User reviews

I saw it with two of my little cousins and i was not looking forward to it atall after hearing how it bombed in box office and everyones reviews were really bad. It turns out I kinda liked it, the animation was very cool in 3D, which it must be seen in 3D or not nearly as cool.

It was simple family friendly entertainment, very vibrant and original with very creative digital technology behind it. It was fast paced and kept the kiddies smilin'. More than I was expecting definitely, and overrall not that bad, I would definitely recommend if you are looking for a film to bring some kids to. As a small bonus at the end they shows behind the scenes of how they filmed it with live action actors, very cool.

I'm a mom. Milo looked and acted just like my 12-year-old son. ... I was touched by the film. Was it perfect? No. The '60s slang and cultural references bugged me. As a woman who grew up during the women's movement in the 1970s, I knew some people would be offended by the vaguely antifeminist themes. But it could be argued that there were some underlying "liberal" themes, too (antiestablishment politics, guerilla art, individuality, education, a sense of true history, anthropology, science, and other "revolutionary," anti-religious ideas).

It could be argued that women have made so much progress in our culture that they are fair targets as the "oppressor," too. It's important to note, that the flipside message of this film is that Mars needs dads, too. Though I really could not stand the way the men were portrayed in this film (mangy, goofy, dancing thingies in '60s hippie rags.) I'm not familiar with the book, but the cultural references seemed really, really out of synch with several generations, and I was alive in the '60s (as a child).

In the end, though, my geek side loved the motion-capture appearance of the film. We saw it in iMax 3D (the only way to watch these films), and were blown away by the animation. We are not offended by Disney technology and storytelling. We've seen the good side of Disney in so many ways at their theme parks, cruises (Castaway Cay!!!), etc. ... So, it saddens me to see a touching family film go down in flames because of a few storytelling defects, bad timing, and anti-Disney sentiment.

Due to the copious negative reviews about "Mars Needs Moms," I decided to write a quick positive one.

I've read a bunch of different kinds of bashing over this film; from sexism and hidden political agendas to poor animation and a poorly timed release. Now, I think we can all safely agree that if the viewer really wants to find something negative about "Mars Needs Moms", they won't have to look very hard. Keeping this in mind, I went into watching this film with just one simple goal in mind, to be entertained, and I was. This film really isn't as bad as everyone says it is as long as you just go into it with the right mind set.

The animation is incredible, as well it should be with a $150 million dollar budget and over 6 minutes worth of end credits of people who worked hard creating it. Like Beowulf, the human characters look almost identical to the actor/actress voicing them and the surroundings like the space sequences, the garbage mountains, and the Mars tunnels are breathtaking. This simple animation element will be enough to entertain the open minded person. Yet, the overdone and predictable story is still heartwarming and I believe it served as a nice reminder of how special a mom really is. Though some of the dialogue isn't the greatest, and there are a few ominous notes played throughout (leaving me to recommend this movie to children over ten), wait for it to go down from a new release rental price and give it a try.

Like andrewj-lee wrote, how fun to read the obviously planted movie reviews here. Ranging from the ones in a journalistic style to the short and tear-jerking. That's the way to do it, Disney. As for the movie, it is terrible. Disney is dead. The people who now control the corporation have nothing in common with its founder. Walt Disney had a vision, his movies had a soul. "Disney" today has only calculation, with movies made of plastic.

For example: Who in his right mind would give a movie aimed at kids the tag-line "Mom needs a little space."? It means that children's' mothers want to get away from them. Is this heartwarming? Is it truly what children should hear? Or is it just something a movie producer thinks is a clever play on words? Few parents will pay to see a movie with a tag-line that insults them.

The characters look freaky. Aliens with bloated heads that would make their tiny necks snap are not a welcome sight. The anteater-like "Wingnut" character is outright disturbing. I am reminded of the creepy Australian children's show "Dirtgirlworld". (If you want to be freaked out, look it up in YouTube.) At the end you have to wonder where the people went who could make Lady and the Tramp and put true feeling in it, with way less technology than today. Now we get do-it-by-the-numbers productions: "Let's find a Heartwarming Subject. Let's throw in Funny Sidekicks (loved that Jar-Jar Binks). Let's have a Mean Enemy Boss. Give him a mean name too. In the end the kid Saves The Day. With lots of special effects."

