John Carter

My Lady and I just got back from seeing John Carter. We thought it was very good indeed!

The film was a study in contrasts — the melodic, almost romantic music in the middle of a major battle scene — and yet it made sense in the context presented. There was a hostage crisis in the film, and my Lady laughed aloud. We did not share at all Tars Tarkas’s comment: “Thank the gods that’s over with!”

This is NOT a fantasy, a “titans” or “gods” mythology romp, though that is exactly what the “coming attractions” before the movie were featuring. Stanton made this film “science fiction with liberties,” not just silly magic, and I appreciated that.

Since I don’t watch television and see relatively few films, this was my first exposure to Taylor Kitch. He did fine, it seemed to me. Both my Lady and I were reminded of Tom Cruise in The Last Samurai. I’ll echo the thought about Lynn Collins (as Dejah Thoris): The leading lady would be a shoo-in for Wonder Woman if they ever bring that old series back.

It is amazing to me that people are heaping so much abuse on the film. It has become trendy to dislike it, which is very unfortunate for Andrew Stanton and probably insurmountable. It seems to have nothing to do, really, with the film itself. I’ve just looked around, and seen complaints that about 30 minutes of it was set back in the 1800s. Why is this a problem? There are entire films set back in the 1800s! And it provided a needed backstory (not exactly the same as the book, but it works) which plays much into the doings later on. Nicely done, I thought. But perhaps this is too much for people who have short little attention spans.

It is a very enjoyable film, and I do now understand why the name was changed to just John Carter. I recommend it. You’ll believe that tharks CAN fly!

===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle