John Carter Review

John Carter used to be called John Carter of Mars, which is an obviously better title. It’s considerably more evocative, it intrigues those who are already aware of the character and those who are not equally and finally it doesn’t sound like a film that might possibly be about an accountant or something. I hate film titles that are simply a non-descript name. Recent and upcoming weeks feature the releases ofLaura and Michael. Rubbish! Others that spring to mind are Larry Crowne, Cyrus, Michael Clayton and Amélie. These titles tell us nothing about the film, other than the gender of the protagonist. It’s a bug bear of mine and probably pretty petty, but still, why you’d go for boring old John Carter over John Carter… of MARS! is beyond me.

Fortunately, that has no actual bearing on the quality of the film. John Carter is the live action debut of Pixar whizz-kid Andrew Stanton, based on the sci-fi and fantasy novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs he loved as a child. Carter is an American Civil War veteran who is whisked away to Mars via otherworldly magic/technology. There, he uses his newfound super jumping ability to fight for and against the various warring factions on Mars, forge relationships with four-armed aliens and win the heart of a conveniently human princess of Mars.

Whilst it is far from perfect, to call John Carter a magnificent failure seems overly harsh. It’s more of a really rough diamond. It has numerous flaws but it matches each of them with its no less numerous charms, its invention and visual grandeur.

Those flaws then; rather than focussing on Carter from the start, allowing the audience to view the strange world of Mars through his eyes, it opens with some pretty hardcore gobbledygook exposition, which will be a pretty sure-fire turnoff for many viewers. Also confusing is the fact that whilst the film feels way too long (it takes ages to get to Mars proper), it also feels like it’s been pretty severely edited at the cost of smoothness of narrative and clarity of plot. There are also substantial inconsistencies between time and space in the film – sometimes journeys between the three or four main locations in which the action takes place seem to take days, sometimes hours. These locations also seem fairly arbitrary and it’s sometimes difficult to follow who’s doing what, where and why. Characters also seem to change their allegiances and motivations very quickly, making it occasionally difficult to root for them. Throw in a bit of occasionally dodgy writing and acting and a few less than great special effects (about standard for the average blockbuster) and you’ve got a bit of hodgepodge.

But fear not! In spite of all of those issues, John Carter is still a very watchable and often very enjoyable film. Its meta framing device (which involves Burroughs as a character) is quite clever. Its production design and general aesthetic is often gorgeous. Lead actors Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins are a cute couple and are ably supported by the rest of the cast which impressively includes (take a breath) Willem Dafoe, Samantha Morton, Thomas Hayden Church, Dominic West, James Purefoy, Bryan Cranston, Mark Strong and personal favourite Daryl Sabara (from World’s Greatest Dad) as Burroughs. Woof.

The action sequences are handled deftly and tastefully (in particular, the one where Carter takes on an alien horde singlehandedly intercut with tragic flashbacks) and there’s a pleasing amount of humour in the film too. The emotional finale, though rushed, is both bittersweet and uplifting.

Throughout all of this, Stanton brings a strange sort of humanism to his film. There’s real heart and soul in the thing and the love the director has for the character shows on screen. As his fellow Pixar luminary Brad Bird did with his live action debut Mission Impossible 4, Stanton brings real likability to a concept which on paper comes across as so much hokum. For that he should be applauded and his film, though he will surely better it in the future, celebrated.

Ironclad Review

For all those who were left deeply unsatisfied by last year’s Russell Crowe/Ridley Scott version of Robin Hood – and I’m guessing that that might mean a lot of people –Ironclad goes some way to make up that film’s stultifying dullness and inaction.

Set in the thirteenth century, Ironclad, directed by Jonathan English, sees King John (Paul Giamatti) reneging on the agreement he signed in the Magna Carta and attempting to retake his castles with the help of some fiendish Danes. Marshall (James Purefoy), a Templar knight, learns of his plan and, with the help of Baron Albany (Brian Cox) and his handful of mercenaries (including Jason Flemyng and Mackenzie Crook), fortify themselves in Reginald de Cornhill (Derek Jacobi) and Lady Isabel (Kate Mara, last seen in 127 Hours, rounding off a strong cast)’s Rochester Castle in an attempt to hold John off until French reinforcements arrive. The resulting siege lasts for many months and sees James Purefoy’s Templar tested to the limits of physical and, due to Lady Isabel’s affections for him, mental endurance.

Ironclad is pretty enjoyable fare that will tick numerous boxes for all fans of medieval action. Big battles? Check. Busty wenches? Check. A man wielding a sword the size of child? Check. In spite of the reasonably serious take on the historical context, there is a pleasing bonhomie and something almost approaching lightness of tone in the film. There’s an amusing ‘getting the band back together’ feel to the film’s beginning in which the mercenaries are re-recruited and the friendships and rivalries between the characters felt believable. Paul Giamatti is also enjoyable as King John and is almost certainly channelling a small amount of Alan Rickman’s Sheriff of Nottingham fromRobin Hood: Prince of Thieves in his slightly mad portrayal.

The film’s strongest asset, however, is in its realistic depiction of violence. The battles are vicious – at one point, a poor sod is cut clean in half diagonally from shoulder to hip – and really make you glad you weren’t around in the middle ages and forced to fight in them. Too often in these sorts of films are fights almost totally bloodless. In Ironclad, the tomato ketchup is thrown around with near reckless abandon, which is surely an accurate representation of what these battles were like. I also have to commend the use of location. The film was shot at an actual castle in Wales, which again serves to heighten the realism. There’s also a segment in which the castle is attacked from beneath with the creative use of some pigs, which was something I hadn’t seen before and was stunned to discover actually happened in the real life event that the film portrays. There are also lots of small instances of detail – such as the Bayeux Tapestry style rendering of Giamatti in the prologue – that are pleasing to see included.

The film does make a few missteps however. Firstly, it does get rather dull in several instances where not a lot happens – but then that’s also probably an accurate depiction of being under siege. More annoying was the ‘romance’ between Marshall and Isabel, which was spectacularly ill-judged, felt forced and was completely unconvincing. There’s also the feeling – pig attack aside – that most of what you see here has been done before. And despite the good-humour of its protagonists, Ironclad also seems to promise more fun than it actually delivers in the end, which was a little disappointing given how much the cast seemed to enjoy filming it when they were promoting it at Movie Con.

Nevertheless, the film was still pretty good and is likely to please fans of the genre. A solid and entertaining depiction of a medieval melee.