I went to see “John Carter,” figuring that after my disdainful consideration of how Disney handled marketing the movie, I ought to actually go see it for myself. I’ve not read the book upon which the film was based, but now I wish to, and especially to continue the series. I want to find out what happens; the film concluded on a perfect open-ended note, leaving viewers hanging but in that good, can’t-wait-to-find-out-what-happens-next way. Only now that Disney has to swallow $20 million over “John Carter,” I doubt that any more will be made.
And that’s a shame, because “John Carter” was a really good movie. It wasn’t perfect, but few things are. One of the complaints I had about the movie’s marketing is that the trailers didn’t really show what the film was about. We were just subjected to endless shots of action scenes and shirtless John Carter.
“John Carter” had plenty of action, but it had humor, mystery, adventure, and a hint of romance as well. Disney marketed it like a mindless special effects picture – movies of the type that don’t interest me. I need substance behind my spectacle. “John Carter” had plenty of that.
The titular character is a Civil War veteran. Yes, you read that right. John Carter survived the war but his wife and young daughter did not. Now he roams the West looking to make his wealth in gold – presumably just so he has enough money to make people leave him alone. He finds a piece of gold in a cave, one with literal alien markings. Soon he encounters more than just alien markings, and he’s transported in an instant to a Mars on the brink of destruction thanks to a centuries-old civil war.
In a Superman-like twist (though Burroughs, ahead of his time, penned the idea in 1917) Carter’s Earthly biochemistry reacts with Mars’ gravity in a way that grants him super strength and the ability to, well, leap tall buildings in a single bound. One of the great things about “John Carter” is the life that’s brought to the people of Mars. I loved the diversity of races; two separate human-like nations locked in war, and a third green humanoid Spartan-style martial race that watches the proceedings with interest but no involvement, beyond winning or losing the bets they place on the victors of each battle.
Perhaps one of the film’s greatest strengths is Dejah Thoris, the Princess of Mars whose draw was not considered strong enough to keep the movie titled after her. Thoris is a brilliant scientist and a capable warrior, a woman who’s determined to wrest control of her own destiny.
At times she’s almost in danger of becoming a stereotypical “strong female character,” one whose complete perfections make her unrealistic and thus not much better than her princess-in-a-tower counterpoints. But Thoris is flawed; her fear often leads her to make the wrong decisions, including ones where she selfishly places herself above her people (a mistake she works to correct in the film).
The film also had a troubling plot point involving the whole “white man arrives to save a different race and even manages to get other races to rally around him” trope, one that really needs to be tossed in the garbage. The book may have been originally published in the 1900s, but according to my brother the film changed enough, so there is no reason they couldn’t have changed that part as well.
After seeing and greatly enjoying the film I’m even more upset at Disney for handling the marketing of “John Carter” so poorly. It deserved better, and now I’m upset I won’t get to see the sequel.
Related Articles:
Stand Up for Yourself Already, Cinderella
Glen Keane Leaving Disney Animation
Disney Family Movies on Demand
Where Might “Once Upon A Time” Be Headed?
Epic Mickey: Fun, But Not “Epic”