John Carter

< Previous Trailer  |   Add to My Scrapbook  |   Next Trailer >
John Carter

67% Liked It
liked it

John Carter

Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins, Samantha Morton, Willem Dafoe, Thomas Haden Church

From filmmaker Andrew Stanton comes John Carter-a sweeping action-adventure set on the mysterious and exotic planet of Barsoom (Mars). John Carter is based on a classic novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs, ... read more read more...whose highly imaginative adventures served as inspiration for many filmmakers, both past and present. The film tells the story of war-weary, former military captain John Carter (Taylor Kitsch), who is inexplicably transported to Mars where he becomes reluctantly embroiled in a conflict of epic proportions amongst the inhabitants of the planet, including Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe) and the captivating Princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins). In a world on the brink of collapse, Carter rediscovers his humanity when he realizes that the survival of Barsoom and its people rests in his hands. -- (C) Walt Disney

Id: 11150432

Do you want to see this movie?

My Friends Said...

John Carter Recent Reviews

Register or sign-in to see your friends' reviews !

Recent Reviews

John Carter Recent Reviews
  • xXGiNoBiLiPRXx
    May 26, 2012
    xXGiNoBiLiPRXx
    Lost in Our World. Found in Another.

    Good movie! I didn't loved it but wasn't bored also, I didn't read the books or plan to and that's probably why I was so lost at the end of the film. While the acting, character development, and plot are nothing spectacular in and of themselv... read morees, they combined well and set the stage effectively for what should be a series of John Carter films in the future.This movie is for everyone who likes Star Wars or Avatar. It's for everyone who ever wished they could go to Mars. It's for everyone who likes a love story between a handsome hero and beautiful, spirited Princess. It's for everyone who wants to see a great movie and escape, literally, to another world for 2 hours. It's for everyone who likes a simple Sci Fi story. It's for everyone who likes a layered story they can think on a little later. As a throwaway popcorn muncher for the kids, this movie might prove a winner. The simple inch-deep characters and the generic comedy/action certainly seemed fun enough as long as you're not looking for more. But my warning to adults who decide to take the kids is to expect to be bored, and endure a long dark two hours of the soul. I think ever since The Pirates of the Caribbean series of movies, Disney has changed and more dark or violent movies have arrived, I can't say i'm disappointed but i am shocked to see this and I can't really say for sure if it's safe for kids to watch this PG-13 Disney movies any more.

    John Carter, a Civil War veteran who in 1868 was trying to live a normal life, is "asked" by the Army to join. But he refuses so he is locked up. He escapes and is pursued. Eventually they run into some Indians and there's a gunfight. Carter seeks refuge in a cave. While there he encounters someone who is holding some kind of medallion. When Carter touches it, he finds himself in a place where he can leap incredible heights, among other things. He later encounters beings he has never seen before. Later he meets a woman who helps him to discover that he is on Mars. And he learns there's some kind of unrest going on.
  • CloudStrife84
    May 22, 2012
    CloudStrife84
    John Carter begs the question: Where did all the money go? It certainly wasn't spent on the screenplay, that's for sure. And with a gargantuan budget of $250,000,000, you'd think the visual effects would look a little better. I've seen films that have done far more with less than... read more half of those sums. No wonder it became such a huge fiasco at the box-office.

    Placing Taylor Kitsch in lead wasn't such wise move either. Granted that he doesn't have a lot to work with, but he lacks both the appeal and charisma to really carry a film like this by himself. In the supporting cast it looks a little brighter though, including as many as three of the stars from HBO's Rome - one of my personal favourites in the TV realm. Again, however, they are served mere scraps and bones of dialogue, in a very watered-down story.

    It isn't a complete and total failure though; on the whole its quite entertaining and thought they did a really good job with the creature- and production design. I bet George Lucas would love this film; particularily as it more or less borrows the whole Geonosis arena battle from "Attack of the Clones". It's an unmistakable parallel, that is impossible not to draw.

