User Score
7.0

Generally favorable reviews- based on 508 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 57 out of 508
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jun 17, 2012
    2
    Little more than a collection of puerile fantasy 'bits' cobbled together, with relentless, falsely dramatic muzak. So pretty much, the usual recipe for almost every other sci-fi / superhero movie that's emerged from the bowels of Hollywood over the last decade or so. Add in some truly uncharismatic lead acting talent (sic) and eradicate all traces of plausibility and humility.... etLittle more than a collection of puerile fantasy 'bits' cobbled together, with relentless, falsely dramatic muzak. So pretty much, the usual recipe for almost every other sci-fi / superhero movie that's emerged from the bowels of Hollywood over the last decade or so. Add in some truly uncharismatic lead acting talent (sic) and eradicate all traces of plausibility and humility.... et voilà!! Expand
  2. Mar 9, 2012
    2
    A bad action movie that's visual candy is rarely short, but it's stupidity in story line and plot pacing are it's major weaknesses.
  3. Jun 13, 2012
    0
    If I were capable of encapsulating how awful this film was, I'd have invented a new language based around the word "bad". The trailers looked terrible, but I suppose at that point the marketing budget had already been spent and two-thirds of the way through production there was no turning back, but surely the most prudent decision would have been to postpone the release and continue theIf I were capable of encapsulating how awful this film was, I'd have invented a new language based around the word "bad". The trailers looked terrible, but I suppose at that point the marketing budget had already been spent and two-thirds of the way through production there was no turning back, but surely the most prudent decision would have been to postpone the release and continue the test/edit process until a satisfactory cut was found like Into the Blue. John Carter was simply horrible. Expand
  4. Jan 22, 2013
    2
    "John Carter" is just a mess. It's story is incompetently told, the characterization is ludicrous, the motivation of the different fractions diffuse, and the casting is all wrong. Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins are very pretty, but lack a whole lot of charisma. And using the original terminology of the novels just adds to the confusion. I'm all into challenging movies, but this is just"John Carter" is just a mess. It's story is incompetently told, the characterization is ludicrous, the motivation of the different fractions diffuse, and the casting is all wrong. Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins are very pretty, but lack a whole lot of charisma. And using the original terminology of the novels just adds to the confusion. I'm all into challenging movies, but this is just bad, stupid writing, and there are more silly scenes than in some comedies. "John Carter" is just a huge bore. Expand
  5. Jun 2, 2012
    0
    From the very beginning this looked like utter stupidity. Nothing special about special effects. So what if some computer designer drew some stupid creature on his computer. Big Deal! Other than that, lame plot, everything and anything is as out of touch with reality as it can get. Like humanoids on Mars? Martian airships? Seriously? Technologically advanced Martians/aliens thatFrom the very beginning this looked like utter stupidity. Nothing special about special effects. So what if some computer designer drew some stupid creature on his computer. Big Deal! Other than that, lame plot, everything and anything is as out of touch with reality as it can get. Like humanoids on Mars? Martian airships? Seriously? Technologically advanced Martians/aliens that act as if they had the disinterment of a 5-year old? And they wonder this load of nonsense was a commercial failure! Expand
  6. Mar 10, 2012
    3
    A mess. It is pretty amazing that an established director, with Disney as the studio and 200 million dollars can actually make a movie that is this disorganized.

