Princess of Mars

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.

If you are looking for a great adaptation of "Princess of Mars," you're going to have to wait a while longer because it is NOT here. That doesn't mean this DVD should be immediately discounted, though.This film is pretty incompetently made. The shots are weak, the editing is poor, and the acting is very stiff. It does, however, provide an interesting adaptation of "Princess of Mars," considering that a 200+ page novel with a lighting quick pace was slimmed down to 90 minutes with a shoestring budget. They did a good job picking a choosing which story elements to focus on and which to cut out. The also did a decent job stringing all of these together in the plot (I hesitate to call it a "story"). It does not feel as if scenes are missing from the flim, like in some of the "Harry Potter" films where scenes from the novels are kept to appease the fans, but crucial setup FOR that scene is omitted. The addition of spiders is somewhat confounding, though...What works particularly well is the integration of the air pumping station, which I feel is weak and disjointed in the novel. In the book, John Carter stumbles upon it when he escapes from the Green Martians, and later it also serves as a strange, second climax at the end of the book. The scene is totally disjointed and literally takes place 10 years after the rest of the central conflict. In this adaptation, the station serves a more central role in the plot and the central conflict is resolved here. I think the best touch in this adaptation is the distrust the Tharks have of the station. The Tharks think it is a lie when the Red Martians say all life Barsoom depends on this air pumping station; a lie told only to hold power over the Tharks. I like that spin on the source material.The reason to own this DVD is the great "Making of" featurette that runs about 10 minutes. It shows the shortcuts they used to get this film completed with twelve, yes, TWELVE days of shooting. "Little Miss Sunshine" shot for a month and that was considered an insanely short shooting schedule. Watching the film with the context given in the featurette serves as a very interesting learning tool for aspiring filmmakers such as myself, showing what can be done with a shoestring budget and how to do it.So overall, the film gets a nice 2/5, saved only by its good story-editing choices.The DVD features get a 4/5 for the featurette.Average, 3/5.

I read the other critics and 1 did say the movie was "okay". Mostly, what I heard was that the movie did not "go with the book" or it was too hokey. Personally, I was impressed with what they were able to do with the budget and acting they had. Traci Lords is a fair actress and she did a job worth watching and listening to. She cannot help what the lines are. Yes, they were hokey. Our male star had the same problems. However, when I look at the movie overall and just look at a very basic outline of the plot of the book, they match up fairly well. A guy at war gets transported to "Mars", fights the bad guys, and wins the girl. Hey! That's the basics. Quit getting all worked up about how close it is to the book and just enjoy the "B" movie for what it is: "B". I don't feel I wasted my time. I even had to snicker a couple of times; some when I was supposed to and some where I wasn't. :-)

Even with its cheap effects it was way better than the version with Taylor Kitsch as John Carter , which was a mish mash of special effects and a nonsensical confused storyline.Anthony Sabato Jr . did a better acting job and the story with all of cheaper effects was more cohesive and entertaining than the 2013 version

This is a typical si fi romp, it bares a passing resemblence to the book of the same title, but not really enough.Forgetting the novel it is supposed to be based on and you get the usual human superhero saving a planet. The dialogue at times is poor, the acting stilted, and the plot thin. Overall it works though and although the ending has sequal stamped all over it, none yet appears to have been made, which is a pity as it certainly deserves one.Although the film is decidedly "low budget" it excepts that limitation and works within it, no masses of poor animated aliens getting shot to peaces, just close ups of the hero blasting away then looking at the wall of dead.I did enjoy this film.Finally for those who can remember the Star Wars film, Return of the Jedi, that bikini is given pride of place here.

This is a low budget version of ERB's novel of the same name, remarkably filmed in less than a fortnight. It's been adapted for film, so John Carter is transformed from a civil war vet to an active US agent in the near east, "Mars" is a planet in another solar system where the injured Carter is sent by a secret US agency rather than our mars in the past that he's been drawn to by mystic means - one expects such things when a novel is adapted for film - but personaly I think ERB's original was a better story. The low budget means there's none of the novel's 6 limbed wariors or 8 legged steeds or red egg-laying humans (shame), nevertheless it is an entertaining SF action romp, and worth more than a single viewing. It merits a viewing just for being the only adaption to film of ERB's Mars series. All in all it's a good DVD if all you're expecting is entertainment, but a huge disapointment if you're expecting ERB's novel to be brought to life. Maybe one day someone with a budget like Avatar and adaption skills like Lord of the Rings will give ERB's Mars Saga the treatment it deserves, but in the meantime we've got this to keep us fans ticking over.

for starts which came first this version or the the Disney one .the Disney version who was on drugs when they panned it did my no you need a degree to be a film critic down size version not bad the one just watched the remake of John carter

True to the Edgar Rice Burrough's story. It wasn't a seed for Avatar though there were similar backgrounds. Mars wasn't Mars but a colony with the Solar name. The aliens were similar to Star Trek usage, head work with protrusions on the skull, but I did like the fangs. Action aplenty, but a lot left unexplained. I look forward to the Disney version in 2012 (or 2013).

Not a bad film and is not too Disney like John Carter.