By now, many of you have probably seen the reviews, mostly negative, because Carter has been cursed with a schadenfreude vibe from the SCLM long before its release. I think they’ve been missing the point unlike this writer (not me). Who gives a crap how much money was spent making this or how John Favreau bailed as the director. Is this any good? Seems rather secondary or tertiary in the reviews/stories.
As for me, I feel they nailed it for a 21st Century audience which is rampant with some major obstacles.
- The source material: Burroughs’ writing is clunky and tinged with White Male Supremacy. Also, why are the heroes/anti-heroes in the 1880s never Civil War vets from the Union side?
- Audiences already saw this movie a few years ago, it’s called Avatar. Back in the Eighties I remember calling it Dune.
- Most people have a hard time suspending their disbelief regarding any life on Mars thanks to 50 years of probes, David Bowie’s semi-retirement and the uber-boring Red Planet starring chief dullard Val Kilmer.
Any money spent on it in 3-D is a waste. There wasn’t one moment when my brain, eyes and stomach disconnected over the airships or vast Martian canyons, as they do in simulators; ask Somara how much I panic in Vegas at Star Trek the Experience.
The plot? No need to ask, trailers have it covered despite the truncated title which I think won’t attract more women, it will just fool Michael Caine fans hoping it’s a sequel to the great Seventies action flick Get Carter.
Other than griping about the 3-D being underwhelming and making cheap jokes I couldn’t resist (see above), I do endorse John Carter with the addition of taking it in at the Alamo. Somara knows I generally hate Event Movies (what I call them, others call them Popcorn Movies; Hollywood-speak for crappy), especially when they’re derived from mediocre novels or uninteresting franchises. Yet I end up seeing probably around a third of them, I never learn. However, I wasn’t bored nor disappointed like a certain May evening in 1999.