Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

John Carter (2012)

Director: Andrew Stanton

Time Out rating

Average user rating

20 reviews

Movie review

From Time Out London

This sprawling 3D adaptation of ‘A Princess of Mars’, the first in ‘Tarzan’ creator Edgar Rice Burroughs’s epic sci-fi series about a civil war soldier who travels to the red planet, has all the makings of a monumental folly. It was absurdly expensive (rumours suggest upwards of $250 million), stars no one you’ve ever heard of (the voice cast notwithstanding), is based on a property very few outside the geek community are familiar with, has a wildly convoluted storyline packed with silly names and outlandish locations, is saddled with one of the least exciting titles in recent memory and was directed by a relative newcomer getting his hands on a major live-action studio picture for the first time.

Taylor Kitsch is John, a reclusive ex-soldier who discovers a secret portal to the planet Mars – or Barsoom as it’s known in the local language. There he steps into the middle of a war between the forces of evil, led by preening conqueror Sab Than, Prince of Zodanga (Dominic West), and the forces of general decency, as represented by philosopher-scientist-princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins).

Now, maybe there are legions of multiplex-goers to whom the words ‘Sab Than, Prince of Zodanga’ sound like a surefire bet – but it’s unlikely. And this is merely the tip of a hefty iceberg: chuck in some four-armed Tharks, some eight-legged Thoats and Mark Strong as an evil spirit and you’ve got an unholy mess. Luckily, thanks to some stunning visual design, a sense of wry humour and ‘Wall-E’ director Andrew Stanton’s knack with an action setpiece, it’s a very entertaining, unusual and loveable mess. ‘John Carter’ could be ‘Dune’ for the 21st century – or it could be the next ‘Avatar’. Only time will tell.

Author: Tom Huddleston

Time Out London Issue 2168: Mar 8-14, 2012

Email Tweet Share

User reviews of this film

iceman2011 said...

Posted on Mar 25 2012 11:32 I went to see " carter" with my teenage son , he loved it , he doesnt get out much ! I sort of enjoyed it. For me...lynn collins is best thing in film......3 d is poor....very poor.......would i recomend it ? Only if you arr a sad lonely nerd......im just off to see it again !

Report as inappropriate
Phil Ince said...

Posted on Mar 20 2012 20:00 PS: I should have said 'Space King of Mars' because it more closely summarises the strange mix of earnestness and ineptitude in the film. Awful.

Report as inappropriate
Phil Ince said...

Posted on Mar 20 2012 19:58 I fancied a big piece of cheese at lunchtime on Friday and went to see this film on the biggest screen at the Islington Vue. I was the only person in the cinema and I wish I'd made more of the opportunity to misbehave because the film was a terrible bore. Mark Strong and Lynn Collins are just right but everyone else is just dreadful. Ciaran Hinds has the head of a boggle-eyes terrapin and making him Space King really did the film no favours.

Report as inappropriate
Graham said...

Posted on Mar 20 2012 10:08 I kind of enjoyed the movie, but I got bored towards the end. It was a bit to predictable and long winded for me, if I been on my own I would have walked out, I was with my wife and she thought it was brilliant, I guesss you can't please everyone eh.

Report as inappropriate
Blaize67 said...

Posted on Mar 13 2012 18:21 Well, as the intro credits and action happened with names like Tars Tarkas, Dejah Thoris (were did I hear that name before!) and stuff about the 8th ray and Isis, you may well be saying..."you wot!" but by 10 minutes in you'll be hooked by the roller-coaster story. Never dull, and great CGI. Lynn Collins makes a super warrior princess, and the Brit cast of Mark Strong, Dominic West and James Purefoy seethe menace. Rollicking good fun. Recommended, but for Sci-Fi buffs and fans of the cast only. Those who seek a meaningful art house movie, look elsewhere.

Report as inappropriate
Tony said...

Posted on Mar 12 2012 15:46 Thanks for suggestions Alan and Ian. I'm a big fan of flat-o-vision and totally agree about the terrible artifically layered look of 3D (as well as the deliberate overuse of cinematographic effects such as parallax, abnormal depth of field etc to over emphasise the effect).

Report as inappropriate
Alan said...

Posted on Mar 12 2012 15:41 For Tony, and anyone else wanting to see it in 2-D; we were told at our local Vue last night that they'd be having it in 2-D next week. I must say I'll be glad when 3-D dies a death again - my wife is partially sighted and the films look blurred to her. I'm fully sighted but think they look artificially layered. Avatar (and the trailers for John Carter) still manage to look stunning in both formats.

Report as inappropriate
entertained said...

Posted on Mar 12 2012 01:19 Agree with the review. It felt a bit like Stargate to me. Saw the 2D version and didn't feel like there were scenes just thrown in for 3D. Was entertained despite the dodgy 'leaping about' effects near the beginning that sort of looked like he was dangling on strings from the waist. Oddly, it ended up seeming not as made-up as it did at the start, and enjoyed some of the humour, too.

Report as inappropriate
Sophie said...

Posted on Mar 11 2012 20:04 3* is exactly the right verdict - it's ludicrous, barely makes sense and the script seems like a bit of an afterthought, but also great looking, endearing and a huge amount of fun.

Report as inappropriate
Ian said...

Posted on Mar 10 2012 15:12 Tony, most cineworlds have it on in both 2D and 3D.
It is a stunning film and looks amazing on a big screen proably 2 1/2 stars and a 5 or maybe 6 out of 10. Watch it on the big screen it won't be anywhere near as good on a TV even a HD one.
Like Scrumpy says see it once and that will be enough.

Report as inappropriate
Scrumpyjack said...

Posted on Mar 10 2012 13:03 First half of Ian's review is SPOT ON....so why am I going for a 4*? BECAUSE the film CONSTANTLY looks GREAT (the 3D is STUNNING!....look, it's FUTILE to deny!) and the action (A LOT of it) is quality. Rushing back to see it? NO. Had a DAMN good 2 & a bit hrs? YES SIR! 7+/10

Report as inappropriate
Ian said...

Posted on Mar 10 2012 01:08 My money is on this being a Dune and not an Avatar. It looks stunning, in places, and you can see where the money was spent. If only they had spent some of it on a decent script.
Kitsch is wooden and Collins little better. Throw in two Brits as the bad guys and you have your classic modern mishmash of a film.
It really is making films like painting by numbers. Disney obviously saw the money made on Avatar and decided we will have some of that.
In a few weeks I fully expect this film to start getting Heavens Gate type analogies. It really is that awful. It no doubt started with good intentions but ends up as a supermodel of a film. It looks good but has no content and you will soon get bored of it.

Report as inappropriate
Tony said...

Posted on Mar 09 2012 09:43 Is it on anywhere in 2D?

Report as inappropriate
Tan said...

Posted on Mar 08 2012 00:09 Tom- I think some of these people need some lessons in the english language :). I liked your review, I'm looking forward to seeing the movie and will come back another time with my rating...

Report as inappropriate
scrumpyjack said...

Posted on Mar 07 2012 21:38 Didn't TO call PHANTOM MENACE a "folly"....we then agree, I was correct ....it's kind of "endearing"!

Report as inappropriate