Review of John Carter (2012) by Jack F — 26 Dec 2013

So this was last summer's epic bomb, the dud that nearly broke Disney's bank. While I was none too impressed with "John Carter," it certainly isn't as bad as some have made it out to be. Actually, in a bit of irony, its now-infamous status as an over-hyped, over-budgeted turkey actually makes it more interesting than the movie has any right to be. As the film unfolds, you can almost see the dollars being flushed away (at least you can now, a year and a half after its release); the special effects are beyond extravagant, but they're at the service of a meandering, flimsy, and sometimes needlessly convoluted story that really left me feeling kind of hollow.

I should point out that I have not read any of the John Carter novels that this film is based on, so I can't comment on its fidelity to the source material. But I also get the sense that it probably wouldn't matter. It's hard not to see this movie as, basically, a retread of "Star Wars"...only with less interesting characters, story arcs, and set designs. It's worth noting that the Edgar Rice Burroughs series of books came out long before George Lucas' outer space saga hit cinemas, and indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if Lucas was inspired by Burroughs' work. But on the basis of these films, however, the victory goes to Luke Skywalker and Co. (Again, I haven't read the books, so it's very possible that they fare better than this movie version.).

Taylor Kitsch stars as the titular John Carter, a disillusioned Civil War veteran who unexpectedly finds himself whisked away to the planet Mars. Upon arrival, he finds himself embroiled in a different civil war, this one between the inhabitants of the red planet. It's clear that one group is the good guys and one the bad, but, for reasons we're not fully given, Carter does not want to choose a side. (We're shown spotty flashbacks that aren't real clear, but it seems as if his family had gotten killed while he was off doing battle. This may have been left ambiguous on purpose, probably because the filmmakers were planning on answering those questions in follow-up films...pretty sure that's not going to happen now.) Eventually though, he's convinced to fight by the beautiful Princess Deja Thoris (Lynn Collins).

Part of the problem is John Carter himself. He's just not a very interesting character; in pulpy stories such as these, it's important that the audience root for the hero. But this guy lacks the charisma of an Indiana Jones or the everyman appeal of a Luke Skywalker. He's just so bland and lifeless. Part of this is Kitsch's fault; he's about as sullen as you can get, and even when he finds himself on Mars doing impossible things (like leaping 20 feet in the air), he always seems wooden. But even if he were more expressive, the screenplay didn't do him--or any of the other characters, for that matter--many favors.

The battle scenes are well made, but nothing too special. Again, there really isn't anything we haven't already seen in "Star Wars," or any other sci-fi space adventure. There're lasers, sword fights, goofy aliens, the works. There's also a group of magical beings called Therns, who seem to be working behind the scenes to tip the scales of the war in the favor they choose. This is the most convoluted part of the story, and it leads to a bizarre ending involving Carter's nephew (Daryl Sabara) that just feels too clever for its own good. Actually, the film could have ended at a certain point before this (you'll know which if you see the movie). By adding this little subplot, it just makes the proceedings seem rather anti-climactic and tacked-on.

There are redeeming factors, mostly in the supporting performances. I've already noted that Kitsch isn't quite up to snuff, and Lynn Collins isn't that great either (methinks these two may have been cast more for their looks than their acting ability), but character actors Bryan Cranston, Mark Strong, and Ciaran Hinds are solid in smaller roles, and there's some good voiceover work from Samantha Morton, Thomas Haden Church, and Willem Dafoe as members of a race of martians called Tharks. (The Tharks' role in all this is also a little fuzzy.).

Ultimately, "John Carter" is a stylishly elaborate exercise in emptiness. There's nothing overtly good or bad about it. I didn't experience any real emotion during its run-time. The movie just...is. As is usually the case with these kind of over-priced Hollywood epics--Kevin Costner's "Waterworld" and "The Postman" come to mind--you can't help but wonder how, with all that blown money, they didn't end up with a better screenplay. That's almost always the biggest problem, and it should be one that shouldn't cost that much to rectify. A movie can have the greatest effects in the world; but without a good story, who cares? John Carter went to Mars and, as far as I'm concerned, he can stay there.