Much better than John Carter...

Considering the production/distribution company...
POP played out like a Pirates of the Caribbean movie in ... well ... Persia.
Which isn't meant as an insult.
It was a great sword and sandal movie. It played out like a mix between "Thief of Baghdad" and "Conan the Barbarian" (1982) and it was really fun.

JC played out like a Pirates of the Caribbean movie on ... well ... Mars.
Which also isn't an insult.
It also felt like a proper mix of sword and sandal and sci-fi fantasy. Like Star Wars with broad swords instead of lightsabers.

I think both are rather good movies.

And yeah... the Princess in POP was obnoxious.
The Princess in JC was awesome.

POP doesn't have the wonderful Woola!

---
Dr. Pierson's recommended CATINFO.ORG on how to properly feed your cat(s)

I wouldn't even compare the two. This film poops on JC.

Life is like a beautiful melody, only the lyrics are messed up.

While I found both the movies to be fun, I enjoyed "John Carter" more.

Mr McGee, don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry!

I enjoyed both quite a bit, and would have liked to have seen where sequels would have gone for both of them. I don't have a particular preference between either though.

I sort of have found the movie to fall into the same category as John Carter. Boring lead actor and great production values, but the movie just didn't have that energy or spark that good adventure movies have. Even the Mummy with Brendan Fraser had that sense of adventure that John Carter and Prince of Persia lacked.

Yes, it is better, but both movies are far from great.
-------------------------------------
I own you.https://goo.gl/0avZjB