Saturday 10 March 2012

John Carter

Almost a full century after its publication in 1917 and following decades of über-successful cinematic byproducts (I’m looking at you, George Lucas), Edgar Rice Burroughs' pulpy science fiction adventure novel “A Princess of Mars” has finally blasted its way onto the silver screen with a passionate, tremendously talented director in tow and the significantly less enticing title of “John Carter,” apparently altered by Walt Disney Studios for marketing purposes.

The director is Pixar extraordinaire Andrew Stanton, director of “A Bug’s Life,” “Finding Nemo” and “WALL-E.” This is Stanton’s first venture into live-action territory, and, with such an enormity of fan-fueled anticipation surrounding the long-awaited project, what an ambitious venture it is; more often than not in “John Carter,” Stanton pulls it off with ease and flair, although not quite as much as Pixar partner Brad Bird did last year with his splendidly exhilarating live-action debut, “Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol.”


Starring in the titular role of “John Carter" is Taylor Kitsch, a Canadian actor and ex-model whom superhero nerds may recognise as the card-wielding mutant Gambit from “X-Men Origins: Wolverine.” At 30 years of age, Kitsch has all the makings of a classic action hero: he has the muscles, the charm, the personality and the facial hair. He gives a central performance here that is engaging and entertaining, holding his own against the otherworldly backdrop, fantastical CGI creatures and epic scenes of spear-chucking, blood-spilling, rhino-riding battles.

In the year 1866, John Carter is a trouble-stirring Civil War veteran on the search for gold in Monument Valley. When he happens upon a single piece of the precious metal outside a desolate cave covered in strange markings, he goes to investigate the area, only to find himself magically transported to a location he does not recognise, and for good reason. As he soon finds out, John has somehow travelled roughly 225 million km onto the surface of the planet Mars, or “Barsoom,” as the locals like to call it.


Yes, Mars/Barsoom has locals, some of whom are the friendly type, most of whom are not. These locals are split into two groups: we have the generally civilised Red Martians, who look just like us Earthlings, only with blue blood running through their veins, and we have the native Green Martians, or “Tharks,” who are Shrek-coloured humanoids with six limbs, a pair of tusks and bloodthirsty, merciless tendencies. There is one Thark who seems to have some semblance of compassion inside him, however: this is Tars Tarkas, as voiced by Willem Dafoe and also physically performed by Dafoe through the wonders of motion capture.

It is Tars Tarkas who first spots John as he clumsily stumbles about and glides through the air (Mars’ low gravity takes some getting used to). Impressed by this Earthling's strange ability to leap hundreds of feet into the Martian sky, Tars takes an understandably bemused John back to the Tharkan tribe with him. It is there that John soon discovers that the two cities of the Red Martians (Zodanga and, err, Helium) are at war with each other, one lead by goody goody Princess Dejah Thoris (an unexpectedly brilliant Lynn Collins, “The Merchant of Venice”) and the other by baddy badguy Prince Sab Than (Dominic West, “The Awakening”). You remembering these names? ‘Cos I didn’t.


Of course, being the hero of the film, John soon finds himself in the middle of this war, which Prince Sab Than offers to end if Princess Dejah Thoris accepts his hand in marriage. Mortified, the Princess storms off and ends up tagging alongside John, who makes it his aim to stop the evil Prince from destroying Barsoom/Mars before getting his non-Martian ass back home to Earth.

Armed with a reported budget of $250 million, Andrew Stanton has brought Burroughs' vision of Mars to the big screen in glorious and gorgeous fashion. The red planet of “John Carter” is a handsomely shot and entirely convincing creation that makes clear just where Stanton spent all of Disney’s money. It’s a shame, then, that it’s undermined by a shabby and pointless 3-D post-conversion job that doesn’t immerse us in the world of Barsoom so much as flatten it - I’d thoroughly recommend the non-dim, non-distracting, non-overpriced 2-D version over the 3-D hack-job that’s been lazily stapled on top of the film.


The creatures of Barsoom are wonderfully realised creations too, and I’m not just talking about the four-armed, green-skinned, Martian equivalent to the Na’vi of James Cameron‘s “Avatar.” In addition to the Tharks (which are beautifully rendered and performed), we have white apes, which are towering, sharp-toothed monsters, two of which John is forced to battle while chained to a boulder in one heart-racing scene. There’s also Woola, a bloated, six-legged dog-like creature that, despite its tired and lumbering demeanour, can kill at the beat of a heart and run at what appears to be the speed of light; remaining forever loyal to John, Woola steals every scene he appears in, the number of which is unfortunately not high enough.

“John Carter” is a film made with much passion, and that’s more than I can say for most big-budget 3-D blockbusters released in multiplexes today. This passion comes mostly from Stanton, whose adoration of Burroughs' work is bursting through the seams of almost every frame of the film. He remains completely true to the source material and keeps its pulpy spirit wholly intact, but this does come at a price: you see, Burroughs' work is almost 100 years old and has been copied several times over by Hollywood before, for example in films like “Star Wars” or most recently “Avatar;” as such, there‘s very little about “John Carter” that feels new or fresh in the world of cinema, although it certainly could have been ground-breaking had the project not become trapped in the rut of development hell for over 80 years.


So, was it worth the 80-year wait since Disney first took a stab (and failed) at adapting “A Princess of Mars” onto the big screen all the way back in 1931? Well, yes and no. Yes, in that it’s a perfectly adequate summer blockbuster that provides plenty of sci-fi thrills and rip-roaring action to appease and entertain a mainstream movie-going audience. And no, in that it is an old-fashioned fantasy story that is slightly marred by dodgy storytelling that renders the plot a messy muddle that will confuse and perplex most viewers unfamiliar with the source material. Taking it all into account, “John Carter” maybe wasn’t worth such a stretched-out wait, but it will please Burroughs' fans to know that his century-old vision of Mars has finally been brought to the big screen in such an epic and loving fashion. Others may find themselves bewildered by it all, but having fun nonetheless.

7/10

No comments:

Post a Comment