Upon seeing the first promotional materials for Disney’s John Carter
almost nine months ago, and with each trailer, TV spot or web clip of
the flick I’ve seen since, the first phrase to cross my mind each time
has been “Dear Lord, I hope it does not suck…” Let’s face it – a story
that was written a hundred years ago? If it held any appeal at all,
then SURELY it would’ve been filmed by somebody at some point, right?
(well, it was filmed by somebody before, a mere three years ago, but
that crap was direct-to-DVD, and had Traci Lords in it, and DID suck,
and was never seriously intended for wide audiences, and… but I
digress…)
Anyway, I’ve been scared for this film’s fate
since I first heard about it going into production more than two years
ago. Most sci-fi/fantasy nerds (such as myself) have read the John
Carter books, and given my affection for them, I wanted the movie-going
public to share my fondness for these stories. However, knowing casual
movie audiences as I do, I knew it would take skilled filmmakers and
skilled marketing to get Joe Moviegoer to give this movie a chance.
C’mon, you can hear the questions, can’t you? A Civil War veteran
magically transported to Mars? There’s breathable air on Mars? Mars
has people on it? Some of those people have four arms? What the heck
is a “Thark?” Swordplay? Loincloths? Giant blind apes? Yeah, surely
the same audiences who long for the next Will Ferrell masterpiece or
post-pubescent vampire sexual fantasy will beat down the doors to see
this… Of course, Disney didn’t help themselves one bit with their awful
marketing of this movie. Andrew Stanton’s resume was never used as a
selling point, and why not??? Surely mentioning Finding Nemo and Wall-E
could only have helped a potential audience gain some sort of affinity
for the director’s newest work. Not once did any of the advertising
play up the fish-out-of-water theme of the movie (which is a shame, as
Carter’s initial disorientation with Mars’ lesser gravity is one of the
movie’s funnier moments), instead focusing on making it seem a pure
action movie. Their abysmal failure with last year’s multi-million
dollar boondoggle Mars Needs Moms was almost
certainly the driving factor in dropping the “…of Mars” moniker from
this movie’s title (although Stanton himself denies this), leaving
potential audience members who are most likely unfamiliar with the
source material to wonder just what the heck a flick titled John Carter would be about.
Oh, sorry - all that being said, I suppose I really should talk about the movie a bit – John Carter
is a not-entirely-literal adaptation of “A Princess of Mars,” the very
first published work of author Edgar Rice Burroughs, better known as the
creator/author of “Tarzan.” The title character is a Civil War veteran
(played by Taylor Kitsch, of TV’s “Friday Night Lights”) who is
searching for gold in New Mexico territory and upon stumbling into a
cave, is mysteriously transported to a strange land where he finds
himself to have superhuman strength. This world, called “Barsoom” by
the natives, but known to us as Mars, is inhabited by strange peoples
and beasts with even stranger names and titles, yet he becomes involved
in their politics and wars, falls in love with a native princess and
helps to save their world from the evil machinations of a god-like
race. Pretty simple stuff, for sure, but it’s pure classic pulp-fiction
fun. For Pete’s sake, who DOESN’T love a rousing yarn about reluctant
heroes and princesses in danger and shady evil-doers and magic and
swordfights and…?
The stories were first published in
1912, and numerous filmmakers have tried to get them to the screen in
some form or another for the next hundred years, but it took $250
million of Disney’s money to finally get it done. It’s the first
live-action film from director Andrew Stanton, who, as mentioned above,
brought us two of Pixar’s most beloved films and was involved in the
creation of all three Toy Story films as well.
One could argue this is also an “animated” film, as there’s so much CGI
involved that one wonders how anyone other than an animator could have
brought such an other-worldly vision to the screen. This movie passes
the first test ANY movie must pass – it’s nice to look at. Movies are a
first and foremost a visual experience, and before anything else, they
must be (in SOME sense) pleasant to see. The costumes are fantastic,
the locations and sets are incredibly detailed, the photography is
first-rate and the CGI is so wonderfully done as to be almost
indistinguishable from “reality,” so Stanton must be praised for that
much.
Did I find fault with it? Well, I admit to finding myself comparing John Carter
to the source material as I was watching it and feeling another tinge
of fear as I heard Martian (Barsoomian?) names and other information
being hurled at the audience with such rapid-fire dialogue that I
worried those unfamiliar with the books would miss important
information, but my movie-going companion that evening had never read
the books, and she assured me that she never felt left behind, so
perhaps that fear is unfounded (or she’s a frickin’ genius, which is
entirely possible).
For those of us who ARE familiar
with the books, however, we don’t have much reason to be disappointed.
Are the characters a bit one-dimensional? Yes, but I don’t mind that in
this sort of material. Edgar Rice Burroughs was fantastic at what he
did, and Ernest Hemmingway was fantastic at what he did, but they didn’t
do the same thing, after all. Burroughs, who inserted himself as a
character in his Barsoom stories, is probably the character with whom we
would most identify, despite his relatively minor involvement. Stanton
makes sure that we see young Burroughs’ amazement as he learns just how
factual those bedtime stories his “Uncle Jack” told him actually were,
but while the rest of the cast of characters aren’t very relatable, I
don’t feel that they’re meant to be. This ain’t “Macbeth” – it’s
Saturday morning cartoons, and it works splendidly on that level.
In the end, I enjoyed John Carter.
I’d have enjoyed it more if Disney had marketed the movie better and
not caused me such angst in the year leading up to my finally seeing it,
but I suppose one could argue that this is my problem, and not
Disney’s. That said, the fears I feel from their lousy marketing job
continues, as the resulting negative press (and resulting lack of box
office) may prevent Stanton from being allowed to produce the next two
chapters in the Barsoom saga that he has planned, and that’s a dang
shame, given how well he pulled off this one.
Anyway, I’ve been scared for this film’s fate
since I first heard about it going into production more than two years
ago. Most sci-fi/fantasy nerds (such as myself) have read the John
Carter books, and given my affection for them, I wanted the movie-going
public to share my fondness for these stories. However, knowing casual
movie audiences as I do, I knew it would take skilled filmmakers and
skilled marketing to get Joe Moviegoer to give this movie a chance.
C’mon, you can hear the questions, can’t you? A Civil War veteran
magically transported to Mars? There’s breathable air on Mars? Mars
has people on it? Some of those people have four arms? What the heck
is a “Thark?” Swordplay? Loincloths? Giant blind apes? Yeah, surely
the same audiences who long for the next Will Ferrell masterpiece or
post-pubescent vampire sexual fantasy will beat down the doors to see
this… Of course, Disney didn’t help themselves one bit with their awful
marketing of this movie. Andrew Stanton’s resume was never used as a
selling point, and why not??? Surely mentioning Finding Nemo and Wall-E
could only have helped a potential audience gain some sort of affinity
for the director’s newest work. Not once did any of the advertising
play up the fish-out-of-water theme of the movie (which is a shame, as
Carter’s initial disorientation with Mars’ lesser gravity is one of the
movie’s funnier moments), instead focusing on making it seem a pure
action movie. Their abysmal failure with last year’s multi-million
dollar boondoggle Mars Needs Moms was almost
certainly the driving factor in dropping the “…of Mars” moniker from
this movie’s title (although Stanton himself denies this), leaving
potential audience members who are most likely unfamiliar with the
source material to wonder just what the heck a flick titled John Carter would be about.
The stories were first published in
1912, and numerous filmmakers have tried to get them to the screen in
some form or another for the next hundred years, but it took $250
million of Disney’s money to finally get it done. It’s the first
live-action film from director Andrew Stanton, who, as mentioned above,
brought us two of Pixar’s most beloved films and was involved in the
creation of all three Toy Story films as well.
One could argue this is also an “animated” film, as there’s so much CGI
involved that one wonders how anyone other than an animator could have
brought such an other-worldly vision to the screen. This movie passes
the first test ANY movie must pass – it’s nice to look at. Movies are a
first and foremost a visual experience, and before anything else, they
must be (in SOME sense) pleasant to see. The costumes are fantastic,
the locations and sets are incredibly detailed, the photography is
first-rate and the CGI is so wonderfully done as to be almost
indistinguishable from “reality,” so Stanton must be praised for that
much.
Did I find fault with it? Well, I admit to finding myself comparing John Carter
to the source material as I was watching it and feeling another tinge
of fear as I heard Martian (Barsoomian?) names and other information
being hurled at the audience with such rapid-fire dialogue that I
worried those unfamiliar with the books would miss important
information, but my movie-going companion that evening had never read
the books, and she assured me that she never felt left behind, so
perhaps that fear is unfounded (or she’s a frickin’ genius, which is
entirely possible).
For those of us who ARE familiar
with the books, however, we don’t have much reason to be disappointed.
Are the characters a bit one-dimensional? Yes, but I don’t mind that in
this sort of material. Edgar Rice Burroughs was fantastic at what he
did, and Ernest Hemmingway was fantastic at what he did, but they didn’t
do the same thing, after all. Burroughs, who inserted himself as a
character in his Barsoom stories, is probably the character with whom we
would most identify, despite his relatively minor involvement. Stanton
makes sure that we see young Burroughs’ amazement as he learns just how
factual those bedtime stories his “Uncle Jack” told him actually were,
but while the rest of the cast of characters aren’t very relatable, I
don’t feel that they’re meant to be. This ain’t “Macbeth” – it’s
Saturday morning cartoons, and it works splendidly on that level.
In the end, I enjoyed John Carter.
I’d have enjoyed it more if Disney had marketed the movie better and
not caused me such angst in the year leading up to my finally seeing it,
but I suppose one could argue that this is my problem, and not
Disney’s. That said, the fears I feel from their lousy marketing job
continues, as the resulting negative press (and resulting lack of box
office) may prevent Stanton from being allowed to produce the next two
chapters in the Barsoom saga that he has planned, and that’s a dang
shame, given how well he pulled off this one.
No comments:
Post a Comment