Princess of Mars (Video 2009) Poster

(2009 Video)

User Reviews

Review this title
75 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
4/10
This desperately needs a Phantom Edit
RSLent19 June 2012
Warning: Spoilers
This movie stumbles badly right away. There's no real need to update it, it works better if it isn't updated. But that's not the real failing. The scene where he is in the hospital being told by some mad scientists that he is being sent to Mars as some sort of science experiment was one of the most absurd that I have ever seen. It was unintentionally comic. Why in the world did they need to declare that Barsoom isn't Mars, but a planet in another solar system? Yes, we know that the real Mars isn't like the Mars that Burroughs imagined, that doesn't interfere with the story.

There is a scene were he asks for something to drink, and he is given a rag full of sweat. Another scene where he asks for food, and he is given the excretion of some larva. Neither of these are in the book; they eat something that seems like cheese or tofu, and to drink, they drink the liquid of a cactus-like plant. Why they chose to make this change is beyond me. It seemed to be an attempt to disgust the audience, and didn't make the movie any better.

A good Phantom Edit would cut out entirely the portion before he gets to Mars. A minute of two of narration at the beginning could replace the entire first part of the movie. It would also be necessary to snip out the part where you learn the bad guy is from Earth. You don't have to eliminate him entirely, just the nonsense of him being from Earth.

I'd also delete the scenes where he is given sweat and larval excretions to drink.

Other parts are more minor. Traci Lords is a bit too old, too clothed and too blonde to be a plausible Deja Thoris. She seems more a cranky sitcom mom than a princess of Helium. The tattoos on John Carter seem unlikely, a tramp stamp on a man? But these are minor, the major flaws of this movie are overwhelming, but if they were cut out, this would be, well, not a great movie, but not too bad.

If you watch the movie, you see that throughout the movie, one of Tars Tarkas' tusks wobbles. A fairly minor thing, but it shows how quickly they made this movie was made.
13 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Gah
sarastro79 January 2010
Well. This is by no means the worst movie I've ever seen. I've seen (if you can call it that) one or two Asylum movies before, and some of them are physically painful to watch. 2012: Supernova? Arrrgh!! AVH: Alien vs. Hunter? I nearly gnawed off a limb in an effort to dull the excruciating experience. The Asylum exist to produce unbearably cheap knock-offs of well-known sci-fi and horror movies, and they survive purely by tricking the ignorant into watching their deliberately and deviously diluted versions by mistake. Someone should give these guys a good spanking and ground them for life on a deserted island.

Anyway. You can understand that my expectations for "Princess of Mars" were very low indeed. But I wanted to check it out, just in case they had actually read the original book. And I was surprised: they had. But in a characteristic fit of plagiarism (and, probably, because filming in the desert is cheap) they'd also decided to fuse the concept with Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. Even so, I was actually mildly entertained by Princess of Mars (and yes, I can still stand to look at Traci Lords). The acting was hammy and the production values were unimpressive (but at least they were there); it looked like what it was: a thoroughly derivative low-budget C-movie bordering on the farcical. But that can be entertaining, too! As the movie went on I was thinking that, hey, this was in the same league as Bloodrayne and stuff like that, and I might actually end up rating this a 4 out of 10! A good rating for a craptacular excuse for a real movie, appreciating that it might be trash but at least it's funny and entertaining trash.

Unfortunately, the ending was so stupid and pointless that I have to cut that rating in half, and end up with a 2 out of 10 mark. Properly, the movie doesn't really deserve more than 1, but for maintaining a certain watchability almost all the way to the end, and for being funny despite its ROTJ derivation, I retain one more star.

All in all, still a massive disappointment that can in no way be recommended.
41 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Well, it could have been worse...
paul_haakonsen4 August 2013
Clearly "Princess of Mars" is The Asylum's cash in on the "John Carter" movie that was out in March 2009, as "Princess of Mars" came out in December of the very same year. Is that a trademark of The Asylum, to take something that others made famous and then just sponge and leech of that success?

At any rate, and regarding the motivation behind this movie, then The Asylum actually managed to pull of a fairly decent movie here, compared to some of the other more questionable releases they have spewed out.

The story, if you are familiar with either the "John Carter" movie or the E.R. Burroughs novel, is about John Carter, a man from Earth, who end up on a distant red planet, where he have to save their world from impending doom.

Pretty straight off the copy and paste storyboard here, without anything new or overly interesting to be added to the story. But still, the movie was enjoyable for what it was. A word of warning though; if you have seen the "John Carter" movie that was out earlier in 2009, then chances are that you might want to stay clear of this version. Imagine a weird hybrid of the 1980's "Flash Gordon" movie mixed with Disney's "John Carter" movie, and you have the end result coming out as "Princess of Mars".

One thing that did puzzle me, though, with the technology and resources available to the human-like race on this red planet, why would their princess be clad so scantily like a common... Well, you get my meaning. It just didn't make sense. Or did it? Well, you have Traci Lords in the role as the princess, so of course, why wouldn't the director be having her running around half naked?

The creature effects were adequate to look at, except for those bipedal reptiles that they used for mounts. They were just horrible to look at. Awfully animated CGI and they walked like they all had bad indigestion.

I will say that The Asylum did put out a fairly enjoyable Sci-Fi movie here, but in the wake of Disney's "John Carter", then the movie pales in comparison.
12 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Not as bad as you would think, but still will disappoint John Carter fans
ersinkdotcom14 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
The Asylum has done it again. Instead of waiting for the actual film they are going to be making a mockbuster of to come out, they have decided to cash in on the buzz surrounding it and beat them to the punch…to an extent. Completely scooping Pixar and Disney (yeah, right), The Asylum moved forward and made the first movie adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs's John Carter of Mars. Instead of actually having the audacity to tread on thin ice by calling the film John Carter of Mars, they opted for Princess of Mars. As an average uneducated sci-fi B-movie watcher, you'd never know the film was based on an Edgar Rice Burroughs's story or creation as they give him credit nowhere in the main titles. I don't know what that's all about. You'd think they would want to use everything at their disposal to promote and exploit this thing. It's their very nature to do so.

Once again, this feels like it was done on the fly, which is what gives these movies their charm. The film editing and direction suits it just fine and operates to keep the lowest amount of special effects shot possible to still make it remotely entertaining. You know the drill by now. Shoot all the action sequences very close as to not have to spend too much time on wide shots or digital scene editing. Show the actors lurch up to jump, cut to a far away shot of them flying through the air, and then cut back to them landing in a crouch. Its genius and The Asylum team does it best! I've got to tell you that the special effects are nowhere near as bad as you would think they'd be. The Princess of Mars' transport ship does look dangerously like the model crew broke into Skywalker Ranch and stole Jabba's Land Barge from Return of the Jedi. They even have these speeder bike looking things they ride. Coincidence or someone on the Asylum "special effects" crew having a weird fixation on Lucas' Ewok-tainted third film in the original Star Wars trilogy? You decide.

The actors. Ah, the actors. We've got Antonio Sabato, Jr hamming it up half-naked as John Carter with some of the worst badly placed tattoos I've ever seen. What male has a lower back tattoo? It feels like they actually paid him to be onset more than a couple of days. Then there's the cream of the crop – Traci Lords - using her same brand of acting she's come to be known for in flicks and TV shows like The Tommyknockers and Hercules. Strangely enough for a B-movie nerd extravaganza, she has more clothes on throughout the movie than Sabato, Jr. She suits the part of the Princess of Mars well, though. You can't help but feel a little stab of nostalgia for 80's movies like Red Sonja, Conan, The Destroyer, and Beastmaster. It does almost feel like they only paid her enough to be onset one day, however.

The Asylum should do great with this release. All the John Carter of Mars fans that have been eagerly awaiting some kind of movie adaptation of the source material will no doubt rent or buy it. SyFy Channel is guaranteed to get good ratings when it's aired in the token Saturday prime time slot they show these types of films in. Now I'm not saying Carter fans won't be disappointed, but they'll see it nonetheless and it really isn't THAT bad.
29 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Maybe the key to happiness is low expectations
pcox-mail1 January 2010
I'd read some pretty brutal stuff about this flick and was happy to find an entirely competent and often clever b-movie. Admittedly, I was a huge Edgar Rice Burroughs fan as a kid, but I'm not sure that didn't prime me to dislike the movie.

It wasn't a big budget movie, but I think the money they had was well spent. The special effects were not the center of the film but they didn't detract from the story either. The acting was surprisingly unembarrassing and I personally found the dialog very good. The updating of the story was subtle and funny.

One of the other reviewers said this isn't the film we were waiting for, and I suppose that' right. It is, though, the film we got. All in all, it struck me as a sincere labor of love that did credit to the memory of Burroughs himself, the master of the pulps.
44 out of 65 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Just kill me
xenolite6 January 2010
I can't tell you how badly I wanted to like this movie. Wait...let me start again. I can't tell you how badly I wanted this to be a movie I liked. It's like they didn't even try.