    How sad though to see such an epic squandering of time, talent and money. Director Andrew Stanton, who have previously given us delightful adventures like Wall-E and Finding Nemo, makes a flawed and bumpy transition from animation to live-action. Maybe pressure from Disney is to blame, I don't know, but this soulless overload of blue-screens and CGI, doesn't even remotely resemble the warm and heartfelt features from Pixar studios. Not bad altogether, just grievously, inexplicably and spectacularly average.
  • fb7018436
    May 19, 2012
    fb7018436
    It's certainly no Transformers 3.
  • hobster1
    May 9, 2012
    hobster1
    John Carter is another one of those technically well crafted but spiritually vacant creations that consistently triumph style over substance. I suppose you need to check your brain at the door with these types of tales, but how do you account for that punishing length? At 132 min... read moreutes the incomprehensible story wants to be some sort of epic when it should have just been lighthearted fun. At least 45 minutes could have been excised from the bloated script packed with unnecessary characters and jargon. It practically dares you to pay attention. Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins are the physically perfect embodiment of action heroes that each deliver their lines with oratory weight. But their charms are purely superficial. There's precious little charisma to be found in either. I dare say the most engaging personality in the entire picture is this ten legged creature called a calot that is a cross between a dog and a toad. His name is Woola and he's a loyal sidekick to John Carter. The way this lumbering monster zips around the screen like a newborn puppy seems to defy the laws of physics, but the critter is an absolute delight. I'd rather see a spin-off flick: John Carter II: Woola the Calot!
  • phubbs1
    April 6, 2012
    phubbs1
    Wow for a Disney film I was confused, really, I was honestly struggling to get my head around what was happening and all the odd names for various characters, places and creatures.

    This hasn't done too well it seems, and I can see why really, the character of John Carter is very... read more original and was actually created way back in the early 1900's. From what I can gather the film is actually pretty accurate to the characters story but there is one problem, this film has simply come out too late and merely resembles a mix of many other sci-fi films been and gone.

    It was always gonna be hard to make this look really good and original and personally I think they kinda got it, kudos for trying but just falls short. Lets put all our cards on the table here, this film is basically 'Star Wars' with a bit of 'Stargate' and sprinkles of various 80's type fantasies. The whole film wouldn't look outta place stuck in the middle of 'Attack of the Clones', it just screams it from the first encounter with a four armed 'Thark' alien, the whole thing could just be another chapter in the Lucas universe.

    I'm trying not to be too negative because the effects aren't all that bad, yep its stuffed full of cgi but I've seen worse and some of the creations are actually pretty cool, the huge white furry-ish beasties in the arena battle (Attack of the....I think you know) actually look pretty sweet methinks. The 'Tharks' are very obviously cgi but again look nice with some good imagination used, I liked all the beasts of burden throughout and that fat ball of blubber dog thing was kinda neat in a very 80's sidekick type of way. Bad side to effects would be the pretty dodgy looking blue/green screen usage from time to time and the way 'Carter' leaps around like a flippin rubber ball, I know he has agility due to the gravity or whatever but really? that high? that far? what is he a human sized flea!?

    Visually the film is solid, even the film posters are quite nice, not much evidence that it actually takes place on Mars in my opinion but hey. Other problems take shape in the poor casting, West is a Sheffield lad and should stick to British TV drama's, Collins as the Princess is so very annoying all the way through and has waaaay too much makeup on and the hero 'Carter' (played by someone called Kitsch) is possibly the first action hero in a blockbuster that is kinda ugly and doesn't have excessive pretty muscles! actually that's kinda original.

    I'm kinda split 50/50 with 'Carter', on one hand it is your very typical cgi filled piece of glossy trash that really is quite a scene for scene blatant rip off of the Star Wars prequels (AOTC), but on the other hand I like some of the imagination used and the design of certain creatures.

    I also gotta give kudos for taking on an old, and in my opinion, difficult universe with a tricky plot that basically revolves around a man having an out of body, spiritual/astral projection 'experience' for no apparent reason...to Mars, which is teeming with life, apparently, and aiming it at younger folk.
    Did it succeed? hmmm well no, problem being I think kids may get distracted by the wave of stupid names, choppy story and its actually a bit violent in places. Adults will have issues for probably all the reasons I have mentioned above, bottom line, its nothing new but I still kinda liked it in spots. Sequel? ended that way (who'd of thought it) and I'm OK to see it.
  • YLOWBSTARDreturns
    April 5, 2012
    YLOWBSTARDreturns
    As far as special effects laden adventure films go, "John Carter" is a fun and visually impressive piece of entertainment, though not without a few missteps along the way.

