Genres

Visitors Review

2012-05-21 09:20:17

A jar of pickles with a peaches label

Whatever this horrid garbage is, it is NOT the story penned by ERB! Horrid acting, cheesy special effects and it bears only a very slight resemblance to the actual Princess of Mars story.It's like someone giving you a jar or pickles that has a big peaches label on it covering up the sour pickles inside.Don't waste your time or you hard earned money on this stinker.

JoeB131 2012-05-20 22:07:30

How To Make An Asylum Film

1) Find a big-budget movie you can somehow associate your cheapknockoff with. That's easy, they are in development for years, whileyour ripoff can be made in a few weeks.2) Try to claim it is linked to some book in the Public Domain. H.GWells, Arthur Conan Doyle and Edgar Rice Burroughs won't turn intoliterary Zombies and march on your offices. (Although that would bemore interesting that most asylum films, come to think of it.) 3) Get some washed up actors. People that you might have heard of, butaren't getting good roles these days.4) Cheap Special Effects- Get some of those kookie You-Tube kids tomake your monsters...badly edited them into the film. 5) Pad out 10 minutes of plot with an hour of fight scenes andwandering through the desert scenes.Okay, Really, I'm going to say some nice things about this film. It'sactually better than your average Asylum film, but that's like sayingit'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 anex-Green Beret instead of an ex-Confederate officer.) Honestly, the weakest part of the film was Traci Lords. She's neverbeen a good actress, and you can tell she's in her forties every timethey did a close up. Honestly, the girl who played the lizard chick wasmore 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 havea lot of gunplay, but the muzzles of the weapons are almost always outof frame when they are being fired? I guess someone didn't budget forblank ammunition, but sound effects are always cheap. And Martians have50 cals and Kalishnikovs, just like we do on earth.

2012-05-20 08:49:59

Could have been a lot worse

I can't believe I'm saying positive things about this movie, but after having seen some of the "Sci Fi Originals", this film is head and shoulders better than anything they've shown in a really long time. Some of the character names are the same, but there is only a passing notion of the story from the Edgar Rice Burroughs classic. The green martians don't have four arms, and their mounts are some sort of really slow dinosaur camels. John Carter actually looks more red than the red martians. LOL It would have been a saving grace if Traci Lords had shown more skin, but alas, no. Unfortunately, she brings none of the charm to the role that you would hope to see in Dejah Thoris. Despite the flaws, the film is not a total disaster. I've seen a lot worse acting, I've seen worse special effects, and I've seen worse costuming. I've seen movies based on a book which maintained even less of the original than this one. So do I recommend that you go out of your way to see this film? No. Do you want to watch it to remind yourself of the feel of the book? No. If you happen to catch it by accident in a cable screening, will you be totally nauseated? Thankfully, no. In fact, I actually kind of liked the masks of the green martians ... good tusks. LOL

2012-05-19 17:32:40

The greatest example of a person writing a screen play based of off Cliff's notes and not actually reading the book

I have long dreamed of writing a screen play of this book and with the release of Avatar, the technology is obviously available to do justice to all the wierd and amazing flora and fauna of E.R. Bouroughs Barsoom. So much happens in the book it would definetly be a challenge to make a coherent movie even in a three hour running time. That being said the similarities between this awful movie and the original story lie in a handful of names and that John Carter was from Virginia. The writing of this screen play either has no idea what the story is about, having been told about it by a not too good reader of the story, or he intentionally wanted to dicredit ERB for some reason. I have gone out and gotten books and read the original after seeing a movie I enjoyed, but based on watching this; if not knowing better, I would never have bought an Edgar Rice Burroughs book. Ignoring the terrible casting, the 15 foot, four armed green martians being 7 foot toad men and monsters that just weren't in the books, this is just bad. There is nothing interesting that happens, is said or is shown that should ever want a second viewing let alone a first.

