The Moviegoer: "John Carter" Is an Entertaining Sci-Fi Fantasy Beneath the Box Office Flop

Last updated on: March 22, 2012 at 10:00 am by Nick Olson

The Moviegoer: "John Carter" Is an Entertaining Sci-Fi Fantasy Beneath the Box Office Flop 2012-03-22T10:00:53-06:00 Nick Olson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Each week in The Moviegoer, Nick Olson examines new and upcoming films.

Unless you haven’t read a review of Disney’s box office-failing film, John Carter (Stanton, 2012), then you’re probably aware of the unanimous conclusion that Disney badly botched the $250 million film with its advertising campaign. I remember seeing the first trailer and thinking, “That looks positively uninteresting.” This was before I knew that the film was directed by Andrew Stanton, the Pixar alum well known for his critically acclaimed gems Finding Nemo and WALL-E. Of course, this isn’t to say that Stanton gets a free pass or is incapable of having a poor outing, but a strong directorial track record inspires a level of trust between director and critic, and it was this level of trust that led me to give John Carter a chance.

Adapted from Edgar Rice Borroughs’s A Princess of Mars — the first novel in his 11 volume Barsoom series — John Carter tells the story of a Confederate Civil War veteran who, in his 1868 quest to find gold, is mysteriously transported to Mars (or “Barsoom,” depending on the character perspective). John Carter’s (Taylor Kitsch) adventure begins when he humorously discovers that he has a super-human ability to jump around on Mars, and only intensifies when he must survive as a captive of the Tharks — a rudimentary clan of green outer space creatures with tusks, four arms, and a gladiatorial temperament. Eventually, Carter and the Tharks find themselves caught up in what is, at least on the surface, a politically driven war between two Barsoom cities: Helium (lovers of peaceful coexistence) and Zodanga (plunderers seeking domination). However, controlling the conflict are the Therns, a race of supposedly immortal beings with seemingly endless power.

Pressed by Princess Dejah (Lynn Collins in a spotlight-stealing performance) to help the people of Helium, Carter must decide if he is going to be a savior “willing to lay down his life for the people” of Mars, or if he is content to wallow in his unruly existence on Earth, stuck mourning past tragedies that grieve his existence.

As most critics have pointed out, the film’s problems start with its title character. Carter is too bland of a character for the first half of the movie, in particular. When we find out about the past tragedy that befell Carter’s earthly family, it’s too much of a revelation in the sense that his character doesn’t exude the depths of those hurts. Up until that reveal, it didn’t make sense to me why Carter comes across as purely indifferent: His apathy seems unaccompanied by emotional pain. The internal conflict intended in the lead-up to Carter’s decision to stay or leave Barsoom falls flat, because, aside from a clue or two, there’s not much of a fully embodied indication that Kitsch is playing an embittered character.

Additionally, there’s not really a defining fight with an enemy for John Carter. The two most significant challengers — Tal Hajus (Thomas Haden Church) in the arena and Sab Than (Dominic West) in the end of the film — both fall rather abruptly and uneventfully. Couple this with the previous point about John Carter as a lacking central character in the film, and my lasting problem with John Carter is that none of the stakes felt weighty enough. I was often absorbed in the film’s alternate world and action sequences, but rarely because of the central narrative itself.

Yet, after the film, I felt an overriding sense of satisfaction at how thoroughly entertaining John Carter was for most of its 2+ hour duration. This is first (and mostly) a credit to Stanton’s technical and visual achievement. The landscapes, the creatures, the vehicles, the sounds — it all comes together in a fully imagined world that is colorful, that is parallel to our own in appropriate thematic ways, and that generally features successful high-flying spectacle. There are a handful of genuinely exciting action sequences that, instead of ruining them, I’ll say left me expressing to my wife, that was awesome. Stanton’s consistent visual achievement also seems to aid his ability to make somewhat unwieldy and sometimes unintentionally comedic source material not only manageable but also interesting.

My above summary seems like it would be more convoluted than it actually plays on screen. Stanton brings a comedy to the source material that enables its silliness without undermining the whole thing. Additionally, the film’s “frame” works well, particularly given how it ends in such a way that is satisfying enough, while leaving me wanting to know what happens next on both Earth and Mars. It functions well as both an attention-grabbing introduction and a clever “twist” conclusion.

Finally, as Steven D. Greydanus and Jeffrey Overstreet have pointed out, there are some interesting Christological allusions littered throughout the film. While I think it mistaken to see a “Christ figure” in the film, some of the allusions are too noticeable to be coincidental (particularly given Stanton’s profession of Christian belief). One aspect of John Carter that I found most interesting is that Carter finds restoration, fulfillment, and a sense of purpose — new life, you might say — in another world. But by “another world,” I mean in ways that are a testament to the this-worldly truthfulness of fantasy itself. The alternate worlds we create are largely about emphasizing the metaphysical world we inhabit. And in this film, Carter regains his sense of humanity when he aligns with a certain teleology — one where he willingly and lovingly puts his life at stake for others.

John Carter is not a sci-fi adventure fantasy to be considered among the greats, but it’s also grandiose, entertaining, and visually engrossing enough to be far from a dud (in terms of quality). John Carter’s disappointment is that it clearly displays the potential to have been great, without quite realizing that potential. This doesn’t make it a failure, just a really expensive good movie. Go see John Carter, because it’s worth it (and because it just might assuage leftover Phantom Menace disappointment). But also go see it so that Stanton may have an opportunity at a trilogy that I have a feeling would only improve with each sequel.

Previous Post

March 22, 2012

Eat Your Vegetables: "Doubt" (Shanley, 2008)

Next Post

March 22, 2012 The Televangelist: The Man in the Booth Wants to Make You a Deal

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Asides Elsewhere Featured Film Games General Culture Headline Literature Music Of the Moment Podcast Politics RetroPost Sports Technology Television Uncategorized Viral

Select a Month February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz