John Carter

Martian soap opera. Technically brilliant, which was to be expected of Stanton, but problematic in all other respects. John Carter is a return to the "great stories", but it does not update them in any way, and unfortunately, it is not even able to draw on their receptivity and magnetism. As a hero, John is controversial because his "superpowers" are quite doubtfully laid out - for a while he acts awkward, then suddenly he accumulates enemies into neat pyramids. Unfortunately, the enjoyment of similar heroes stems, to a certain extent, from predictability and the resulting sweet expectation of the triumph of the hero over those who have no idea. Carter can jump, but he is unable to excite. Also because Taylor Kitsch is pretty kitschy. And also because the script sinks into weak-minded phrases and useless nonsense, which is crowned by a bit of moralizing. There is even talk about the destructive impact of social differences in a film that cost two hundred million dollars. Weak is not only the chatter, but also the characters as such - harmless derivatives seen many times without any major appeal. I'd love to write that I saw a charming old-school sci-fi. In fact, I saw something much closer to The Phantom Menace than A New Hope - and unlike Lucas, Stanton doesn't have an open treasure trove of working mythology. He goes into debt, he promises, he promises, but he never pays it... Two moments from the whole film remain in my memory: a flashback that pays off nicely and a slap. But Carter and his creators really needed a lot more of them. Three stars out of respect for the technical aspects (and perhaps also out of respect for the courage to resurrect this literary mummy). (06/03/2012)

Hollywood is a place of endless possibilities and the most bizarre encounters. Cowboys & Aliens didn’t do so well, so why not throw “Mannequins and White Monkeys” at viewers… A major positive of this remake of Turkish Star Wars is that it is capable of self-irony in its embryonic state. The jokes at the film’s own expense problematise (but do not preclude) the acceptance of the position of a being that intellectually towers high above the trash presented here. Carter’s endless interest is abandoned right from the start just so that the filmmakers can use the hero’s unfamiliarity with his new environment to situate him on the level of Martian toddlers and, in light of their high technical level, the “jumpy” action scenes are helped rather than hurt by the fact that Stanton uses live actors as if they were animated characters. For the same reason, the film’s most entertaining “hero” is a hyperactive half-tonne dog. The timing of the crucial moments is rendered according to the handbook for novice screenwriters, while the wooden acting and fast-food philosophising with a glaring attempt to justify mass murder (what’s the fuss when it’s for a good cause and the poor perpetrator is driven by personal trauma?) simultaneously serve as ammunition for those who consider contemporary American genre movies to be an evil comparable to the near extermination of the buffalo and the invention of Facebook. As a result, we can alternately enjoy how the film is both self-aware and unaware of its own silliness. Really, I can’t come up with enough rational arguments to form a shield that would deflect the comments of those who consider John Carter to be a feeble-minded mess. But no one can take those two hours of spectacular entertainment and reminiscing about reading adventure novels from my grandfather’s library away from me. Thanks also to nostalgia, this time I didn’t get the unpleasant feeling that comes with the knowledge that something so exceedingly lame must have cost $250 million to make. 80% (07/03/2012)

I resisted the John Carter phenomenon for many years, but the beauty of Dejah Thoris is immense, and in the Dynamite comics, it's also an enjoyable read. It was thus necessary for me to watch the film that was released for the 100th anniversary. The opening scenes, admittedly, are not great, and the introduction to the complex plot unfolding on several levels is not entirely successful. But once this predecessor to Superman and Star Wars rolls into one, it's awesome. The excitement of a pre-World War I future, the fascination with the unsuspected possibilities of craters on Mars - all these aspects are there for the taking and entice us. (27/06/2019)

A princess (from Mars) and I have been catapulted into a world inhabited by little green men, where they shoot with ray-guns and they have funny-looking dogs. Exactly as I had imagined. John Carter is pure pulp fiction, the type I grew up on (I read two books from the Carter series). Maybe it leans more toward being a fairytale, but the important thing is that the story is nicely predictable, easy to follow and entertaining. It was one of the first of its genre and finds it really difficult to come up with something original, but Stanton did a good job anyway. I didn’t have much trust in Taylor Kitsche before seeing this movie, but he surprised me, as did Lynn Collins and the greenies. The monsters didn’t have that Star Wars stamp on them and they certainly are no substitute but stand alone in their own right. Carter is passable as a piece of history. What a nice wedding it was. (19/03/2012)

Not surprising in terms of plot, but still a visually stunning fairy tale with great music, an unsympathetic main character and quite pleasant humor. I don't know if it's worth writing about all the things John Carter rips off or does not rip off, because its plot is simply told using familiar, time-honored techniques that, let's face it, we've come to expect from sci-fi/fantasy. Among the best scenes are the first steps on Mars and the whole next part, in which Carter meets Tharky and which has the atmosphere of Lawrence of Arabia (seriously!), I liked the spectacular battle interspersed with flashbacks, and the ending just as much. All in all, in my opinion, Andrew Stanton's first feature film fared much better than his colleague Bird, whose Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol was very disappointing. (15/11/2012)