Did you people see the same film I saw?

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

A replication of the charming trick films of the great Georges Méliès, 'A Trip to Mars' is fascinating for many reasons that may or may not have actually been intentional. The acting itself is broadly comical, and the over the top performances help heighten this strange and almost surreal vibe the entire short has. The entire premise is absurd, largely because of what science has, by this time, taught us, and is in itself laughable, but also inexplicably helps heighten the film's confusing, bizarre, and flat out weird atmosphere. The film's most iconic visual by far is that of the giant alien lord(?), king(?), ruler(?), or something(?), the film never at all specifies much of what is going on (another element that helps heighten the atmosphere, albeit very possibly unintentionally), which looks like some sort of disturbing vision of Satan. It's all extremely odd, and ends in a wild, almost experimental note when the camera flips over and around and spins, creating an effect that replicates something by the likes of a Stan Brakhage(!).

Everyone knows about A Trip to The Moon. One of the first science fiction films it was a major milestone in film history. So when Thomas Edison was making films under his studio he decided to make an All American remake. Instead of a giant bullet, it's a scientist discovering reverse gravity. And instead of going to the moon, he goes to Mars. One step beyond. Well the scientist get's discovered by Martians, and he is soon sent back home by the giant overlord Martian. The scientist throws something on the ground and the room starts to spin. Just saying that description will make you laugh. But still it is pretty impressive. And the special effects are good. It's not as good as A Trip To The Moon but I still have to give it credit.

An interesting piece of movie which is based entirely on H. G. Wells book. Melies "A Trip to the Moon" is based mostly on J. Verne's book "From The Earth to the Moon" and has elements from Wells book "The First Men in the Moon" (Wells mentions that the moon is inhabited by Selenites and about huge plants and also in Verne's book they never get to step on the moon). In this movie, like in Wells book, the scientist discovers a substance which defies gravity (in the book it's a new material called cavorite) which helps him travel up in the air and straight to Mars! There he finds strange creatures and an environment different from Earth. He manages to get back to his house and in a strange twist he spills the substance on the floor. It is not as good as Melie's movie but is fun small piece of history. If you like the short "magic films" of this era than is a must. You have to love the way they brought fantasy into life and the way they used the means they had at the time to make this possible.

The obvious inspiration for this short film is Georges Melies' 1903 A TRIP TO THE MOON, but while Melies based his movie on a Jules Verne novel, this clearly is based on H.G. Wells' FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON -- with the names rubbed off and the site of the action changed to avoid lawsuits.Even though we see the same sort of mix of stage and movie magic that Melies used, the purpose has shifted subtly from being special effects that the audience would gape at, to special effects that are used to get from plot point A to plot point B. When chairs float in the air, it is not to frighten and bewilder the audience and the movie's character, but to illustrate the invention of anti-gravity. When the scientist flails about while seeming to fly through outer space, it is to get to Mars. Special effects are no longer the point of the movie. They are part of the grammar.To the modern eye it may look abrupt, but Edison had its own style of editing that it would use until 1913. There were few screen titles used at Edison.Director Ashley Miller seems to have used Edison as a source of income and after they stopped production, gave up the movies. He seems to have had a real career acting and directing on Broadway.