What could go wrong? You did it by the numbers, right? Took it from A to Z. Why doesn't it work? Like when you survey people about what they like to see on a car, and put it all together to make the perfect vehicle. How could it be a flop? (It was, it's a marketing disaster classic.) Or when you hire a decorator to decorate an apartment in an "eclectic" style, choosing only the most expensive parts and the most appreciated objects in the catalogue. How could it be awful? Or when you go to the gym and pump up your muscles, targeting exactly those muscle groups that people are said to look at the most. How could people think you look fake?

How do you explain soul to a Hollywood executive - and do they care?

I wasn't going to watch this movie at all because of the terribly low score (4) on IMDb. Luckily, my kids talked me into it, and I was very pleasantly surprised indeed.

I am amazed that this movie scored so low. Yes, granted, its nothing groundbreaking; there are plenty of well-worn formulas applied. But its far from unusual in this regard, and the story is full of fun situations and characters.

Visually, its very nice to look at, and I found myself thoroughly enjoying the time I spent watching it. So did my kids, 8 and 10, who both thought it was great! I don't usually review movies here, but I often check the ratings before watching films. In this instance, I am amazed at the low rating this film received, and feel its unrepresentative of the actual quality.

So 7/10 from me, and really at a loss as to how almost 30% of viewers could have possibly thought 1/10 was a fair rating!

I have to start out by saying that I enjoyed reading all of the obvious planted reviews about this movie. There is a reason that hardly anybody went to see this movie, and it isn't just because it was released around the same time as a couple of other "family" movies. Those reasons may include hideous character design, lazy animation (mo-cap), and a generic and unbelievable story. Not to mention an unmistakeably sexist trailer that leaves the audience groaning.

Who cares if Mars needs Moms? I don't. You won't, either, especially after watching this movie. The ensemble of unlikeable, repulsive characters will see to that.

I have always respected Disney. Most of their films are original family fun without having too many childish toilet jokes which are found in too many non-Disney kids films nowadays. Now, this doesn't have many toilet jokes, but it is so unoriginal I cannot believe this is Disney! Up, WALL-E, Toy Story, Cars, Ratatouille - some of the most original films ever. But this is pure garbage. I don't know if they were trying to do a Megamind, by putting a cliché twist on a common theme, that it is so cliché it is original - if they were it didn't work. And the animation is so realistic it is bad. For me, the whole point of an animated film is to create a sense of another world - so that it is realistic without being unbelievable. Disney fails completely - they might as well of done this as live action. Avoid at all costs! Go to see Hop or Rio instead.

Easily the biggest flop of 2011, and pretty close to of all time, this Disney motion-capture film is about a young boy, Milo, who must save his mother (Joan Cusack) from Martians. In Martian society, females rule the world. They discard the males (who then live on the trash-strewn surface world) and the females are raised by nanny-bots. They need the Earth mothers in order to program these nanny-bots, and the process they use leaves the Earth mothers dead. With the help of another human (Dan Fogler), who was brought up to Mars in the same fashion as Milo (trying to rescue his own mother, he stowed away on their ship), and a rebellious female Martian (Elisabeth Harnois), Milo sets out to save his mother. A lot of viewers get stuck on the film's gender politics. I admit they do seem a little backward, especially with the shrill, feminist stand-in villain (played by Mindy Sterling, whom you may remember as Frau Farbissina from the Austin Powers movies). However, I think that Ki, the Martian girl who helps Milo, is a positive enough female character that she should make up for the villain (the remainder of the female Martians are more or less faceless soldiers). If you can get past that stuff, the film is actually a lot of fun. Simple and straightforward, but a lot of fun. It's fast paced and beautiful to look at (thankfully, now that it's on video, you don't have to see the colors diminished in 3D), and it's very funny. Fogler and Harnois are both very good. Fogler's character, Gribble, is easily the best looking motion capture character I've ever seen. Gribble is an 80s kid and Ki has fallen in love with humanity after watching sitcoms about hippies, so they both talk in idioms from those eras, bugging modern kid Milo the whole time. I think most kids will love this movie, and it imparts a nice moral (respect your damn mother!). This fits in with the late crop of severely undervalued Disney films of the past several years, which includes The Princess and the Frog and Meet the Robinsons. None of these films are masterpieces or on par with Pixar's best, but they're excellent films nonetheless.

The average rating for this movie by professional film critics is about 3.0 out of 5 stars. That average is realistic. I would probably give it 6.5 out of 10 if I could, but I didn't feel it was as bad as movies I've given 6 out of 10 stars, so I gave it a 7 out of 10.