    How can you have quality like A Separation or The Hurt Locker for 10 million dollars and a mashed up piece of whatever for 200 million?
  7. Mar 10, 2012
    0
    This movie was an absolute train wreck. It was simply awful. This was so bad that it was the first movie in 12 years that i got up and walked out of the theater. The pacing of the movie is out of control, it moves so fast that that all the scenes feel rushed. Despite the frantic pace it feels like your stuck in a boat without a sail or paddle. The movie feels like your in stagnant water.This movie was an absolute train wreck. It was simply awful. This was so bad that it was the first movie in 12 years that i got up and walked out of the theater. The pacing of the movie is out of control, it moves so fast that that all the scenes feel rushed. Despite the frantic pace it feels like your stuck in a boat without a sail or paddle. The movie feels like your in stagnant water. The dialogue was terrible and very very boring. The acting left much to be desired. The movie made me cringe because you could tell how awkward the Actors felt during many scenes. The action sequences had a lot of flash with zero substance, no emotion or suspense, all in all the action was very . . . . . bland and uninspired. Towards the last 3rd of the movie i just couldn't handle this snoozefest anymore and i thought to myself, "do i really want to put myself through any more of this torture. . . . Hell NO!" So i got up and walked to the lobby and played Galaga in the arcade until my buddies gave up on the movie too and left early. Don't waist your money and this shameless cash grab. Expand
  8. Mar 9, 2012
    3
    Even with its gorgeous special effects, numerous set-pieces, and massive budget of $250 million, John Carter leaves me with a booming thought in my mind: "That's it?"
  9. Mar 20, 2012
    2
    A Virginia Civil War soldier is transported to Mars, where he helps the good guys fight the overlords. As imaginative as that sounds (actually from a series of Edgar Rice Burroughs books), there's nothing original about the story, the style, the action, the look or the direction of this tedious bomb. So much is derivative that it feels like a really awful, long-lost "Star Wars" spinoff.
  10. Mar 10, 2012
    2
    Great CG cannot save an excellent original story line which is drowned by needlessly long, unnecessary, boring, scenes. The trademark "Disney" is synonymous with excellence,..but in this case, no.
  11. Mar 15, 2012
    0
    Disney has yet again failed to deliver an original movie. It's as if they got the worst parts of Star Wars (Jar Jar Binks mostly) and all of Avatar, and fed it to the viewer after being processed by a geriatric Warthog. Epic Fail.
  12. Mar 23, 2012
    3
    One word I keep reading in relation to John Carter is inconsistent. I felt that choice of word was excellent because the biggest crimes of John Carter is that it buries the fact it actually has emotional resonance underneath cheap thrill action sequences and comedy sequences designed for the Disney family (the Disney family that in the end, didn't go to see the film). The character of JohnOne word I keep reading in relation to John Carter is inconsistent. I felt that choice of word was excellent because the biggest crimes of John Carter is that it buries the fact it actually has emotional resonance underneath cheap thrill action sequences and comedy sequences designed for the Disney family (the Disney family that in the end, didn't go to see the film). The character of John Cater is a conflicted one having suffered severe loss prior to his transportation to Mars. However this issue is glossed over as he begins leaping around the planet and getting involved in a war that's justification is NEVER given. In fact the film explores different parts of John Carter's personality at different times in the film so you have to struggle through his problems with wars in general before you really get to why he is the way he is. There is a sequence halfway through that is so powerful and poignant that it almost saves the film because it finally gives the viewer someone to support, someone to root for, but then the film returns to its predictable action and linear storytelling and everything that was good is bad again. Taylor Kitsch does a decent job portraying Carter regardless of the bad script and storytelling but he is let down by most of his supporting cast. Lynn Collins puts little effort in and never seems comfortable in the role making her scenes irritating, Dominic West tries to get by on charm but he fails to realise he doesn't have any and Ciaran Hinds looks as bored as he must have felt. The films 250 million dollar budget is evident in some truly stunning visuals but at times they can be a bit jarring in that the humans and creatures never really mesh when they are on screen together. However the CGI and the world created by Andrew Stanton is beautiful in the way Avatar was despite the large amount of sand. The film at times borders on cute because its a Disney film but overall it doesn't provide enough character to even pull that off. It's a shame as they advertised the film as '100 years in the making' as Edgar Rice Burroughs published the first of his John Carter novels in 1912. I wonder if it was made sooner, would it have been any better than this uninvolved yet beautiful mess of a picture? Expand
