An Interesting and Well Articulated Negative Review of John Carter
One of our readers forwarded me this review of John Carter, which is negative, and which I had missed before, and which was written by Warren Lee who is an occasional commenter here. I think this is a well thought out, well articulated criticism that justifies its negative points without going “nasty”. Our cadre of “negativists” here will find much to agree with. While I don’t agree with many of the conclusions — I particularly like the insightful comments about the original Burroughs novel and the character of John Carter as Burroughs wrote him.
I also appreciate the author starting with “I have one major disadvantage” — that being his love of the novels. That’s precisely how I feel. I felt that my love of the novels and intimate knowledge of it really made it hard for me to react to the movie as a movie — it took a number of viewings to shed that “bias”. I did review the movie far more favorably but it was a struggle for me to let go of my “book bias”……he wasn’t quite willing to let go of it as I did.
WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEENWhere do I start? I have one major disadvantage in writing a review of ‘John Carter’. I’m biased. ‘John Carter’ is based on the first of my favourite series of books, the ‘Martian Tales’ written by Edgar Rice Burroughs (Who is probably most famous for being the original author of Tarzan). The first book is called ‘A Princess of Mars’ (First published as ‘Under the Moons of Mars’ in 1912).The wonderful thing about Burroughs’ ‘Martian Tales’, is that although never before put to film, they have probably had far more influence on science fiction literature and cinema than anyone realises. Many of the greatest science fiction writers of the last century quote Burroughs’ as a great inspiration, from Ray Bradbury to Arthur C. Clarke. A number of the most successful science fiction directors also cite them as major influence on their work, from George Lucas with the ‘Star Wars’ movies to James Cameron with ‘Avatar’. ‘Star Wars’ especially stands out. Tatooine is where you can feel the most clear influences, alongside Geonosis in Attack of the Clones, with it’s deadly amphitheatre games and wild creatures.Having recently re-read the first three books, I can honestly say they have aged wonderfully. His writing style may not stand up to critical analysis, but which is more important, that people enjoy reading his stories or that critics can’t pick any holes? I have seen interviews with teenage readers who have been shocked at how modern and exciting the books are in comparison to other famous novels half their age.Personally, I always felt Burroughs’ writing had a lyrical flow, almost poetic. It may be a hundred years old, but it is as easy and enjoyable to read as any modern book. They crack along at an incredible pace, full of adventure, excitement, romance and outlandish wonderful imagination. There are eleven Mars books overall.To get back to the film… Book adaptations are always a tricky thing. Film and literature are two different mediums that require different methods to tell a story. I don’t think anybody would expect a film maker to slavishly reproduce the exact story of a book whilst turning it into a film. On the other hand, change too much and you cease to be making a true adaptation.PLEASE READ THE REST……
22 comments
I just wanted to say thank you for re-posting my review, and your comments on it. I only just discovered you had done so, and I’m flattered that you found it well written even while disagreeing with it. 🙂
It’s been great to read the comments, as even with those that disagree it’s fun to see the debating of the points. I’ll just add a couple comments, for fun.
Jeff, while yes, there is no way to escape my bias to the books, I tried to make clear in my review that I don’t think many of my problems with the film are about it simply being a bad adaptation, but that the changes made it a lesser story (and this is separate from criticism of the film’s pacing and direction which are unrelated to the book issue).
As an example, I love Conan the Barbarian(1982) and Starship Troopers. Both films where I also love the original books. I can see that they are in many ways terrible adaptations, but as films in their own right, I think they are excellent and stand on their own. John Carter was simply a film that I felt failed to stand on its own.
Regarding your points about the difficulties of adapting the book, I agree, you could not do a direct translation because the structure wouldn’t work. However, this is where the whole idea of ‘adaptation’ comes in. Taking that material and putting it into a structure that works. Stanton instead just changed those events for less interesting or effective ones (in my opinion).
Any way, it’s been great to read everyone’s comments, even if I’m a bit late to the game. 😉 Whether we enjoyed or were disappointed by the film, discussing it ensures that we aren’t just blindly accepting what Hollywood throws at us, but thinking about it and making our own minds up. I think we’d all agree there are too many people out there who love or hate films without making their OWN minds up. 🙂
Wish I had found this review sooner. It would’ve saved me a lot of aggravation and unsuccessful attempts at explanation(No, not unsuccessful more like simply unaccepted.) He hits it dead on. This is exactly how I feel about this movie but I am simply not articulate enough put it across like he does. very good review.