    It's a beautiful and gloriously retro slice of pulp ripe with ambition... but with said ambition comes unf... read moreortunate plot convolution and storytelling that can feel uneven. In a film like this, having to play catch up and who's who is not fun. But Director Stanton's passion project isn't an incomprehensible mess and quickly draws us back in with the intrigue of its visuals and the creativity of it's set pieces and creatures.

    It's cast can't be faulted either (though the development of certain characters can be). A lot has been said about Taylor Kitsch in the title role; mostly that he lacks charisma and has a narrow range. A character like John Carter doesn't call for broad range, and Kitsch is suitably strong in his direct, gruff approach. I really liked him in "Friday Night Lights" and I really liked him here. Equally good is Lynn Collins who (to say the least) is absolutely striking. A strong voice cast brings to life both memorable and utterly disposable CG creations.

    "John Carter" has received a lot of bad press (mainly due to Disney's financial losses) but I really enjoyed my time with it. It is decidedly imperfect and has holes in it's narrative structure, but remains consistently entertaining and, unlike so many fantasy films, has it's heart in the right place.

    (* I would have liked "John Carter" even more if it wasn't for the 3D presentation. It's a great looking film and full of color, but the 3D washes that out and creates a dull, murky palette that doesn't do the visuals justice)
  • aquateen2
    April 2, 2012
    aquateen2
    [img]http://images.rottentomatoes.com/images/user/icons/icon13.gif[/img]

    In almost every single way a film can possibly be, John Carter is excrutiatingly average. The acting is stale and the dialogue is laughable and although it cost 250 million to make, it was unbelievably du... read morell. It's essentialy Star Wars meets Lord of the Rings and that's a movie that just shouldn't exist. It lasts 2 hours and boy does it feel like 2 hours. On the other hand, there are great action sequences that easily grab interest and the set pieces are breathtaking but the film as a whole just has no heart due to it's industrialised structure. It reminded me so much of The Green Hornet, which is another film that's an entirely obvious cash in. It wasn't bad, it was in a way entertaining, but not entirely satisfactory.
  • c0up
    April 1, 2012
    c0up
    'John Carter'. A rollicking adventure set against the beautifully created, rich world of Barsoom!
  • LorenzoVonMatterhorn
    March 31, 2012
    LorenzoVonMatterhorn
    "Lost in Our World. Found in Another."

    Transplanted to Mars, a Civil War vet discovers a lush planet inhabited by 12-foot tall barbarians. Finding himself a prisoner of these creatures, he escapes, only to encounter a princess who is in desperate need of a savior.

    ... read moreer>REVIEW
    This is a film adaptation of a science fiction novel written by Edgar Rice Burroughs a hundred years ago. Was it worth the wait? Well, it has enabled state of the art special effects to be deployed in a movie estimated to cost some $250 million to produce and the creatures and features on display are impressive. I saw the work in 3D on an IMAX screen and, while I certainly felt part of the action, I can't say that the 3D added much most of the time. Canadian Taylor Kitsch plays the eponymous former Confederate soldier who suddenly finds himself transported to Mars - or, as the locals call it, Barsoom. Some of his co-stars - notably Willem Dafoe and Samantha Morton - are unrecognisable since they play CGI-created aliens, while many of the others - such as Mark Strong, Ciarán Hinds, Dominic West and James Purefoy - are stalwarts of British cinema and television.

    Looking at the film on its own merits, it is spectacular, it is action packed, the effects are great and, most importantly, it has heart. The characters are drawn strongly and played well. Taylor Kitsch does OK as Carter, but Lynn Collins is great as Dejah Thoris: not only is she terrific to look at, but she convinces totally as a Princess, regal in bearing, aware of her responsibilities, not prepared to be pushed around, and the forerunner of spunky heroines everywhere. Dominic West is a good up-front villain, and Mark Strong adds another quietly malevolent portrayal to his roster. There are three tribes on Mars: citizens of warring Zodanga and Helium, who inexplicably look just like humans, and the exceptionally tall, thin, green, four-armed Tharks who look like cousins of Jar Jar Binks from the Star Wars series (indeed so much of John Carter is derivative of Star Wars, although defenders of the film will point that that the Burroughs novel long preceded the George Lucas movies). A fair bit of the time, I had no clear idea what these characters were up to and why but the whole thing was a visual treat that does not bear any serious analysis.
  • paulsandberg
    March 29, 2012
    paulsandberg
    Long, long ago and far, far away, Edgar Rice Burroughs (the guy who later brought us all Conan The Barbarian), wrote a wistful tale concerning a former confederate soldier who wakes up one day to find himself on Mars. Giving that the tale was written close to 100 years ago, ther... read moree are flights of fancy and ideas that certainly don't stand up to science (although upon revisiting the novel I was a bit taken aback by the primitive green sensibility within the novel).