  13. Mar 12, 2012
    0
    One of the worst movies I've ever seen at the cinema, with the possible exception of Indiana Jones IV. Its only saving grace were the special effects and only when it came to scenery, not the aliens, who all looked like Jar Jar Binks wannabes. The lead actor was just awful, his acting was beyond bad, it was so horrid many people in the theatre were laughing when he delivered the cheesyOne of the worst movies I've ever seen at the cinema, with the possible exception of Indiana Jones IV. Its only saving grace were the special effects and only when it came to scenery, not the aliens, who all looked like Jar Jar Binks wannabes. The lead actor was just awful, his acting was beyond bad, it was so horrid many people in the theatre were laughing when he delivered the cheesy one-liners with the earnesty of 5-year-old at a school play. Sure, he was pretty, like a Bravo-girl poster pretty, but is that really what it takes to be a fantasy lead? Where are the Han Solos of this generation? The lead actress was better, but not astonishingly so. The story was needlessly complicated and the emotional background for the main character was pointless and forced. The jokes were childish and not very amusing and the dialogues... dear lord, I want those two hours of my life back. I'm actually a life-long sci/fantasy fan, and I admire Burroughs and his fantasy balls of brass, so I wouldn't be so hard on the film (some of the CGI was nice), if it weren't for the amount of money wasted on it - 250 mil, plus 100 mil marketing - do you have any idea how many good movies, even only within the sci-fi/sci-fantasy genre, could've been made for that amount? But no, it was poured down this drain.
    And worst part - there's idiots everywhere claiming the movie is awesome and anybody who doesn't like it is a "hater". I don't know what their motivations are, but their like die-hard McDonalds fans - the more you support it, the worse your health is. Let go of this tripe and try a decent sci-fi story once in awhile. Asimov will do for starters, Lem, too. Your choice though.
    Expand
  14. Mar 10, 2012
    3
    So strange. You have brillant director, yet this film is a formula. It is like the producers and writers all ganged up to make a known quantity; that is really much better as a novel (exposition that never stops, just tedious). I was disappointed to say the least. Way too many story lines that have you more confused than interested. Only die hard fans of this type of genre will like it.
  15. Mar 9, 2012
    0
    "Trust me" said Andrew Stanton a self-proclaimed fan of the books. I wouldn't trust him if he told me the sun would rise tomorrow after seeing the way he pulled the book apart. Maybe he read the same book as Rogosh, but it definitely wasn't A Princess of Mars. I was introduced to the books over 30 years ago, aged 10 and have read and re-read them many times since, most recently the last"Trust me" said Andrew Stanton a self-proclaimed fan of the books. I wouldn't trust him if he told me the sun would rise tomorrow after seeing the way he pulled the book apart. Maybe he read the same book as Rogosh, but it definitely wasn't A Princess of Mars. I was introduced to the books over 30 years ago, aged 10 and have read and re-read them many times since, most recently the last few weeks I re-read the 1st 3 books.
    Others have given a synopsis, the trouble is there are so many changes to the book that this is not much more than a reworking. From minor details such as Carter not staying with Burroughs when he 'died', to pretty major changes in plot and timeline.
    Stanton has introduced characters that we don't meet until the 2nd book and changed character status around with no apparent purpose. Then there are pretty major characters that are missing.
    I can understand missing parts from books as they may not work in a film or there isn't enough time, but to rework a book to such an extent and never once mention that it is a reworking is basically lying to the legions of fans out there. I will not be watching any further films in the series unless Stanton is thrown out.
    As for the characters, John Carter did not give me the impression of a man of honour who would fight for what he thought was right, more a depressive that wasn't really interested in anyone but his own self pity. Dejah Thoris waxed briefly, then waned. She had a strong opening and displayed some of the royal pride and standing I would expect, only to wither into a flaky weak woman.
    As a fan of ERB's books, I am thoroughly disappointed with this film.
    As a sci-fi romp I would only give it a middle score as it is ok based on that, but there are no really strong characters nor a solid story line. Even the effects are just ok. Ignoring the books for a moment, nothing about this film stands out as original or innovative.
    Expand
  16. Apr 5, 2013
    0
    Beyond bad. Where the heck did they dig up Taylor Kitsch to star in this I saw him in 'Battleship' which bombed as well, and he was one of the main reasons. He has absolutely NO charisma, and that in turn makes each and every one of his lines...laughable. This entire movie is a nauseating mess, where one scene is worse than the next. Anyone who sits through this deserves a medal of honor.
  17. Jul 4, 2012
    2
    My roommate took this film home last night and I decided to watch it with him despite hearing that the film had flopped at the box office. Well, I wish I hadn't. Someone's cooking the books, too, on the average user score of 7.1 average. Total fantasy. I found myself laughing at the serious parts, groaning at the "funny" parts and yawning most of the rest of the time. How can a movieMy roommate took this film home last night and I decided to watch it with him despite hearing that the film had flopped at the box office. Well, I wish I hadn't. Someone's cooking the books, too, on the average user score of 7.1 average. Total fantasy. I found myself laughing at the serious parts, groaning at the "funny" parts and yawning most of the rest of the time. How can a movie be so predictable and yet take so long to get where it's going? A horrible combination. The one surprise? That Disney made an ultra-violet action film devoid of any moral or inspirational message. I kept thinking to myself, "Disney made this?" Biggest disappointment? Taylor Kitsch. I really like this guy in Friday Night Lights, but he's just not ready for a feature film. Do yourself and favor and rent something else. Expand
  18. Apr 8, 2012
    3
    I knew that John Carter was a big failure. Disney done it last year with Mars Needs Mars and now John Carter. When I saw the commercial for the movie, it was supposed to be the "first big blockbuster of the summer," but they blew it. 3 Disney movies that have the with or without the word "Mars" on it and I can't take it anymore. Once they making a sequel soon, I hope I will not see it inI knew that John Carter was a big failure. Disney done it last year with Mars Needs Mars and now John Carter. When I saw the commercial for the movie, it was supposed to be the "first big blockbuster of the summer," but they blew it. 3 Disney movies that have the with or without the word "Mars" on it and I can't take it anymore. Once they making a sequel soon, I hope I will not see it in 3-D. It's even worse than Green Lantern. Disney, I'm very disappointed at you. John Carter is one of the worst movies of 2012 for me this far. Expand
  19. Jun 1, 2012
    2
    The movie starts off good. It's funny, interesting, and looks very different from most other sci-fi movies. But after the first half hour it starts to regress into worn out cliches. The effects are the only things that is consistently good throughout the movie. The middle of the film is it's weakest point. It spends a lot of time developing a very stereotypical romance between the heroThe movie starts off good. It's funny, interesting, and looks very different from most other sci-fi movies. But after the first half hour it starts to regress into worn out cliches. The effects are the only things that is consistently good throughout the movie. The middle of the film is it's weakest point. It spends a lot of time developing a very stereotypical romance between the hero and the heroine, it doesn't really advance the plot, but it goes on for so long that the climactic battle is kept far too short and feels like a let down considering the movie spent two and half hours building up to it. Then there is the "twist" ending that seems like it was thrown together at the last minute. Of course by then I was so ready for the movie to be over that I didn't end up caring much. My advice to director Andrew Stanton: stick to Pixar movies, because you're great at making those. Expand
  20. May 15, 2012
    3
    Not bad,

