Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: John Carter (2012)

This is topic John Carter (2012) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=001848

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 03-09-2012, 09:27 PM:

A former Civil War cavalryman is transported to Mars where he joins a princess and the multi-armed Tharks in fighting yet another civil war, this time between two Martian nation-states.

At least I think that’s what was happening. About halfway into the picture, I realized that I still couldn’t make out who was fighting whom over what and what was at stake. There are a LOT of things to keep track of in this densely plotted and noisy movie, including various alien races and other people that shape-shift into completely different characters at will and for no reason. Also there are the members of two warring armies who are collectively known as the Red People except sometimes they’re blue, and the Thurns, who may or may not really exist. Get it? There is also an amusing alien dog who moves with Road Runner speed, and the Princess of Helium, who is very easy to look at.

From a technical standpoint this is really well done, but story wise, despite its furious action sequences, I thought it was boring and mostly incomprehensible. Also, at 2:18 or so, way too long.

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 03-09-2012, 09:48 PM:

It was occasionally good to look at, but the plot was very boring. Not only was it confusing to keep track of everything, but I found I didn't really care to keep track of everyone.

As is the case with almost every 3D movies I've seen recently, I found the 3D to be completely underwhelming. I didn't feel like it added any significant depth to the picture, and at times I felt like objects were out of place. While I get the idea that 3D is supposed to be about depth rather than gimmicks, I just don't think it adds enough to the viewing experience to make it worth the extra price. And with all the jumping and flying, John Carter should have been a good movie for 3D.

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 03-10-2012, 12:27 PM:

I have never understood why it is that Hollywood decides to make competing versions of the same movie at the same time.

Disneys John Carter was actually filmed a couple of years ago and has been sitting around being tinkered with ever since.

The competing version entitled "Princess of Mars" starring Antonio Sabato Jr as Carter and Traci Lords as the Princess( yes that Traci Lords) was released direct-to-video on December 29, 2009. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1531911/

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 03-11-2012, 01:08 PM:

Disney going into spring with a high profile flop....is this a pattern developing?

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 03-11-2012, 08:20 PM:

I didn't really love it, but I also didn't hate it. The story is mostly boring, the scenery is beautiful. The best part of the movie is probably the ending. [Wink]

quote: Jonathan M. Crist
The competing version entitled "Princess of Mars" starring Antonio Sabato Jr as Carter and Traci Lords as the Princess( yes that Traci Lords) was released direct-to-video on December 29, 2009.

You're comparing a $250M production with something produced by a company that brought us creative masterpieces like Titanic II? [Smile]

This particular movie has been in development hell, longer than most of us have walked this planet.

I've seen it in Digital IMAX (aka LieMAX), the tickets were free, otherwise I would have opted for a normal screening.

Like with many IMAX DMR movies, the aspect ratio sucks, resulting in black bars on a screen without masking. I guess the movie was shot in scope, so you're actually losing picture, not gaining...

In addition to this, I hated the sound. It was just (too) LOUD but it missed the IMAX signature high impact LFE and the surround sound was also very flat. I don't know if this is a problem with the IMAX mix, a general problem with the movie or a local theater screwup, but the trailers sounded allright.

I don't even know why this is being released on IMAX or even in 3D. Actually, I do know, it has something to do with $$$, but it really is unsuitable for both the way it has been shot and cut. Also, the 3D itself is totally underwhelming, so if you do have the option, go see it in 2D.

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 03-11-2012, 08:47 PM:

must be something about 'Mars' that spells doom for Disney films that are centered around that theme ... [Roll Eyes]

Marcel - you're not losing visual information from the movie on an IMAX screen, you just get wasted screen space - the top and the bottom.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 03-13-2012, 04:54 PM:

quote: Jonathan Goeldner
Marcel - you're not losing visual information from the movie on an IMAX screen, you just get wasted screen space - the top and the bottom.

Well, you're probably right, although the letterboxed version I saw just didn't look like 2.35:1, so I assumed they just cropped the image a bit on both sides.

But with the screen probably somewhere around 1.85:1, it is more reasonable to assume that I did see a "scope" version and lost no visual information. [Wink]

The "letterboxing" looks somewhat weird, probably due to the strange curvature in the screen. The top looks almost straight whereas the bottom is curved.

Given the not so massive screen size of the average LieMAX, watching a movie that wastes somewhere around 15-20% of the screen in this format is almost pointless.

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 03-17-2012, 08:28 PM:

The votes are in and the result is clear: Andrew Stanton is the dud director of Pixar. I guess there had to be one in there somewhere, no sizeable organisation can be perfect. It's clear now that Finding Nemo was a fluke, or perhaps he did a "Tobe Hooper" on Poltergheist with that one, because nothing he has directed before or after comes anywhere near it in terms of quality of story telling. A Bug's Life remains the runt of the Pixar house (I've yet to see it in it's entirety despite many false starts), Wall-E was half great, and John Carter is an incomprehensible mess. As the scribe of many of the great Pixar flicks (my personal favourite being Monsters, Inc.), Stanton is clearly a writing talent but directing? Not so much.

The film is based on Tarzan scribe, Edgar Rice Buroughs' series of books about a civil war cavalryman who accidently finds himself in the middle of a Martian war (don't ask). Mars, it seems, sports various inhabitants - there's good and bad human-ish beings (they have blue blood), strange mystical monkish guys, gods and six-limbed aliens. They are evidently at war for some undisclosed reason (but it's probably over the dying planets resources, I suppose) and our Earthly hero, now imbued with super-human strength, arbitrarily chooses the side of the pretty girl in the bikini (naturally) with the eventual intention of procreation despite the fact that she's actually a different species - there's just no stopping our John! Anything beyond that disappears down the gargantuan gaps in the films internal mythology though there's probably some American Civil War allegory going on here if only we could figure out what on Mars is actually going on!

The production design is great, however, but that's all the substance there is in this movie. After 2+ torturous hours of special FX, the film begins to feel like three and a half hours of incomprehensible, pretty nonsense.

It's clear that Disney were aiming for Avatar with John Carter but they delivered Cowboys vs Aliens. It's big and dumb but not much fun.

3 out of 10

Posted by Jonathan Goeldner (Member # 4854) on 03-20-2012, 11:29 AM:

funny Stu, I thought 'Cars' was Pixar's worst. [Wink]

the beginning was a mess, but as the story went on, it got somewhat entertaining. I'd give a letter grade of C. (at least the movie want to read the books)

as for it's 250 mil budget - what cost so damn much, there's nary a big star here, what is the SFX?? I'm completely befuddled.

Posted by Stu Jamieson (Member # 4626) on 03-20-2012, 04:21 PM:

I'll concede Cars was no masterpiece but it was fun enough. [Wink]