months ago on 5 June 2013 12:06

John Carter does not disappoint, but it doesn't impress either. Ignoring the source it was based on, let's just focus on the cinematic result. Is it a great film? Not quite. What's its main fault? It is too generic, too standard. The gist is this that John Carter of Earth (Jarsoom) winds up, via an amulet, on Barsoom (Mars). He then ultimately finds love - the princess, no less - and becomes their saviour, and then decides to live on Barsoom for the rest of his life. The story is understandable, the characters are there, but the film either deliberately or unknowingly ignores the little details and doesn't even attempt to make it original or unique. Not to say every film has to be original, but since almost everything that's shown in this film has already been done hundreds of times, John Carter is just another bolt on the machine. Up until the Barsoomian's start speaking, and moving their lips, in English dialect, the film has a certain charm to it, a certain mystic aura. But when everyone starts talking English, it loses its charm and becomes repetition. Carter is given a special drink from which he can understand the dialect of Barsoom. That's understandable. But why do the Barsoomian's lips move in sync to the English words? They clearly don't speak that language. Shouldn't their lips be moving off-sync, as if two films of different language were dubbed over each other? Anyway, whatever the case is, maybe I'm reading it wrong, but like I said, John Carter isn't wildly innovative nor entertaining but it does boast pretty good talent, though.

It was both an annoyance and a relief that Barsoomians act the same way as Jarsoomians do. They have their betrayals, their love stories, their gladiator fights, their racial / tribe segregation, their Mario & Peach vs. Bowser complex, and what not. Is this how our Solar System is? Full of aggression and repetition? All the -sooms are the one and same, except for the skin colour?

From the performances, Taylor Kitsch was indeed quite charismatic, but I guess Disney used him as live bait for their love of good-looking princes and/or leading men. It was a shame really, seeing that Kitsch definitely has some talent to him, but this film is just an excuse to show off his well built body. Same goes for Lynn Collins, the princess of Mars. Although I enjoyed her performance as well, but after finishing the film and sensing their - the crew - aim was to make Tejah Doris, for a lack of a better word, meaty, they should've just called in Samantha Morton - who has a role as Sola. Have you seen the legs on Morton? Perfect for a role like this. Anyway, the rest of the cast were good, too. Ciarin Hinds was quite impressive in his role as Tardos Mors, father of Tejah Doris.

In conclusion, John Carter is a good film, has setbacks, and I think I might be lining up for the sequel - if there is to be one!

7.0/10


0 comments, Reply to this entry

John Carter review

Posted : 11 years, 8 months ago on 22 August 2012 07:43

Pessoal, vamos ajudar o filme John Carter, para quem gostou, assine a petição para mostrar à Disney que existem muitos fãs do filme e que queremos uma trilogia no cinema.

Divulguem por favor! Este filme foi prejudicado por Hollywood e é muito bom, não merece ter apenas 1 filme: www.change.org/petitions/alan-horn-chairman-walt-disney-pixar-studios-bring-back-john-carter-take-us-back-to-barsoom#reasons

==========================================================

Guys, let's help the film John Carter, who liked to sign the petition to show Disney that there are many fans of the movie and we want a trilogy in cinema.

Disclose please! This movie was hampered by Hollywood and is very good, do not deserve to have only 1 movie: www.change.org/petitions/alan-horn-chairman-walt-disney-pixar-studios-bring-back-john-carter-take-us-back-to-barsoom#reasons


0 comments, Reply to this entry

A genuine letdown

Posted : 11 years, 9 months ago on 26 June 2012 03:07

"When I saw you, I believed it was a sign... that something new can come into this world."

2012's John Carter was a long time coming. Based on Edgar Rice Burroughs' story A Princess of Mars which was first published in 1912, official development for a John Carter motion picture has started and stopped since 1931. But apparently eight decades was not enough time to do the project justice, as the finished movie is misguided and soulless. It was almost impossible to ignore all of the bad press surrounding John Carter - Disney blew well north of $350 million on it (including marketing), leading to speculation that the studio had an expensive box office bomb on their hands. Hell, the deck was so overwhelmingly stacked against the film (especially with its inexperienced director and lack of big stars) that this reviewer hoped it would be a success out of sheer pity. Yet, John Carter is desperately underwhelming; rather than an absorbing fantasy adventure, it feels like a mash-up of Avatar, the Star Wars series, Gladiator and other such films which, ironically, were actually inspired by Burroughs' original text.



In Arizona, former Civil War captain John Carter (Kitsch) has become a notorious criminal. When arrested, Carter soon escapes with guards in hot pursuit, and accidentally stumbles upon a sacred cave potentially loaded with riches. Inside, an encounter with a holy Martian (known as a Thern) results in Carter being transported to the planet Mars, which is called Barsoom by the locals. Finding that the planet's weak gravitational pull gives him superhuman abilities, Carter begins wandering the planet, eventually happening upon a race of creatures known as the Tharks. From there, Carter becomes entangled in a conflict over dwindling resources between two cities: Helium and Zodanga. Drawn to Helium's princess, Dejah (Collins), Carter endeavours to work towards planetary peace.

When Burroughs wrote his original stories in the early 20th Century, outer space exploration was mere speculation, and nobody knew was Mars was truly like. Of course, now - one hundred years later - we know that Mars is desolate and lifeless, which automatically positions John Carter within the realm of the blatantly fantastical. Indeed, those expecting any plausibility will not find it here, as director Andrew Stanton and his co-writers (Mark Andrews and Michael Chabon) ill-advisably retained Burroughs' (inaccurate) Victorian-era view of the solar system, creating a huge logical obstacle that's difficult to overcome. It is, indeed, quite a cruel paradox. Ironically, too, because Burroughs' stories have been raided by countless filmmakers over the years (including James Cameron, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg), none of the narrative ideas seem fresh anymore, making John Carter feel like a production long past its use-by date. Naturally, Hollywood has recycled old ideas time and time again and made them feel fresh, but this requires a deft touch that unfortunately eludes director Andrew Stanton.



The lifeless nature of John Carter is especially shocking since Stanton was responsible for Pixar hits like Finding Nemo and WALL-E. Whereas those movies had fun characters, tender humour and lots of humanity, John Carter lacks these qualities. This is most likely due to Stanton's inexperience, as this was his first time directing a live-action film and he tried to nail so many different genres (sci-fi, fantasy, action, adventure) that he never entirely succeeds at any of them. In other words, he bit off more than he could chew, which is further exemplified in the fact that the film underwent a month of reshoots in which most of the picture had to be shot again! It's a shame, too, because Pixar veteran Brad Bird made an impressive live-action debut with Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. What's also ironic is that John Carter looks more cartoonish than any of Stanton's Pixar movies. The CGI is a mixed bag (creatures look impressive but the compositing is skewiff and green screening looks phoney), and the overabundance of digital imagery serves to make it look like the Star Wars prequels. The terrible marketing for the film tried to paint is as the Gladiator of the fantasy genre in which the titular character faces off against monsters in an arena, but this heavily plugged scene constitutes about 5 minutes of the film's mammoth 130-minute running time.

As a consequence of everything, the throwaway action scenes can only conjure up a very mild sense of excitement, no intrigue is generated through the dreary exposition, and it's difficult to care about the superficial characters. Critically, John Carter is poorly-paced - too many scenes waste time over-explaining plot elements which don't really matter, neglecting meaty character development and creating tedious stretches between the action. With Disney having thrown $250 million at the screen, John Carter is a surface-level experience which, despite handsome production values, never introduces human emotion and thus never pulls you in.



The reason why the dialogue is so flat is probably a combination of the subpar actors and Stanton's inexperience directing live-action films. As a result, the acting lacks sincerity, and there's no spark between Taylor Kitsch and love interest Lynn Collins. With Kitsch in the lead role here, John Carter is a sullen, bland empty cipher of a protagonist; a run-of-the-mill pretty boy with a good physique but zero charisma. Carter needed to be played by an actor with more flavour and sass. The character's boring nature is especially problematic since the film is named after him (why didn't Disney use more intriguing titles like A Princess of Mars or John Carter of Mars?). The film also boasts a number of notable actors like Willem Dafoe, Thomas Haden Church, Mark Strong, Dominic West and Bryan Cranston, but they make no impression amid the surplus of CGI and the lack of human feeling, though they at least seem to be trying (it isn't possible for Cranston to be bad in anything).

John Carter is not a terrible movie by any stretch, as there are several memorable images of widescreen wonder to behold from time to time. It's somewhat watchable, but most will ultimately find it too cold. Without solid leading actors, a stirring story or anything genuinely distinguishable, John Carter feels like just another CGI spectacle. We expected and deserved a lot more from this production. After all, if you're finally going to make a movie after 80 years of pre-production, shouldn't it be perfect?

4.8/10



0 comments, Reply to this entry

A generic, sci-fi mess.

Posted : 11 years, 10 months ago on 7 June 2012 11:47

"Did I not tell you he could jump!"

We've seen millions of films set in outer-space, and many of them have become classics over the years. John Carter is based off the 1917 novel, A Princess of Mars, and is considered by many fans to have been the inspiration for sci-fi epics including Star Wars and Star Trek. While this is probably true, the film adaptation has been made years after the genre has been used so many times, John Carter in the end just feels dull and cliché. Directed by Andrew Stanton, who is making his first live-action film after many years of working with Pixar, this is just a mildly enjoyable film. With Disney trying so desperately to launch a franchise since Pirates of the Caribbean is doing so well in terms of the box-office, John Carter (which is apparently the biggest box-office flop of all time) will entertain the most undemanding of movie-goers.



