John Carter Reviews and Ratings


  • fb645958826
    May 28, 2012
    fb645958826
    I dunno but I found it kinda interesting in a way.
  • fvanegas
    May 27, 2012
    fvanegas
    John Carter es un personaje de ficción creado por Edgar Rice Burroughs que aparece en la serie marciana de sus novelas. Excelente película.
  • fb690031236
    May 27, 2012
    fb690031236
    There's an undeniable sense of déjà vu because a lot of flicks get inspiration from Burroghs' novels - Star Wars, Dune, Stargate, Avatar,... - but I appreciate the effort to build up a genuine, classic sci-fi adventure, despite a more adult touch would help a lot.
  • NakedinKorea
    May 26, 2012
    NakedinKorea
    An unsatisfying sub-villain and anticlimactic showdown don't spoil what is ultimately an engaging and fun throwback to sci-fi serials. Some parts of the film are brilliantly executed, with surprising emotional resonance. Other moments fizzle and make you wish they'd spent a bit... read more more time highlighting the other parts, but ultimately, this is a prime example of a movie that has been unfairly maligned and horrendously executed by its studio. Disney could have had something here. Instead, we have a movie that our children will look at 20 or 30 years from now the way my generation looks at the "Dune" movie with Sting. Okay, I swear I meant that mostly as a compliment.
  • ascordeiro108
    May 26, 2012
    ascordeiro108
    Not as bad as I thought, but I still don't know why they spent so much money with it.
    A reunion with Dejah would have been nice, also how many years had he spent on Mars? When he came back to the planet how would things be like? I would like to know but I'm also not begging for ... read morea sequel.
  • fb1211910120
    May 26, 2012
    fb1211910120
    Boring sci-fi drivel. The plot was generic, none of the characters were interesting and it wasn't even all that nice to look at. Plus I'm pretty sure some of the sound effects used here were stolen straight from Star Wars. One of the characters even sounded like a bad Admiral Ack... read morebar impersonator.
  • 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.
  • fb793315628
    May 26, 2012
    fb793315628
    "John Carter" tells the classic Edgar Rice Burroughs tale of John Carter (Taylor Kitsch), who upon finding a cave full of gold, is suddenly transported to Mars by an weird medallion. Over Mars or like the "people" there call it, Barsoom, Carter get's in the middle of a raging war... read more, dangerous tribal dealing, ancient asshole who are near immortals and Dejah Throis (Lynn Collins) a beautiful Princess, who is trying to safe her kingdom and the whole planet.

    When I was about 9-10 years old I found a book on my dad's bookshelf called (in a rough finnish translation) "The Hero of Mars" a.k.a "The Princess of Mars". My dad recommend it to me, so I read it and liked it and that was that. I didn't became a fan or anything but when the movie was announced, I remembered the book and just like in the book, in the movie the story is good. But the movie itself really wasn't. The very special effect rich kaboom-palooza shamelessly steals various (CGI-)moments from other movies and the CGI-itself doesn't look very good. It's all very crashed, banged and then crashbanged together and all you got left is very fuzzy imagery.

    But when putting the incoherent CGI aside, what the movie really got going was the story and the very good chemistry between Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins. Kitsch in the lead role does get to fight big CGI battles and give speeches but he doesn't really give off the feeling of a seasoned war hero and that is mainly because he's just too young. Lynn Colling though is hotter than ever but her performance is being ruined by bad dialogue and the so-called Princess Leia effect (tough rebel princess). Dominic West get's forgotten quickly even though he's supposed to be the Evil King and the much hated bad guy. Mark Strong steals this part effortlessly and that is all he does. Nothing memorable comes from anyone.

