Ambitious and often unwieldy, but savory in its construction and earnestness. John Carter is sadly undeserving of its flop status.
Absolutely. The film is more story driven than the Avengers - a story that has driven me to download and read Burroughs's Barsoom novels. The authors of the screenplay read all the books and incorporated elements from them into this movie with some imaginative embellishments. This is a treasured realization of Burroughs imagination that will sadly not be revisited at this time.
May 17 - 10:06 PM
Don't jinx it. I'm still hoping for a sequel.
I, quite frankly, loved John Carter.
Jun 8 - 09:38 PM
Jun 9 - 12:07 PM
Raucously bad. This is a turnip of such ghastly proportion that if it were lying on the floor next to me, and we were in the year 1645, it would be simply too heavy to toss at the miserable Shakesperean actor on stage. Being too dense to lift, it would remain on the ground, rotting in a fetid pool of rancidness. As much as my outburst may seem a litte much - I promise you it is well deserved. What is as implausibly awful is that this cretinous space romp has managed to woo 52% of critics and 65% of audience members. How? Did our collective senses dim in a subconsciously organized flashmob of John Carter appreciation? If so, I missed it. So the merits? Well, it is a movie. And you can watch it on your TV, if you have eyes. Though by the end you'll wish you had removed them and inserted them into your ears saving you the horror of this filth. It takes some going to find a more irritating cinematic character than Jar Jar Binks, yet John Carter manages it on at least 8 occasions.
Jun 11 - 08:40 PM
Your review is as at least as awful as you (incorrectly) judged the film to be.
Sep 8 - 11:48 PM