The character of John Carter is all but unrecognizable. The character of Dejah Thoris is like some Mad TV parody only not funny and who is that old lady they got to play her? Are you kidding me?

A lot of people have compared this to other movies, particularly Avatar. It's a bad comparison. Better to compare it to the original offerings from the Syfi network then at least we would know what league we were playing in. This could still have been salvaged had it at least not been boring, but it was.

I will not call it the worst movie ever as so many others have, but I will say that even within the obviously limited budget the creators of this film had to work with, they could have done far better.
43 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The elephant in the room
doktorf31 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
The elephant in the room is the man whose name is nowhere credited on this film. Perhaps that is a good thing. That man is Edgar Rice Burroughs. 99 years ago he wrote a story called Under the Moons of Mars. He wrote it strictly for the money and for the fun of writing it. After that story achieved some success, he went on to create Tarzan of the Apes and many other memorable characters. Over the last century his dedicated readers have suffered time after time the hackneyed interpretations of Tarzan while this, his seminal work, has been left un-filmed. In the old days, it could not have been done justice because of the low cinematic technology, and the mores of the times, but we had finally entered an age when this tale could have been done justice. What we have here just makes me sad.

In fairness, this is an adequate and mildly entertaining b-movie, but it is not the movie we who love this tale wanted. This is NOT the movie that we have waited almost a hundred years for. Not by a very long shot.
32 out of 48 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
How To Make An Asylum Film
JoeB13131 January 2010
1) Find a big-budget movie you can somehow associate your cheap knockoff with. That's easy, they are in development for years, while your ripoff can be made in a few weeks.

2) Try to claim it is linked to some book in the Public Domain. H.G Wells, Arthur Conan Doyle and Edgar Rice Burroughs won't turn into literary Zombies and march on your offices. (Although that would be more interesting that most asylum films, come to think of it.)

3) Get some washed up actors. People that you might have heard of, but aren't getting good roles these days.

4) Cheap Special Effects- Get some of those kookie You-Tube kids to make your monsters...badly edited them into the film.

5) Pad out 10 minutes of plot with an hour of fight scenes and wandering through the desert scenes.

Okay, Really, I'm going to say some nice things about this film. It's actually better than your average Asylum film, but that's like saying it's the least trampy Jerry Springer guest.

They've actually remained somewhat faithful to the Burroughs story, updating it a bit. (Carter is still from Virginia, but now he's an ex-Green Beret instead of an ex-Confederate officer.)

Honestly, the weakest part of the film was Traci Lords. She's never been a good actress, and you can tell she's in her forties every time they did a close up. Honestly, the girl who played the lizard chick was more attractive. Or at least firm in the places a woman should be firm.

Hey, I noticed something else. Ever notice in an asylum film, they have a lot of gunplay, but the muzzles of the weapons are almost always out of frame when they are being fired? I guess someone didn't budget for blank ammunition, but sound effects are always cheap. And Martians have 50 cals and Kalishnikovs, just like we do on earth.
27 out of 42 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What a travesty!
marvy4212 March 2012
If this film had only used different character names, I would have rated it higher, because it would have been a dumb, laughable Science Fiction flick, possibly even enjoyable at some "it's raining and there's nothing else to do" level. You get the feeling that the writer had read the first John Carter book a long, long time in the past and remembered the characters' names without remembering what the story was about, or even what a thark was supposed to look like (I'm sure that Burroughs' warrior tharks didn't have tusks that wobbled). This plot was silly; Burroughs' was engrossing. The biggest disappointment was Traci Lords. While it was her body that was ravaged in many films, here, it was her face that looked ravaged - she just looked so OLD. (Fortunately, I never expected her to know how to act, so I wasn't disappointed there.) The big sword fight seemed to be performed by two actors who'd never held a sword in their lives; all the intercutting didn't cancel that out (why couldn't they have used stunt men?). A truly bad film.
21 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Edgar Rice Burroughs is spinning in his grave
operaghost18813 June 2010
One of my friends burned me a copy of this film because he knew what a big John Carter fan I a. I saw the cast and was instantly appalled and was even moreso by the end of the film. I honestly doubt whether anyone that made this atrocity even read the book. I am eagerly awaiting the big budget version, but whoever is responsible for allowing this film should be taken by Edgar Rice Burroughs surviving family, taken outside and summarily executed by them for doing something so dreadful to a very much beloved series of novels and a group of equally beloved characters. This film was so low budget they couldn't afford to give Tars Tarkas his other set of arms or his other 9 feet of height. It actually makes Plan 9 from outer space look like Avatar by comparison.
20 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
If it was done in 1957 in black and white at a drive in, it might have worked
MartianOctocretr56 June 2010
It's just not too clear where the movie makers were trying to go with this adaptation of the Edgar Burroughs story. At first glance, it looks to be a tribute to the style of old drive-in sci-fi features, where an intrepid astronaut pioneers unchartered space. Along the way, our space hero will bravely fight giant creatures, duel bad guys, establish friendship with the Martian locals, romance a blonde alien, bring about peace between warring tribes, overthrow a despot, and so on.

