Taylor Kitsch is an attractive man, a solid actor and clearly doing better than most actors because he is getting paid and has reached a certain level of fame, but he cannot seem to gain any traction to reach the next level of his career. While a good actor, he is not so skilled that you would name him as one of your favorites or wish that he would play some difficult role. He is hot, but so hot that you would ruin your credit score for him? So Kitsch is in that awkward place where he is not your average Joe, but he cannot quite make the complete transition from beloved television star in Friday Night Lights to the silver screen. Well, John Carter certainly did not help matters.
John Carter is not a good movie, but for brief moments, is not as bad as it could be and in the right hands, could have been good. It was torn between slavish devotion to adapting the original Edgar Rice Burroughs novel, updating the story to suit twenty-first century ideas of adventure and keeping it as kid friendly as possible to suit the Disney moniker when they should have been aiming for a more adult audience, which Disney has succeeded doing numerous times so I am uncertain why this film was the exception to the rule.
John Carter is an inherently poorly structured movie although by the end, the framing device pays off, but not in a way that makes you feel rewarded, just reassured that it was not as ridiculous as you initially thought. There are roughly three beginnings to the movie—four if you count the hastily discarded beginning narration from Willem Defoe, who does the voice of a leader of one of three Martian humanoid species, and that character does not appear until the second act of the film. The narration never appears after the opening. There is a Mars battle already in progress, the titular character’s shenanigans in 1881 in Manhattan that leads to introducing us to his nephew, who is the author, which I see as a red flag of a deficit of imagination when an author appears in his story, and Burroughs reading his uncle’s journal, which leads to an earlier period and different location in 1868, but is depicted as the majority of the movie. I had no idea that this movie was based on a book until I recognized the nephew’s name, and yes, it is the same man who wrote the Tarzan series. When I saw that it was a period piece, I was so confused because I thought that I signed up for sci fi. So lovers of the book may applaud its faithfulness, but viewers who are unfamiliar with it will just wonder if they are watching the wrong movie.
When John Carter is introduced as a vet of a war, I correctly concluded Civil War, but once I discovered that he was a vet of the Confederacy, I felt fucked with. It is supposed to symbolize his inherent rebelliousness and independence, but for me, it is like telling me that he fought for the Germans during World War II. So he is a Nazi? These books were written during the early twentieth century by a man from the North. The fuck? Guess that Burroughs voted for Wilson. I am not saying all Union soldiers were good because duh, but seriously? And I am supposed to root for him because? Then in the sizeable flashback, the American Indian wars are referenced, and for a hot five minutes, the titular character is on the right side of history during that conflict, which is introduced, abandoned and never revisited again so I have to ask why include it at all. Could we not transport the protagonist to Mars without all of that? Yes! Have the war criminal looking for gold, transport, boom, Mars and randomly Kitsch is given the Charlton Heston treatment and is half naked! The film is two hours twelve minutes long, which is hella unnecessary.
The most puzzling aspect of John Carter is that there were some solid departures from the book, which I have never read and do not plan to read, but the Internet can be a beautiful place. There are two tiers of villains, the standard villain played by Dominic West, who is a good actor best known for being in The Wire, but if he is in a film that he knows is not quality, he takes it as a personal dare to see how much scenery he can chew and retain his reputation, i.e. his performance in Punisher: War Zone. Then there is the extremely cool in temperament and concept villains, the Therns, with the lead Thern played by Mark Strong, who is magnificently the same in any role, good or bad guy, but it was a great concept for an alien species and reminded me of Fringe. It introduced a political, socioeconomic texture that made it more germane to us now than it did when the movie was originally released. I am not saying that the Therns’ motivations completely made sense because they essentially thrive on planets dying and kleptocracies, but how? The movie should have shown us.
John Carter jumped so Mortal Engines could be made without learning from their errors. The main character of this movie should not have been the titular character, but the hot scientist/princess who can also wield a sword. Yes, her storyline is hella tropey because the only way to stop the conflict is for her to marry her enemy, and no, the villain does not even want to theoretically sleep with her, but tie her across the metaphorical railroad tracks immediately then borrow a mustache to twirl so it feels like a documentary. Shut up, smart girl, your only usefulness is your value to men, not your mind! Also they want to stop her because she actually has the knowledge to save the world. No, her name is not Elizabeth Warren, stop. Lynn Collins does a great job playing her. Who? I have no idea. Apparently she is really blonde, but she should consider going brunette. It worked for Lucy Lawless, who is a goddamn legend! She was the best part of the movie, has apparently appeared in a bunch of movies that I have seen, and I totally do not remember her.
Also a part of me wonders if James Purefoy played the protagonist instead of a bit part, would John Carter have been awesome. I loved Purefoy in The Following, a completely degenerate, excessively warped show, and Rome, a HBO series. Hap and Leonard is in my queue. Unlike West, he always classes up the joint regardless of the quality of his actual surroundings, but he has a certain charming insouciance that signals that he knows that it is crap. He is a professional and signals with his acting, “Let’s have some fun.” He has a way of engaging with the viewer that makes it feel less insulting and more guilty pleasure. He knows how to walk a tricky tightrope and find the right tone to make it work.
I would not recommend that you watch John Carter. I have substantially omitted describing a lot of the dreckitude. While it is not the worst movie, there are far better movies and shows on television that you can spend your time watching, even in a global pandemic.