Review of John Carter (2012) by Sue J — 17 Mar 2014
A better film than I expected, probably because the "flop" label had prepared me for a true failure. Is it worth $250M? Certainly not. But then again no film could be. There is a LOT of CG, but we've seen movies with similar amounts and a smaller budget.
I assume the price tag was driven by the aggressive marketing campaign which may have been needed, in part, because of the lack of a known star. Kitsch is fine, but not the most sympathetic of heroes.
The film's first flaw, in fact, is the hero; we just aren't given enough of a reason to care about him. He's kind of a jerk. The film is a bit long in the wrong spots, but I suppose it was going for "epic".
My main beef, though, is with the villains. While some characters are fleshed out nicely, the villains lack both dimension and reason. The Therns could have been Dark City-like foes, but instead they are villains .
..for the sake of it? Huh? The film has a ton of potential but it just falls a bit short of the mark in many respects. The ending is surprisingly strong but even there it could have been truly beautiful with just a bit more thought.
It is a shame that no sequel will ever be made (see "flop") because this could have been something really special. I think I'll check out the original story...
This review of John Carter (2012) was written by Sue J on 17 Mar 2014.
John Carter has generally received positive reviews.
Was this review helpful?
