Andrew Stanton’s John Carter of Mars caused a huge dent in Disney’s financial status
and as a result the film’s failure was largely to blame. So poor was John Carter of Mars’ box office
performance that Disney had to put the movie’s sequels on hold, but John Carter of Mars has performed better
in the home media market as well as gaining a rather feisty fan base.
The film is based on a 100 year old story by
Edgar Rice Burroughs entitled John Carter of Mars which tells the tale of Civil War Veteran John Carter who, via some
device thingamabob (Medallion), is transported to the planet Barsoom (aka Mars)
where he finds that Mars is not a baronless wasteland, but a planet in which
many vibrant societies are crumbling due to a bitter war. Anywho it is the two cities
of Helium (no squeaky voices in this film, which is a shame as it would have livened
proceedings considerably) and Zodanga that are engaged in a 1000 year
long war (not sure why). John Carter finds himself right in the middle of this
war after rescuing Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins) for no other reason than because
she is human. Due to Carter’s impressive jumping abilities and sheer strength
(because of his bone density and Mars’ low gravity) he can be of instrumental
use in bid to end the seemingly never ending war. Mixed in with this are back
stories and forced marriages; it is all very confusing.
The thing that was most brought
to my attention concerning John Carter of
Mars was the sheer lack of respect the studios show its paying audience.
Under the studio’s insistence the marketing department for John Carter of Mars believed it to be a good idea to remove the words
‘of Mars’ from the title leaving the film to be called John Carter believing that the words ‘of Mars’ would give away the
fact that John Carter of Mars is science fiction, thus
decreasing box office figures. A number of issues with this, firstly Avatar (a Science fiction film) made
more money than the GDP of the entire African continent. Secondly it is
insulting to the audience’s intelligence that they would think people would not
realize that John Carter of Mars is a
Science fiction movie just because the words ‘of mars’ were removed from the
title and thirdly it highlights the fact that as long as we pay for a ticket
the studios do not give a monkeys about us. It makes me wonder why I should
give the studios respect by funding their empire by paying for this film, but
however paying for this film gives the filmmaker the respect he deserves
(despite the fact the sounded a complete muppet on Mark Kermode and Simon
Mayo’s radio show) by paying for the finished product. This is exactly what I
did (and I always do when I review a film) and because I am paying customer I have
the right to criticize, yes?
Hollywood blockbusters have often been
labelled dumb fun; John Carter of Mars
is certainly dumb but it is equally certainly isn’t fun for a colossal number
of reasons. One issue is that John Carter
of Mars is a typical, soulless and dire Hollywood affair but the most
pressing issue is that these words can be used to describe Taylor Kitsch’s
utterly one dimensional performance. Can the blame for the failure of his
character (and as a result the film) be completely applied to him? No, that is
unfair because the character is a detestable moron who believes that, despite
being completely surrounded by hostiles on an alien planet, it is a good idea
to fight his way to freedom. Clearly rather selfish, motivated only gold and a desire
to get home, Carter gets himself in a war by inexplicably saving some princess.
The character’s personality seems to change every so often for unexplainable
reasons, however matters are not helped by the fact that Kitsch delivers his
lines in a way that reminiscent of Christian Bale in Terminator Salvation. Furthermore Kitsch delivers his lines so
slowly that it seems as though he is struggling to remember his next line.
Yet Taylor Kitsch’s emotionless performance is
the tip of a very large iceberg, joining him in the movie’s collection of
uninteresting characters and performances is Lynn Collins who shares such a low
level of chemistry with her co-star that the two central characters might as
well be on different planets. Their badly written love affair is horribly
written, so much so that it is difficult to care what happens to pair of them.
Thankfully there are some decent supporting performances by Ciarán Hinds (as Tardos
Mors) and Dominic West (as Sab
Than) who both do a great job in keeping a straight face when delivering the
inane and silly dialogue they were given, on the other hand Mark
Strong’s talents are wasted in a thankless role as a unthreatening villain with
no interesting features. The dialogue is complete drivel (‘you are ugly, but
you are beautiful’) and the film is completely lacking in humour of which was sorely
needed. The visuals do look good, but with a budget of $250,000,000 that really
is to be expected. Some good set and costume designs make the film nice to look
at but John Carter of Mars is as empty
as Mars’ huge landscapes.
John Carter of Mars is one of those films where a white
American manages to have enough presence to command an entire indigenous
population as well as the power to almost wipe out an entire army. John Carter of Mars is like a cross
between Avatar, Clash of the Titans and Star Wars Attack of the Clones. The
biggest issue is not the film is boring but the fact that the film lacks a
likable hero and it is boring because of that.
1/5
I agree with you that the marketing for this film was horrible. I feel that was the biggest reason for the box office failure.
ReplyDeleteAs you mentioned, it has gained an audience on DVD. I saw it because I had read the books a long time ago. I was surprised by the fact that I liked this film. I didn't have the problems with it that you described (other than maybe the acting, but I don't watch an action film for the acting anyway).
I'm going to have to disagree with you on the last point, why shouldn't an action movie have good acting? People are not put off by good acting or a more complex script, take Inception for example it made a bucket load of cash, entertained many as well as those who also enjoy the more mindless summer blockbusters. For me an action movie is more compelling if the central performances are good.
DeleteA clarification - I agree that action movies, or any genre for that matter, are better if they have good acting in them. I just don't expect good acting in action films. If I find it, then that is a pleasant bonus. If I don't find it, then I am still entertained by the action, unless it also is bad.
DeleteI also don't watch romantic comedies for the acting; I watch them for the chemistry between the two leads. Like action movies, if I get good acting then that's great, but if I don't I still enjoy the chemistry, if it's good.
Good review Myerla. Kitsch could have definitely been a little bit more charismatic but the flick still works due to amazing special effects and some really fun and exciting action. Not a bad film, just sucks that it totally bombed, to nobody's surprise.
ReplyDeleteGlad you enjoyed it, but for me to have fun in these types of films I need to like the central character, otherwise It'll be a bore.
Delete