The movie uses motion-capture computer animation to apply more realistic textures and movements to its characters, following movies like A Christmas Carol (which wasn't as good), Beowulf (which was much better), and The Polar Express (also much better).

Mars Needs Moms features a plot that wasn't demographically targeted correctly. It features a boy who needs to rescue his mother from awkwardly humanoid-looking Martians, but boys that age are working very hard to separate themselves from needing their mothers. It is a very natural consequence of a male's life. So while the movie might appeal to mothers, I'm not sure it will appeal to boys.

The next problem, which exacerbates the previous one, is its timing. The studio made a big, big mistake trying to release it at the same time as Battle: Los Angeles, and only a week after Rango. Parents already took their kids to Rango the weekend before, and the dads really wanted to see Battle: Los Angeles (especially after being sorely disappointed with the similarly themed Skyline last Fall).

A lot of movies in January through March have been juggled around recently, causing all sorts of problems. Many movies were yanked from their original release dates and moved out later in the year. But Mars Needs Moms should have been released in early January. It would have fared a lot better. As it is, the movie has been a complete disaster at the Box Office. I fault Disney for the poor release strategy (they were only the distributor, not the actual producer of the movie), and Simon Wells for the rest.

There is also the point that a lot of viewers were troubled by the Martians themselves. I think Simon Wells could have had his animators design them a little more intelligently. They seemed awkward to me -- they were humanoid, but slightly differenced to a degree that some people found disagreeable: legs too far apart, butts too big, and legs like they were inflated with air. Mr. Wells also made the mistake of giving the male Martians dreadlocks-like hair, which has accidentally incited a lot of racist remarks, although racial nods was not intended. (People really need to stop being oversensitive. Grow some skin, please!)

There is an army of people flaming the movie, however, and the computer animation is at the core of their argument, which is very curious. One critic said, "Mars Needs Moms stands as the potentially final Zemeckis-produced motion-capture effort, and, like The Polar Express, Beowulf, and A Christmas Carol before it, its characters boast the waxy complexions, unreal movements, and dead eyes of mannequins..." (Nick Schager, The Village Voice)

What the...? I'm confused here. What standard is this critic holding computer animated features to? I don't recall any waxy complexions or unreal movements or dead eyes of mannequins in any of these movies, or at least nothing that distracted me from the otherwise near photo-realistic computer animation that has only been around a few years. While they fall short of the realism of characters inserted into live action movies such as Peter Jackson's King Kong and Gollum, or George Lucas's Yoda in Star Wars episodes II & III, and certainly not the characters in Avatar, it didn't strike me as being a requirement in an animated feature to be THAT photo-realistic. Nobody complained about Shrek's movements being unrealistic or his eyes being dead as a mannequins, but clearly Shrek isn't being held to the same animation standard. What gives?

While I'm not going to defend Mars Needs Moms on every point, I don't understand the beating its taking from reviewers here at IMDb. It's a fairly average film from a director who isn't very good to begin with, with plotting that could have been better and could have been worse, and some character design that could have been more intelligent. But unfortunately there seems to be a subculture out there (probably made up of mostly teens, and maybe even competing film marketers and computer animation folk -- perhaps some Rango promoters attempting to keep its returns high in the second week) who are throwing one stars around IMDb with malignant glee. To give 1 out of 10 stars to this movie is dishonest, and an abuse of having a rating system in the first place. There were 404 people who gave A Bug's Life "1 star" for example, and 3,284 who gave Shrek "1 star." And so forth. Movies need to be rated with some perspective on similar movies.

Mars Needs Moms has some redeeming values. Not nearly as witty as Tangled or Shrek, but easier to understand and more enjoyable than Rango, which seemed to bore my two boys (4 and 7) whereas Mars Needs Moms entertained them. In all fairness, Rango was intended for slightly older children than mine, but I'm a pretty old child myself, with a lot more filmmaking, movie-going, and storytelling experience than the average IMDb reviewer, and I didn't find Rango nearly as brilliant as Johnny Depp's ground-worshipers claim.

My advice to you, if you haven't seen Mars Needs Moms, is ask your kid if he or she is interested, and if so, take them. Forget about what you hear about it on IMDb boards, it's likely tainted.

I guess I'm in the 'I liked it' camp. Frankly I am perplexed at the negative press and hatred thrown at this film. It's a Disney movie. That should tell you something. It will be a movie that adheres to some pretty strict rules. The movie will have to appeal to the broadest family audience possible. It will not have a lot of controversial social commentary. The conflicts in the movie will be resolved without bloodshed or body parts being flung about and the movie will have a happy ending. So what did you expect? Aside from that I thought all the actors did a fine job with their parts and I liked what was done creating the martian world. I'm sorry many people didn't find any likable characters. I liked them. The humans looked and acted like real people to me. I found Ki, the martian tagger, especially appealing. Why? Well, I don't want to deconstruct it too much. Let's just say I wish I'd known somebody with her personality when I was younger. As to all the nit picking, well yeah, I did that too. If they put in all the 'how did they eat, shower, go to the can, and buy food stuff the movie would have been 6 hours long! That's what you use your imagination for after the movie is over. It's too bad this movie didn't get any respect. It really deserved better.

I've heard many say Mars Needs Moms is sexist. It's worse, it's one of the most miserable and loathsome kids movies I've ever seen. It combines awkward animation, murky colors, effortless story-telling, and a very poor plot to create a tasteless and uninspired film. This is the kind of thing I'd expect to see from a no-name animation company, not Disney.

Mars Needs Moms features the inventive motion-capture style of animation where actors are fitted for special suits and act out all of the motions done by their characters in the movie. When I think of this, I think of Jackass: The Game because it is provided in movies and video games to give them a more natural feel. In Jackass: The Game, they utilized it to make the stunts seem realistic and more natural. Here it is awkward like it was in Jackass. It's a hybrid between animation and live-action. Sometimes it even looks live action. All around, it's odd and out of place. I don't think this is the kind of film that needed it.

The plot is nonstop confusion and is convoluted to the point where I must question, would I have understood this if I were maybe five or six. The answered is no. I would've been horrified by the thought of my mom being kidnapped by martians. That's right. After wishing he didn't have a mom, nine-year-old Milo's (motions done by Seth Green, voice acting done by Seth Dusky) wish comes true when his mom (Cusake) his kidnapped by martians in a spaceship.

Milo hitches a ride, and after meeting up with another human on the planet named Gribble (Fogler), Milo is told that mars needs moms to have their "mom-skills" be transferred into Mars's many nannybots so they can control their young. The story-telling and plot had me lost a good portion of the film, and I can't imagine a six-year-old in the theater getting too involved or even caring what happens.

When it comes to the storyline, that is where Mars Needs Moms fails greatly. Why would their be a kids movie about a child's mother being kidnapped? That just baffles me. Many kids around Milo's age are attached to their parents, and while we all get frustrated with our moms once in a while, we would never want them to be kidnapped. If I would've seen this film as a kid, especially the end scene, I probably would've been a wreck. It's like Marley and Me. Don't market something as a kids film when it has a plot that either won't appeal to kids or affect them emotionally.

I did like the acting enough to keep watching. I like Dan Fogler in one of the year's earlier pictures, Take Me Home Tonight.. Plus I did frequently try to imagine the hard work and stress that went into something like motion-capture animation. The actors were most likely put through tons of labor and had to do some movements that would make you wake up with a sore back and neck. All for a huge flop that is now record setting with net losses over $100 million.

I'm sympathetic because of all the time and work that was put into the project, but I'm also disgusted at the plot and the execution of this film. The fact this film is made the way it is is surprising, since it is a joke of a kid's movie with one of the strangest plots ever concocted. Mars Needs Moms, just from the title, has nothing to hide. It's obscure, lifeless, and stuck in the wrong world.

Starring: Seth Green, Tom Everett Scott, Joan Cusack, Elisabeth Harnois, Dan Fogler, Dee Bradley Baker, and Mindy Sterling. Directed by: Simon Wells.

This was better than some, no worse than others. I love Seth Green, and if he hadn't been listed in the credits you would have known in two seconds it was him. It looked almost too real, as every facial expression and reaction shot seemed too real. I think cartoons should be more cartoony--does that make sense? If you strive so hard to make cartoons look like real images, then why not just make a movie using real objects? That being said, the story wasn't horrible, and it is just repeating the title to tell you that mom is kidnapped by horrible aliens who wish to learn from her how to be a mother. There are reasons that will be explained. What I didn't like was that the idiots in the movie seem to be stereotyped from blacks from jamaica. So, getting past that, my recommendation is this: don't be a daddy in the theater. If you are going to watch this with your 3-7 year old crowd, it is a mommy son movie and can be touching. When it comes out on TV, i am sure the wife will enjoy watching it with her little men. As for me? Well, 8 bucks for the ticket and to keep the kids quiet for 88 minutes? Sure, not a bad trade off.

I watched this movie tonight in 2-D and can't for the life of me figure out why it's only rated 5.1/10 at IMDb.com. It has a fun story, good characterizations and great animation with possibly the most realistic motion-capture character ever in Gribble, the childlike adult victim of the Martians' earlier Earthian foray. I'll admit that it may possibly be perceived by some as portraying radical feminism in a bad light, especially with the faceless Storm Trooper uniforms of the Martian guards and their Hitleresque female leader, the Supervisor. Perhaps one reason for the negativity is the absence of cute cuddly animals like in practically every other Disney animated movie, but there was the robotic Wingnut in a very limited presence for the die-hard cute animal enthusiasts. The only other reason I can see for all the negativity is that Martian women are portrayed as intrinsically incapable of raising children on their own without male help and must solicit "instructions" from a "real woman." I give it a 7/10.

These LED-studded catsuit-clad animated motion pictures need to go away. I know that sounded like a mouthful; but the medium is very off-putting and it leaves this viewer feeling uneasy (see also Disney's A Christmas Carol with Jim Carrey and The Polar Express with Tom Hanks). Those weird-looking, partially-alive-like characters are too-much of a meld between live-action and animation to be enjoyed. I would suggest either fully animating a film or leaving it in live-action -- the perfect solution to Mars Needs Moms would have been to have the scenes on Earth portrayed by real-life actors while the scenes on Mars could have become animated (although it isn't as if this suggestion would have "saved" this Martian mire -- IF neither Jim Carrey nor Tom Hanks could salvage this "genre" how-on-earth is Seth Green supposed to do so?!).

While the film has a somewhat respectable premise -- "mothers are invaluable" -- the movie also decides to feature women/female(s) as the cause of destruction and mayhem in the universe (it is a 50/50 crap shot everybody!). Seth Green (Austin Powers, "Robot Chicken", Old Dogs) voices 9 year-old, Milo, who is tired of his well-meaning mother (the voice of Joan Cusack - In & Out, Working Girl, The Addams Family Values) telling him what to do ("eat your vegetables", "take out the trash", "go to your room" etc.). Milo is a spoiled brat who only realizes an instant too late -- as his mother is abducted by Martians literally mere moments earlier (!!!) -- that he was a jerk and was wrong in mistreating his mother.

Luckily for Milo (and for the benefit of the movie), he comes onboard the MOTHERship and soon finds himself on Mars where he quickly comes into contact with the only other human (other than his captive mother) on the planet (voiced by Dan Fogler -- Take Me Home Tonight, Balls of Fury, Fanboys) who's stalled mission from the 1980's has left him stranded on the furious-female led planet.

While there are some nice graphics and some inspired shots (and a few hilarious 80's references to passing fads "those hideous-looking fake Cabbage Patch Kids" had me laughing), Mars Needs Moms comes across as nothing new -- it is just sci-fi lite family adventure. Mars may be in need of moms; but this film was in need of some motherly advice -- namely "clean up this mess!"

In Mars, the female babies are nursed by robots while the male babies are dumped in the junkyard under the command of Supervisor. They research Earth and finds that the boy Milo is raised by his Mon with love and discipline.

The Martians come to Earth and abduct Mon, to use her brain to instruct the robots about how to raise children. However, Milo slinks into the spaceship and comes to Mars. He meets Gribble, a young man that behaves like a child and together with the hippie Martian Ki and Gribble's friend Wingnut, they try to rescue Mon and bring her back to Earth. But Supervisor will give her best efforts to stop Milo and his friends.

"Mars Needs Moms" is a delightful underrated animation about that crazy love thing and a tribute to the mothers and to the families. There is no explanation of how the Martians breed but the wonderful story can be easy enjoyed by those that have the concept of family, and not hatchery. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Marte Precisa de Mães" ("Mars Needs Moms")

I wanted to go to cinema to see this movie, but for many reasons, I couldn't. I was tempted by the fact that is an IMAX 3D Disney Animation and I am a big fan of animated movies. I finally watched on DVD and I had the big surprise to find that this is, by far, the WORST movie made by Disney. They should've stick to what they do best (for example: Princess & the Frog, etc.) not this lame script and weird animated characters. Too bad...

Disney, please reconsider your decision in canceling all your beautiful animated productions with beautiful fairy tales. That kind of productions had made you famous and Richie-rich :)