They give us all that old school sci-fi stuff, but there's no cohesion to anything. The "plot" is just a parade of unlinked chapters. The story is modernized, which is a mistake. Yes, everybody knows the Rovers have found nothing up there, but who cares? Keep the naive retro feel of a mysterious and foreboding Mars. That was the fun of the source material. But now, the action doesn't even occur on Mars! The 19th century soldier turned Spaceman Spiff has been redone as a Gulf War Marine, and sports millennial tattoos. The Princess herself is Xena Warrior Princess one moment, and helpless fairy tale princess the next.

Still, those Martian green celery-head guys were lovable (even though you can see skin poking out from beneath the masks). The indigenous bug creatures, and the fights against them, are amusingly cheap, yet done with gusto. Overall, an amateurish film, but has a bit of odd charm to it.
14 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
interesting looking, a bit surreal...kinda like Flash Gordon
asinyne2 February 2016
It doesn't really deserve an eight but it sure as heck is better than a freaking three. I found this at Goodwill and have been curious about the film so I snatched it up. I enjoyed it. It moves a bit slowly at times, Traci Lords isn't really right to play a teenage princess, and its not a lot like the novel but who cares. Lords does bring some decent name recognition to the cast. Taken on its own merits this movie is entertaining and pretty surreal in some ways. Visually it consistently makes good eye candy. Asylum sank a bit more money into this one I suspect. I actually enjoy Asylum movies, they are simply fun, and this is one of their better ones IMO. It reminded me somewhat of the old serials from the thirties like Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon. However, there are lots of other influences. I felt it came up a bit short in the action department but I may be a bit spoiled by big budget films where something is blown up, wrecked or shot, every few seconds. The male lead was pretty good and the Tarks looked cool. Overall the sets were very nice for a medium budget flick. There is something oddly surreal about a lot of Asylum movies and that actually adds to their appeal. Im a fan of the old pulp fiction stuff so I gravitate to media like this. I wouldn't mind reading a novel based on this movie actually. Give it a shot, its pretty entertaining in a low key kind of way. No its not Star Wars but it is pretty unique in lots of ways. Watch it for something different than the formulaic stuff Hollywood generally puts out there.
9 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
It's great that they're still making movies like this today!
unbrokenmetal9 May 2010
I personally think it's great that you don't have to go back to the monster movies of the 1950s - the fact that they're still making movies like "Princess of Mars" today is fine with me. Surprisingly, the makers must have read the E.R.Burroughs novel, some elements of the story are recognizable with John Carter's arrival on Mars, being able to jump very high (due to lower gravity), meeting Tars Tarkas and Dejah Thoris, and fighting for the atmosphere station. Everything is put up to date, sometimes well (Carter being in Afghanistan instead of Nevada) sometimes not (the, uh, "technically explained" data transfer to another world, and that Mars not being our red neighbor planet, but a different planet accidentally also called Mars). Fortunately they did not use the Great White Apes, because how silly would that look nowadays with men in costumes? Despite the low budget, a funny flick if you have the sense of humor for trash sf.
31 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Not a very good movie
dstarrboston27 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This ultra low budget science fiction flick turned up for rental in the wilds of northern New Hampshire. Traci Lords as Dejah Thoris showed her age in her complexion. Her scanty costume wasn't flattering and her figure has seen better days. Antonio Sabato as John Carter was better looking, sufficiently hunky for the part, and hampered by an ugly costume. The rest of the cast were green martians, played by wearing cheesy looking masks, which makes any sort of acting pretty much impossible. The original Burrough's plot was heavily modified and not for the better. Dramatic scenes from the book, such as John Carter slaying a green martian for hitting Dejah Thoris, riding double as they flee captivity, standing off the hordes of Warhoon with a radium rifle and 200 rounds, are omitted. John Carter doesn't woo and win Dejah Thoris, the beautiful and gutsy martian princess, which was the strongest part of the book.

The low budget showed up in clunky looking weapons and props, mediocre costumes, and special effects that made the old Dr Who seem sophisticated.

