The movie adaption of Edgar Rice Burrough's John Carter books, opens with a brief view of Mars then flashbacks to a flash-forward of John Carter on earth, then flash backs through the reading of a journal. If all these unnecessary time warps were not confusing enough, the screen play inserts a completely unnecessary complication at the very beginning that undercuts the logic of key points of the movie.
John Carter is shown at the beginning as a war weary veteran who refuses to fight or take sides. He is asked by the local Army outpost to fight against the Indians. Because he refuses he is beaten and thrown in a cage. This is not in the movie and for good reason, what could beating a man who won't fight accomplish. You can't make someone fight who doesn't want to and they have nothing to hold over him at all and if they did, the don't try. The point of this is to show that he is now a pacifist and won't take sides.
He flees from the army outpost and in the process needs to rescue the officer who beat him and is now chasing him. John Carter and his pursuers meet a group of Indians and, in another cliche, one of the army men shoots an Indian while they are beginning to communicate. Fine the Army was bad, but can movies just avoid cliches at least? I was already insulted. "See kids war is bad, the army is bad! John Carter is good because he doesn't want to fight and rescues the man who had him thrown in jail."
The problem with this cliche is that we know he is going to Mars. Mars is the War god. The entire point of the book is that the ethos of Mars is one of martial virtue. All the different cultures and races on Mars honor war, warriors, and are in constant war with each other.
The John Carter of the books is a warrior and adventurer, not a pacifist. Sure you say, but this is the movie and books can't exactly follow the books because it is a different medium. Yes, that is true, but the problem is that all the people of Mars are warriors, including Dejah Thoris, the Princess of Helium (more on her character later). Warriors on Mars are honored and respected. The movie ignores the warrior ethos and the logic behind how John Carter is able to show up on an alien planet and win over all the Green Men who he needs to fight for him at the end of the movie. The Green Men will not follow weakness, sentimentality or pacifists. The books show John Carter as not just strong but mad (yes crazy) with blood lust that matches the blood lust of those around him. He wins over this barbaric group by being a warrior. In the process of winning them, he can change them into a more caring society. Of course, John Carter exhibits chivalry in an old fashioned southern gentleman sort of way, but the initial pacifism of John Carter in the movie would have gotten him killed and shunned not honored and respected.
The aggravating point of this is that if the writer director wanted to "message" the audience, the message was there for the taking. Mars is a dying planet, a once great society is breaking down, the people are waring over scarce resources. There is a message that was obviously relevant to current discussions about fossil fuels and global warming. It was overlooked by the writer/director for some reason and instead the anti-war meme was inserted which holds the movie back and undercuts the logic of the movie.
The aggravating misuse of ideas continues with our introduction to Dejah Thoris. She is introduced as a scientist who is developing a new powerful weapon to save her nation. This ignores the theme in the book that Mars is dying, the culture is lost, and the people are living off of the intellectual capital of the past. Instead of embracing this message (again, if he wanted to message us, then how about using the one right in front of you) he tries to modernize Dejah Thoris as a scientist. Her first words are preparation for a speech to her father and the leaders of Helium. As she practices her speech for the presentation she is shown as insecure, not sure how to communicate her ideas and stumbles over her words. Again, he undercuts the message of her as an accomplished scientist with the little girl lost theme of the stumbling speech.
After she is told she must marry the enemy to gain peace she escapes and is shown as a warrior capable of killing other soldiers. Again, pick your theme! Is she a stumbling insecure scientist, or a princess as war prize, or a warrior. She is used as a guide to John Carter to find the meaning of the amulet, but this could have taken place without this departure from her character of the books. After a time, her character settles into the war prize theme of the book. At no time does she act like the Princess of Mars from the book. She is too common.
At the end of the movie, the Green Men leader, Tars Tarkis, is shown with a tear at the wedding of John Carter and Dejah Thoris. I could expect this knee jerk reaction from a Disney director who also directed Finding Nemo and Wall-E. Apparently this hack could not find a smidgen of sympathy for these warriors, survivors and monsters to retain their dignity. It is a horrifying betrayal of the character to make them into a sentimental ET.
The environments, cities, interiors and costumes were all very well done.