Edgar Rice Burroughs (Daryl Sabara) learns that his Uncle, John Carter (Taylor Kitsch), has died. Reading his diary, Edgar discovers that Carter had fought with the South in the Civil War and later, while fleeing from Apaches, had stumbled across gold in a cave and, via a magical medallion, had been transported to Mars, called Barsoom by the people who live there. These people are the tall, green, thin Tharks and the human-like, tattoed, Zodangans, who are in conflict with one another. Carter is attracted to Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins), a red Martian Princess.



John Carter was written by Stanton and co-writers Mark Andrews and Michael Chabon, and it's derivative of every sci-fi epic you can think of. Aircraft battles, rival species - George Lucas had done this a long time ago. Yes, there are films that can get away with having a certain genre like this, but the issue is with the screenplay. There's nothing special about it. To be honest, I found so much of this film confusing, particularly with the rival aliens, and the god-like villains known as the Therns, led by Matai Shang (Mark Strong). Surprisingly, considering how cliché this whole film is, the plot is extremely convoluted. There are too many unnecessary sub-plots, and it's hard remembering certain characters (the names all sounded the same...). The hero is likeable enough, and fortunately Dejar is not a total stereotypical princess - she's a scientist and warrior, which at least gives the movie an interesting character.

The first act of John Carter definitely has severe issues. First off, there are just so many plot-holes, and it's really the case of lazy writing. For example, when John Carter arrives on Mars, he can't walk properly due to the gravity change, and thus he must jump to be able to move in distances. Shortly after he realises this, he suddenly starts walking normally as if the gravity was suddenly changed to the way it is on Earth. How the hell did this happen? The writers should've at least took some time to develop this ability to walk properly as if he was on Earth. Also, the pacing is dangerously slow in the first half, mainly due to just uninteresting content. When the film tries to set up a romantic relationship between John Carter and Dejar, it's not convincing, and although his past is harrowing, I couldn't care less about Carter - he just felt derivative and uninteresting.



In terms of acting, John Carter doesn't feature any performances that really stand out. Taylor Kitsch is wooden and looks bored as the title character. He just spends most of the film talking in the same tone of voice, and although he maybe trying to appear like a badass, his performance is nothing great. Lynn Collins definitely added some enjoyment to the film (she's remarkably hot), but her acting itself, like Kitsch, is nothing special, although her character is a lot more interesting than John Carter. Thus, she has slightly more to do. Mark Strong and Ciáran Hinds look embarrassed to be in this and spend most of the film trying to keep a straight face. Willem Dafoe adds some good value to mix voicing the leader of the Tharks, and Samantha Morton is also commendable as his daughter.

While the first half is sluggish, the second act of the film definitely picks up the pace with a lot more spectacle. The action sequences are mediocre at best, and I gotta say, I think 3D ruined them for me. This is, by far, one of the worst 3D conversions I've ever seen (I never saw Clash of the Titans, so I can't compare this to the latter). It's not well used, and it added nothing to visuals - it just made everything darker. Thus, the action set-pieces never really grabbed me, and 3D was never even implemented well with them. With all these negatives, the film still has positive aspects. The design is amazing. The sets look beautiful, and the costumes, particular Lynn Collins', were great to look at. The ships look spectacular, although the visual effects used to create them are standard for this kind of thing. The score's not particularly memorable, but editor Eric Zumbrunnen did manage to capture a nice adventurous style to film, with long dissolves and well cut action.



I find John Carter extremely hard to recommend. There is some fun to be had with it during it's second half, but oh god, the other half... it's just boring to sit through. With the 3D just ruining so much for me, I'd say it's a decent rental, but don't expect anything spectacular. It's shocks me that the film had such an enormous budget ($250 Million), yet everything looks so unconvincing. Even Mars itself wasn't convincing (it just looked like a desert somewhere on our planet). Like I said, if you're undemanding with your sci-fi, then you probably could ignore the endless amount of flaws in John Carter. Otherwise, it's a film I wouldn't waste my time with.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

John Carter review

Posted : 12 years ago on 25 March 2012 05:07

For me even watching the movie in 3D didn't do the magic. Even the Disneys label didn't do the trick and I really wander, Is ‘John Carter’ a worthwhile blockbuster movie experience?

Based on sci-fi icon Edgar Rice Burroughs’ 1917 novel, A Princess of Mars, Disney’s John Carter tried to adapt it into a 3D.