“Star Wars – my mom is dead and my dad is Darth Vader, baddest mass murderer in the galaxy.
Indiana Jones – Mom is dead(?) and dad is more interested in his work than me. I admit that’s after Raiders. He’s just a womanizer in the first couple films.
Avatar – my twin brother is dead and I’m a paraplegic.
JJ Abrams’ Star Trek – some psycho Romulan from the future kills Kirks’ dad then kills Spock’s mom, blows up his planet and most of the Vulcan race with it. All just to torture future Spock!
Sherlock Holmes – the current version? Saw the first one years ago, but not the second one yet. Drawing a blank right now, but that’s Robert Downey Jr., so there’s gotta be some sorta crazy in there.”
And how did the heroes of each of them do?
-In Star Wars there was no moping over his dead mom or father on Luke’s part. And when he does discover the truth about Vader he attemps to save him, despite goading from both the Emperor and Yoda and Obi-Wan to kill him. No moping or selfish “it’s not my problem, I want my cave of gold” scenes.
-Indy’s father came in the third film. By that point we know Indiana Jones and it was an attempt to add a back story. Plus at the end of Last Crusade his father and him are on the same page. After all Connery told him “let it go.” Their new bond is more important. And again no selfishness on Indy’s part or moping.
-Avatar. He says he’s tired of doctors telling him what he can’t do. And when he falls in love with the princess and her people he goes to their side and leads them over the invaders. Which was very similar to A Princess of Mars and that John Carter.
-Star Trek. Again no moping on dead dad from Kirk-he’s still hitting on every woman he meets. And when he finds out what is going on his reaction-to save the ship and the crew. As for Spock even he gives in at the end to his human side over logic-just blow’em up.
-Sherlock Holmes. Surpisingly no dark secrets. And just because it’s Downey doesn’t mean there has to be a dark damaged background to every character he plays. As Pascalahd pointed out, Tony Stark didn’t have one. And I doubt his Due Date character did.
See that’s the point. All of them become proactive in the story and are not resistant to getting involved. Stanton’s John Carter is and that’s the problem. It was hard to empathize or root for a character who basically seemed lifeless and selfish for so much of the story.
MCR: Flawed hero doesn’t mean they’re always dark, tortured characters like Bruce Wayne. I didn’t see Stanton’s version of JC as that dark or extreme. I think in all those films you listed the lead character(s) have some flaw or inner obstacle to over come to one degree or another. Haven’t seen some of these films in a while, so you’ll have to correct me if I’m wrong:
Star Wars – my mom is dead and my dad is Darth Vader, baddest mass murderer in the galaxy.
Indiana Jones – Mom is dead(?) and dad is more interested in his work than me. I admit that’s after Raiders. He’s just a womanizer in the first couple films.
Avatar – my twin brother is dead and I’m a paraplegic.
JJ Abrams’ Star Trek – some psycho Romulan from the future kills Kirks’ dad then kills Spock’s mom, blows up his planet and most of the Vulcan race with it. All just to torture future Spock!
Sherlock Holmes – the current version? Saw the first one years ago, but not the second one yet. Drawing a blank right now, but that’s Robert Downey Jr., so there’s gotta be some sorta crazy in there.
That’s what I expect from Hollywood movies that sell well.
This is all a subjective argument about the type and degree of change, if any, the filmmakers think they need to do for a successful film. Understand that you think Stanton’s take on JC and adding the dead family was unnecessary and/or detrimental. As for dead Mrs. Carter and whether or not the redemption scene of JC vs. the Warhoons was good or not, that was debated on this site last month with the video clip post, so I’ll leave it at that. Just my 2 cents worth. I’m done!
“Just sayin’ I’m not surprised when Hollywood adds some dirt to the straightforward type hero and then develops that character over the course of 2 hours because box office results tell them that’s what audiences like.”
Then Hazl can you explain the success of the original Star Wars trilogy? Raiders of the Lost Ark? Avatar? JJ Abrams’ Star Trek? Sherlock Holmes? Not every character has to be Bruce Wayne or The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or even Harry Potter, someone haunted by some tragic violent incident in their past. As for the dead (and needless) Mrs. Carter…you could have had the Warhoon fight without that plot. It was in the novel. Here it was just cheap audience bating on Stanton’s part that was unnecessary.
