John Carter

We went to a late showing of John Carter last night and had great fun. It was true to the book, but not slavishly so. There was action, humor, romance, adventure. The Husband, The Younger Son and I thoroughly enjoyed ourselves. It's getting mixed reviews, but some of the reviewers I've read seem confused. One, for example, called the story "derivative," but seeing that the Edgar Rice Burroughs novel was written in 1917, I'd ask, "derivative of what?" Another reviewer described the film as "space opera," but since none of the action occurs in outer space but is all strictly planet-bound, I have to wonder how they're defining "space opera".

Here's my favorite trailer:


E Online concludes:

For those old enough to enjoy the books, however, the action is large-scale and awesome. The 3-D isn't essential to the viewing—it neither adds much depth nor throws things out at you, and feels like an afterthought. What does add depths are the suggestions of a larger mythology connecting Earth and Mars that seems like it might be fun to explore more of. Let's hope we get that chance.

Leonard Maltin says,

no movie so rich in imagination and so skillfully staged could or should be dismissed out of hand. If you have even the slightest curiosity about John Carter, I’d encourage you to see it.

The Christian Science Monitor gave it a C+ and called it "fun-free". The Hollywood Reporter says

the film will likely delight sci-fi geeks most of all, but there's enough here for general Disney audiences as well to generate solid box office worldwide.

Slant Magazine hated it, saying it's "not just boring, but ugly, ungainly, and nonsensical." Film Journal says, "It's too good a movie to dismiss outright, but not memorable enough to build a big fan base of repeat viewers."