    So now, amidst all the hoopla of a film costing a reported 250 million smackers, we have a film doomed by that self same hype - how can a film possibly be worth all that? Boy, it had better be ultra-special. Well I'm here to say that it's not... and really, how could it be? Not that the film isn't passably fair entertainment... if you check your mind at the door and just enjoy this fantasy of a story.

    Director Andrew Stanton must have known going in that a film derived from rickety source material could only be presented as a fantasy. I mean really, Mr. Burroughs, knowing just a bit of astro physics to be dangerous, imagined that an earthling, upon being transported to a planet with a smaller gravitational pull, would be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound. Of course his overall strength would be increased do to the lesser gravity as well. Ok, that makes a sort of sense, so if you buy into that and simply ignore that there is no air on Mars... well then you've got a story worth watching.

    The film comes up with a nice backstory in explaining why John Carter, former Confederate officer, is reluctant to get involved in someone else's wars (this isn't in the novel by the way). The film also concocts a race of "immortal" overlords (also not in the novel), but is a bit weak in explaining their motivations. By adding these two elements to the basic story concerning a war between two "humanistic" races and the rather bizarre society of "green men", who are hatched, you have something very watchable - far above the fare of Transformers or Clash of The Titans.

    The green men are darned cool (and make for a much better story than the fight between the two great humanoid cities). They have a warrior code of ethics and an interesting world view and lifestyle that allows for some bits of bravado and humor. Especially fun was a scene in which Carter, upon being captured, is placed amidst the youngsters just removed from the hatchery. He awakens to find himself as part of the "puppy pile" (and if you've seen 4-6 week old dogs sleeping together, you'll know what I mean). He is then introduced to what passes for a Martian dog - a funny and amazing bit of CGI.

    And speaking of CGI - there are some really nice actions bits, but really, I was more interested in the story line, so the CGI, while effective eye candy, was really just action and not all that integral to the proceedings - and while I think of it - here is yet another film (recall Clash of The Titans) where a hero is enveloped by a much larger creature, only to saw his way out and end up atop said creature. Why do filmmakers continue to do that? It wasn't cool the first time around!

    But on to the more mundane, human side of things - the acting is passable, Taylor Kitsch in the title role holds his own and really doesn't have to do much heavy lifting in any case. Most of the gravitas belongs to the novel's title holder, Lynn Collins as The Princess of Mars. She is a bit uneven in her first scenes with Carter, but as the film progresses, she shows a bit of conviction and a strength of character, ably cruising past some weak lines with a certain grace and style - and it doesn't hurt that Collins is passing fair to look upon. I recall my version of the Burroughs book - which has a Frank Frazetta cover picture. Collins at least sorta resembles that cover - thank goodness they didn't cast a waif for the role (in other words, Collins has a body - there, I've said it!).

    In supporting roles you have Ciaran Hinds, who certainly looks regal enough, with his square jaw and all - so you could say he was perfectly cast as the king of Helios. Unfortunately the same cannot be said of Dominic West. While I loved him in The Wire and The Hour, he just doesn't look menacing enough to be the villain of the piece.

    My final take on the film - I enjoyed watching it (especially the rather nifty ending and the inclusion of Burroughs as a character in the film based on a character he created) - and it is only in retrospect that all the niggling impossibilities and bits of recreated hokum and retreaded older films begins to influence my judgment - heck, I knew what I was getting into when I entered the theater, and while I was watching I had fun and was entertained; and since that was the goal of the film, then, on that level, it is a success.
View All Reviews

Opening This Week

Top Box Office

Upcoming Movies

New on DVD