Theo Robertson 2012-05-10 03:03:54

Bad Sword And Sandal Fantasy

This is a strange film . Strange in the sense that anyone thought itwas going to be if not a good SF adventure then at least anentertaining one . The premise itself could have easily have beenborrowed from some pulp comic strip from the 1950s of an Earth soldierfinding himself on an alien planet where he finds himself caught in aconflict between the stereotypical clichéd baddies and the noble andweak cypher people . But even worse large segments feel like you'rewatching a sword and sandal adventure Apart from the premise there's warning signs that this is going to be aturkey . The fact that it's a movie released straight to DVD . I didn'tspend any money on it at a DVD store before you ask , I saw it on asatellite channel . It also stars Traci Lords who after giving pornappeared in films whose production values are no different from theones she became infamous for . and it's sad to note the years haven'tbeen kind to Ms Lords In short this is one of those movies very similar in style to the oneschurned out by the Sci-Fi Channel . The plot is threadbare , the actingstilted and unconvincing and perhaps the most telling thing in that thetitle is contradicted by the on screen events . It's called PRINCESS OFMARS but takes part on another planet . When you feel cheated both by afilm's title and its genre you know you're watching a bad movie

2012-05-09 17:09:30

Excruciating

I've never seen fifteen minutes of corny dialogue and posturing stretched out so thriftily into a ninety minute movie. I've seen better acting in grammar school plays featuring young children wearing construction paper hats and old bedsheets.Unfortunately Creature Features and Elvira's Movie Macabre are off the air now, but this film holds its head up high in comparison to Plan 9 from Outer Space or Kazaam, so could easily spark a revival.

MartianOctocretr5 2012-05-01 05:33:37

If it was done in 1957 in black and white at a drive in, it might have worked

It's just not too clear where the movie makers were trying to go withthis adaptation of the Edgar Burroughs story. At first glance, it looksto be a tribute to the style of old drive-in sci-fi features, where anintrepid astronaut pioneers unchartered space. Along the way, our spacehero will bravely fight giant creatures, duel bad guys, establishfriendship with the Martian locals, romance a blonde alien, bring aboutpeace between warring tribes, overthrow a despot, and so on.They give us all that old school sci-fi stuff, but there's no cohesionto anything. The "plot" is just a parade of unlinked chapters. Thestory is modernized, which is a mistake. Yes, everybody knows theRovers have found nothing up there, but who cares? Keep the naive retrofeel of a mysterious and foreboding Mars. That was the fun of thesource material. But now, the action doesn't even occur on Mars! The19th century soldier turned Spaceman Spiff has been redone as a GulfWar Marine, and sports millennial tattoos. The Princess herself is XenaWarrior Princess one moment, and helpless fairy tale princess the next.Still, those Martian green celery-head guys were lovable (even thoughyou can see skin poking out from beneath the masks). The indigenous bugcreatures, and the fights against them, are amusingly cheap, yet donewith gusto. Overall, an amateurish film, but has a bit of odd charm toit.

2012-04-30 12:01:05

A BIG STEAMING PILE OF SLUDGE

I survived this film for 20 minutes before I tossed the disc into a scrapyard. It felt good, too. This film is a big steaming pile of sludge that no Edgar Rice Burroughs fan should have to suffer through. The dialogue is off, the pacing is horribly simple and ineffective and the characters need a ton of work. I'd have more to say but that would mean I'd have to suffer through this joke of a picture. MY GRADE: F.

sknt 2012-04-28 20:11:18

Poor copy 2 authors, not just one

Considering the EL Arnold wrote the original in 1905 and Wikipedia canalso confirm this, Arnold didn't write the best of stories this authorhas read it too, and the comic book did credit the original author toowhich is where any may learn of a Arnold name because he is creditedfor the story in the comic. Lieutenant Gullivar Jones: His Vacation wasthe original title made into other titles, the name of john Carter wasalso created by Arnold before. This movie fits Arnolds writing better.The weak characters all fit a weaker plot line not a strong plot. Ifthe movie writers wanted to make a better movie they could have usingboth authors as source to inspire, not make a poorer plot.

spamcatcher01 2012-04-28 13:06:12

Well done.

