John Carter
Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures | Release Date: March 9, 2012
7.0
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 625 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
392
Mixed:
164
Negative:
69
Watch Now
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
6
HalfwelshmanSep 3, 2012
Disney's John Carter seemly doesn't have many original ideas, but what you've got to remember is that the source material the film is based on pre-dates all the movies this film appears to be referencing - it's a bit of a paradox really. YouDisney's John Carter seemly doesn't have many original ideas, but what you've got to remember is that the source material the film is based on pre-dates all the movies this film appears to be referencing - it's a bit of a paradox really. You feel like you've seen it all before, but everything is executed extremely well. Visually, John Carter is superb, with some of the best sci-fi action since the Star Wars prequels. Taylor Kitsch's star is on the rise, but perhaps he isn't the best actor to lead a film, as excepting one notable scene that makes very effective use of juxtaposition, he is rarely able to demonstrate much emotional depth to the titular Carter, but he can certainly handle the physical demands of the role. Lynn Collins manages to emotionally ground the whole film and Mark Strong makes another effectively creepy villain. Unfortunately the usually brilliant Ciaran Hinds and James Purefoy play pretty much exactly the same characters they did in HBO's Rome, and Dominic West's performance is pedestrian at best. The film makes use of some hugely convenient plot devices to avoid slowing the story, the script is so-so, and many of the key characters' motivations remain annoyingly unclear throughout. I'm also yet to decide whether the framing device for the main story on Mars works or not - is it clever and unusual, or just tonally misjudged? You end John Carter with a feeling that you've only just scratched the surface of this rich world, and I sincerely hope that the film makes enough money to justify a second installment, as a great sequel has been set up, a sequel which wouldn't require anywhere near as much clunky exposition, and in which we might be allowed to finally learn what on Earth (or Mars) Mark Strong's villain is trying to achieve.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
SirLouenMar 31, 2012
A little bit slow at the beginning it starts a good pace at the middle end of the film. As many people say, when you go to see some films, you enter with some expectations, and for me this was suposed to be a super-action adventure non-stopA little bit slow at the beginning it starts a good pace at the middle end of the film. As many people say, when you go to see some films, you enter with some expectations, and for me this was suposed to be a super-action adventure non-stop film, but despite the fact it was a pretty average film I wouldn't recommend watching it it beyond a BR/DVD release.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
mrmonsterJul 21, 2012
John Carter had some nice battle scenes and a good plot, but throughout the movie, you just felt like something was missing. Don't get me wrong, I liked it, but i just didn't think it was as good as i expected. But if you are at a Red-boxJohn Carter had some nice battle scenes and a good plot, but throughout the movie, you just felt like something was missing. Don't get me wrong, I liked it, but i just didn't think it was as good as i expected. But if you are at a Red-box machine on a boring Friday afternoon and you need something to watch, I would most definitely recommend John Carter. By the way, I heard that the sequels that were planned got cancelled. How unfortunate.… Expand
1 of 1 users found this helpful10
All this user's reviews
6
grandpajoe6191Aug 1, 2012
"John Carter" is pretty much your average enjoy-action summer blockbuster where only striking visuals and big-scope fight scenes matter.
5 of 7 users found this helpful52
All this user's reviews
6
AquophisMar 29, 2012
The critics are right. It is disjointed and wildly incoherent. But it is based on the most influential work of science fiction E-V-E-R. Seriously, "Avatar" and "Star Wars" would NOT exist without the book "The Princess of Mars" by Edgar RiceThe critics are right. It is disjointed and wildly incoherent. But it is based on the most influential work of science fiction E-V-E-R. Seriously, "Avatar" and "Star Wars" would NOT exist without the book "The Princess of Mars" by Edgar Rice Burroughs.That being said, perhaps you need to be of a certain age to fully appreciate this film. I am not of that age. However, I really did like the stylistic melding of Renaissance-fair-sword-and-sorcery, and laser-beams-science-fiction.… Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
4
sanyrubJan 25, 2015
Weird film. I do not even know how to rate it. Visually it is very good at some points, it has entertaining moments, and the lead actor has some charisma and looks hot. But overall it ends being like a mix of many other different films withWeird film. I do not even know how to rate it. Visually it is very good at some points, it has entertaining moments, and the lead actor has some charisma and looks hot. But overall it ends being like a mix of many other different films with very little consistency or continuity. It will not be a problem if you skip it. Maybe for your kids. The ending was a nice touch.… Expand
2 of 3 users found this helpful21
All this user's reviews
4
Friskytiger81May 29, 2012
What the film makes up with interesting plotting, it fails in creating something new, exciting or different. Subpar alien people, mediocre visual effects, and some bad dialog characterize a film in which Disney put all its eggs ($250 million)What the film makes up with interesting plotting, it fails in creating something new, exciting or different. Subpar alien people, mediocre visual effects, and some bad dialog characterize a film in which Disney put all its eggs ($250 million) in one basket. Too bad they were rotten eggs. Feels like a cross between National Treasure and Avatar, not a great combination.… Expand
1 of 3 users found this helpful12
All this user's reviews
5
siempreMar 17, 2012
John Carter is a difficult review. I was entertained at times but frustrated throughout by the simply awful 3-D effects. If you have any 3-d sensitivity, you will be sick at this movie. As to the content, the movie is part action, partJohn Carter is a difficult review. I was entertained at times but frustrated throughout by the simply awful 3-D effects. If you have any 3-d sensitivity, you will be sick at this movie. As to the content, the movie is part action, part children movie, and part graphic violence movie. The movie overall looks like what it is- a product of a director who had never made a live action movie and was learning on the job- while spending $200 million of Disney's money and dooming the John Carter franchise. Perhaps it would be better in 2-d on the television from Redbox?… Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
5
200MillionsApr 4, 2012
To say "John Carter" is an "Avatar" or a "Star Wars" ripoff is simply an ignorant, and a mindless statement. The 100 year old, hard-sell story's success was a questionable bet which the director of the fantastic "Finding Nemo" was hoping toTo say "John Carter" is an "Avatar" or a "Star Wars" ripoff is simply an ignorant, and a mindless statement. The 100 year old, hard-sell story's success was a questionable bet which the director of the fantastic "Finding Nemo" was hoping to produce.