    But for a film encompassing the character John Carter, it is ultimately depressingly mediocre. Good Points; - Awesome visuals; - John Carter's, pseudo-super powers (It's not a spoiler, it's in the trailer); - Interesting character dynamics; - Intricate world; Bad Points - Goddamn DISNEY-ISMS! (a cute animal does not a good movie make!) - Ridiculous dialog at points; - Lack of
    Not bad,

    But for a film encompassing the character John Carter, it is ultimately depressingly mediocre.

    Good Points;
    - Awesome visuals;
    - John Carter's, pseudo-super powers (It's not a spoiler, it's in the trailer);
    - Interesting character dynamics;
    - Intricate world;

    Bad Points
    - Goddamn DISNEY-ISMS! (a cute animal does not a good movie make!)
    - Ridiculous dialog at points;
    - Lack of story coherence (feels like The Phantom Menace)

    Overall;
    Don't waste your time
    Expand
  21. Jun 29, 2013
    3
    Really wasnt good. Boring at times lengthy and kinda a terrible plot. And disney wonders why this movie didnt make much in theaters. It just wasnt good.
  22. Jun 26, 2013
    0
    worth $250 million No way.

    these movies as well. What's upset me is budget. What a waste of money. Not a worth a money. All these movies are not even good, horrible for me. Many lower budget movies are better, why do they need that big budget to make. What makes me more upset is there will be a sequel. Some of these movie didn't made enough money to match their budget. Then still
    worth $250 million No way.

    these movies as well.
    What's upset me is budget. What a waste of money. Not a worth a money. All these movies are not even good, horrible for me. Many lower budget movies are better, why do they need that big budget to make. What makes me more upset is there will be a sequel. Some of these movie didn't made enough money to match their budget. Then still there will be a sequel.Some movies made a lot of money, but still it had many bad review. It will be make a movie for a money or for viewers.

    Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
    Tangled
    Spider-Man 3
    John Carter
    Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
    Avatar
    The Dark Knight Rises
    The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
    Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest
    The Avengers
    Men in Black 3
    Oz the Great and Powerful
    X-Men: The Last Stand
    Battleship
    King Kong
    Superman Returns
    Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
    2012
    Spider-Man 2
    Quantum of Solace
    Terminator Salvation
    Green Lantern
    Toy Story 3
    Cars 2
    The Amazing Spider-Man
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
    Transformers: Dark of the Moon
    Jack the Giant Slayer
    Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
    Brave
    The Golden Compass
    The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
    WALL-E
    Troy
    Monsters vs. Aliens
    Evan Almighty
    Up
    A Christmas Carol
    Waterworld
    Snow White & the Huntsman
    Wild Wild West
    Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
    G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra
    Iron Man 2
    Tron: Legacy
    How to Train Your Dragon Wreck-It Ralph Cowboys & Aliens Sahara Van Helsing Poseidon Shrek the Third Inception Robin Hood Alexander The Lord of the Rings trilogy The Matrix trilogy The Twilight trilogy
    Expand
  23. Jul 29, 2013
    1
    hammy plot tired predictable this is why mars died as a habitable planet. Sci fi takes another body shot bad acting performance yet again from Taylor kitsch.
  24. Oct 7, 2013
    2
    An extremely fine comedy... wait what? It wasn't? It was supposed to be a sci-fi adventure film? My bad!
    In that case, this movie fails completely as that genre. It is so mind-numbingly ridiculous; the movie ends up being funny for the wrong reasons. Because of that, I'll give the movie some credit but overall:
    If you're going to watch it a 2nd or 3rd time, treat it like a comedy; don't
    An extremely fine comedy... wait what? It wasn't? It was supposed to be a sci-fi adventure film? My bad!
    In that case, this movie fails completely as that genre. It is so mind-numbingly ridiculous; the movie ends up being funny for the wrong reasons. Because of that, I'll give the movie some credit but overall:
    If you're going to watch it a 2nd or 3rd time, treat it like a comedy; don't take it too seriously.
    Expand
  25. Apr 30, 2013
    3
    John Carter looks great one of the more visually pleasing movies of the year, but the story is pointless and by the end you just don't care what side wins or loses.
Metascore
51

Mixed or average reviews - based on 42 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 15 out of 42
  2. Negative: 7 out of 42
  1. Reviewed by: David Denby
    Mar 19, 2012
    40
    Burroughs invented a primal fiction: a man winds up on another planet, and has to find his way among strange creatures. Sticking to that fable, which was central to "Avatar," might have saved John Carter, but Stanton loses its appealing simplicity in too many battles, too many creatures, too many redundant episodes. [26 March 2012, p.108]
  2. Reviewed by: Jonathan Crocker
    Mar 18, 2012
    60
    Get your ass to Mars? A handsome new sci-fi adventure that feels rather familiar. Enjoyable enough while it lasts, John Carter is big on ambition and disappointingly short on action.
  3. Reviewed by: Peter Bradshaw
    Mar 18, 2012
    20
    Dejah, with her seen-it-all-before smirk, is not a very sympathetic heroine, and Kitsch is stolid and dull. And as for the red planet, the answer to David Bowie's famous question is no. What a sadd'ning bore it is.