    So in the end, "John Carter" pays tribute to Edgar Rice Burroughs's classic book by making the story work but then ruining the whole with the overdose of CGI-crap. Good effort, bad outcome.
  • Fenrisfil
    May 25, 2012
    Fenrisfil
    The reviews are a little unfair. The film kinda feels like an 80s sci-fi adventure, though it's not the length of one (it doesn't drag however). Overall it's pretty entertaining and I would probably watch it again at some point. It will not however go down as a classic.
  • irenepen14
    May 25, 2012
    irenepen14
    absolutely ADORED it!!! <3
  • MagnusMagica
    May 24, 2012
    MagnusMagica
    An old school fantasy, sci-fii adventure movie.
    Great special effects, good actors and a good score.
    I liked it very much.
  • holschuh4
    May 24, 2012
    holschuh4
    I wouldn't want to come back to earth either. Too much drama!
  • mirowais
    May 23, 2012
    mirowais
    tried to mix the wild wild west with star wars....to make it a crazy sequel to "cow boys and aliens" but was utter crap....it was like the actors were not even interested in acting....
  • fb827155536
    May 23, 2012
    fb827155536
    Bursting with gorgeous cinematography, finely-textured and fluid CGI and enough epic scenes to drown the Titanic, JC is nevertheless catastrophically ruined by its inane dialogue ('I'd do anything for Helium' ha ha) and total lack of spatial awareness. Disney have only themselves... read more to blame for, while there are enough earthling fans of ERB's original sci-fi novels to warrant a successful franchise, their laziness in presenting a cohesive script nullifies those expectations and dulls the collective senses. Performance-wise, Kitsch makes for a suitably hunky and growly hero, Strong (as the big bad immortal) brings gravitas to bolster his sappy lines but butch and unlikable Collins adds little in the way of glamour to her role as the warrior/scientist/princess (at least Dafoe and Morton are lucky enough to get to hide behind their respective avatars). Epic in scope, JC is like a sprawling millionaire's palace built out of gold but with shitty plumbing and tottering on crumbling foundations. See it for the visuals but don't expect anything near as fun as The Mummy or any of its sequels (yes, it's THAT bad). Forgettable.
  • fb149700886
    May 23, 2012
    fb149700886
    A pretty good flick that deserved better...

    Blame for this film's disappointing box office numbers was placed on various factors: director Andrew Stanton's ("Finding Nemo," "WALL-E") inexperience with live-action, Disney's uninspired marketing efforts, the absence of an A-list l... read moreead, and the film's seemingly derivative sci-fi elements. I for one lean towards blaming the marketing, but whatever the case, audiences simply didn't consider the $250 million epic a must-see this box office summer season. I did, however, and I'm glad I saw "John Carter."

    Another film that I have a lot of thoughts on, the expansive "John Carter" seems to lend itself to a pro/con list...

    PROS:

    *Great visuals. Mars looks great! The aliens, ships, locations, and other design elements are handled quite well. I really appreciate the look and authenticity of the Earth-bound, period scenes. The film's visual effects are also first-rate, especially in realizing the Tharks and arena beasts.
    *Loved the scenes taking place in the 1800s. As alluded to above, there's an authenticity to these scenes that supplies the film with grit, perspective, realism, simulated historicity, and epic-ness. Without these bookends to the movie, the "John Carter" story loses its scope.
    *There's some great acting talent involved. Willem Dafoe, Mark Strong, Thomas Haden Church, and Lynn Collins all put in good performances. Dafoe does a particularly strong job infusing some humanity into CGI alien Thark character, Tars Tarkas.
    *Story & Pacing. The film's narrative flows fairly organically. While there may be aspects of the story that I don't quite understand, there's certainly logic behind "John Carter's" story beats, reveals, character development, and "hero's journey" process. Indeed, the narrative seems to work on both literary and filmic levels. I don't agree with those who think the film is too long or tries to cram too much story into one movie.
    *It's quite entertaining. The film works well as b-movie sci-fi that's simply been beefed up to epic proportions. While there may be overcomplicated story elements or confusing character motivations at times, there's never a point where one tunes out. There's simply way too much fun (action, comedy, fantasy) to be had.
    *Andrew Stanton's directing. Despite what some stupid Hollywood trade mag might posit, Stanton was and is a perfect man for this job. He did fine work here--displaying a keen eye and talent for live-action, visual treatment. He also seems to have pretty good instincts about how best to handle the film's action and comedic elements.