However, the film itself was quite a bore. There was too much romance story involved that the entire rhythm of the film was out of control. The effects however, was unquestionably impressive. Although a few of the scenes were not visually stunning. Still I was amazed how the film has its individual stand.… Expand
1 of 4 users found this helpful13
All this user's reviews
5
skyleeMar 20, 2012
Seriously the movie get only five, i think the 3D is just a joke. This movie is really boring, i didn't read the book, but the movie have a lot of inconsistency.
2 of 9 users found this helpful27
All this user's reviews
5
racketracerMar 9, 2012
Imagine a mash up of Prince of Persia and Avatar: except not as good as the latter by far. John Carter is a blend of amazing visuals and great CGI characters to then fall short on plot and character development. A guilty pleasure kind ofImagine a mash up of Prince of Persia and Avatar: except not as good as the latter by far. John Carter is a blend of amazing visuals and great CGI characters to then fall short on plot and character development. A guilty pleasure kind of movie that was similar to Avatar's plot, John Carter focuses on the main character who gets thrust in a different world only to end up helping fight for the princess who he falls in love with. Take the time and energy that James Cameron took to develop that relationship in Avatar and don't expect it here. Disney's fast paced sequence is much like Prince of Persia with little creativity added in the script to make an entertaining movie with nice action sequences, just not enough of a story in between. While it didn't happen to be the amazing blockbuster that if could have been, if you are to see this movie anyway, go ahead and watch it in theaters. The 3D and mars visual effects will make the movie worth the two hours.… Expand
5 of 24 users found this helpful519
All this user's reviews
4
JamesStealMar 12, 2012
A dull Prince of Persia/Avatar clone. The only thing that could have saved this movie was if David Lynch wrote the script and Takashi Miike directed it, now that would be a messed up movie I'd actually want to see.
2 of 12 users found this helpful210
All this user's reviews
5
BikerjamesMar 21, 2012
John Carter tries so hard. Part Star Wars, Dark City, Avatar, Prince of Persia and Incredible Hulk (the jumping around) and others, it never feels original. Every attempt at humor in the film fell flat and you could hear crickets in theJohn Carter tries so hard. Part Star Wars, Dark City, Avatar, Prince of Persia and Incredible Hulk (the jumping around) and others, it never feels original. Every attempt at humor in the film fell flat and you could hear crickets in the theater when there was supposed to be laughter. The acting was sub par, and the dialog was at times laughable. They spent a fortune creating all the aliens, who all look alike. They had to make the bad guy have a broken tusk or we would never know who was who. I saw it in 3D IMAX. The 3D was good, not great. There were some good special effects interspersed throughout, but in the end I simply didn't care enough about the characters and didn't feel the chemistry between the two leads. I was bored at times and looked at my watch, never a good sign. This is not a terrible movie, but not quite good enough to recommend.… Expand
0 of 4 users found this helpful04
All this user's reviews
5
singingbatmanApr 9, 2012
I went into this movie with an open mind, having never read the books I wasnt sure what to expect. I have to say I agree with the general consensus that this is just an average movie, kind of a nice starter before the summer movie season butI went into this movie with an open mind, having never read the books I wasnt sure what to expect. I have to say I agree with the general consensus that this is just an average movie, kind of a nice starter before the summer movie season but not something I would see again. The action was ok but I never really bought into the whole romance and towards the middle i found myself glancing at my watch. If your bored on a Sun afternoon and its still showing go see it especially if its cheap....still much better than the Hunger Games which I thought was terrible… Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
6
evanrmMar 24, 2012
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. To the reviewer who claimed this film "evokes pretty much every sci-fi classic from the past 50 years" and so on: John Carter was written in 1912. That's right: 1912. It predates "every sci-fi classic from the past 50 years", you complete tool.


No, John Carter is not a great film. It's pretty shallow. It lacks heart, and Taylor Kitsch has only one facial expression. The problem is that it's all largely too easy for the titular character, but I assume that's most likely a reflection of the source text. The lead character bounces around Mars without really much consideration for the fact he's on another planet. That's a failure of the director, and he hasn't injected any breathless wonder at being lost and far from home (in a spectacular setting).


The CGI is great, as you'd expect these days, and the story passable. The plot is a little vague and weak as to the purposes of the bad guys, but it's good enough. The female lead is suitably hot, and does a good job. The ending left me wanting the lead to return to Barsoom after possibly losing everything, and rooting for the main character is a reasonable sign of a decent film.


It's clean, reasonably wholesome entertainment that the kiddies should enjoy, and the adults won't mind either. I don't know if it's been successful enough to spawn a sequel (although it hasn't done badly, despite the critics), but with another sodden Twilight teen angst-fest on the horizon, and the blandness-cum-pointlessness of The Hunger Games, it was something different and therefore refreshing.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
avatar16Mar 11, 2012
A ne pas descendre John Carter pour son manque d'originalité, le film étant l'adaptation d'un livre (datant de 1911) qui lui même inspira bon nombres d'auteurs et réalisateursA ne pas descendre John Carter pour son manque d'originalité, le film étant l'adaptation d'un livre (datant de 1911) qui lui même inspira bon nombres d'auteurs et réalisateurs célèbres, tel George Lucas. Par contre, on ne peut pas laisser passer le côté "gnangnan" du film. La faute au fait que ce long-métrage est une production Disney, obligeant ce spectacle d'être accessible aux plus jeunes avec des dialogues insipides, un humour qui ne fera rire qu'eux, une musique qui en fait trop question émotions... Bref, le film Disney par "excellence", le studio gâchant ainsi un spectacle qui aurait bien pu rivaliser sans problème avec Star Wars. Car, en effet, on ne peut rester de marbre face à cet incroyable univers visuel qui nous est proposé (effets spéciaux, costumes, décors, bestiaire...). En bref, John Carter se présente comme Tron, l'Héritage : soit vous accrochez à l'univers est le film vous emballe, soit vous n'accrochez pas et ce divertissement ne sera qu'un spectacle à gros budget de plus.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
AD421Apr 3, 2012
John Carter was pretty terrible. Everything felt completely out of place. The characters were drab and uneventful. The plot was cliche and boring. Good attempt but horrible product.
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
dharmaJun 8, 2012
Yeah..it flopped. The reason for it was bad marketing they say. But let's face it, while a lot of films were inspired by this story, including AVATAR, John Carter felt derivative. While Andrew Stanton is a good director, the whole film feltYeah..it flopped. The reason for it was bad marketing they say. But let's face it, while a lot of films were inspired by this story, including AVATAR, John Carter felt derivative. While Andrew Stanton is a good director, the whole film felt like any other Disney 'blockbuster wannabe' in recent years that includes TRON LEGACY. Expensive but somehow missing that extra spark that makes a film a must see event.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
LandFApr 19, 2012
Andrew Stanton has directed two amazing movies; Finding Nemo, and Wall-E. These pictures are both masterpieces, and favorites of mine. Now, Andrew Stanton directs his first live-action movie, John Carter. John Carter is based off of anAndrew Stanton has directed two amazing movies; Finding Nemo, and Wall-E. These pictures are both masterpieces, and favorites of mine. Now, Andrew Stanton directs his first live-action movie, John Carter. John Carter is based off of an older-novel, that inspired Star Wars, Avatar, and others. We owe a lot to John Carter, but this movie adaption certainly doesn't pay any debt. John Carter is, simply put, a cheesy, melodramatic, overlong, cliched, unfunny, predictable, non-thrilling "adventure." Some aspects of the film seemed promising, but crashed and burned. There was potential here, but in the end, it all burns out. The beginning does a decent job of making us wonder what's going to happen, what did happen, etc. In fact, the beginning was pretty entertaining, albeit predictable. But after John Carter gets to Mars, the whole story drags. However, there's a lot of incredible visuals on Mars, and though that doesn't make up for stale characters and confusing plot, it helps a little. The CGI is incredible. Amazing. Absolutely gorgeous. If John Carter has one strength, it's the visual effects. Also, the score by Michael Giacchino is another winner. Giacchino never disappoints. Unfortunately, the more important aspects of the movie, like the plot and characters, are less polished. The plot (in addition to John Carter) focuses on the princess of Mars, who wants to avoid marrying a villainous man, but feels she must do it to save her people. Sound familiar? Almost any Disney Princess movie has the same or similar plot. Also, the characters have no personality. Aside from John Carter and limited other characters, there is no one with a true personality. And even those who have one are usually generic types. The action scenes are bland and predictable. The CGI and musical score make up for the awfulness, but a movie can't run on looks and sound alone. Also, there was a lot of potentially good space ship scenes that never truly happen. HOWEVER, the last 10 minutes are amazing. There's an incredible twist, and that was easily my favorite part. Andrew Stanton is a force to be reckoned with, but John Carter makes me rethink that. You saw my list earlier, the film is long, cheesy, predictable, cliched, none of the jokes are funny, etc. Aside from some visual thrills, the score, and a wonderful ending, John Carter fails. I feel like if some of the violence and revealing garments were cut out, this movie could've been PG, as opposed to PG-13, which would allow it to become a family or kid's movie. This would've worked much better, because the movie is too silly to work as an adult/teen movie. There will be at least one sequel to John Carter, but don't expect me to tell you how it is: I'm avoiding John Carter for life, and it's probably best if you did too. Edit: Due to disappointing box office performance, there will not be a sequel after all.… Expand
0 of 3 users found this helpful03
All this user's reviews
5
quincytheodoreMar 18, 2012
With a name worthy of being a USA president, John Carter goes for an adventure in Mars instead, although there's no oil there. It appears Mars, or Barsoom as they call it, is not as inhospitable as we thought. It's a planet populated byWith a name worthy of being a USA president, John Carter goes for an adventure in Mars instead, although there's no oil there. It appears Mars, or Barsoom as they call it, is not as inhospitable as we thought. It's a planet populated by overly-tanned fitness models and a hybrid species between Goro from Mortal Kombat and Jar-Jar from Star Wars. Just as any fantasy adventure plot demands, there's bound to be a vagabond protagonist and a princess in distress whose fates are entwined together. But wait, John Carter doesn't only have one, but two princesses in distress, one being alien chieftain's daughter and not romance-able.



Usually I don't put much spoiler, but you can obviously see that it's not Earth, so screw it. John Carter is a mediocre intergalactic adventure, it has few appeals but the pacing is uneven and characters are not fully realized. It actually opens up in a rather interesting fashion, fast paced and quite funny. The difference between Earth and Mars is visually adequate as each style transforms smoothly. However it comes to a slow sludge about one third of the movie in an attempt to establish barely existing chemistry between John and the princess, then it's pushed rushingly in latter half, practically shortening any dramatic battles in progress.

