It was OK, and probably would have succeeded with a decent marketing campaign. It did help that I had read A Princess of Mars and was familiar with the character. It might be worthwhile starting from there: the book is out of copyright and available at Project Gutenberg.
Not a great movie, but a tolerable popcorn film.
Hah! I read A Princess of Mars 30 years ago. And I have since acquired a full set of the Del Rey/Ballantine paperback series (1979-1980) with cover art by Michael Whelan. That’s why I want to see the movie!
I went with the Redbox suggestion. This was my first Redbox experience, and for some reason I was sure that Redbox wouldn’t have the movie I was looking for—I was under the impression that they carried only blockbuster hits and children’s movies.
Anyway, thanks for that suggestion. It was the right way to go … The movie hardly held my attention. The CGI, especially of the Tharks, was pathetic. Taylor Kitsch was a terrible choice for John Carter, who should be more rugged than handsome.
The rest of the casting was okay. Of course I was disappointed in the lack of nudity, but I already knew that that wasn’t going to happen in a Disney movie.
The dialogue and pacing were off too—the story wasn’t told in a compelling way.
Anyway, thanks for all the replies!
By the way, somewhere I saw a list of the biggest box office losers this year. Surprisingly, neither John Carter nor Battleship were on the list, although at the time, they seemed like disasters. (John Carter’s poor results led to the studio head losing his job.) “The Oogieloves in the Big Balloon Adventure” was the biggest money-loser of the year (and possibly among the most unprofitable movies of all time). The two Taylor Kitsch blockbusters didn’t do very well in the US, but strong results overseas meant that they almost broke even.
I loved Bryan Cranston’s small role in the beginning. As a Union colonel, he was much more convincing as a southerner than the supposedly former Confederate Kitsch was playing.
FWIW, it is currently playing on one of the premium channels, which is why I saw it. Not horrible.
There are plenty of sites arguing that it wasn’t “a big flop”, depending on your definition of “flop” I loved it myself, and agree with those who say that it was publixcized and sold badly. It’s a very well-done movie by a proven moviemaker (Stanton did Finding Nemo and Wall-E, and co-wrote or directed a stack of other Pixar features. The guy knows what goes into good storytelling) and is true to its source, with appropriate updating for a modern audience. The original DVD list price was over $20, so it’s less than you would have paid in stores when the DVD first came out. I’d get it.
Saw it for free on On Demand through my cable - we have HBO, and it was available there. Not great. Good enough to have on while you’re doing something else, but not great. I think I paid a fair price for it; definitely not worth $20.
I think it’s a fun movie to have in your collection. I paid about $25 for the DVD/Blu-ray combo when it came out. I’m a lifelong fan of ERB, and the John Carter books were my favorites. There’s plenty to nitpick in the movie, but overall it’s such a fun romp in the spirit of the books that I can’t complain too much. I’m surprised some people in this thread thought the effects weren’t good. I thought the Tharks were exceptional – both the CGI and the actors portraying them.
Huh I thought John Carter was when CGI FINALLY delivered a great experience in a movie, the effects were well done and not glaring or obnoxious.
*I normally don’t like CGI, especially CGI that screams LOOK AT ME!!, I thought Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes looked like a student project instead of a professional film for example. So I’m not some CGI lover, I just realize it is here and its not going away and the least you can ask is that it not be obnoxious.
The CGI still looked noticeably like animation to me. The figures had no mass or solidity if you know what I mean and their movements were too smooth. Which is fine for a completely animated movie but not when Taylor Kitch and Lynn Collins are in the frame.
As a lifelong ERB fan I thought it was meh.
My biggest complaint with the CG wasn’t with the CG itself, but with the animation: The animators didn’t really seem to know what to do with the extra limbs on the Tharks. All of their gestures seemed to just be human gestures duplicated, rather than actual four-armed gestures.
