Avaliações de usuários

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.