Also and I think people-especially Stanton-has forgotten this: John Carter is not without his flaws. He messes up with Dejah in A Princess of Mars, partly because of his unfamiliarty with Barsoomian customs but also just because he’s clueless with the opposite sex. In fact he admits in Swords of Mars he still doesn’t understand them. He’s also arrogant to a fault, which results in him taking risks that sometimes don’t pay off or has him captured. In Gods of Mars he can’t remember how many days are in the Martian year. He even takes advantage of people like in Llana of Gathol where he reluctantly uses Rojas’ feelings for him to escape and then has to squirm trying to figure out how to tell her he’s married and in love with Dejah. I don’t know where this idea of John Carter is Superman came from. Was it because he does win in the end (except for Gods which was a cliffhanger)? Or tries to do the right thing?
Not to mention the fact that contrary to Stanton’s belief, he isn’t Galahad. He leads a wholesale slaughter of Zodanga. He plays with his enemies, taunting them and shows no problem lopping off heads. Not exactly screams goody two shoes as much as Stanton seems to believe.
Well, if the movie was closer to the novels, by this point you could intercut the battle with shots of John and Dejah Thoris during their time among the Tharks, provided the love story was indeed in full swing for quite some time at this point.
OK, damaged was the wrong descriptor to use. Maybe just flawed is better. Just sayin’ I’m not surprised when Hollywood adds some dirt to the straightforward type hero and then develops that character over the course of 2 hours because box office results tell them that’s what audiences like. Even if that means altering character qualities from the book. In cases like Iron Man or Spider Man they don’t change because those characters were already written with specific flaws. Maybe the debate is about the degree of change in JC’s character for the movie. Did Stanton go too far? For me, I was fine with it. Most everyone seemed to like how the JC vs. Warhoons scene was done in the movie and you wouldn’t have that without dead Mrs. Carter.
Iron Man is actually a great way to write a character that goes from selfish to heroic without retorting to “damaged goods”. Show me the damaged past of Tony Stark prior to the movie: there is none. Show me his reluctance to answer his calling during the movie: none also. He makes his choices and goes by them, instead of being forced to action. John Carter could have been written that way (and that’s why my favorite in the part is still James Purefoy!).
Since I’m a chatty mood let me respond to two things Hazl 9000 wrote:
“But C.A. didn’t do as well as Iron Man, and Robert Downey Jr. is a master at playing damaged characters who are also smart alecks and funny.”
Yes but that’s the way Tony Stark has been written in the past and now. He was an alcoholic, he has a piece of shrapnel edging towards his heart but he has an arrogant streak. So in that way Iron Man (except for changing the local from Vietnam to Afghanistan) was faithful to the character from the comics. So basically your argument about staying faithful vs updating doesn’t fit since that’s how that character was written. With John Carter it didn’t work for reasons already debated.
“Marvel didn’t title the movie “Captain America”, they made sure to call it “Captain America: The First Avenger” so audiences knew that C.A. was tied in to the mega hyped Avengers movie that everyone was going to see.”
Acutally they named it CA The First Avenger because of fear of how it would do in foreign territories where America isn’t that highly thought of-China and Russia for example-and gave them a choice to use just The First Avenger. Granted it did tie in with The Avengers but that wasn’t the only reason.
Abraham Sherman wrote:
“The marketing and press burdened John Carter off the starting line to a degree that I doubt the particulars of the adaptation would have made much difference.”
I totally agree. IMHO, between the studio mgmt, marketing and mega cost problems, even if Stanton made a home-run JC movie it wouldn’t be enough to overcome what they lost at the starting line and still be able to turn a profit from theatre ticket sales alone.
My point was if the movie adaptation is great enough to satisfy the vast majority of general audiences and fans of the book, then from the filmmaker’s POV it doesn’t really matter if a small number of fans still say the book version is better, especially if the film is successful. I think Stanton achieved that balance with JC, despite the fact they didn’t make enough to turn a profit (so far). I thought JC was a great flick. It was plenty good enough for me that I’d want to see JC 2 & 3.
Would JC have done better at the box office if Stanton stuck to the book more? I think that’s debatable. Whether or not a strict book adaptation would’ve made a better quality movie is a subjective argument at best. Most of the book vs. movie debate here is about Stanton making JC a modern damaged/reluctant hero vs. the traditional hero that’s more straightforward. I don’t know if Stanton took this approach because this was simply his preference for the character or because he thought it would play better to audiences.
If I was a Hollywood marketing guy, I’d argue that the strict book adaptation of JC would be less successful. Sure, Captain America did well at the box office and he was a straightforward hero. But C.A. didn’t do as well as Iron Man, and Robert Downey Jr. is a master at playing damaged characters who are also smart alecks and funny. I can look at the way Marvel handled C.A. and conclude that Hollywood has less confidence in the straightforward hero’s ability to perform at the box office. Marvel didn’t title the movie “Captain America”, they made sure to call it “Captain America: The First Avenger” so audiences knew that C.A. was tied in to the mega hyped Avengers movie that everyone was going to see. Out of the Avengers individual hero movies, C.A. was released last so it would come out less than a year before The Avengers. C.A. also had the support of the Marvel name, and he’s still a familiar character to audiences. Could the Captain America movie do well enough on its own to start a movie franchise without all the Avengers tie ins and Marvel name? Probably not. John Carter had none of these support vehicles so why would they keep him like the straightforward book version? Iron Man 1 came out in 2008 years before The Avengers and easily succeeded on its own with its flawed hero. If box office results for the damaged hero type are generally better, then that’s what audiences must want. Why risk $250M+ on a character type that’s less popular with audiences? If there was a law that said all movies based on books must strictly adhere to the book, we’d have a lot fewer movies based on books.
Well, I was testing how to make something show up as a quote, but that didn’t really work out, so if anyone could explain to me how to do that, it would be much appreciated.
“Stanton’s job was to take ERB’s story and turn it into a great film that would have enough mass appeal with movie going audiences to justify its quarter-billion dollar price tag.”
He definitely had the money in mind. I doubt that he ever thought he could get away with making a Barsoom “art film” on that budget. But within this mass-market objective is the whole range of strictness or innovation in the adaptation. Either a skillful close adaptation or a skillful innovative adaptation could have mass appeal. A close adaptation wouldn’t be by-the-letter, but it could be closer than Stanton’s film.
“Most of the comments I see here say the movie was good overall and the poor box office performance was due to bad marketing and press coverage, not because Stanton made a bad movie.”
The movie was good but not perfect. It would have done better at the box office with better marketing and press, and it also would have done better if the film had been a home run and not what is widely agreed to be a triple.
“I don’t see any compelling arguments that if Stanton would’ve stayed stricter to the book then the movie would’ve been a huge success at the box office.”
Nobody can say for sure that a closer adaptation would have guaranteed success. With a property that isn’t in the pop culture spotlight, the accuracy of the adaptation will have a minimal effect in comparison to the overall quality of the film. The marketing and press burdened John Carter off the starting line to a degree that I doubt the particulars of the adaptation would have made much difference.
Some say that if the Harry Potter films hadn’t been as accurate as they were to the books, they might not have been as successful. But at the same time, if certain changes had made the films even more appealing to mass audiences than the books were, they might have been MORE successful. Not having read the Harry Potter books, I can’t say much about the specifics.
Several ERB fans have offered arguments that the straightforward heroic presentation of John Carter as he is in the novels, versus the damaged presentation of him in the film, might have been more unique and appealing. The success of Captain America demonstrates that mass-market audiences appreciate John Carter type heroes.
A discussion of the particulars of how being closer to the books in this or that way might have helped the film could go on forever. The only way to know for sure if a closer adaptation could be more successful would be to make one that’s closer and is also an excellent film overall, and see what happens at the box office. I doubt that Stanton would claim that his film leveraged everything that Barsoom has to offer.
“If there’s a relatively small number fans who say the book version is better, but still paid to see the movie, buy/rent it on disc, and go see any sequels, then the book vs. movie argument doesn’t matter as far as the movie makers are concerned. They need to make a film that appeals to a large audience and is still close enough to the source material to get die hard fans into the theatre, at least once.”
I hope that the die-hard fans choose to accept this movie for the fun, alternate take on Barsoom that it is, and also keep their hopes up that sequels and/or a closer and stronger reboot will be made some day. A future film could be both closer as an adaptation and more appealing to mass audiences. In the meantime, I am thankful for the film that we have now!
