BARSOOM REVISITED

Ron Fortier’s a great fan of pulp fiction and literature in general.

His blog is worth a look at any time. I’d like to spotlight his March book review of

JOHN CARTER AND THE GODS OF HOLLYWOOD by Michael D. Sellers, (Universal Media, 348 pages).

This book is all about the movie version of “A Princess of Mars,” by the greatest pulp writer of them all, Edgar Rice Burroughs. Reading this book will doubtless engender some animosity towards many of the people who were 'a part of one of the most disastrous Hollywood marketing fiascos of all time'. 

As Ron says, ‘It is a book that details catastrophic incompetence among so many high ranking Disney executives one is left marveling how such a great movie as “John Carter,” ever got made in the first place.  It also turns the spotlight on the heroes of this epic calamity; the few with the courage of their convictions and the daring audacity to see it finished.  All this despite the selfish individuals determined to see them fail to the point of spreading lies to their cronies; unscrupulous movie critics eager for any scrap of negativity to enhance their own lackluster careers.’

Harsh words. Read the full review here, and weep:

http://pulpfictionreviews.blogspot.com.es/2013/03/john-carter-and-gods-of-hollywood.html

 

At time of writing the votes for the DVD were phenomenally good. Amazon.com has 1801 reviews, of which 1200 = 5-stars, 345 = 4, 112 = 3, 55 = 2 and 89 = 1 star.  This translates as 67% vote of 5 stars. Add 4 and 5 stars and that’s a hefty 86% viewers highly in favour of the film. Go to the bottom scores and the 1 and 2 stars can barely muster 8% of the total votes.

The story is much the same at Amazon.co.uk, with 395 reviews. Of these, 231 are 5-star (59%), 94 are 4-star (24%); that’s combining 4 and 5-star vote of 83% in favour. At the bottom end, the 1 and 2 stars can muster only 10%. (For the record, the 3-star votes, hits 6-7%).

Interestingly, the Rotten Tomatoes score-card of 51% doesn’t quite reflect the notion of a ‘flop’, despite the sourpuss comments; sure, it isn't up in the high 70s, mid-eighties either! Now, their score of 27% for Ishtar, for example, might suggest a flop… Reading the 11 pages of comments of these reviewers, it’s clear that many were very favourable towards John Carter and those who were not, simply didn’t get it, (why, I don’t know, perhaps because they were too young, deaf or jaded). Another oddity: on the Rotten Tomatoes site, they suggest movies ‘like John Carter’ – these are: Prince of Persia (35%), Avatar (83%), 300 (60%) and Thor (77%). Considering most post-war pulp science fiction was derivative of Edgar Rice Burroughs anyway, this is amusing, at least.

There is a sizeable group who are still lobbying for a sequel to John Carter – they can be contacted at http://backtobarsoom.com/

JOHN CARTER - WORTH THE 50 YEAR WAIT

A bit late, perhaps, but I’ve finally watched John Carter and, surprise, surprise, I find that the film I saw wasn’t the same as that viewed by several critics! At least, that’s how it seems.

The film suffered a severe savaging from many critics on both sides of the pond. Almost without exception, the majority of them hadn’t read the source material and bemoaned the fact that there wasn’t much original in the film. Some had the good grace to accede that the Edgar Rice Burroughs Martian tales were often the inspiration for the many sci-fi flicks over the last hundred years (that is, his ideas were pinched). Some blamed the poor marketing of the film. Others targeted the main actors, and the dialogue. A few didn’t quite grasp information that was offered in the script – maybe they were tucking into their gourmet cinema meal at the time – such as Carter’s ability to leap great distance, attributed to the lower gravity of Mars. One reviewer in UK commented that A Princess of Mars was ‘hailed as a geek classic’ – that must therefore include those well known geeks, astrophysicist Carl Sagan and literary luminary Ray Bradbury, both of whom went on record more than once that Burroughs’ Barsoom novels inspired them to follow their respective careers.

Well, all those naysayers are mightily wrong. Maybe they were all suckered into ‘adulation of The Artist mode’? Just take a look at the reviews on Amazon. When I ordered the DVD there were already many very favourable comments, deriding the critics. Now, as I write this, the combined 4 and 5 star reviews total 602 out of 698 – that’s 86%. The rotten tomato reviews clock it at 52% ‘suffers from uneven pacing, incomprehensible plotting and characterisation.’ Forget all that. The plot and characterisation are not incomprehensible, though in common with most modern action movie scripts you do have to pay attention to what is being said… If ever a film was badly served by the media, then this was it.

Cinema has many purposes – but primarily it’s intended to entertain. John Carter did that with gusto. This was a fantasy film designed for the big screen, with spectacular scenery, epic scenes, gorgeous colour, fabulous costumes, characters true to the books, and a sense of wonder tinged with modern sensibilities. Utah served well as Barsoom. The tharks were superb, in creation and depiction, seeming totally natural. The flying machines were definitely otherworldly. The city of Helium was impressive, as was the thunderous mobile city of Zodanga. There was pathos, humour, irony, romance, bravery and betrayal within the 127 minutes of film; the time flew by – and I for one wanted more!

Direction, script, music score, film, actors, and special effects – none deserved the mauling the critics dished out. This was a splendid visualization of an imaginative adventure lovingly plucked from the pages of a 1912 best-selling story. There were clever touches in the script, notably including Burroughs in the bookend vignettes. This also rang true to the first person narrative of the original. The evil Therns were endowed with additional powers and knowledge, granted, but they were not far removed from the conniving beings of the books. (See my drawing of August 1963, ‘Attack on the holy Therns’ (The Gods of Mars).)

Maybe another fifteen minutes would have deepened the characterisation of some. But essentially this was a fast-paced exotic story and in-depth characterisation would only have slowed it down. Taylor Kitsch delivered a strong man tired of war and death, while Lynn Collins as Dejah Thoris embodied in every way the beauty and strength of the princess of Mars. Though heavily disguised by CGI effects, Samantha Morton (no relation) captured the essence of Sola, her fragility and compassion. William Dafoe’s Tas Tarkas was great, too. And Mark Strong as the inimical Matai Shang, chief Thern, proved he can play villains with consummate ease, but never hams it up. Woola was engaging, even with six legs and deadly incisors – and not dissimilar to my drawing of Woola and John Carter battling the deadly Sith (Warlord of Mars).

I agree that the marketing was poor. The DVD cover is lacklustre. And as for putting up the quote ‘Star Wars for a new generation’, they’d have been better employed stating: ‘Before Avatar, before Star Wars, before Star Trek, before Flash Gordon – there was John Carter of Mars!’ Initially, I sympathised with the critics of the choice of film title and felt that John Carter of Mars would have been better, as it would leave no filmgoer in doubt. But then I saw the end of the film and it seemed right – until the end, he’d been John Carter of Earth. But at the end, when he married Dejah Thoris, he became John Carter of Mars, and that’s the title that’s shown – heralding at least two sequels. Two sequels that are sadly now probably stillborn due to the misguided marketing and reception of this first epic adventure.

If you haven’t seen this film because you were put off by the critics, then ignore them and buy it. Buy it and prove them wrong. It’s escapist fantasy of the highest order.