The best I can say is it was a movie, I did watch it to the end, but that's about it.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A Decent little Pulp Adventure
denvaldron4 January 2010
Transferring a book to the screen is never an easy or simple process. Often, a lot has to be left out... exposition, subplots and plot lines, characters and internal monologue. What can go up on the screen is further constrained by the money and time available, by the talent in front of and behind the screen.

Is this the "Worst movie evah!" Not hardly. If pressed, I'd give that honour to Tim Burton's 'Planet of the Apes', a work which cost more than the previous Apes franchise of five movies and two TV series all put together, but which was appallingly stupid - unbelievable talent and money went into making a painfully awful movie.

On the other side of the coin, here we have an action adventure movie made for very little money, with little in the way of resources. Yet it's amazing how they managed to actually make an enjoyable, watchable film.

I'm not necessarily a fan of Asylum films. A lot of them suffer from the worst sin of film-making, tedium.

But Princess of Mars is anything but tedious. There are no shortage of rocky moments, including awkward scenes with Kantos Kan, and there's definitely stuff to dislike. Shortcuts, or shots where there was no time or money to do more than get something in the can.

But flaws aside, it's a relatively faithful telling of the novel. The biggest changes are the reduction of the role and backstory of Tars Tarkas, and the elimination of the Zodangan war, as well as the cosmetic stuff - short stubby two armed Tharks, riding giant birds instead of eight legged horses.

A lot of the true heart of the novel and the characters remain. John Carter is light hearted and heroic, Dejah Thoris is regal and idealistic, Tars Tarkas is noble. The relationships develop naturally between them, the acting is usually decent and sometimes quite good. The location shooting in the Vazques rocks is a highlight, the place looks genuinely weird and alien. The script, apart from the occasional clunky line, moves quickly and efficiently, there are witty lines.

Frankly, my advice is to go look at the trailer. A lot of times, the trailers are better than the actual film. Or the trailers contain all the good parts of the film and the actual film tends to be mostly filler. In this case, the trailer is actually a good showcase for the film. If you liked the tailer, you'll enjoy the film.

In the meantime, I'm pretty happy with it.
28 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Not the worst film ever made but not one worth bothering with either
dbborroughs10 January 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Updated and pointless version of Edgar Rice Burroughs' first novel is moved to now and Mars in a far off galaxy. Antonio Sabato Jr is John Carter a fighter in the Middle East war who's injured to the point of being near death. Rescued by the military he's sent to the far off planet where he meets the a pouty Traci Lords and a weakly made Tars Tarkis (who's size varies and who only has 2 arms).

Not quite the worst film of all time that some have called it, it is rather a weakly made film that spent a chunk of its budget on computer generated monsters and space ships. Lords is okay as the title character, but in all honesty she's a bit too old for the part. Actually I think the cast would have been fine had the script and the direction been better. It was clearly made to cash in on the up coming John Carter of Mars, though its DVD cover says something about Avatar and Lord of the Rings. As something to watch it is at best background noise. This isn't something you really want to watch with your full attention focused on it since its really not very good. My attitude I've seen it and now I never have to see it again.

The one question is why isn't Edgar Rice Burroughs credited anywhere in the film? This is not a remake or a rethink but a "version" of a classic tale and the man who created the place really should be credited.
11 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Lamest sword fight ever.
kenstrawn28 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Burrough's Princess of Mars has been one of my favorite tales since I first encountered it in the 1953 comic version when I was 8 years old. I am looking forward to the big budget version now being filmed but until then, this cheap version is all we have. Understanding that this is a very cheap version made to cash on a major version in production is key to whether you rate this as terrible or barely acceptable. I can accept the Tharks losing a set of arms and the Thoats being reduced from 8 legs to two because of the cost involved but they could of at least hired someone who knew something about fencing. If you are going to make a movie about the "Greatest Swordsman of two worlds," you need to make it decent.

The original has influenced a number of science fiction efforts, especially the Flash Gordon comic strips. The opening sequence of RETURN OF THE JEDI has a very Burroughs feel to it, as does the arena part of ATTACK OF THE CLONES.

Making John Carter a modern Marine is acceptable (the 1953 comic did the same) but I did not care for the tattoos. I guess that is a generational thing.

Casting Traci Lords as Dejah Thoris has got to be the worst case of miscasting since John Wayne tried to swash buckle in THE CONQUEROR. She could only be hired because of the name recognition factor. She was too old, wrong complexion and hair, and wore too many clothes (especially for a former porno queen). Remember, the Martians walk around naked except for a leather harness to carry their swords (I don't expect the big budget version to be any better than this).