Taylor Kitsch as John Carter (Gambit in X-Men Origins : Wolverine) does a decent job on his role as John Carter. He holds the main spot quite well, but not as aspiring as a redeemed cavalry officer turned Mars adventurer might be. Lynn Collins as the princess, Dejah Thoris is physically notable, if they want some Amazons leading female, she's there. Unfortunately her acting is subpar, her first monologue is ironically about how she sucks at monologue. Her delivery is rigid and forced like a commercial of some sort, doesn't exactly invoke a strong leader character.

As you might expect from countless other adventure movies, in a twist of fate, John saved her and it's like love at first life threatening situation. Of course, for 30 minutes she put up her tsundere shield, but ultimately madly swooned by John's charm and the fact that he air-walks like nobody's business. It's all very familiar, in fact it's near replica of Dastan and the princess of Prince of Persia, but those were better cast. The similarity doesn't end there, John Carter also use wallet shattering budget of $250 million, even more expensive than Princeâ… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
CmhBuckMar 12, 2012
"Aside from a few inspired vistas and alien life-forms, John Carter is as deadly dull as its basso-voiced, beefcake slab of a star, Taylor Kitsch." - Keith Uhlich nailed the review.
0 of 7 users found this helpful07
All this user's reviews
6
EludiumQ36Jul 5, 2012
John Carter of Mars runs hot and cold. The martian CG was pretty decent but the leads weren't up to the task and the story dragged on at times, needed some more editing. The high-jumping thing that Carter does isn't very realistic either,John Carter of Mars runs hot and cold. The martian CG was pretty decent but the leads weren't up to the task and the story dragged on at times, needed some more editing. The high-jumping thing that Carter does isn't very realistic either, especially his landings, so that detracts too. However the final 20-mins of the film recover nicely and provide for a decent overall experience, mildly recommended.… Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
5
RipuDamanMar 13, 2012
The plot was nice but i think Andrew Stanton tried too hard to make the movies click but it didn't all in all i didn't enjoyed that movies that much & i was hoping the movie should be great its the least that you expect from a movie DirectedThe plot was nice but i think Andrew Stanton tried too hard to make the movies click but it didn't all in all i didn't enjoyed that movies that much & i was hoping the movie should be great its the least that you expect from a movie Directed by Andrew Stanton. Also in my point of view Taylor Kitsch did fit the role… Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
6
bobnMar 14, 2012
To see a diffferent view of John Carter and a detailed discussion of the actors and acting visit http://bobneilson.org/2012/03/14/john-carter-stillborn-franchise/
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
5
GoonCommandoMar 14, 2012
Interesting sci-fi concept but I feel they stretched out parts that were boring and shortened the parts where you expected action. The love story part feels tacked on and not well placed throughout the story. I'm betting a part two will comeInteresting sci-fi concept but I feel they stretched out parts that were boring and shortened the parts where you expected action. The love story part feels tacked on and not well placed throughout the story. I'm betting a part two will come up, and I hope they improve the story just a bit. Also for note I saw it in 2d.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
6
zacthecreatorMar 16, 2012
I went in on a 5$ Tuesday in my cites Century Theaters hoping wanting to see the biggest adventure blockbuster thus far this year. And Ieft quite satisfied I felt a Star Wars-ish vibe and enjoyed it. I saw some flaws that could've been simplyI went in on a 5$ Tuesday in my cites Century Theaters hoping wanting to see the biggest adventure blockbuster thus far this year. And Ieft quite satisfied I felt a Star Wars-ish vibe and enjoyed it. I saw some flaws that could've been simply fixed and saw things that probably used up the budget that could've been without and replaced with stronger storytelling. Overall I agree with some critics but am very disappointed of how terrible its currently doing in theaters because when the movie came to a close I was hoping for a sequel.… Expand
0 of 1 users found this helpful01
All this user's reviews
4
AutiTakahashiApr 13, 2012
Once upon a time, the folks at Disney wanted to make a movie that combines the qualities of Westerns, War Epics, and Science Fiction. 250 million dollars later, and we are introduced to the vast and zealous vision of â
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
4
lahaine2012May 24, 2012
Based on a book series considered to be the father of modern day space operas (from Star Trek, to Star Wars, to Avatar), John Carter had a lot to live up to. Unfortunately, and ironically, it was vastly inferior to the very films that itBased on a book series considered to be the father of modern day space operas (from Star Trek, to Star Wars, to Avatar), John Carter had a lot to live up to. Unfortunately, and ironically, it was vastly inferior to the very films that it inspired. With a story this traditional and recycled, it was important that filmmakers made extra efforts to give the movie a voice of its own, they however failed to do so. Everything on the screen has been done before, and better. Coupled with cheesy visual effects (especially considering the size of its budget) and clumsy direction, the film had very little to offer. Some of the action sequences (particularly the white ape scene) and it's pulpy qualities were fun and the characters were very easy to root for, but in the end the film misses, bringing its epic premise down to mediocrity.… Expand
0 of 2 users found this helpful02
All this user's reviews
6
Andys_ReviewsMar 2, 2013
I think much of the negative press this film got was because of the enormous amount of money it cost to make. And yes, I can see it has extremely high production values with many exciting battle/chase/fight scenes all using very high qualityI think much of the negative press this film got was because of the enormous amount of money it cost to make. And yes, I can see it has extremely high production values with many exciting battle/chase/fight scenes all using very high quality CGI. I admit I have never read the Edgar Rice Burroughs ‘John Carter of Mars’ books but I’m sure those that have will have got a lot more out of this film than me. It’s an exciting adventure that (I’m afraid) has a storyline that doesn’t quite hold up today. Yes, it’s visually quite stunning in places with some very exciting action sequences along the way but the plot is a tad too over-complicated, particularly for a younger audience, and the main premise that Carter can jump is, quite frankly, very weak. So, does it deserve the vitriolic reception it received? I have to say no; it is a better film than many have made out. Was it worth spending that amount of money on making it? Again, no; although it’s not as bad a film as many have said; I still find it hard to justify the amount of money spent on it. Would I watch it again? Probably not; but I’m glad I did see it the one time.

SteelMonster’s verdict: RECOMMENDED (just watch it once)

My score: 5.8/10… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
asthobaskoroApr 8, 2012
I think I agree with Rotten Tomatoes' verdict, it's ridiculous fun. "While John Carter looks terrific and delivers its share of pulpy thrills, it also suffers from uneven pacing and occasionally incomprehensible plotting and characterization."
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
SinisterVortexSep 23, 2012
John Carter is a very imaginative yet B rate movie that calls itself science fiction. Though the special effects are wonderful, the characters are all one-sided, the plot is very simple and predictable, and it blatantly ignores manyJohn Carter is a very imaginative yet B rate movie that calls itself science fiction. Though the special effects are wonderful, the characters are all one-sided, the plot is very simple and predictable, and it blatantly ignores many scientific facts that even an elementary school student should know. However, the movie can be very creative at times, with dazzling scenery and intricate landscapes, as well as creatures. I get the impression that this would be what Mars would be like if it actually did have an atmosphere.

But now we get to the really big HOWEVERS. Good graphics and special effects the movie might have. HOWEVER, as mentioned before, the movie's characters are all very simple and do not evolve hardly at all over the course of the movie. The protagonist (John Carter, as if you wouldn't have guessed) is your standard action hero with lots of brawn and lots of bravery but little brain. The princess of the City of Helium (I kid you not, one of the cities is named Helium) is your standard damsel in distress. Though she does participate in some action scenes, she is never shown to be capable of really defending herself, thus forcing upon her the mantle of "one who is good only for being rescued". And the support characters (of which there are a disappointing few) are hardly elaborated on very much, and I didn't feel as though I really knew any of them very well at all by the movie's end.

Meanwhle, the plot is very simple. I won't go into any detail beyond this, since doing so would require me giving out spoilers. However, I will say that there aren't really any twists to the story, least of all during the climax (which especially surprises me). There are some points where it seems like a twist might be about to happen, but then it never really does. It seemed like the writers were always holding back, and even when it came time for them to actually take the plot to a new level, they decided not to for some reason.

And now we reach the largest HOWEVER. The flaws mentioned above are bad. But of all of them, the obvious illiteracy that the writers had regarding scientific concepts is the worst. Because this is a Disney movie, I can forgive a few messups regarding realism, even for a "science fiction" themed movie (it is really complete fantasy, but I digress). HOWEVER, there are certain gaffs in the movie that were so horribly bad that it just made me angry. Perhaps the most obvious example is that, of course, Mars doesn't actually have an atmosphere. The movie tries to dispel this in the very beginning by saying something like "that's what they say, but it's not true". Like hell it isn't!. Movie, are you trying to tell me that in your universe, astronomers for hundreds of years have misinterpreted multitudes of evidence to the contrary? Give viewers a break, they deserve better treatment than this! I could go on about this example, but I don't think I need to. Anyways, the next huge realism gaff is how John Carter can jump to insane heights, with the only explanation being that Mars has lesser gravity than Earth. While this may be true, it is only about 38% the gravity of earth. So that means that Carter should only be able to jump 1/0.38 (about 2.6) times higher on Mars then he can on Earth. Perhaps about 10 or 15 feet, assuming that he's somewhat of an athlete. But a skyscraper's height? Hell no! And what makes this particular gaff even worse is the effect for jumping. Now, to be fair, most of the effects in this movie are great. But the one for Carter's jumping is the one exception. He could not more obviously be on a rope, during the early scenes. And later on, during the battle scenes, it just looks completely ridiculous. Lesser gravity means that you fall slower. It doesn't mean that you increase your height but fall at the same speed. That's just stupid. Now, you're probably thinking: knowing that this is a Disney movie, why am I being so particular about realism? After all, none of the other Disney movies are realistic at all, right? So why get worked up about this one? The reason is actually very simple: it's not because I expected the movie to be realistic (I didn't, of course). It's because it shows how little the producers actually know about science. The stuff they get wrong in this movie is the kind of stuff you learn about in middle and high school (even elementary school, for some cases). And the fact that the producers got this stuff wrong honestly makes me wonder about their IQs. Taking some liberties with realism is okay. But pretending that physics doesn't exist is just careless.

To sum up, John Carter is actually quite fun, very imaginative, but also quite simple (and stupid, in some places), as well as underwhelming as far as the plot is concerned. I give it a D-.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
AkkharJun 3, 2012
John Carter is too boring to enjoy the whole movie . With a bad script , bad dialogues and lifeless acting made the movie too hard to enjoy even with those amazing effects and animations .
Andrew Stanton 's direction was only good when thereJohn Carter is too boring to enjoy the whole movie . With a bad script , bad dialogues and lifeless acting made the movie too hard to enjoy even with those amazing effects and animations .
Andrew Stanton 's direction was only good when there was no human in the scene . He should have stick with animation movies only. Taylor Kitsch have the John Carter look but his acting was the worst of all .Lynn Collins was bad most of the time . Mark Strong should have done a better job but somehow he seemed so dull and boring . Only Willem Dafoe's Voice Acting had the power of good acting. Effect was the best thing and The Animation was super . But the sound effect of the movie was the worst and this is one of the reason the movie is super boring.
Overall John Carter is totally joyless movie with a very good effect .… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
aozetaMar 24, 2012
This one's an adaptation of the Edgar Rice Burroughs' "A Princess from Mars" which was published almost a century ago. While the cast seem to fit their roles, their delivery falls between poor and fair. The costumes may be eye-catching,This one's an adaptation of the Edgar Rice Burroughs' "A Princess from Mars" which was published almost a century ago. While the cast seem to fit their roles, their delivery falls between poor and fair. The costumes may be eye-catching, sometimes you'll get to think whether it was appropriate in a planet farther away from the sun compared to Earth. Anyway, we can not question that much since John Carter is sci-fi. The visual effects, sound, and cinematography are satisfactory. The movie brings a lot of memories from some of the famous movies with the same genre. However, it still deserves a "good one".… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
LordLardAssOct 10, 2012
I'll have to side with the critics on this one: This movie is a failure. It failed, because the people who made it didn't understand the source material. Not the director, not the screen writer, not the creature designer, not the camera man,I'll have to side with the critics on this one: This movie is a failure. It failed, because the people who made it didn't understand the source material. Not the director, not the screen writer, not the creature designer, not the camera man, not the casting director. The movie is based on a 1912 novel that is utter crap in a literary sense, but that WORKS, because it tickles our most primal nerves. The hero in the book kills all the bad guys and saves the Damsel in Distress. That's the full extent of his characterization. The original John Carter is the unstoppable force made flesh. He is the quintessential Alpha Man that faces horrific foes of fangs, claws and tusks with nothing but sinew, muscle and an iron will. And before he even gets to the real action on Mars, he kills a bunch of hapless Native Americans loitering in his way. There's nothing sentimental or apologetic about it, them being raging savages after all, wholly deserving of the white man's lead and steel! That's the sentiment of the original novel anyway. If you for some reason wish to make a movie of such a book, for Christ's sake make it GRITTY! Make it brutal and menacing! Put the camera close to the hero's sweaty and blood-stained muscles! Make it a masterful piece of shameless macho porn dammit! But the creators just didn't get the basic fact: if you sanitize a classic raw macho porn novel to modern sensitivities, and put a brooding metro-sexual underwear model in the lead, nothing of value remains. The novel may be crap, but it has ONE redeeming quality - it reconnects the reader with the powerful untamed animus lurking under his civilized surface. Yes, I said HIS, because such works are for the boys exclusively! Strip all that away, add a little feminist/multicultural/care-bear sensitivity to the mix, and you get "John Carter" the Disney Family Movie. This John Carter doesn't want to fight, he doesn't want to tell good guys from bad, because aren't we all the same, can't we all just get along? He meets Martian Tharks, immense beast-like humanoids, formidable foes with four muscular arms and tusks they use to rip open their victim's belly (in the book), here reduced to confused skinny wimps with weak degenerated limbs and sad/scared looks on their faces. He saves the beautiful and sexy Damsel in Distress (in the book), here reduced to a not all that sexy Xena-like strong-woman who doesn't require saving in the least. When she finally (!) shows some leg, she saps all erotic charge from the moment by lamenting how "vulgar" her dress is, and that it's not in her character to wear such things. Gosh, my repressed inner Alpha Male really wants to come out of hiding and be this woman's Hero. Not. She's the stuff teenage boy's dreams are made of. Not. The overall feeling this movie gives me, is that the creators absolutely fear and loathe the masculine. They despise male strength. It's as if they do everything in their might to emasculate the poor John Carter. It's not just that they sanitize him into respecting Native American Culture, they actively sabotage his machoness. They pick camera angles that make him seem small and insignificant. They turn his helpless damsel into a formidable warrior. They even insert new super-villains to the story! This is perhaps the biggest crime of all. The Mars of the novel is a barbarian world, Mars is the Planet of WAR! The conflict is about the good guys fighting the bad guys, who are just like the good guys, only BAD. But in the movie, a mysterious race of super-villains are added, shape-shifting and teleporting immortal techno-mages with beam weapons that control everything from behind the scenes, both on Mars and on Earth! The book villain is a mere puppet to these scheming godlike beings in the movie. They are as superior to John Carter as a human to an ant. Any sense of satisfaction in the Hero's ultimate victory is hollowed out by the fact it amounts to absolutely NOTHING. The true villains are still in control, and there is NOTHING poor insignificant John Carter can do to even touch them. He can swing a sword at them, and they will only dematerialize and disappear like smoke. His muscles are useless against such a foe. He is not an Alpha Male rising to power on the Planet of War, he is a pathetic loser, a primitive subhuman, a ridiculous anachronistic fossil. Yes, we get the message. The male energy is dangerous, and must be suppressed. Alright. Perhaps it's even for the best. But then, WHY did you feel a need to make a movie about John Carter?… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Odin777Jul 29, 2012
Not a great movie by any means and a few really rough performances. But there is something to be said for the grand scope and the pretty cool effects of the aliens. Would not recommend paying a whole lot for DVD/Blu-ray, but if you can find aNot a great movie by any means and a few really rough performances. But there is something to be said for the grand scope and the pretty cool effects of the aliens. Would not recommend paying a whole lot for DVD/Blu-ray, but if you can find a copy for $5 or so you wouldn't be completely wasting your time. So much potential...but sadly that's all that remains for most of the film.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Bonzai69Mar 20, 2012
I read the entire series of books as a kid and again recently when I heard this movie was being made. Had I not read the books I would have been 95% thrilled with this movie. The special effects were superb the storyline was kind of shaky atI read the entire series of books as a kid and again recently when I heard this movie was being made. Had I not read the books I would have been 95% thrilled with this movie. The special effects were superb the storyline was kind of shaky at times but easy to follow.

Since I had read the books though I was a bit disappointed in how far from them the movie was. Small parts of the first three books were all thrown into one movie. Also certain parts seemed to be made up in order to modernize the movie for today's generation of action fans. Granted the books are older than me or most viewers of the movie. I would have preferred the movie stick closer to the books and see if keeping to traditional versions played out better on screen.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
A_NorthernerMay 27, 2013
Some time has passed since I watched John Carter and I certainly hold no grudges against it. It wasn't the complete write-off I was expecting, although it is certainly not without it's flaws. I think I preferred it to Battleship, although ISome time has passed since I watched John Carter and I certainly hold no grudges against it. It wasn't the complete write-off I was expecting, although it is certainly not without it's flaws. I think I preferred it to Battleship, although I can't think of what I must have done to deserve being forced to choose between either.

There are times during John Carter where you could really be watching either Indiana Jones or Star Wars (Episodes I-III) such is the old fashioned, character-led, gung-ho adventure and sci-fi nature of the film. However, despite it being an adventure film of massive budget, I struggle to recall any action set pieces that took place, with the exception of the picture below, despite knowing that there must have been some. This cannot be a good recollection for an action blockbuster.

I am not familiar with any of Burrough's stories and the screenplay certainly didn't help matters. Although the screenplay doesn't assume any knowledge of the character and the universe he belongs to and I appreciate that the writers are working with the original material, they made a seemingly simple plot far too complicated through the method of delivery. Surprisingly, and the surprise is relative, the script is only slightly clichéd in places and didn't stink to high heaven in the way Battleship's did. I did really like the context of the story being told from a young Burrough's perspective and the twist at the end was unexpected and satisfying.

My biggest gripe with the acting, and being such a massive fan of The Wire it pains me to do this, was with Dominic West. I thought he almost looked embarrassed to be on screen in most scenes and delivered one of the hammiest performances I think I've ever seen. Sorry Dominic. Lyn Collins was a vibrant presence and I felt Taylor Kitsch did enough in shouldering the responsibilities of the lead role, considering the film's inherent flaws. He certainly can't be held accountable for the films failings at the box office.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
ObbiePR18Mar 29, 2012
Es decepcionante ver como la adaptacion de un libro que inspiro tantas grandes peliculas, se queda corta en todos los aspectos. John Carter podra tener unos buenos efectos especiales, pero eso es todo. Le falta muchisimo para poder ser lo queEs decepcionante ver como la adaptacion de un libro que inspiro tantas grandes peliculas, se queda corta en todos los aspectos. John Carter podra tener unos buenos efectos especiales, pero eso es todo. Le falta muchisimo para poder ser lo que uno espera. Tiene un grave problema de secuencia y la banda sonora es obsoleta. Una de las peliculas mas decepcionantes que he visto.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
4
SatiricalewokNov 7, 2014
Having heard the reviews about this movie, I went in with expectations below sea level. Now it was better than what I expected, in that it wasn't absolutely awful, having said that, it wasn't good either. Really this film falls down due to aHaving heard the reviews about this movie, I went in with expectations below sea level. Now it was better than what I expected, in that it wasn't absolutely awful, having said that, it wasn't good either. Really this film falls down due to a charisma less leading performance, a silly plot which makes less than no sense, and really it's just terribly dull. Although Mark Strong, as always- is a fantastic screen presence, and those big white monsters fellows are quite impressive.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Apemonkey666Jun 11, 2012
Disney's marketing department almost killed this 250m$ film by animation director Andrew Stanton with their incompetence. It's based on the book by Edgar Rice Burroughs, has tons of computer animation and doesn't look too bad, but I didn'tDisney's marketing department almost killed this 250m$ film by animation director Andrew Stanton with their incompetence. It's based on the book by Edgar Rice Burroughs, has tons of computer animation and doesn't look too bad, but I didn't find the story overly interesting or original and the 'long jumps' Carter can make, look fake (the physics don't compute) and the green aliens look too much like creatures from Attack of the Clones. Taylor Kitch (who also played in 209 m$ flop 'Battleship') does an ok acting job (they dug him up from a TV series apparently), but the supporting cast (mostly Britisch actors) is luckily somewhat better. From a quarter billion dollar scifi flick you would expect it to be at least epic, but this film is nothing more than a sunday afternoon snack, so don't feel bad if you missed in at the cinemas :)… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Tbrown15Jun 24, 2012
John Carter is silly. Those are the four defining words for this mega theatrical flop. The story was very corresponding to both big hit cinema films in Avatar, and the Star Wars sage. you been there, done that, but seen better. The movieJohn Carter is silly. Those are the four defining words for this mega theatrical flop. The story was very corresponding to both big hit cinema films in Avatar, and the Star Wars sage. you been there, done that, but seen better. The movie starts off well, and keeps my mind on the movie with a couple humorous scenes, and a good action sequence. Then, the movie picks up even more when John Carter is first transported to Mars. You then learn that he has a special gift that allows him to jump extremely high. All of this was very intrigueing to me, and I was defiantly enjoying the movie, but them the movie catapults straight down. The plot becomes full of holes with uneven pacing. John Carter became lifeless with mediocre action scenes and added characters with maps depth. yes, the movie has amazing visual effects that are outstanding, and very good looking set pieces, and with the acting being bi-able, with Taylor Kitsch playing a decent role. the movie becomes very forgetting. John Carter had potential, but with a lot of flaws and not a lot of rights, John Carter became a below average syfi adventure.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Riflenator1234Nov 2, 2012
While this movie is nothing special it is certainly entertaining. One should not go to the theater expecting some masterpiece but simply a fun and simple movie. If posed with the choice to see this movie again, I would likely not watch it dueWhile this movie is nothing special it is certainly entertaining. One should not go to the theater expecting some masterpiece but simply a fun and simple movie. If posed with the choice to see this movie again, I would likely not watch it due to the fact that while it is not confusing, it's also extremely simple.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
TheDRauchJun 28, 2012
It is obvious to say that John Carter's visuals are simply awesome and its action scenes are fun to watch, but I would still say it suffers enough from other factors to not completely recommend it. It has a very convoluted plot and someIt is obvious to say that John Carter's visuals are simply awesome and its action scenes are fun to watch, but I would still say it suffers enough from other factors to not completely recommend it. It has a very convoluted plot and some unmemorable - but not bad - performances. Andrew Stanton seemed like he could make the foray to directing live action, but he doesn't seem to notice that there is an enduring tone of seriousness throughout that takes the fun away from the picture. This is what can be said for most studio releases these days, so compared to the norm, John Carter isn't actually half bad, its just the other half isn't magnificent enough to sustain the gigantic budget supporting the film. But in the end the question remains - would I recommend John Carter? Eehhhhhh . . . I guess so.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
snazzyjuiceJul 18, 2012
Wow, did this movie look beautiful. "John Carter" is a fun adventure movie that'll keep you entertained. Unfortunately, it's a little hard to follow and drags a little towards the middle.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
ImOnFireMar 18, 2013
This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. It's great to look at. Disney does that well. You gotta give it up for them on this aspect. The original score is good as well. On the other hand, despite the reasonably good acting, the characters were simply not very likable to me. Story-wise, it feels familiar, which is generally never good in a sci-fi/fantasy movie, and it lacks a bigger differentiation between the people from Zodanga and the people from Helium, as well as a background on how the war started. I felt bored a couple of times watching it. Overall, this movie is just passable. It had a lot of potential, though… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
gzayas91Jul 20, 2018
If this movie release in 1950s, this would have been popular film as the first Star Wars. But doesn't matter because it bombed. As my thought, it's okay, granted I like at first, but than I realized this is a kinda unfocus mess.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
worleyjamersDec 5, 2012
John Carter has some amazing visual elements that are some of the best I have ever seen; the cgi is absolutely fantastic and certainly makes the film easy to watch. It's easy to see where the money was spent on this project. However, itJohn Carter has some amazing visual elements that are some of the best I have ever seen; the cgi is absolutely fantastic and certainly makes the film easy to watch. It's easy to see where the money was spent on this project. However, it suffers considerably due to major pacing problems, making the film feel uneven. Thus resulting in a film that, unfortunately, is disappointing and forgettable.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
EpicLadySpongeFeb 21, 2016
Taylor Kitsch looks like that he felt so seriously thinned after being in the set for his role as John Carter. The visual effects kept me up but this movie does not feel like a decent time waster because after a few minutes, the movie beginsTaylor Kitsch looks like that he felt so seriously thinned after being in the set for his role as John Carter. The visual effects kept me up but this movie does not feel like a decent time waster because after a few minutes, the movie begins to make no sense at all thus making me stop watching it.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
ty92Feb 29, 2020
This was a weird movie. I'm not sure what I just watched. I bought the 3D Blu-Ray and watched it on my PSVR. The 3D was pretty good overall. But the story and plot was all over the place. One moment I was watching a western and the next I wasThis was a weird movie. I'm not sure what I just watched. I bought the 3D Blu-Ray and watched it on my PSVR. The 3D was pretty good overall. But the story and plot was all over the place. One moment I was watching a western and the next I was watching Star Wars Attack of the Clones lol And then sometimes it felt like I was watching Prince of Persia and True Blood. It's also kind of like Superman. The entire time I was trying to figure out where I've seen that hot woman before. And yup it was Lynn Collins from True Blood. She was so hot in this movie. I almost want to give it a 10/10 just for that. But honestly this was a interesting sci-fi movie that borrows things from other films. The acting was ok but the ending was kind of terrible. It's a must watch and I could see people loving and hating it. This is easily the weirdest movie I've seen.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
OdinsMovieBlogFeb 19, 2018
Not a great movie by any means and a few really rough performances. But there is something to be said for the grand scope and the pretty cool effects of the aliens. Would not recommend paying a whole lot for DVD/Blu-ray, but if you can find aNot a great movie by any means and a few really rough performances. But there is something to be said for the grand scope and the pretty cool effects of the aliens. Would not recommend paying a whole lot for DVD/Blu-ray, but if you can find a copy for $5 or so you wouldn't be completely wasting your time. So much potential...but sadly that's all that remains for most of the film.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
Vectis99Nov 9, 2018
A boring, run of the mill "heroic white guy saves the girl" film. John Carter doesn't do anything especially interesting with the sci-fi setting, instead mimicking the general appeals of a fantasy story set on an alien planet. If you removeA boring, run of the mill "heroic white guy saves the girl" film. John Carter doesn't do anything especially interesting with the sci-fi setting, instead mimicking the general appeals of a fantasy story set on an alien planet. If you remove the fantastic setting, the story is wildly uninteresting, and you may as well do so because the story would probably be more interesting on Earth, which is bad for a movie who's central gimmick is not being on Earth. A lot of the movie looks pretty, though, which is nice.… Expand
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
5
BacktexDec 14, 2020
A good looking movie, but the story is lacking. There is not a lot of introduction, and that is why this movie suffers. It also has a problem with leaving the viewer clueless of what just happened, especially towards the end.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
6
Nightcrawler69Sep 1, 2022
Went into this movie not knowing anything. I'm surprised by its setting and stunning visuals. The factions were very interesting, However I felt like the scenes were too linear and abrupt featuring dry dialogue.
0 of 0 users found this helpful00
All this user's reviews
More From This Movie

51 Critic Reviews

7.0 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 81 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple
2 77 Project Hail Mary
3 75 Send Help
4 73 Hoppers
5 71 The Sheep Detectives
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL