I personally enjoyed it, as did my wife -- who is really picky about which films she likes. There was some uneven pacing, but I didn't care. The 3d was well done too, environment, not gimmick. The advertising completely misrepresented the film for those of us who never knew it was a book to begin with.
"Consider the intragalactic evidence! Last year's animated feature Mars Needs Moms was a famous bomb so big that it took down an entire company. The early-aughts rush to pump out expensive Mars movies was just as disastrous: Mission to Mars barely grossed $60 million, Red Planet took in around half that, and Ghosts of Mars was such a demoralizing failure that it took director John Carpenter nearly a decade to make another feature. One of the Rock's rare flops? The Mars-set Doom, which only made $28 million. The lowest-grossing Tim Burton movie of the last fifteen years and change? That'd be Mars Attacks! The John Cusack drama The Martian Child wasn't even set on Mars, and it, too, is the lowest-grossing wide-release movie Cusack has made in the last fifteen years... it seems the red planet will have to fall back on its one unmitigated success: Total Recall, the 1990 Arnold Schwarznegger classic that's heavily set on Mars."
What happened? The very things Disney thought would guarantee box-office success may have left "John Carter" star-crossed from the start. The acclaimed director had never made a live-action movie before. The executives guiding and helping market his movie were new on the job and had limited experience running movie divisions. And the source material, written beginning a century ago by Tarzan creator Edgar Rice Burroughs, had already been so picked over by its admirers that critics and audiences found the film hackneyed and stale.
Director of A Bug's Life, Wall-E and Finding Nemo isn't big enough for ya?