Stanton’s job was to take ERB’s story and turn it into a great film that would have enough mass appeal with movie going audiences to justify its quarter-billion dollar price tag. Most of the comments I see here say the movie was good overall and the poor box office performance was due to bad marketing and press coverage, not because Stanton made a bad movie. I don’t see any compelling arguments that if Stanton would’ve stayed stricter to the book then the movie would’ve been a huge success at the box office. If there’s a relatively small number fans who say the book version is better, but still paid to see the movie, buy/rent it on disc, and go see any sequels, then the book vs. movie argument doesn’t matter as far as the movie makers are concerned. They need to make a film that appeals to a large audience and is still close enough to the source material to get die hard fans into the theatre, at least once.
Jeff, what you describe from “2 -” onward is pretty much the missing piece of the discussion about the book vs. the movie. If this review had incorporated that hands-on understanding, it would have been even stronger and more “balanced’.
As is, it’s one of my favorite critical reviews so far. It covers a lot of the bases, historically and creatively, and makes some hard statements that, to me, warrant reflection and cause it to stand out among the dozens of reviews we’ve been seeing over the last couple months.
I’ve putting up with the ‘bias’ thing for YEARS over on IMDB, and some of those have followed me here. For the record, IMDB is an evil hive of scum and villainy, I nuked my account there and will never never never go back. I wasn’t crazy about Rodriguez as the director, I thought Conran might be ok. I was good with Favreau and good with Stanton, both have a track record of telling good stories, that’s it. But I am so sick of the Stanton Fan Boy bash. I’m a Barsoom Fan Boy guys, get it right.
Okay, I’m going on record to say I have no, and never had any, “bias” towards Stanton. I enjoyed “Nemo” I enjoyed “Wall*E” – if you had asked me before “John Carter” came out who had directed those films I couldn’t have told you.
I very much enjoyed his version of Barsoom – and would love to see how his particular story arc would play out.
But perpetuating the idea that those who like the movie only do it out of a blind fealty to Stanton is utter nonsense.
Despite his lack of real ranting, it’s the same complaint again and again that ‘it’s not the book’ I started writing an epic essay ( I got up to 12 pages ) but I have work to do. I did collect some of his key words that tip his hand ( in my mind ) to the same reviews I’ve read by those who want the book on screen. Here we go – cliche’s, shoe horns, unnecessary, silly red tattoos, he claims,uncharismatic , forgettable, serviceable, weaker, frustrating, disappointing. The sum is that he didn’t like it in a big way. He just doesn’t throw thoat dung while saying it. But he really doesn’t like it. What he doesn’t do is look at why changes are made.
I will throw in a couple of my thoughts from the essay.
1- “He is an ex-soldier of clear-cut principle”
I suspect that for some readers, Carter having been a soldier MEANS a lot to some readers. For them there’s a huge bag associations, and expectations attached to the soldier thing that are not in the text but certainly exist for those readers. Their John Carter and my John Carter are somewhat separate beings. All it means to me is that he’s a man of action who’s got mad crazy sword skills and experience.
2 – There seems to be little awareness ( from writers non-the-less ) how even adapted in it’s most general form for the screen – it would suck. A Princess of Mars reads well, but I think the problem with adapting the book, is THE BOOK. This has challenged film makers as much as the technical challenge of the green martians.
The first half is about the Planet of the Tharks and proceeds at an fairly intimate and detailed pace. The second half removes John from all of those characters ( Tars Tarkas, Woola, Sola, Dejah Thoris ) – aren’t those the ones you think of when you think of A Princess of Mars ? From there on the book is a travelogue of locations and new characters (almost ) completely divorced from the first half of the novel.
Then there is the Warhoon arena, atmosphere plant, wandering to Zodanga, flying around Zodanga, finding Dejah, finding Tars, Looting Zodanga, Atmosphere plant again… all in the second half of the book. The rescue of Dejah ( looting of Zodnaga ) is 90% of the way into the story. No wonder ( even as kid ) it seemed rushed to me.
So back to the movie – the movie has incorporate Zodanga and the plotting that is invisable to John Carter and the reader for over 50% of the book. That dictates some heavy restructuring.
– I’m cutting off here. As I said, I work to do. – Jeff
BobJ said: “It is not a perfect movie. But it makes me feel like a dorky 10 year-old again when I watch it, and I will always love it for that.”
Exactly.
To be fair, I did NOT read the ERB novels. And I’m quite confident that the Duncan’s Guide reviewer is making legitimate, valid points. But I think he’s being unfair to Andrew Stanton. Stanton’s intent wasn’t to try to make a literal interpretation of ERB’s novels. Stanton wanted to make a John Carter trilogy that reflected how he FELT when reading the novels as a kid. I think Dojar Sojat makes a good point that by the end of the movie, John Carter becomes the fighter he was in the books. I would guess that the 2nd and 3rd Carter films would portray Carter very closely to the Carter in ERB’s books. And I think there would be much more adventure and battles in the sequels, and that ERB die-hards see a character they better recognize.
For me, Stanton made a cast of characters that I really liked and and cared for. Frankly, it bothers me that someone could only give 5 out of 10 stars to a movie that, in my opinion, is movie escapism at its finest. It’s anything but a run-of-the-mill, cliched Hollywood movie. Stanton creatively combined western, romance, action, drama, sci-fi, and action. He sprinkled in some humor and a clever bookend involving the Therns. And when the movie ended, I was pretty bummed, ’cause I knew I’d have to wait a long time…if ever….to see what would happen next.
This guy pretty much summed up all that was wrong with this movie perfectly. And I don’t feel having a bias in favor of the books hurted. After all it seems a lot of people have biases towards Andrew Stanton despite his shortcomings so having someone biased in favor of ERB is welcome.
Well, I could certainly have written this review (certainly with less talent) at first viewing. Not anymore. It’s an alternate take on the Barsoom books (like the comics). Barsoom itself is not in it, for once. But it’s very enjoyable for what it is. There’s still enough Burroughs in it to be called an adaptation. But yeah, there will always be this tiny voice in my head that the adaptation could have been, and should have been, closer to the original. I will live with it, and dream at this impossible Ray Harryhausen adaptation, with Raquel Welch as Dejah Thoris. 🙂
I chose to review the film on its own merits as much as I could, rather than through the optic of someone with “book bias”. It was hard, and there was a voice inside me wanting to write something that at least had elements like this. But I really didn’t feel that was fair to the film-maker.
But Bob …. there is a ton of stuff to love about Andrew Stanton’s film and I’ve learned to really love it. It’s just not exactly ERB brought to life not he screen — Barsoom is brought to life. But some of the alchemy of Burroughs’ storytelling was altered enough that the experience of it is just a bit different.
I’m a fan of the books and a fan of the movie. I’m not so sure that all those things that we lament for when we are in “book bias” mode are things that would have worked on screen as well as we assume they would. For years, whenever I thought about John Carter as a movie, I wondered about the JC character and how it would play, if it was done as written by ERB. I envisioned the film getting negative reviews because the hero didn’t have the “arc” that everybody in Hollywood and 90% of all film critics think is an essential for any protagonist. So I wasn’t surprised at the changes.
For me — the books are always there. I can always enjoy them. And now the movie is always there (starting next Tuesday), and I can always enjoy that.
I also think that almost all of the “complaints” relate to the “origins” part of this. By the end of the movie, John Carter was John Carter…….
I’m happy with the adaptation but these are interesting points, worth pondering.
I’ve tried to be objective about the movie. I too have loved the books for a very long time – 40 or so years. I too had re-read the first three before seeing the movie. So why did I enjoy it so much while some other Burroughs fans hated it? I have to admit I was pretty damned giddy over seeing actual Tharks onscreen finally – finally! And Woola, and Deja Thoris. Barsoom itself was finally realized.
Did I want to see it so badly that I would take anything reasonably close to Burroughs tale? I honestly don’t think so. I have probably been a Green Lantern fan longer than a Burroughs fan, and I hated that movie. I was so looking forward to “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” movie years ago, and while I didn’t hate it…it just wasn’t funny. Back in the 80s I was really looking forward to “Greystoke” – and while I enjoyed the early half in Africa well enough, the rest of the movie just sank once it went to England and turned Tarzan into a hooting moron.
Perhaps the biggest betrayal I ever felt from a movie was the 1975 “Doc Savage” movie. I remember sinking in my seat in the theater, my sister cracking up next to me.
So am I that desperate for a Barsoom movie that I’ll take what I can get from “John Carter”? Nah. And I don’t think that makes me a lesser Burroughs fan than one who hates it. To each their own, as they say. It is not a perfect movie. But it makes me feel like a dorky 10 year-old again when I watch it, and I will always love it for that.