An interesting adaptation of the story. I found All the actors seemedto fit well in their roles. I felt that I was short changed by there nobeing "Red" tinged body paint on the humanoid actors of Barsolom.Although I could understand the budget causing the loss of the extraarms. Plot line seemed well done in that the story/script didn't gofoolish as some other movies have lately. I do feel that a couple ofthe deleted scenes would have made the story flow better. All in all Iwould look forward to more of the books stories being produced. Theexplanation of how John Carter traveled to Mars was typical modernSci-Fi drivel. The original drifting off to sleep in the ERB authoredstories seems to me more 'mystical' logical. Otherwise the adaptationsare acceptable.

2012-04-23 09:55:23

Another syfy B-Movie yet...

the review by, J Conway says it all.i might add that it nice to see Traci Lords and Jr. Antonio Sabato Jr. in anything.the producers really junped the gun on this.they usually wait until the feature film comes out. by the way, the Disney one is due in 2012.i missed it on syfy and picked it up today at the Blockbuster going out of business sale and only paied $10.well, worth it.Sean

Angus McIntyre 2012-04-22 23:25:38

Every kind of bad, except the good kind

The best way I can describe this movie to you is by asking you toimagine your friend's dumpy, middle-aged mom, dressed up for Halloweenin a skimpy 'warrior princess' costume. That's Traci Lords as DejahThoris and she's every bit as embarrassing to watch as your friend'smom 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' andstorming off. Unfortunately for us, she decided to stick around,growling out her lines like someone being forced to read the telephonebook at gunpoint.So much for "the most beautiful woman in two worlds". The "fightingVirginian", Captain John Carter, isn't much better. He's asword-and-sandal beefcake who looks to be about half her age, withspiky hair and the kind of 'tramp stamp' back tattoo more commonly seenon oversexed teenage girls. He spends most of the movie smirking tohimself.Rounding out the cast are a few sinister swarthy figures, and a small -very small - army of undersized tharks (humanoid Martian monsters). Thetharks also mostly sound as if they're having their lines read to themover the telephone, but their faces are mercifully hidden behind tuskedplastic masks, so there's no way to tell whether they're pouting orsmirking. In some scenes, the tharks appear to tower over John Carter,as if the film-makers had remembered that they're supposed to befifteen feet tall. In the next shot they've suddenly shrunk to humansize again. My guess would be that the makers originally planned tofake the size differences using clever camera angles, but found that itwas too much work. For financial reasons, they were apparentlyunwilling to re-shoot the scenes they'd already filmed, so they juststuck them in and hoped for the best.There are also some sinister swarthy figures, a collection ofcomputer-animated monsters plodding morosely across a desert landscapeand some giant ant/spider things, some of which fly and all of whichexplode in a splash of vivid green ichor when shot with the flimsy artdeco rifles carried by the tharks. It looks rather as if the spiders -which do not appear in the original novel - somehow used up the limbbudget for the whole film, forcing drastic cutbacks elsewhere: thetharks have only two arms, while the eight-legged thoats have becomebipeds. 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 ofwaste ground somewhere outside L.A.I couldn't bring myself to watch the movie all the way through. Theredidn't seem to be any point. It's fairly clear that the film-makersprobably felt the same way, but they at least stuck it out and draggedit to some kind of plodding conclusion. Or so I assume.It would be nice to imagine that the movie was intended as a kind ofpost-modern satire on Burroughs' overblown heroic fantasy. In thiscynical vision, everything is deceptive and disappointing, a cruelmetaphor for the human condition -- the deserts of Barsoom are nothingbut a sandy backlot, the peerless princess is a middle-aged former pornstar, the ultimate champion just an over-muscled gym rat. Scholarswould applaud the daring irony, the bold inversion of the escapistepic. But I'm afraid that the cynicism was of a different kind and thatthe makers were simply trying to make a quick buck as cheaply andcrudely 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 everylevel.

2012-04-21 06:48:31

A cheesefest of epic proportions

What do you get when you mix a great book with sub-standard production as only Asylum can do? You get this piece o' cheese. My favorite part is early in the movie when John Carter first encounters the Tharks. The director tries to use camera angles to suggest the Tharks are much taller than John Carter but within a few shots just says "the hell with it" and makes them the same size. Traci Lords as Dejah Thoris is more like the "Spinster of Mars" as she seems too old for the role. Plus, she always has this look on her face like she's really cheesed about something (maybe the fact that she has to do Asylum movies to earn a living). The Thark masks are horrible and not even in a good way. Tars Tarkas (Matt Lasky) is also way over-dramatic in his line delivery. Watch it once just so you can say you did, then forget about it and wait for a better adaptation.

hafnambarazz 2012-04-20 17:42:49

Unwatchable!

Just dump it. How on Barsoom did they allow such a "movie" to be made.This is even worst than Uwe Bol's frolics!And come on please!! The Geek's Version of Avatar??? And squinting toresemble Cameron? Seems like trying to get a strong association withAvatar? Been looking forward to a good movie on ERB writing but thisseems to be going on, what with "The Land that time forgot" and all,and now this!! Makes me sad just watching a Tars Tarkas that looksanything but mighty , a cheesy John Carter and a Dejah Thoris that doesnot come remotely close to the prose! And a 2 legged Thoat??? Must havehad a hell of a time getting just a 2 legged one in CG...5 foot Tharks anyone??

2012-04-16 16:33:16

Great looking, but flawed, little sci fi film

This review is from: Princess of Mars (DVD) This Sci-fi film entertained me. It is not great, but I watched it once on a late night with insomnia, and it looked "otherworldly" beautiful from start to finish. (Perhaps the late night and the insomnia may have added something to the viewing experience.) Even when it looked hokey and cheap, it worked. There was something about the light, the atmosphere and the mood of it that worked for me. All of it just "looked" right. On the plus side, Sabato is a believable hero as John Carter. I liked him as Carter. This is not high acting, but he portrayed an athletic guy with a hero-mindset. He worked in the context of the film, as did most of the rest of the cast. Don't expect acting like in "The Departed" or something like that. This is a science fiction B-movie on a low budget. Again, I have to emphasize that the whole thing looked good, even when it looked cheap.Here's where it was fun but could have been improved: Carter going to Mars, and not even our next door neighbor Mars, but to a different Mars in a different solar system, left him with super strength in the very light gravity. Apparently this "other Mars" is even smaller than the one we know, with incredibly light gravity, given the strength he had. The 200 foot jumps he made could have been played up more. They looked good. The couple times when Carter took an adversary as large or larger than him and threw him 50 feet at high velocity into the side of a rock wall was very impressive, and should have been done many more times. They needed to play that up more. The sword fight at the end was rather weak, but the lack of skill of the actors was hidden by camera flash cuts and changing camera angles. It did not ruin the story, but it could have been done better.Here's where the movie kind of failed: I hate to criticize a beautiful woman (I adore them!), but Traci Lords was miscast. She did not seem to be an exotic alien princess. What is worse, she still has a great body, and didn't take off her clothes. (That's probably my biggest gripe. Go with your strengths, Traci.) In casting, I think they could have had a more convincing princess just getting some hot girl off the street in Brazil or Colombia and giving her a couple hundred bucks a week to look gorgeous and say a few lines. Traci had a bunch of close-ups that should have shown a princess's horror and dismay, and instead gave us the look of a soccer mom having a really bad day. (Don't get me wrong, she's a soccer mom with a great body, but she just didn't nail this.)Liberties were taken in regard to the script to update the book. Most of the update was OK, but when they went to the trouble to say the wounded soldier Carter, on Earth, at the beginning of the movie, would have "all his atoms" downloaded to a 16 gig memory stick to transport him to Mars, they lost me for a while. They tried to explain something beyond our tech that they should have left alone. If they said they would just download his consciousness and project that through a man-made, microscopic Einstein-Rosen bridge that opened for a fraction of a second in a supercollider as an anti-matter conversion byproduct, and sent just the consciousness to another dimension, I'd have bought that. The whole "every atom" thing with the 16 gig stick just made me shake my head. If you are going to stretch credibility and jump the shark, make it Jaws. Don't hold up a 16 gig stick. This film, which I found totally by chance, is a good guilty pleasure on a late night. If you can get it as a rental, or buy it cheap, check it out.

