- Studio: Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures
- Release Date: Mar 9, 2012
User Score
7.0
out of 10
Generally favorable reviews- based on 444 Ratings
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 345 out of 444
-
Mixed: 50 out of 444
-
Negative: 49 out of 444
Review this movie
-
-
Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.
-
-
Submit
-
Check Spelling
- User score
- Most active
- By date
- Most helpful
- Most Clicked
-
Mar 9, 20122A 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.
-
Mar 10, 20120
-
Mar 9, 20123Even 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?"
-
Mar 10, 20123A 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? -
Mar 12, 20124A dull Prince of Persia/Avatar clone. The only thing that could have saved this movie was if David Lynch wrote the script and Takashi Miike directed it, now that would be a messed up movie I'd actually want to see.
-
Mar 20, 20122A 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.
-
Mar 10, 20123So 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.
-
Mar 10, 20122Great 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.
-
Mar 9, 20120
-
Mar 15, 20120Disney 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.
-
Jun 17, 20122
-
Jun 2, 20120
-
Mar 23, 20123
-
Mar 12, 20120
-
Jun 13, 20120
-
Jan 22, 20132
-
Apr 5, 20130Beyond 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.
-
Jul 4, 20122
-
Apr 8, 20123
-
Apr 3, 20124John Carter was pretty terrible. Everything felt completely out of place. The characters were drab and uneventful. The plot was cliche and boring. Good attempt but horrible product.
-
May 29, 20124What the film makes up with interesting plotting, it fails in creating something new, exciting or different. Subpar alien people, mediocre visual effects, and some bad dialog characterize a film in which Disney put all its eggs ($250 million) in one basket. Too bad they were rotten eggs. Feels like a cross between National Treasure and Avatar, not a great combination.
-
Apr 19, 20124
-
Jun 1, 20122
-
Mar 12, 20124"Aside from a few inspired vistas and alien life-forms, John Carter is as deadly dull as its basso-voiced, beefcake slab of a star, Taylor Kitsch." - Keith Uhlich nailed the review.
-
Apr 13, 20124Once upon a time, the folks at Disney wanted to make a movie that combines the qualities of Westerns, War Epics, and Science Fiction. 250 million dollars later, and we are introduced to the vast and zealous vision of â
-
May 15, 20123
-
May 24, 20124
-
Apr 30, 20134John 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.
-
40Burroughs 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]
-
60Get 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.
-
20Dejah, 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.