I thought it was a good fun sci-fi romp of a movie, though I suppose the fact I haven’t bought it myself says something. I’m a bit surprised at the negative reactions here–my recollection is that there was a rather positive thread on it on the Dope back when it was out…
The movie cost $250,000,000.00 and made back about $280-290,000,000 world-wide, so it is just an underperforming, bad movie that was poorly understood by the studio and badly marketed while not matching the hype and expectations of the target audience, not a flop. It got the “flop” vibe because it only make about $75,000,000 of it money from the US.
I will Nth the suggestion to either Redbox it or wait for it to show on a premium channel and watch it once.
I’ve been reading Michael D. Sellers’ book John Carter and the Gods of Hollywood, swhich just came out last month. The problem is apparently that a change in regime came in after the picture was greenlighted, and the new guy wanted to break with the old regime, on top of which the film ciouldn’t be conveniently pigeionholed into the Disney/pixar/Bruckheimer classifications he wanted to establish. But, on the other hand, it was the baby of Andrew Stanton of Pixar, which they didn’t want to antagonize. They early on seem tio have made the decision not to put a lot behind the publicity which was woefuilly underpushed when compared to, say The Hunger Games or The Avengers. Having a novice publicity director (who was fired during the last 100 days before release) didn’t help, either, nor did cutting off the “of Mars” to play down its SF role and its resemblance to the previous years poorly performing Mars Needs Moms. The trailer was universally agreed to sell the story badly, not even mentioning Burroughs or thre story’s venerable roots.
The film performed very well in front of test audiences (genuine sampled audiences, not SF fans), who liked it and wanted to see a sequel. The film appears to be the victim of studio politics that sabotaged the marketing, not a bad film that failed to catch the audience on its own merits.
And it is, IMHO, not a one-time-viewing film. I’ve bought my DVD copy.
I think it was a fine little B movie with A level special effects and art direction. Early critical response to it was poor, I suspect there was some groupthink going on. I saw it in the theater, did not regret it at all, and look forward to having it on in the background a lot when it gets to cable. I do think the plot kind of dragged at times and that the cast was mostly just adequate with the exception of Lynn Collins. Lynn Collins knocked it out of the ballpark as Dejah Thoris, she played the hot-blooded action princess to a T.
Some indie outfit needs to do a mostly nekkid version of John Carter of Mars as written by Burroughs. I want to see Dejah Thoris lay an egg! I think the books are out of copyright, and not even Disney’s lawyers can solve that problem, though of course they will try, as the Burroughs heirs have.
Well, an indie company already did A Princess of Mars, just a couple of yesars before Disney’s version (and starring ex-porn star Traci Lords as Dejah Thoris, no less. But she wasn’t “clothed only in jewels”, more’s the pity).
The result is, withiout that big budget, the production values are low, and it doesn’t work.
Not to say they didn’t give it a try – they actually had a surprising amount of CGI creatures, and the film was clearly written and made by people who knew and cared about the source material. But the Tharks weren’t CGI – they were people in half-assed (almost literally) Thatk Suits with rubber masks on. And they couldn’t show Carter really leaping, so you saw him spring up… and then land. At some point, even the best-intentioned Suspension of Disbelief frays out and gives up.
Only a version done with the force and budget of Stanton’s team can even hope to convincingly pull this kind of thing off.
(I’ve got a copy of this version, too, by the way.)
I’ve seen that version, it didn’t impress, I found it difficult to pay attention to, much less watch. As you said, no budget, overdressed Martians, and the story dragged. I personally could overlook weak/absent CGI if the story moved along and the Martians were nekkid. But it may be that after 100 years, Burroughs’ Mars is weak beer by modern standards.
If they had a nekkid Dejah Thoris everyone would be on here blasting the movie for pandering to teenage boys etc. If you just don’t like pulpy action sci fi you’ll probably not like it, the movie was flawed but still good and I’m baffled at how bad the general opinion on it is.
Another big thumbs up to Lynn Collins, she managed to play a badass love interest that I not only bought as a badass but also found believable. That was one thing I liked about it, usually they bungle that kinda character horribly.
*I’m glad they omitted the egg thing, thats just too silly for modern audiences and should have rightly been cut.