John Carter

Not surprising in terms of plot, but still a visually stunning fairy tale with great music, an unsympathetic main character and quite pleasant humor. I don't know if it's worth writing about all the things John Carter rips off or does not rip off, because its plot is simply told using familiar, time-honored techniques that, let's face it, we've come to expect from sci-fi/fantasy. Among the best scenes are the first steps on Mars and the whole next part, in which Carter meets Tharky and which has the atmosphere of Lawrence of Arabia (seriously!), I liked the spectacular battle interspersed with flashbacks, and the ending just as much. All in all, in my opinion, Andrew Stanton's first feature film fared much better than his colleague Bird, whose Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol was very disappointing. (11/15/2012)

John Carter was great. What’s brutal is that there are still some nutjobs in Hollywood who don’t mind drowning a quarter of a billion dollars in a movie. The important thing is that the director used this money to make such a perfect phantasmagoria, which in its own way even makes some sense. Sure, there’s much of objectively crazy nonsense, but in the context of such a fantasy movie it can be forgiven. I haven’t seen anything like this for a long time and I really enjoyed it. Also mainly because I really like such films, but they are terribly rare. The actors were great, the rendition absolutely perfect. What more to add? Maybe just the fact that I would like to see a sequel, but that’s probably quite unlikely. (01/09/2013)

A cool and watchable fantasy snack. The great visual and sound effects, the captivating sets and an interesting alien setting greatly support a slightly routine story that can no longer be taken seriously these days. Taylor Kitsch is ok, but Jake Gyllenhaal could have been better. Otherwise, I can’t complain. the two hours passed like water, Lynn Collins has beautiful eyes, and John Carter boldly aspires to be not only the best popcorn movie of the year, but also the most visually enchanting spectacle since the lush and magical Prince of Persia. 75% (09/19/2012)

Two stars for the technical aspect, otherwise, awfully dull. It kept me interested for about 45 minutes, then it lost me. An unlikeable hunk jumps around in Mars surrounded by four-armed green creatures, there’s the expected fateful encounter… and I don’t give a toss… If it was at least funny in any way! But no, just sterile boredom. Millions of dollars wasted and one of the most pointless blockbusters in recent years. (05/18/2012)

Martian soap opera. Technically brilliant, which was to be expected of Stanton, but problematic in all other respects. John Carter is a return to the "great stories", but it does not update them in any way, and unfortunately, it is not even able to draw on their receptivity and magnetism. As a hero, John is controversial because his "superpowers" are quite doubtfully laid out - for a while he acts awkward, then suddenly he accumulates enemies into neat pyramids. Unfortunately, the enjoyment of similar heroes stems, to a certain extent, from predictability and the resulting sweet expectation of the triumph of the hero over those who have no idea. Carter can jump, but he is unable to excite. Also because Taylor Kitsch is pretty kitschy. And also because the script sinks into weak-minded phrases and useless nonsense, which is crowned by a bit of moralizing. There is even talk about the destructive impact of social differences in a film that cost two hundred million dollars. Weak is not only the chatter, but also the characters as such - harmless derivatives seen many times without any major appeal. I'd love to write that I saw a charming old-school sci-fi. In fact, I saw something much closer to The Phantom Menace than A New Hope - and unlike Lucas, Stanton doesn't have an open treasure trove of working mythology. He goes into debt, he promises, he promises, but he never pays it... Two moments from the whole film remain in my memory: a flashback that pays off nicely and a slap. But Carter and his creators really needed a lot more of them. Three stars out of respect for the technical aspects (and perhaps also out of respect for the courage to resurrect this literary mummy). (03/06/2012)