Skip to main content

We can't have Earthmen projecting themselves over here, leaping about... causing all manner of disruption.

John Carter
(2012)

Most of the criticisms of Andrew Stanton's mega-budget folly are fair comment. It's a frustrating experience, as the failings clearly don't result from an indifference to the source material or the neutering influence of a nervous studio. John Carter has issues down the line from conception of storyline to casting, and you can only really level the blame at the door of its architect. 



The problems with story and structure might seem less noticeable if Carter was played by someone exuding an ounce of charisma (perhaps venturing to ask for a pint, in a thin glass). 
After all, it worked for Gladiator (although, in fairness, that film had a very clear through-line for its main character that this one lacks). But Taylor Kitsch can only bring pretty-boy looks and freshly-toned abs to the game. I thought he made a decent showing as Gambit in Wolverine, but the best I can say for him here is that he's competent. If he just about gets away with pouting about the surface of Barsoom, he looks ridiculously anachronisitic in 1868. 



Stanton's managed to cast the rest of the film extremely well, which makes Kitsch even more of a disappointment. The problem for them is more one of limited characterisation and leaden dialogue. Lynne Collins (who was also in Wolverine) is much more impressive than her co-lead, while Samantha Morton and Willem Dafoe makes strong impressions as motion-captured Tharks. Thomas Hayden Church fares less well his one-note brute. Likewise, Dominic West doesn't get to do much more than snarl. James Purefoy is one of the few in the cast given a chance to inject a sense of fun into the proceedings; it's something of a Rome reunion, as Caesar to his Anthony, Ciaran Hinds, also lends support as does Polly Walker (as a Thark). The ubiquitous Mark Strong has a better role than as Sinestro in Green Lantern last year, and his scene explaining his role and manipulation of events to Carter is one of the best sequences in the film. But...



Like an awful lot here, he's not clearly defined. Perhaps the Therns are the same nebulous lot with god-like powers in the novels, but their motivation is nevertheless unsatisfying. They seem to do what they do just because they do and always have. They aren't evil so much as inscrutable puppet masters. Motivations elsewhere aren't strong enough to survive the number of narrative diversions that take place. Carter blandly hides a secret and vacillates over his allegiances, the Tharks threaten to kill Carter numerous times without ever going for it, the Princess is a shit-hot scientist/warrior but the writers are unable to have her explain the ninth ray clearly. 



So too, the effects for Carter's superhuman leaps are impressive but the logic of what he can do appears to change with the requirements of the scene he's in. One moment he can have seven bells beaten out of him, the next he's killing with a single punch, or dispatching a white ape with ease. And I can't say I bought into his ruse involving the medallion; wouldn't the Therns know whether there are/where there are medallions littered about the Earth? Perhaps such issues result from being surrounded by yes-men, or not listening to no-men. For a film that spends so much time on set-up and introductions, willing to grind to a halt at points to engage in verbose exposition, to lack clarity in respect of basic motivations and parameters suggests Stanton ultimately couldn't see the wood for the trees.


Stanton succeeds with the world-building and vistas, but he still mostly recalls other movie worlds, be it Dune or (even) The Chronicles of Riddick. Barsoom is full of sand; there's nothing very exotic about it. And while he mounts the action in a consistently entertaining manner, it's rarely enthralling. The one scene that ignites, Carter's single-handed take-down of an army of Tharks (again, the issue with his variable abilities), is somewhat punctured by the intercut flashbacks to the fate of his family. 


It's a shame this was a (relative) box office failure, as I'd like to see more science fiction/fantasy fare that has the confidence to take its audience to a fully envisioned new world. This one has more in common with a better-directed Krull than a new Star Wars, though. That said, Lucas would love the dog.

***

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

There are times when I miss the darkness. It is hard to live always in the light.

Blake's 7 4.12: Warlord

The penultimate episode, and Chris Boucher seems to have suddenly remembered that the original premise for the series was a crew of rebels fighting against a totalitarian regime. The detour from this, or at least the haphazard servicing of it, during seasons Three and Four has brought many of my favourite moments in the series. So it comes as a bit of a jolt to suddenly find Avon making Blake-like advances towards the leaders of planets to unite in opposition against the Federation. 

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

I had that Christopher Marlowe in my boat once.

