“John Carter” is Better Than Critics Led Us To Believe

If you haven’t yet read my review of “John Carter” of Mars then check it out. This article is not a review (I liked the movie). This article looks at the way science fiction fandom was treated badly by the film critics who have been panning the movie.

Sure, movie critics have been “poo-pooing” science fiction movies for as long as there have been movie critics, but not all the critics treated “John Carter” and the fans badly this time around. Roger Ebert grudgingly accepted that the movie “works” — failing really to find fault with it. After all, the story makes sense, the characters meld together and they have passion — and the directing is everything it should have been. Even the CGI is impressive.

So what’s wrong with movie critics who have to go out of their ways to try and drag down a movie that is designed to please audiences around the world? Are they just tired of seeing science fiction and fantasy blockbusters? It’s not like genre movies sweep the Oscars every year. Harry Potter fans were immensely disappointed at the way Alan Rickman was snubbed by the Academy for his incredible performance as Severus Snape.

Anti-genre movie critics just seem to be stuck in “Over-criticizing” mode. They seem to feel an obligation to say something bad about movies they don’t want to like, movies that are made for the masses and to be entertaining. You know, that’s kind of the whole point about movies, isn’t it?

Art isn’t art if it fails to evoke some sort of emotion (unless there is some crazy emotionless art form that strives to NOT evoke emotion). Art-inspired emotion can include joy, wonder, a sense of awe, and the power to believe in “What If”. Emotion doesn’t have to be bound up with dark, sensitive despair. In fact, “The Woman in Black” was an absolutely awful movie that even Daniel Radcliffe and a cast full of excellent character actors could not save — but it won praise from many critics.

It’s the bland, tasteless film-making that critics praise which leaves people like me wondering what it is they do for life — because their emotions seem to fit on the smallest of plates. Movie critics who don’t like explosions, spaceships, rayguns, and beautiful damsels in dis.tress seems have the emotional range of a teaspoon (please forgive me, Hermione Granger).

Lynn Collins’ Dejah Thoris is not really a “damsel in distress”. The Dejah of the book is probably not given enough credit for being a stubborn, brave woman who withstands every possible threat and pressure to stand by her man, but the Dejah Thoris of Andrew Stanton’s “John Carter” is something more — she is a thinking, feeling woman who just happens to be in a politically powerful position in her society.

Would the critics treat Princess Diana the same way? Maybe, but they have to get down off their high-horses at some point and let the ladies be feminine AND the prizes that men desire. Is it better for a man’s ambition to be to conquer millions than to win a woman’s heart?

Good science fiction stories are hard to come by but when they do settle down for 100 years or so there is no excuse for critics who have to find fault with trumped up charges of callous stereotypes. Some of the best characters in Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Barsoom books are the women — they have depth, motivation, power, and they travel around the world changing their society for the better. What’s wrong with that?

If the critics have their way and this movie bombs at the box office it should still become a classic on DvD and Blu-Ray. Once people watch it they’ll be able to judge for themselves whether it’s as bad (or as good) as “all that”. But it would be a great crime against human culture if the naysayers rob us of the chance to see the full franchise brought to the silver screen. That kind of snubbery is simply not acceptable.