jetan 2012-04-16 03:49:00

If This Is The Price Of Victory, I Recommend Defeat.

I watch all movies that are based on ERB novels. All of 'em. I think Ieven watched that Bo Derek nightmare. But I could not go the distanceon this dog. As has been mentioned, the martians are quite grotesqueand this makes one wonder why they cast Ms. Lords. The effects, Iconcede, are surprisingly credible given the low budget. The problemlies in the atrocious script. It is as dull as an old knife. ABurroughs flick can be a lot of things, but boring should not be one ofthem. Even on a skimpy budget, I could have done a better adaptationthan this. So could your eight year old child or perhaps your BorderCollie. If you loved the book as I did, you simply must stay away fromthis. It will actually hurt you.

2012-04-14 20:05:56

If ER Burroughs were still alive...

...this movie would have killed him.I rented this 'film' from Netflix, and didn't bother to check out who produced it beforehand. When the DVD arrived and I took it out of the sleeve and saw "The Asylum" on the disc, I knew I was in for a crapfest. I would wager every penny I own and ever will own that those guys just are simply not capable of making a real movie. You know, with a coherent plot, decent acting, and at least semi-convincing special effects. Nope, instead, The Asylum specializes in rip-offs of better-known box-office hits, such schlock-fests as 'I Am Omega' and 'Transmorphers'. So yeah, as soon as I saw who made the film, my expectations were already non-existent.After actually watching the movie (against my better judgement, but hey, I'm a glutton for punishment), my opinion hasn't changed one bit. In the 'making of' featurette, the director makes a big deal of how they did this film in only TWELVE DAYS!!!!1!! Uh, hate to break it to you dude, but maybe that's not something you should be proud of. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it's the best thing to do. I mean, I could run out into traffic instead of taking a couple of minutes more to cross at a crosswalk and maybe save myself a minute or two, but I could also get hit by a car.And this movie IS a car-wreck. The story is a barely-coherent 'adaption' of the source material. It was a nice idea to update John Carter's back-story to the present day and make it more relevant to today's viewers, but the way it was done was laughably stupid. Without giving away anything (for those masochistic enough to subject themselves to watching it), the method by which Carter was sent to 'Mars' was never explained with any degree of sense. Once on 'Mars', many of the 'Martians' called their planet Mars, while some stuck with Barsoom. In the original book, it made a certain amount of sense that maybe, just maybe, some of the natives would call their planet by the Earth-name, since Earth and Mars are neighbors after all, but here? This 'Mars' isn't even in the same freaking solar system! Why would the inhabitants even know what that word means? I just can't go on pointing out plot holes, but that should give you some idea.As for the casting and acting... bleh. Antonio Sabato made a passable John Carter, but with that type of character one expects a bit of stoic woodenness, so it made sense to cast him or someone like him. But Traci Lords as Deja Thoris? Come on now - what's that all about? She's a pretty lady, but she's not the Princess of Mars. Not to mention she can't act her way out of a paper bag.The special effects are the usual Asylum hurry-up-and-get-it-done garbage. The fight with the spiders early in the film was fairly well-done as long as you don't look too closely, but as for the rest of it... bleh again.I just don't understand production companies like The Asylum. Did they all actually come from an asylum? Don't they have any pride in their work, any interest in making a halfway decent movie? I don't get it. At any rate, it reinforced my decision never to watch another one of their movies, and taught me to do some research on IMDB before adding something to my Netflix queue. :D

2012-04-14 11:37:01

Princess of Schtick

I cannot accept the fact that I waited over 50 years to see a film adaptation of my favorite childhood book and this came out first. Save yourself the agony and ignore this ridiculous piece of drek. It bears so little resemblance to the written story that it could be called by another title and no one would suspect that it had its origins in an ERB novel. I shouldn't even mention the acting. I'm sure they were doing their best and it would be cruel to discuss in any more detail. If this thing wasn't so pitiful I would be angry. The up side is that it will most certainly disappear quickly.

denvaldron 2012-04-07 14:17:38

A Decent little Pulp Adventure

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 isfurther constrained by the money and time available, by the talent infront of and behind the screen.Is this the "Worst movie evah!" Not hardly. If pressed, I'd give thathonour to Tim Burton's 'Planet of the Apes', a work which cost morethan the previous Apes franchise of five movies and two TV series allput together, but which was appallingly stupid - unbelievable talentand money went into making a painfully awful movie.On the other side of the coin, here we have an action adventure moviemade for very little money, with little in the way of resources. Yetit's amazing how they managed to actually make an enjoyable, watchablefilm.I'm not necessarily a fan of Asylum films. A lot of them suffer fromthe worst sin of film-making, tedium.But Princess of Mars is anything but tedious. There are no shortage ofrocky moments, including awkward scenes with Kantos Kan, and there'sdefinitely stuff to dislike. Shortcuts, or shots where there was notime or money to do more than get something in the can.But flaws aside, it's a relatively faithful telling of the novel. Thebiggest changes are the reduction of the role and backstory of TarsTarkas, and the elimination of the Zodangan war, as well as thecosmetic stuff - short stubby two armed Tharks, riding giant birdsinstead of eight legged horses.A lot of the true heart of the novel and the characters remain. JohnCarter is light hearted and heroic, Dejah Thoris is regal andidealistic, Tars Tarkas is noble. The relationships develop naturallybetween them, the acting is usually decent and sometimes quite good.The location shooting in the Vazques rocks is a highlight, the placelooks genuinely weird and alien. The script, apart from the occasionalclunky line, moves quickly and efficiently, there are witty lines.Frankly, my advice is to go look at the trailer. A lot of times, thetrailers are better than the actual film. Or the trailers contain allthe good parts of the film and the actual film tends to be mostlyfiller. In this case, the trailer is actually a good showcase for thefilm. If you liked the tailer, you'll enjoy the film.In the meantime, I'm pretty happy with it.

dstarrboston 2012-04-07 00:50:26

Not a very good movie

This ultra low budget science fiction flick turned up for rental in thewilds of northern New Hampshire. Traci Lords as Dejah Thoris showed herage in her complexion. Her scanty costume wasn't flattering and herfigure has seen better days. Antonio Sabato as John Carter was betterlooking, sufficiently hunky for the part, and hampered by an uglycostume. The rest of the cast were green martians, played by wearingcheesy looking masks, which makes any sort of acting pretty muchimpossible. The original Burrough's plot was heavily modified and notfor the better. Dramatic scenes from the book, such as John Carterslaying a green martian for hitting Dejah Thoris, riding double as theyflee captivity, standing off the hordes of Warhoon with a radium rifleand 200 rounds, are omitted. John Carter doesn't woo and win DejahThoris, the beautiful and gutsy martian princess, which was thestrongest part of the book. The low budget showed up in clunky looking weapons and props, mediocrecostumes, and special effects that made the old Dr Who seemsophisticated. The best I can say is it was a movie, I did watch it to the end, butthat's about it.