JOHN CARTER

First, I would never normally walk into a film like John Carter.  The trailers made it look like just another Clash of the Titans.  It wasn't, and I actually enjoyed this 132 minute experience for its campy potential.

What happened was that I bought a ticket for The Vow, and only a few seconds into it, realized I had already seen it.  Mulling over whether to ask for a refund, which could have been laughed at, or find another movie, on the way out, I saw that John Carter was just starting, so, heck, why not.  This was the none 3-D version.

From all indications, John Carter will be #2 to The Lorax this weekend.  Now that is another film I place in the realm of nauseating vampire spectacles.  Which deserves my telling you that yesterday I wanted to cancel a program on my video recorder, but somehow pressed the wrong button, getting to a 3D overlay, which I could not dislodge. While  experimenting with various buttons I ended up ordering a VAMPIRE film.  Normally, I would just kick myself and pay the few dollars, but this was a matter of principle.  So I called Oceanic, admitted my klutziness, and they forgave me for my error.

But back to John Carter and The Lorax, the latter cost $70 million to make and has already earned $122 million in two weeks.  John Carter will  hit $30 million this weekend (plus a whopping $70 million internationally), but had a budget of $250 million.  In comparison, the latest Mission Impossible cost $145 million and, after three months, has revenues of $208 million.  On the other hand, can you believe that My Week with Marilyn, a really charming flick, in this same time frame, has made less than $15 million, total?  

Clearly, the intent was for John Carter of Mars in the first sequel to become John Carter, the Gods of Mars, as the ending left all kinds of loose ends.  But will it get anywhere close to the production cost?  Probably, when you add the international box office receipts.

About John Carter, while I kind of liked it, Rotten Tomatoes only gave it a 49% rating.  However, 72% of audience reaction was favorable.  Sounds about right.

This film series has been on the drawing boards now for more than 80 years.  I see the director, Andrew Stanton, growing, as he previously did Finding Nemo and WALL-E, winning Oscars for both.  As this story was penned by Edgar Rice Burroughs (remember Tarzan?), I thought it was a nice touch to link the beginning of the film to his youth.  Appreciate an author a century ago (and this film is being released 100 years to the date JC of Mars was first published) imagining a Star Wars type scene on Mars?  

Flying ships were operated like sea ships and they were still fighting with swords.  Toss in a Roman coliseum and tall, 4-armed Martians (you won't recognize them, but Willem Dafoe, the good guy, and Thomas Hadden Church, the bad guy, are there).  If you like the color blue, you will luxuriate.  Everything from blood to tongue to weird electronic networks.

There were serious technical and logical flaws.  For example, a person can jump only about three times higher on Mars (six times on the Moon).  Carter leaped tall buildings.  Then, that wedding ceremony towards the end must have lasted for days and days.  Just when you think the movie was over, it continues, with twists and turns and flops. But he does return to Mars, and there will be a second film.

I should report that Brooks Barnes of the New York Times Monday morning indicated that John Carter was in the company of Ishtar, the 1987 colossal flop of Warren Beatty and Dustin Hoffman.  While my sources indicated a John Carter cost of $250 million, apparently, when all production and marketing bills are combined, this film must have set Walt Disney Studios back $350 million:

-