But the worst of all was that incredibly lame sword fight at the conclusion. That has to be the worst ever put on film. I had an 8mm camera when I was a kid and we staged sword fights in the back yard with sticks and cardboard cut out swords that were superior to this piece of crap.

I bought a copy of this out of curiosity. I watched it once and I don't expect to watch it again.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Low budget Edgar Rice Burroughs rehash isn't a complete disaster after all.
Brucey_D22 December 2018
John Carter, his life hanging by a thread on Earth, is teleported to a far-away planet where he plays a pivotal role in its destiny.

This is a very low budget production, loosely based on the plot of Edgar Rice Burroughs's 'John Carter of Mars'. This movie contains a load of actors you have probably never heard of, uses some low budget SFX (like many such movies) and indeed the budget for the whole film was allegedly about 1/1000th that of the Disney effort that came out three years later, 'John Carter', which covers much the same ground.

Well you would expect this to be a Christmas cracker novelty of a film by comparison with the Disney effort and in truth yes it shows, it shows all the time and in every way. But having said that it isn't a thousand times worse as a film.

I thought the rehash of the central character was quite a bold move, and there were some quite good scenes in this film. Yes the SFX is pretty cheesy in places but it doesn't really detract heavily from the film. The plot doesn't always follow in a well structured fashion and the emphasis (not to mention screen time) is probably somewhat misplaced. Diehard ERB fans will obviously be appalled and will call it a travesty, and those who have no familiarity with the storyline will undoubtedly be wondering what the heck is going on half the time.

However those with a loose grasp of the ERB story and suitably low expectations may spend a pleasant 90 minutes watching this film which does contain a few genuinely good bits in it.

I give it five out of ten because it is not (well not quite) half bad, and for the money they had it is arguably quite good.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Better than expected.
dmerrill-537-5627521 April 2019
I'm glad I didn't read the bad reviews of this before deciding to watch it for free on Tubi. The dialogue was a lot better than I'm used to finding in low budget films such as this. The acting wasn't as bad as I expected either but wasn't up to the script. It isn't by any means a good movie. The film loosely follows Burroughs plot line. Unfortunately, The Tharks only have two arms, but I can see having more than two, whether prosthetically or with CGI would certainly have killed the budget. Unfortunately, the special effects of John Carter launching and riding the flyer are about the same level at Witchy-Poo riding her suped up broom on H. R. Pufnstuf. And the machine that keeps the air clean on Mars is not coincidentally a central air conditioning unit. That made me laugh. Thank masks are actually pretty well done. People who complained about the ending plainly never read the Burroughs books. The person who said the movie asset on a planet other Than Mars didn't either, because the planet is Barsoom, Burroughs' Martian name for Mars. So, a lot of the people who reviewed this film aren't familiar with the source material. As someone who read all the books in the series, I enjoyed this film for what it was, a really low budget take on the series. Unlike the makers of John Carter, I think the smartest thing these film makers did was call this film, Princess Of Mars, which is how I found it. You know immediately what it is.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
If This Is The Price Of Victory, I Recommend Defeat.
jetan25 December 2011
I watch all movies that are based on ERB novels. All of 'em. I think I even watched that Bo Derek nightmare. But I could not go the distance on this dog. As has been mentioned, the martians are quite grotesque and this makes one wonder why they cast Ms. Lords. The effects, I concede, are surprisingly credible given the low budget. The problem lies in the atrocious script. It is as dull as an old knife. A Burroughs flick can be a lot of things, but boring should not be one of them. Even on a skimpy budget, I could have done a better adaptation than this. So could your eight year old child or perhaps your Border Collie. If you loved the book as I did, you simply must stay away from this. It will actually hurt you.
7 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
More rip-off jun from The Asylum.
poolandrews4 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Princess of Mars starts in Afghanistan where Green Beret marine John Carter (Antonio Sabato Jr.) is badly wounded in a gun fight with Opium dealers, dying his superiors decide to use Carter for an experiment. They have found a Mars like planet in another solar system & intend to transport every atom of Carter there though the use of a 16GB flash key, once there Cater is found by a race of reptile like creatures known as the Tharks, Carter has immense strength & can leap fifty feet in the air which impress the Tharks & one of the Tharks decides to make Carter an honorary Thark. Then a floating barge is spotted & the Tharks attack it, Dejah Thoris (Traci Lords) the Princess of Mars manages to escape the ship but is captured by Cater & handed over to the Tharks. Thoris is handed over to the Thark leader Tal Hajus (Mitchell Gordon) but a sinister assassin waits with an evil plan to take control of all Mars unless Carter can stop him...