Sorry no offense for the fans of this movie.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

Review of John Carter

Posted : 12 years, 1 month ago on 15 March 2012 08:33

Andrew Stanton has directed two amazing movies; Finding Nemo, and Wall-E. These pictures are both masterpieces, and favorites of mine. Now, Andrew Stanton directs his first live-action movie, John Carter. John Carter is based off of an older-novel, that inspired Star Wars, Avatar, and others. We owe a lot to John Carter, but this movie adaption certainly doesn't pay any debt.

John Carter is, simply put, a cheesy, melodramatic, overlong, cliched, unfunny, predictable, non-thrilling "adventure." Some aspects of the film seemed promising, but crashed and burned. There was potential here, but in the end, it all burns out.

The beginning does a decent job of making us wonder what's going to happen, what did happen, etc. In fact, the beginning was pretty entertaining, albeit predictable. But after John Carter gets to Mars, the whole story drags.

However, there's a lot of incredible visuals on Mars, and though that doesn't make up for stale characters and confusing plot, it helps a little. The CGI is incredible. Amazing. Absolutely gorgeous. If John Carter has one strength, it's the visual effects.

Also, the score by Michael Giacchino is another winner. Giacchino never disappoints.

Unfortunately, the more important aspects of the movie, like the plot and characters, are less polished. The plot (in addition to John Carter) focuses on the princess of Mars, who wants to avoid marrying a villainous man, but feels she must do it to save her people. Sound familiar? Almost any Disney Princess movie has the same or similar plot.

Also, the characters have no personality. Aside from John Carter and limited other characters, there is no one with a true personality. And even those who have one are usually generic types.

The action scenes are bland and predictable. The CGI and musical score make up for the awfulness, but a movie can't run on looks and sound alone. Also, there was a lot of potentially good space ship scenes that never truly happen.

HOWEVER, the last 10 minutes are amazing. There's an incredible twist, and that was easily my favorite part.

Andrew Stanton is a force to be reckoned with, but John Carter makes me rethink that. You saw my list earlier, the film is long, cheesy, predictable, cliched, none of the jokes are funny, etc. Aside from some visual thrills, the score, and a wonderful ending, John Carter fails.

I feel like if some of the violence and revealing garments were cut out, this movie could've been PG, as opposed to PG-13, which would allow it to become a family or kid's movie. This would've worked much better, because the movie is too silly to work as an adult/teen movie.

There will be at least one sequel to John Carter, but don't expect me to tell you how it is: I'm avoiding John Carter for life, and it's probably best if you did too.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

John Carter review

Posted : 12 years, 1 month ago on 12 March 2012 05:22

Thrilling and utterly fascinating. When was the last time you entered a movie theatre and became engrossed in every aspect of the featured film, even if it didn’t execute entirely well on all cylinders. John Carter lies in its rich visuals and production design, solid performances, a compelling storyline and terrific musical score.

Yet another Disney delivered on – even if general audiences held mixed feelings. John Carter is much like Legacy, in that the complexity of the action set piece boggles down an otherwise fine piece of cinema that may seem niche in its supposedly target-demographic of young males, but undeniable heart trumps all cynicism.

I thoroughly enjoyed it, bit long 132 minutes but all the same most enjoyable film to watch. Well directed by Andrew Stanton.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

John Carter review

Posted : 12 years, 1 month ago on 11 March 2012 08:46

the second half is a fun and absorbing ride and I came out feeling satisfied. Pity the first half was basically pointless. The flimsy story is shot as an epic but epic it is decidedly not. The sci-fi aspects fall flat and the characters and situations are pure cliche. This movie didn't need to be 2 hours long, 90 mins would have easily sufficed and actually improved it by removing some of the pointless fluff in there.


0 comments, Reply to this entry

An average movie

Posted : 12 years, 1 month ago on 10 March 2012 11:40

Following Brad Bird's foosteps, Andrew Stanton, another big shot at Pixar, got the opportunity to direct a live action feature. Right way, they gave him a huge project which was no less than the most expensive movie produced by Disney so far. Well, first of all, the special effects were really awesome and they displayed some of the best CGI I have ever seen. Furtheremore, the story was also pretty cool so the whole thing really had some potential. Unfortunately, I thought it was eventually rather  poorly written after all. Indeed, the introduction and the ending were just too convoluted and I wish they skipped all this and focused more om the action which was pretty badass. It was the same thing concerning the dialogues, they were all rather weak, they tried way too much to explain what was going on but it was not necessary whatsoever and rather boring to watch. Still, I really liked this world and those awesome aliens and Taylor Kitsch was rather well cast. To conclude, a lot of people were predicting that it will be another flop for Disney (like 'Prince of Persia' a few years back), and it was indeed nothing mindblowing, but I thought it was actually pretty entertaining and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.



0 comments, Reply to this entry