Shakespeare in Love (1998)
(SPOILERS) You see? Sometimes Oscar can get it right. Not that the backlash post-announcement would have you crediting any such. No, Saving Private Ryan had the rug unscrupulously pulled from under it by Harvey Weinstein essentially buying Shakespeare in Love’s Best Picture through a lavish promotional campaign. So unfair! It is, of course, nothing of the sort. If the rest of Private Ryan were of the same quality as its opening sequence, the Spielberg camp might have had a reasonable beef, but Shakespeare in Love was simply in another league, quality wise, first and foremost thanks to a screenplay that sang like no other in recent memory. And secondly thanks to Gwyneth Paltrow, so good and pure, before she showered us with goop.

The Statue of Liberty is kaput.

Saving Private Ryan (1998)
(SPOILERS) William Goldman said of Saving Private Ryan, referencing the film’s titular objective in Which Lie Did I Tell? that it “becomes, once he is found, a disgrace”. “Hollywood horseshit” he emphasised, lest you were in doubt as to his feelings. While I had my misgivings about the picture on first viewing, I was mostly, as many were, impacted by its visceral prowess (which is really what it is, brandishing it like only a director who’s just seen Starship Troopers but took away none of its intent could). So I thought, yeah Goldman’s onto something here, if possibly slightly exaggerating for effect. But no, he’s actually spot-on. If Saving Private Ryan had been a twenty-minute short, it would rightly muster all due praise for its war-porn aesthetic, but unfortunately there’s a phoney, sentimental, hokey tale attached to that opening, replete with clichéd characters, horribly earnest, honorific music and “exciting!” action to engage your interest. There are…

Move away from the jams.

Aladdin (2019)
(SPOILERS) I was never overly enamoured by the early ‘90s renaissance of Disney animation, so the raves over Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin left me fairly unphased. On the plus side, that means I came to this live action version fairly fresh (prince); not quite a whole new world but sufficiently unversed in the legend to appreciate it as its own thing. And for the most part, Aladdin can be considered a moderate success. There may not be a whole lot of competition for that crown (I’d give the prize to Pete’s Dragon, except that it was always part-live action), but this one sits fairly comfortably in the lead.

I’m the spoiled toff who lives in the manor.

Robin Hood (2018)
(SPOILERS) Good grief. I took the disdain that greeted Otto Bathurst’s big screen debut with a pinch of salt, on the basis that Guy Ritchie’s similarly-inclined lads-in-duds retelling of King Arthur was also lambasted, and that one turned out to be pretty good fun for the most part. But a passing resemblance is as close as these two would-be franchises get (that, and both singularly failed to start their respective franchises). Robin Hood could, but it definitely didn’t.

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

I should have mailed it to the Marx Brothers.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
When your hero(es) ride off into the sunset at the end of a film, it’s usually a pretty clear indication that a line is being drawn under their adventures. Sure, rumours surfaced during the ‘90s of various prospective screenplays for a fourth outing for the whip-cracking archeologist. But I’m dubious anyone really expected it to happen. There seemed to be a natural finality to Last Crusade that made the announcement of his 2007 return nostalgically welcome but otherwise unwarranted. That it turned out so tepid merely seemed like confirmation of what we already knew; Indy’s time was past.

Have you always lived here, Mother?

I Am Mother (2019)
(SPOILERS) This Netflix science-fiction offering arrived with very solid reviews, always a surprise for a Netflix movie, even one they picked up at Sundance. For about two-thirds of the running time, I Am Mother seems to justify the (modest) raves. It boasts assured direction from Grant Sputore (making his feature debut), polished production values and strong performances from a very small cast (basically Hilary Swank and Clare Rugaard, with Luke Hawker in a Weta robot body suit and Rose Byrne providing the voice). It operates intriguing turns of plot and switches in sympathies. Ultimately, however, I Am Mother heads towards a faintly underwhelming and unremarkable, standard-issue conclusion.

Down ‘ere they say the lighthouse is haunted. And what’s more, blokes go mad and kill themselves.

The Phantom Light (1935)
(SPOILERS) This lighthouse-set comedy thriller represents one of Michael Powell’s early films, made a couple of years before his career “proper” took off with The Edge of the World. He was making “quota-quickies” during this period, cheap and cheerful no-frills productions resulting from the requirement for UK American distributors and British cinema owners to screen a quota of British films. As you’d expect, Powell ensures it all looks pretty good, despite the budget constraints, while the presence of Gordon Harker in the lead role ensures it’s also pretty funny.