Photographed, edited, written & directed by one man band Mark Atkins this is yet more shameless pilfering from the folks at The Asylum, not content with ripping-off current Hollywood blockbuster films with the likes of The Da Vinci Treasure (2006), Transmorphers (2007), The Day the Earth Stopped (2008), 2012 Doomsday (2008), Paranormal Entity (2009), The Terminators (2009) & the Haunting of Winchester House (2009) this production company is now ripping-off films which haven't even been made yet as a big budget Disney version of John Carter of Mars (2012) is currently being filmed with both sharing the same literary source A Princess of Mars written in 1912 by Edgar Rice Burroughs & is now in the public domain. I have no idea how the Disney version will turn out but surely it can't be as bad as this, the story is updated a bit as instead of being a confederate soldier John Carter here is a special forces op in Afghanistan but that's where the problems start. Carter is injured & absurdly he is told that every atom of his body has been stored in a 16GB flash key, I kid you not, & that he is being teleported to Mars but not our Mars another Mars. There's no explanation how this happens or why Carter suddenly gains superhuman strength but logic isn't something Princess of Mars concerns itself with. The fact that everyone there speaks English is by the by, the fact that some of the inhabitants look exactly like human beings is a mere coincidence & how would that fat Thark guy know what a Grasshopper was? Then there's a ridiculous twist in which the guy who shot & nearly Carter back on Earth has also been teleported to this Mars just to make things personal although why the US military would send an enemy soldier I don't know, also why didn't they send someone who actually wanted to go anyway? Why force someone? What did they hope to achieve anyway? The poor Star Wars style sci-fi goings on are dull, dull war like alien race fights peaceful human race with Carter stuck between the two & just to rip-off Avatar (2009) a bit there's the whole interplanetary romance thing going on as well. At 93 minutes Princess of Mars is a mess of ideas that never comes together, the lack of budget, sense & charm totally kill it although at least it moves along at a decent pace but that's just not enough. Predictable, badly thought-out unconvincing sci-fi that is downright ridiculous at times Princess of Mars may be a cult classic among bad film lovers but for everyone else wait for the Disney version.

The special effects vary, they aren't all as rotten as we have come to expect from The Asylum but none particularly impress, the CGI creatures look poor although some of the spaceship's look alright. The Thark masks look terrible, at first I thought they were human beings with protective masks on but then I realised that's how they were supposed to look. There are a few tame fights but the films sole highlight is a vomiting Martian maggot, need I say more? Even though Princess Dejah Thoris was supposed to be the most beautiful creature across two world here the film casts 40 year old ex-porn star Traci Lords who I didn't think look too bad in her costume, but then again I'm just strange.

Shot on a zero budget with apparently a 12 day shooting schedule in the Californian desert Princess of Mars could have been an OK fantasy sci-fi adventure but comes across as cheap & boring with huge script problems which kill any sense of logic, drama or tension. The acting is pretty bad, the film is miscast & the actors here seem uncomfortable.

Princess of Mars is a silly film with lots of plot holes & bad acting, it's cheap & I am sure the only reason it was made was to con money out of people & ride on the success of Avator & the upcoming John Carter of Mars from Disney. Fun in a bad way on occasion but generally terrible.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Every kind of bad, except the good kind
slam16325 February 2010
The best way I can describe this movie to you is by asking you to imagine your friend's dumpy, middle-aged mom, dressed up for Halloween in a skimpy 'warrior princess' costume. That's Traci Lords as Dejah Thoris and she's every bit as embarrassing to watch as your friend's mom would be. Moreover, she doesn't seem to be enjoying the party much. She goes through the film with an ill-tempered pout welded to her face, looking as if she's perpetually on the edge of saying 'Screw this' and storming off. Unfortunately for us, she decided to stick around, growling out her lines like someone being forced to read the telephone book at gunpoint.

So much for "the most beautiful woman in two worlds". The "fighting Virginian", Captain John Carter, isn't much better. He's a sword-and-sandal beefcake who looks to be about half her age, with spiky hair and the kind of 'tramp stamp' back tattoo more commonly seen on oversexed teenage girls. He spends most of the movie smirking to himself.

Rounding out the cast are a few sinister swarthy figures, and a small - very small - army of undersized tharks (humanoid Martian monsters). The tharks also mostly sound as if they're having their lines read to them over the telephone, but their faces are mercifully hidden behind tusked plastic masks, so there's no way to tell whether they're pouting or smirking. In some scenes, the tharks appear to tower over John Carter, as if the film-makers had remembered that they're supposed to be fifteen feet tall. In the next shot they've suddenly shrunk to human size again. My guess would be that the makers originally planned to fake the size differences using clever camera angles, but found that it was too much work. For financial reasons, they were apparently unwilling to re-shoot the scenes they'd already filmed, so they just stuck them in and hoped for the best.