    Though I may end up with more cons than pros at the end of this review, these pros in themselves outweigh the cons and are enough for me to recommend the film.

    CONS:

    *Taylor Kitsch as John Carter. I didn't hate his performance here. It's decent. I simply question what the filmmakers were going for. Kitsch is simply way too stoic and uninterested. Maybe this attitude works well in the post-Civil War era scenes, but in my opinion, there should have been a change in him the longer he's on Barsoom (Mars). There's very little awe, wonder, even fear in him as he explores this new world. Perhaps his stoicism is intentional, but I think it makes him appear uncharismatic, maybe even inhuman. It's an acceptable characterization, but the man needs to show a visible change at some point. His ultimate heroic, selfless actions alone aren't enough.
    *The Therns' Motivation. Though villain Matai Shang (Mark Strong) explains himself to Carter in a scene chock full of exposition, I'm still not quite sure the Thern agenda makes any sense at all. I haven't read the book and I'm not sure if this is explained better there, but it makes one question the whole story when the person pulling the strings in Barsoom's epic conflicts provides a bullshit, screenwriter's copout explanation of events. There's no reason to believe Matai is lying either, given how the film concludes. In the interest of remaining spoiler-free, I'll simply say that his explanation reveals a motive that couldn't possibly provide any positive benefits to himself or anyone else.
    *The underuse of Thomas Haden Church. Church's character, Tal Hajus is one of many Barsoom residents who come to despise protagonist John Carter. Unfortunately, he doesn't get to do or say much throughout the film. I'm surprised I even realized it was Haden Church playing him. When the time comes for his ultimate confrontation with Carter, it lasts two seconds. There's very little build-up to this conflict, and no real payoff to speak of. Though I'm sure he's a larger character in the books, Haius might as well have been left on the cutting room floor here.
    *Forced exposition scenes. As I said earlier, I'm not convinced that this film has too many plot-lines at work, but I will say that many of its scenes of exposition aren't handled very well. Whether the problem lies in the writing, or the line delivery, these moments where characters relate pertinent information about the story and its world needn't feel this forced.
    *The film's opening prologue. I don't necessarily side with those who say this prologue is completely unnecessary, but I will say that the choice to show Barsoom and some of its denizens before we are even introduced to Carter is a bad move. By doing this, the filmmakers take away from the reveal when Carter is ultimately sent to Mars. They simply show too much too soon. I would have preferred a complete, uninformed shift when the movie switches the action from Earth to Mars.
    *The Love Story. As with most mega-epic blockbusters, the love story here is quite forced. There's little chemistry between the romantic leads, and their ultimate union--though unsurprising from an audience perspective--seems impossible.
    *The film's title. "John Carter" has to be one of the most bland movie titles ever. While this is more of a marketing concern, it is a glaring problem whenever I think about the film--especially when "John Carter of Mars" and "A Princess of Mars" (Barsoom novel titles) are far more engaging movie titles.
    *The film's final battle. This scene not only flew by way too quickly, it wasn't nearly as epic a climax as a film of this scale deserves.

    CONCLUSION:

    I didn't have anywhere near the terrible experience watching this film that others have described. It was a fun romp. While clearly not perfect, it may have been one of the best sci-fi films released in the last decade. I may have, dare I say it, enjoyed it more than "Avatar."

    Peace.
  • craige81
    May 23, 2012
    craige81
    That was magnificent. A great Sci Fi / Adventure. I definitely recommend!
  • unlimitednrg1
    May 23, 2012
    unlimitednrg1
    I thought the movie was good, although there were times I was having trouble keeping up with the different names. I also still feel that Disney shot itself in the foot removing the "of Mars" from the title.
    As it is, I'm now curious enough to want to read the book series.
  • vibor123
    May 23, 2012
    vibor123
    great special effects, solid story...

Summary

John Carter Summary