Counterpoint: 5 Reasons Why ‘John Carter’ Is A Disappointing Movie

Published 3 years ago by , Updated March 10th, 2012 at 2:11 pm, This is a list post.

John Carter Discussion[EDITOR'S NOTE: The following is a counterpoint to our positive review of John Carter, and reflects the sole opinion of contributor John Hanlon.]John Carter could have been a good movie. In fact, I included it in a list of 10 films that we here at Screen Rant were looking forward to this month. The trailer made the imagery look exciting and I was eagerly anticipating one of the first leading movie roles that Friday Night Lights alum Taylor Kitsch was taking on. Unfortunately, I was massively disappointed by this tired adaptation of the iconic Edgar Rice Burroughs story.Admittedly, some here at Screen Rant have enjoyed this wannabe sci-fi epic, including managing editor Kofi Outlaw, who wrote our official John Carter review. But as a viewer and a critic, I was greatly disappointed - so I've composed a list of five reasons why the movie was a 'fail' for me. As always, let us know your own opinion in the comments below.


The Concept

Taylor Kitsch in the 'John Carter' movieJohn Carter focuses on the title character, who in the late 19th century is a Civil War veteran frustrated with the war. He’s a veritable misanthrope who no longer wishes to fight, and declines an invitation to rejoin the battle. But shortly after he rejects that idea, he is mysteriously transported to Mars, where he unwittingly becomes involved in a battle for the survival of that planet and its inhabitants.This strange concept seems bizarre enough to scare away possible viewers. A Civil War veteran fighting on Mars? This isn’t a plot that should be adapted into a movie. It sounds more like a dream someone has when they’ve been spent an evening reading both history and comic books.  It's not an interesting mix of concepts (or at least, it's very dated) and this shows throughout the story.

The Characters

Lynn Collins as Dejah Thoris in John CarterOkay. Getting beyond the bizarre story that finds Carter on a distant planet, it’s important to focus on the characters in the film. Strong relatable  characters can, at times, compensate for a bad plot or a silly storyline.However, that doesn't happen here. For me, there were no interesting or identifiable characters in the entire film. Carter himself is a bland stereotypical archetype unwilling to engage in battle until he is thrust into it. At least Luke Skywalker served as a relatable character in Star Wars. But he had more personality than Carter. Not even any of the aliens he befriends are memorable. In fact, I found it difficult to keep track of them because I didn't care for any of them.

The Dialogue

John Carter and Princess Deja Thoris

The dialogue throughout this entire story is often atrociously wooden. First off, Carter’s banal banter is tough to bear. He speaks in strong committed sentences - “We’re nothing but a war species and I want no part of it,” he says, as if he has the authority of Moses. He continues with declarative sentences throughout the picture. “I don’t fight for anyone,” he says later, adding, “War is a shameful thing.” There’s no depth to dialogue like this and little reasoning behind it. It’s okay for a character to have a certain mindset about something, but Carter’s dialogue is so dry and uninspired that it’s hard to take an interest in him.Not to mention the fact that the aliens' dialogue isn't any better. “You are ugly but you are beautiful,” one says to Carter. Of course, these throwaway lines are only the tip of the iceberg. When Carter first arrives on Mars, the aliens think that his real name is "Virginia" - a running joke that never actually works. And the romance between Carter and his alien princess doesn’t work because the script throws them together too quickly and never tries to find any depth in their relationship - something stronger dialogue could have helped develop.

The Run Time

john carter movie featurette taylor kitschIt is one thing to make a disappointing film. It is quite another thing to make a disappointing film that lasts for nearly two and a half hours. John Carter meanders its way through 137 minutes of silliness and overdone action sequences. By the end of the movie, I understood the story that the writers were attempting to tell, but it should never have taken that long to get there.More does not always equal better - see Transformers 2 for details - and this film seems to pack in as much action and battle sequences as possible. That doesn’t translate into an exciting movie. It translates into a failed epic that goes on for far too long with little depth or substance.

Lackluster Effects & Moments

John Carter battles White ApesThere are so many more reasons to be disappointed in John Carter. In addition to the aforementioned items, the visual effects aren’t even that good. Many of them look extremely fake, and for a movie that cost so much to produce, it’s surprising that the CGI team offered such a mediocre product.The story also offers up a few other reasons to be disappointed. There’s a silly paternity revelation involving two aliens that feels like it could have been featured on an extraterrestrial version of Jerry Springer. There’s also a scene where Carter kills a beast and is covered in its blue blood, which makes it seem like Kitsch is either auditioning for a role in the Blue Man Group, or an extra in the new season of Arrested Development. These scenes add to the silliness of this entire endeavor.

5 Reasons why 'John Carter' is such a Disappointing Film

John Carter Movie DiscussionJohn Carter is attracting mixed reviews from critics so it’s likely to engender debate among the audience (Feel free to join the debate at our John Carter Discussion thread).As a fan of the Star Wars, I wanted this movie to work and to signal the beginning of a new epic science fiction series. Instead, it just showed me how hard it is to create a quality film with so many details to include. Screen Rant critic Kofi Outlaw and I surely disagree on the success of John Carter, but I encourage you to check out his review and then tell us who you think is right about this movie.Here, again, are my five reasons for being so disappointed in John Carter….
  1. The Concept: A Civil War Veteran on Mars? What's to Like?
  2. The Characters: No Memorable Characters to Relate to
  3. The Dialogue: No Depth or Substance in the Proceedings
  4. The Length: 137 Minutes of an Underwhelming Story
  5. Mundane Effects & Moments: Forgettable Effects, Alien Paternity &  Other Silly Story Beats
Follow me on Twitter @johnhanlon.
TAGS: john carter


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. Though I don’t like the counterpoint post I appreciate the attempt its always nice to see something new. And I welcome john to the screen rants crew.

  2. Is this the same Mars that’s in our planetary system? You know, the red planet which we all know is uninhabitable?

    • Well it is fantasy y’know. ;)

    • It explains very quickly that it’s not uninhabitable.

    • And there are not Superman, Batman, Middle Earth, etc., etc., etc. Your point, then, is?

    • I knew ahead of time there might be a few responses about “being fantasy” or “superman isnt real”, Im surprised no one said light sabers dont exist. C’mon peanuts you’re slacking.

      The point is the basic premise doesnt hold up well to more modern themes, regardless how much fantasy you throw in. It’s just exudes “old fantasy” from a time even the best writers’s ideas of their time are silly now that we’ve actually made a few scientific discoveries.

      I guess Im one of those who like the fantasy part rooted in something unexplained or hard to grasp, something complex enough to deter much analysis – or rooted in something partially real.

      Even though I like the superhero movies in general, time travel, even hobbits, I dunno the people on mars thing doesnt do it for me, and will avoid seeing it even when it’s on cable some day.

      You know, it’s odd they just didnt change that part of the movie so that it’s a different planet, wouldnt that have been better?

      • You might do a movie about people living under water, say in the deepest part of the Atlantic where no one has ever laid eyes on (Pick your favorite ocean or sea). But a movie about people found living under water in Lake Michigan would not be so interesting or grounded in anything since we know every mile of the Great Lakes.

        That’s sort of what Im getting at.

        • Suspension of disbelief my friend.

      • I saw it yesterday, I like Taylor Kitch, I also like the review on this one and the reference to Moses. Indeed, you had Charlton Heston in Planet of the Apes, much more charisma then Marky Mark. Charlton Heston in Omega man, much more credible then Will Smith in I am Legend. A much older actor would have been better to support the weight of the whole movie.

      • You know because scientific fact never changes…what’s Pluto again? We may know more about Mars nowadays, but honestly, do you believe we know everything? Our scientists can’t even figure out if an artificial sweetener is healthy…on this planet. Sure life doesn’t exist on Mars…or maybe that’s what they want you to believe. Ever see Men in Black? Keep an open mind…it’s science fiction fantasy not actual science.

      • I agree with you, Vanguard. When production first began I assumed he’d be transported to another planet, that wasn’t Mars, but maybe he called it “Mars.” That would have made more sense. Movies need some boundaries, or internal logic. I know it’s “Science-fantasy,” but Mars is too close and too well known to a lot of people, especially to a lot of sci-fi fans. Using the actual planet Mars isn’t a complete deal-breaker, but it may have been a poor choice.

        • Also, making it another planet entirely would have allowed them to incorporate all kinds of other environments, like jungles and oceans, which may have been more interesting.

          I didn’t know much about John Carter of Mars except from brief descriptions and mostly from the painted images and comic book images I’ve seen over the years. So I imagined more exotic plants and animals. (Although I haven’t seen the movie yet).

      • Think of it as a parallel universe. It has to be anyway. Can’t think of the last time a human jumped between planets either.

        As for old fantasy: the problem wasn’t how old the story was (1915) It was how uninspired the writers/director were. A lot of this movie could have been a lot better if it were a few minor things. 1. A memorable theme or soundtrack. 2. An art director and costume designer that didn’t look to Hasbro for their armor and set pieces. 3. A script that sped things up, with scenes that tried to accomplish more then one thing at a time.

      • Well back when this was a book, scientists thought that Mars was full of life. They thought they saw canals, buildings, and such when it turned out it wasnt. Thats what this movie Mars is about – the early 20th/late 19th view of Mars.

    • We’ll be able to live there someday, there is water there after all.

      • Frozen water on the poles, and maybe underground. I think there is evidence that water flowed and there were shallow oceans, millions of years ago. But I think it didn’t have enough of an atmosphere. Maybe it was a lack of mass, and gravity, that made the delicate atmosphere blow away. If Earth didn’t have a magnetic field, life would very quickly get fried by radiation from the sun.

        • Actually, in the first book it is established that the Therns maintained the Atmosphere with a giant terraforming plant. Because of his genetic makeup, on Barsoom John Carter had psychic abilities. These psychic abilities were what the Therns used to control these processing stations.

          At the end of “A Princess of Mars” the machines that maintained the atmosphere began to fail and everyone on the planet began to fall ill from the failing air. Because of his stronger physical makeup John Carter was able to travel to the processing station and reboot it using his mental powers. It is then that he is inexplicably returned back to earth not knowing if he succeeded in saving the whole planet.

    • I, for one, was very pleased at the loyalty to the books. It, of course, was a re-telling, but it was nice to see the stories of my youth portrayed on the screen. As for those who can’t enjoy this movie because they can’t stop picking the “flaws” in logic; I’m just glad you weren’t in the theater with me. You would have ended up with a popcorn bucket for a hat.

  3. the running time is not 137 minutes, it’s 132 minutes…you are not so much informed about this movie

    • Oh come one… so what if he was 5 minutes off?
      5 minutes means nothing (and it most certainly doesn’t mean that he isn’t well informed)

  4. Well anytime you have one person standing amongst a group of cgi characters of course it’s going to look fake. But I think that the dog and aliens were done well.

    • Will Hulk in Avengers look as real as the green aliens? If he don’t that movie is a BIG fail!

  5. I read the 11 “Martian series” Edgar Rice Burroughs books about 45 years ago, when I was 14 years old. Thought they were GREAT then, and I think this movie is a creditable attempt to put them on screen. Burroughs’ FANTASTIC imagination is truly brought to life! I hope Disney sticks with it and gives us at least a couple more installments. Tell your friends to go see John Carter so Disney has some financial motivation to proceed. Read the books while you wait for the next movie.

  6. I for one really liked the movie (It was fun – and IMO, it was never going to be “the next big thing”). I already posted my thoughts about it on the review’s comment section, so I won’t bother writing it here as well.
    I can respect that this is the writers’ opinion, but I do have a few things that I feel I should point out:

    “This strange concept seems bizarre enough to scare away possible viewers. A Civil War veteran fighting on Mars? This isn’t a plot that should be adapted into a movie. It sounds more like a dream someone has when they’ve been spent an evening reading both history and comic books.”
    – but am I correct in saying that ‘John Carter’ is actually an adaption of a comic book series? In which case, the “concept” of the movie makes sense (seeing as it’s based off of comic book).

    “When Carter first arrives on Mars, the aliens think that his real name is “Virginia” – a running joke that never actually works.”
    – the people in the cinema laughed when I went to go see it.

    I pretty much disagree with all the points and opinions made here, to be blunt (save one: the run time… I agree that 2hrs and 30mins is unnecessary).

  7. @Longshanks

    I agree with most of your comments, only really take exception with Fight Club. I personally think it’s one of the most overrated movies of the late 90s but like you say it’s all about difference of opinion which can be taken or left

    • Shhhhh! You’re not supposed to talk about Fight Club :P

      • LMAO that’s great

  8. that was a lobsterly clunker of a review!

  9. how do a cowboy know what mars is

  10. Totally disagree with John’s take on the movie.

    However, with that being said, I like the concept of a counterpoint review on Screenrant, and would like to see more of them.

    • I agree. The concept potentially gives the story a strong sense of scope (as it “time,” not mouthwash).

  11. While I disagree with the entire counterpoint I do respect their right to share it and appreciate the fact that ScreenRant allowed it. I can only hope that if i wanted to share a counterpoint they would allow me to do the same. Good job guys. And just to note. I enjoyed the movie. It wasnt as bad as I heard it would be. But I never read the books so i wouldnt know.

  12. There is only really one flaw I can find with this piece. Considering the amount of times he references it, he clearly went into the cinema looking for a new Star Wars.

    Never going to happy, buddy.

  13. Saw it yesterday, thought it was C flat !! I think the Visual Effects are pretty good. The characters are not too well developed, I didn’t care for any of em at all, even the Aliens. As I mentioned earlier, maybe if this was done with a Charlton Heston kinda actor it would have been better. I like to see new people and fresh faces, but the script fell flat. I will join Jason there, wasn’t a bad movie, could have been better. I love the ending so far where he takes a lifetime to find the medallion and goes back to Mars.

  14. It is good to see counter points. It makes the reviews more useful if you are trying to decide to go to a $13 3-d movie. (well I am sure the $$ just told everyone I don’t live in DC or NY).

    I don’t agree with the reasons but I also didn’t love the movie. I am on the fence to it, which for me means it wasn’t bad but I don’t have the urge to see it again anytime soon.

    Some of the posts indicate some are not aware that this is from a book back in the early SF period. I think they do a good job of making the red planet acceptable. They do not do credit to the book as to the mars culture. Too condensed but that is more due the the movie time limit.

    I personally loved the Virginia joke and thought they pulled it off perfectly! The theater audience laughed out loud at this. Disclaimer – I live in Virginia and that probably had something to do with it.

    The other moment I thought was great without spoiling it was the hand gesture late in the movie during a battle scene. I love that!

    Oh yeah, and the martian princess was beuatiful. She alone was worth seeing the movie, but I am not critic. :)

  15. Loved that blog post!

  16. Counterpoint is great But more than 5 reasons would be better or at least a longer detailed explanation. I would call this experiment a success, Anybody agree?. Keep them counterpoints coming from now on I say. The next Counterpoint to start a forest fire in Screen Rant will be….’The Avengers’ Bwahaha :D

  17. Having read the books many (many) years ago, my greatest fear was today’s audiences might not be literate enough to appreciate the story. This review supports that fear in some respects. The movie certainly wasn’t perfect, but I found it respectful of the material it was drawn from. The reviewer’s failure to be familiar with the source material is not the movie’s fault.

    • Mike, maybe they should refuse to sell tickets to people until they can demonstrate familiarity with the books. Maybe everyone should have to take a test, or write an original essay before they’re are granted permission to pay money to see the movie.

      There’s plenty of books you, me, and everyone aren’t familiar with. Is that a “failure?” Is everyone “not literate enough?” A movie has to stand on it’s own.

      I haven’t seen the movie yet. I was actually excited about it. I never read the books, but I did read at least eight of the Tarzan books (as a kid), so I appreciate ERB. I also was rooting for a Pixar director, and was hopeful for his jump to live action. It sounds like it’s not a bad movie, but not a really good one either.

  18. The counterpoints aren’t very good.

    1) The Concept: The concept behind John Carter is great, proven, and quite workable. It launched Edgar Rice Burroughs’ career after all. The movie did put extra baggage on it, with all that Civil War inner conflict in Carter (not there in the book). I don’t think they should have done so, they didn’t need to, but they worked it into the film in an acceptable fashion. For the girl interest, to explain Carter’s adoption of the princess as a redemptive stand-in for the wife he lost. Since that’s the route they chose, I accept why they did this.

    2) The Characters: If anything, the characters are too likeable. There was a lot not to like about the green Martians in the book, they were quite problematic for Carter. That said, Tars Tarkas and the rivalry between the green females is well done. Sola’s a standout, despite her only suggested origins. Carter himself and the princess are well played.

    3) The Dialogue: Always a problem. Few movies do have great dialogue. I wouldn’t say this one has bad dialogue. It’s quite passable, there are no embarrassments, which is rare. The dialogue doesn’t stand out, but it doesn’t fail, either.

    4) The Run Time: This is a very weak criticism, for any film. They’re all shorter than your standard play by and large. Hamlet’s longer than John Carter. I guess Hamlet stinks then?

    5) Special Effects: This is a shocking criticism. I saw the film in IMAX 3D, and the visuals and sound were gripping. They are two of the film’s strong points. It is a film with very high production qualities. I don’t understand this criticism one bit.

  19. Everyone seems to be missing the point to John’s article. He isn’t writing a review of the film, merely listing 5 reasons he PERSONALLY didn’t enjoy it. The movie is currently hovering around 50% on Rotten Tomatoes so there ARE some people out there that didn’t like the film – he isn’t alone.

    I don’t agree with everything he said in here (I thought the effects were great and rather enjoyed the story) but I do agree that it felt a tad too long because, as Kofi points out in the actual REVIEW of the film, things get bogged down somewhere around the middle.

    I do find it funny that Kofi’s positive review of the film only has half the comments of this negative look at the film – and most of those bashing John for writing it in the first place. I wonder why the people who actually enjoyed the film aren’t posting positive supportive comments on the actual review?

    Paul Young

      • Indeed.

      • @B-List – Rotten Tomatoes isn’t the end all for movies but it doesn’t give a good indication of how the general populus feels about a certain film.

        • @Paul – The general population also loves American Idol. I’ll stick with the Screen Ranters opinions. ;)

          • ^LMFAO, B-List has a point

          • @B-List – LOL Point taken sir :)

          • Ckeckmate! :-D

  20. My own thought is this-go with your gut. If this film looks great-or you have waited it as long as I and other Edgar Rice Burroughs fans have then go see it. It doesn’t matter whether this film gets glowing reviews or not. If it looks bad then skip it. No one is forcing you to go. For myself I’m going because I’m a fan not because some critic likes it or doesn’t. Their opinion isn’t important to me and it shouldn’t be to other people. Yes it’s nice to get love from the critics if you’re a filmmaker but to the average moviegoer that isn’t important. What’s important was were they entertained? And if you were the movie is then a winner which is what matters most.

  21. Well,
    I care about what Rotten Tomatoes Thinks because it represents the General Audience And I have not seen the film yet.

  22. These counterpoints are astute.

    It is shocking to me how well received this movie has been on this website via the initial review, and the comments. It definitely diminishes how much weight I hold in this website’s reviews and the website readers’ opinions (not that I think it matters to anyone).

    This movie was long and overly drawn out. Every time the action stops, the terrible dialogue kicks in, and the whole movie just deflates. But unfortunately, the action isn’t that great either.

    It’s beyond me how people don’t find the dialogue in this movie to be extremely stiff and unnatural.

    I went with five other people and we all hated the movie.

    • Am particularly disappointed in how this turned out, mostly because it could have been such a really great and fun movie, if it had been in the right hands (and studio)! Already this insipid version of “Pirates of the Caribean on Mars” has Disney’s heavy “family-friendly” handprint all over it. But I didn’t realize just how bad it was, until just coming across a glowing review of “John Carter” on a Christian website, and mostly because the Director, Stanton, has apparently been going about publicly proclaiming his “faith”! Hmmm… a rousing adult sci-fi story from the 40′s, about muscle-bound heroes, violent swordplay, and scantily clad alien women… yet directed by a born-again Christian and produced by the company famous for Disneyland, Mickey Mouse and Snow White! Gee, what could go wrong?!! ;-p

    • Well I’m “shocked” and “disappointed” that there are people who didn’t enjoy the movie. I thought it was terrific fun and not just a shallow effects reel. How the awful “Star Wars” prequels can do so well each time after being disappointing on nearly every level is beyond me. I guess if you have the brand and the merchandise line people will buy into it no matter how bad it is.

      It’s a shame when something so genuinely good and fun is dragged down before it’s proven it’s worth. I swear people enjoy seeing things fail. Do you think I wanted the “Star Wars” prequels to be absolute guff? No, as a fan since 77 I wanted them to be great. But that’s not what I got. If only they were 1/50th as good as “John Carter” was.

      • If you liked the flick and felt you got some value for your money, then fine. But does everyone who disagrees with you always have to be part of some urge or conspiracy to “drag the good things down” (which judging by both the box office returns and the critics, is apparently a LOT of us… LOL)?!

        • Yes. Yes they are. ;)

          • “…a rousing adult sci-fi story from the 40′s, about muscle-bound heroes, violent swordplay, and scantily clad alien women… yet directed by a born-again Christian and produced by the company famous for Disneyland…”

            This story came out in 1917, not the 40s.

            So what that the director is a born again Christian? Just because of your religion doesnt mean you cant do things like make movies with scantily clad alien women and all. Thats prejudice.

            Disney is also the backer of the Avengers, Armageddon, Gone in 60 seconds, and other films.

            So all 3 of your arguments are built on sand. Just say you dont like it, dont give bad reasons for it.

            • If this movie is so great, then how come so many of the folks who liked it, also seem to desperately require everyone else to agree with ‘em?
              Which BTW, sounds an awful lot like religious Fundamentalism (among other things…)!

              • No one is requiring anyone else to agree with them, most of the people on here have said that they respect Hanlon’s view but they disagree. No one who likes this is trying to make others like it, and no its not like religious fundamentalism.

                And what is it with you and trying to bring religion in this? This whole site is about movies, not bashing religion.

                • The point is that right from the get-go, Disney obviously went to great lengths to “sanitize” this production to be more “family-friendly”, including hiring a very “family-safe” director. Now if that kinda thang is someone’s “cuppa”, fine, but let’s just say that was never the intended audience for the original “source material”, and apparently a few things got lost in the “translation”. So maybe the disappointing sales have something to do with the differences in audience expectations.

                  BTW, speaking of ‘religion’, why are you starting to sound like an evangelist?

                  • “The point is that right from the get-go.”

                    What that no one is trying to make others go see it, or that people on here respect but disagree with Hanlon’s view on this film?

                    “Disney obviously went to great lengths to “sanitize” this production to be more “family-friendly”, including hiring a very “family-safe” director.”

                    I’m guessing you know nothing of the movie business, as they – Disney – want to make money. They cant make money unless they get a lot of people in to see it. Also calling it “family-friendly” and “sanitize” and having a “family-safe director” is idiotic. This was the directors first foray into live action films, just because he did two animated films doesnt mean he is family safe. Also I would like to know a family that would let their little kids go watch a movie where the main girl wears a skimpy outfit, force weddings, killing, and all. Thats more along the lines of teens and older people will watch nowadays.

                    “Now if that kinda thang is someone’s “cuppa”, fine, but let’s just say that was never the intended audience for the original “source material”, and apparently a few things got lost in the “translation”.”

                    Seeing how the director has been a fan of the books for a long ass time, I say that they were pretty close to the source material. Also some little things have to be changed because, A) its a different medium B)they have to reach a large audience TO MAKE MONEY.

                    “So maybe the disappointing sales have something to do with the differences in audience expectations.”

                    No the disappointing sales in the US at the moment are because Disney to market this right at all. Plus big movies dont tend to do that well anymore as a early Spring film.

                    “BTW, speaking of ‘religion’, why are you starting to sound like an evangelist?”

                    Ok, you have no clue what an evangelist is. Also I’m more along the lines of a Christian Deist, and I hate when people attack others beliefs in either religion or science like you have been doing against the director.

                    • Thanks for the “sermon” there, Reverend…. ;-p

  23. I have nothing wrong with the counter point idea, but I think it should be expected from yall that we are going to post our opinions on here when we dont agree with what has been said.

    I say keep with this counter point idea, just dont get upset when the majority of people who liked the film have a different opinion on it (which goes to every movie because everyone has different opinions).

    Other than disagreeing with what he said, John Hanlon did have a good article.

  24. Earlier today I was debating on seeing John Carter. Based on all the negative buzz around the internet I almost didn’t go but decided to follow my gut instinct and gave it a shot. THIS MOVIE WAS GREAT!! I was relieved the see a new movie that had a throwback feel to it (reminded me of ‘Dune’) Aside from a little drag and some less than impressive character rendering my friends and I agreed it was a solid well rounded sci-fi adventure.

    For those of you who are on the fence about John Carter, go see it and judge for yourself.

    -I hope Disney decides to follow up John Carter of Mars with a sequel.

  25. I think it’s a good idea to have counter-points; I believe SR should continue this trend. Of course, if a movie has an overall consensus of being either good or bad, then we can’t have a counter-point thread on it (hopefully Avengers and TDKR will be among those having a good consensus).

    I, for one, enjoyed the movie a lot. I felt it was a good family film (the apes might be a little scary and the princess a bit scantily clad for the very young), which seems to be a negative in some people’s opinion. There were a few problems with the film not explaining some things but overall I was very entertained.

    Good writeup, John.

  26. Screen Rant Staff,

    After 100+ comments Have you considered on wether or not to make ‘Counterpoint’ an ongoing feature in the Future?

    Personally, I think it was a success and it’s great to have a differing opinion on a site from a staff member. Good pitch I say. My Only suggestions are that in the future the Counterpoints should include a more detailed explanation like a regulary featured web article and not be limited to the 5 piece slideshow..

  27. Justin lives!

    • Kuato lives!

      (damn it…wanted to make a funny, but foiled by auto correct…oh the shame…)

  28. Kuato lives!