There are also some sinister swarthy figures, a collection of computer-animated monsters plodding morosely across a desert landscape and some giant ant/spider things, some of which fly and all of which explode in a splash of vivid green ichor when shot with the flimsy art deco rifles carried by the tharks. It looks rather as if the spiders - which do not appear in the original novel - somehow used up the limb budget for the whole film, forcing drastic cutbacks elsewhere: the tharks have only two arms, while the eight-legged thoats have become bipeds. The scenery is similarly reduced. It looks like what it is -- not the fabled deserts of Barsoom, but a few rocks in a sandy patch of waste ground somewhere outside L.A.

I couldn't bring myself to watch the movie all the way through. There didn't seem to be any point. It's fairly clear that the film-makers probably felt the same way, but they at least stuck it out and dragged it to some kind of plodding conclusion. Or so I assume.

It would be nice to imagine that the movie was intended as a kind of post-modern satire on Burroughs' overblown heroic fantasy. In this cynical vision, everything is deceptive and disappointing, a cruel metaphor for the human condition -- the deserts of Barsoom are nothing but a sandy backlot, the peerless princess is a middle-aged former porn star, the ultimate champion just an over-muscled gym rat. Scholars would applaud the daring irony, the bold inversion of the escapist epic. But I'm afraid that the cynicism was of a different kind and that the makers were simply trying to make a quick buck as cheaply and crudely as possible.

Even 'completists' who want to see everything inspired by Burroughs' work should give this one a miss. It's just depressingly bad on every level.
9 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Well done.
spamcatcher0125 February 2010
An interesting adaptation of the story. I found All the actors seemed to fit well in their roles. I felt that I was short changed by there no being "Red" tinged body paint on the humanoid actors of Barsolom. Although I could understand the budget causing the loss of the extra arms. Plot line seemed well done in that the story/script didn't go foolish as some other movies have lately. I do feel that a couple of the deleted scenes would have made the story flow better. All in all I would look forward to more of the books stories being produced. The explanation of how John Carter traveled to Mars was typical modern Sci-Fi drivel. The original drifting off to sleep in the ERB authored stories seems to me more 'mystical' logical. Otherwise the adaptations are acceptable.
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
not bad, easily better
eplanting18 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Let me start off by saying, I only listened to about one chapter of the audio book, then like many things, I got bored, started listening to Asimov instead. I liked the movie, the pacing and storyline seemed to go pretty well, I was disgusted at some points with the bugs, found it funny when carter killed the guy that held his chains with just a flick of his wrist and loved the funny nature of the alien species that took him in. The movie could have potentially been great, had it not been for other factors.

Now, the other factors, in sequence, 1)gravity, mass, carter has to slow down in an arc and somehow stop himself jumping between peaks at the start

2) Do not have a shot of a slow moving hovering land barge with an entire paragraph of dialogue being said by an actor

3) do not have a long drawn out escape from the land barge during the initial vicious attack of the land barge

4)the flying bug attacks on Traci lords, we see her swarmed, but as we know, not actually swarmed because the hero's woman does not get injured, they should have simply surrounded the cage and freaked her out, way more plausible

5)the martians somehow got outside the climate control station?

6) I was very confused about the atmosphere effect at the end, going away? coming back? they looked reversed, it was only when i saw the second graphic that I went "oh the first one is the atmosphere going away"

Anyway, alright movie, just be ready for things beyond your control
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
congrats! this is the worst novel adaptation I've ever seen!!!
droogna8 January 2010
It is total insult! An insult to the ERB, an insult to the fans of Barsoom series, and insult (hopefully) to the upcoming "John Carter of Mars". I would have expected more even from a mock buster... I mean even with a low budget, why wasn't it possible to just stick to the plot of a book? Why did they need all that stupid Afghan/Iraq or whatever else stuff? Why trying to make John Carter just some kind of nowadays marine? How would that explain him being the greatest swordsman on two worlds? Does marine training include swordsmanship? Just give me a break! I'll just say no more, otherwise i'll start swearing :( Compare to this, Travolta's "Battlefield earth" is a great adaptation...

And the the princess... well guess what... She's over 40... I mean the whole movie I was trying to convince myself that she was hot... but I definitely had too few beers!
9 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed