There are some films I get super excited about, Star Trek: Into Darkness, and some films that I should be excited for,Iron Man 3 but for some reason I haven’t jumped on the bandwagon yet, and then there is John Carter. I actually have been wanting to see the movie for a long time, but refused to pay $15 to see it in theaters. So I was very excited when it released on Blu Ray and I could watch it for a mire four dollars. In the end…it was worth the four dollars.
John Carter is not a bad film. It’s not a fantastic film, but it most defiantly does not deserve the 32% top critics rating it received on rottontomatos.com. The fact is John Carter is a film that should never have been made in the first place, let alone with a bloated 250 million dollar budget. How do you market a story about a civil war vet that gets transported to Mars, not the Mars we know and love, but a Mars when green, antlike, aliens are duking it out with humans…well humans with shitty tattoos and steam punk esque flying machines.
That’s a tough sell for most movie goers, granted there are fans of the book series that will go, but the cool thing about those guys is they will go no matter what. If you reduced the budget to 110 million and did relatively no marketing they would still go. The problem happened when Disney thought that they could convince the average movie goer to see a story that was based on a book written in 1912. That’s right folks, the source material is a hundred years old. Now that normally wouldn’t be an issue, but when one of the main settings is a place that we know for a fact doesn’t exist in the way the film portrays it and doesn’t make an attempt to explain why we never figured our that there’s some shit going down on Mars… well again, the average movie goer has trouble buying that.
|The source material is now over 100 years old.|
What I found to be extremely interesting was how Disney decided to deal with the Mars debacle. Instead of looking at the source material as being fundamentally flawed (Flawed in a sense that it will be extremely difficult to pull a profit on fiction that is so far fetched for the year 2012, not that the books are bad, they are actually quite good, but the point is they don’t work for a 250 million dollar movie.) they simply renamed the film, in an almost half-assed attempt at tricking movie goers to go see their movie. Not a good start. In the end John Carter of Mars became John Carter and no one seemed to notice.
|Not Taylor Kitsch’s fault|
Again, if you are thinking about checking out the film, I would suggest you do. Andrew Stanton did not waste that 250 million. The film looks fantastic. The locations, CG, and ever the acting we all pretty well presented. It is a bummer for Taylor Kitsch that his first two major starring roles took place in films that totally bombed at the box office, but in all honesty I don’t think his acting has anything to do with that. He does a decent job playing John Carter. Not Oscar worthy, but in no way detrimental to the film. His second starring role, Battleship, took a shit at the box office as well. Again, not his fault, I feel that Battleship is another case of being fundamentally flawed. Another film that should have never been made. I haven’t seen it, but I’m sure Kitsch isn’t a main contributor to that shit show either. In the end, Mr. Kitsch just needs to make some better business decisions…maybe talk to the guys at Warner Brothers about one of the upcoming DC Superhero jobs.
John Carter is now available on Blu Ray and my suggestion would be to check it out. It may not be worth the price of a 3D admission, but a four dollar rental isn’t too bad. The film is not perfect, but it is much better that 75% of the bullshit being released this month. Happy trials.