Originally
titled 'A Princess of Mars,' renamed (too girly) to 'John Carter of
Mars,' then renamed again (too boyish) to 'John Carter' (by the DVD
release it'll just be 'JC'!); the sci-fi fantasy that inspired them all
has finally made it to the big screen!
Although from
seeing the film and it's trailers you wouldn't be blamed for thinking
that this film has been inspired by blockbuster sci-fi's such as the
Star Wars franchise and Avatar; it's interesting to note that John
Carter was actually the inspiration for them! Published in 1917, Edgar
Rice Burroughs' novel 'A Princess of Mars' was the first novel in his
Barsoom series - a series of books that have notably been a large source
of inspiration for cinematic science fiction fantasy films; shaping the
genre as we know it today. Now nearly a century after it was first
published, the Earth and Mars based adventures of John Carter have
lovingly been brought to the big screen in an epic film directed by
long-time fan of the books, Andrew Stanton. Well know for his work at
Pixar directing Finding Nemo and Wall-E, as well as writing for many of
their other films right from the animation studio's inception, this is
Stanton's first live-action feature, although not a huge change of style
for him as a lot of the film and its characters are made via CGI
anyway!
Rather surprisingly, the film itself opens to
the setting of America in the late 1800s - both in the city and the far
west. After a western style introduction to our sharp shooting, gun
slinging hero John Carter (Taylor Kitsch), an unexpected turn leads to
Carter being stranded on Mars - known to its inhabitants as Barsoom.
From here on we are swept off into a science fiction fantasy adventure
as John Carter must save the beautiful Princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn
Collins), her people and the Thark population of Barsoom from a devious
plot for domination by
a shape shifting group known as the Holy Therns, lead by the deceptive Matai Shang (Mark Strong).
Matai Shang (Mark Strong) with an army of Tharks in John Carter
With
a lot of poor press surrounding the film recently from its poor
critical reception, John Carter is not actually as bad as you may go in
expecting it to be. Stanton and his effects team do an incredible job in
bringing the world of Barsoom and it's inhabitants to the big screen in
a way that respects and stays true to the original novel, but adapts it
to appeal and work with a modern audience and its expectations (the
films that it once inspired seem to have now inspired it!) - but CGI
effects do not make a film good. By no means is John Carter the best
film ever made, but it's far from the worst; whilst the story is long in
parts and can at times be lacking in action, the film features a number
of fantastic action sequences and a unique and well executed dynamic
with Carter's exciting jumping abilities which are smoothly executed.
The plot of the film can at times drag, but it provides an interesting
story steeped in history that is engaging and enjoyable to watch. Taylor
Kitsch won't win an Oscar for his performance as the titular hero, but
he successfully pulls off a tough guy hero with a warm heart that echoes
back to western greats through the decades. The rest of the acting
ensemble (both live and motion capture CGI) isn't ground breaking or
attention grabbing (although it is good to see Mark Strong expand his
acting credentials with a villain role for a change *end-of-sarcasm*),
and with no real big star names to sell the film on either, they do a
good job of bringing the fun and epic stories of Barsoom to life. Yes
the film has it's flaws, but it's not setting out to be the best film
ever made; director Stanton simply wanted to finally bring the world of
Burroughs' cinematically inspiring novel to the big screen in a film
that does it justice - and he has achieved this with John Carter.
So why is it that John Carter is expected to flop so badly then if it isn't that bad? The film had an estimated budget of
$250
million and it is said that films need to make a return of double the
budget to be classed as a success - meaning that JC would need to make
back at least $500 million in the world wide box office; it won't! Since
it's release a week ago John Carter has performed poorly to say the
least in the US box office (failing to make it to the top of the weekend
box office whilst 'The Lorax' retained the number 1 spot for a second
week), but performing slightly better internationally - now the only
hope for the films seems to be if it can break even - but the film's not
that bad, and far worse films make much more money; so what's wrong
with John Carter. Despite the genuinely poor (and in my opinion slightly
unfair) reviews and word of mouth that critics given the film, John
Carter's main flaw is not actually within the film itself: the
underlying flaw is Disney's marketing strategy. I've said from the start
that I didn't think the trailers would do the film justice (and they
don't) as they almost appear to dumb down the selling of the film to
attract people with 'shiney' CGI effects and cliched Star Wars-esque
sci-fi, but outside of the trailers other sources of marketing have been
ignored. With little in the way of posters, TV adverts, promotional
tie-ins, and most shockingly of all for a film which should partly
target a young male demographic (a market that could have turned this
into a large franchise), no toys, books video game or other merchandise
releases; for a film based on a century old book few people know
anything about the film or franchise at all. This links nicely into the
issue of the ever changing title (which as I pointed out at the start
has seen many transformations); 'John Carter' says nothing about the
film - for all intents and purposes it's just a random guy's name! The
problem here is that it evokes nothing in the way of genre or themes for
the film; it sets nothing in the way of expectations and it says
nothing about what will happen in the film - at the end of the day it
won't intrigue people, they just simply won't care. With a source
material like Edgar Rice Burroughs' novel which inspired the
likes of Star Wars, Disney simply marketed this film extremely poorly
when it really shouldn't have.
Despite it's poor marketing from Disney (disappointing especially after the incredibly successful parody campaign recently created to market The Muppets which lead to it's great success), John Carter is a pleasant surprise and a very enjoyable and watchable film that stands out from some of today's other more lacklustre blockbuster franchises; a film which through a number of genre's creates the immersive world of the sci-fi fantasy epic that clearly inspired some of the cinematic greats that we love today. John Carter isn't the best film and it will flop; struggling to break-even - but it is worth a watch as certainly doesn't deserve to.
Verdict: 3/5
John Carter is showing in cinemas across the UK now.
Agree or Disagree? Leave your comments below!
