1,054 reviews
Good story that is easy to follow with suspense here and there and of course it takes place in space which is always exciting because there is so much we do not know. Here we are introduced to crews in space making a go of it and things go wrong but they also go right too. This has one of the most powerful endings in Science Fiction that I have come across. I rate it as follows: If a movie or scene in sci-fi manages to trigger your imagination and then engage it, ten we are getting maximum return on the concept and then some. That's what takes place here. The discussion to follow the movie afterwards with a friend would enlighten and entertain of itself. Enjoy Gary Sinese who is a solid actor earning his keep in trade. Go toward this movie and.....
- Richie-67-485852
- Mar 23, 2018
- Permalink
After a second viewing, I can say that I am still not sure what to make of this film. Many will see this as something of a remake of 2001. And yes, the film is visually almost plagiaristic of the Kubrick masterpiece. The two biggest problems are a lack in originality and thoughtfulness. From my rating, you can see that I did not despise this film. It's visually nice, and the performances are all good. However, I am not sure I can recommend it.
I'm a sci-fi fan, and a scientist, so I was initially intrigued by the notion of a big-name dramatic film-maker doing a sci fi epic, which appeared, at least initially, to be hardcore sci-fi. By hardcore sci-fi, I mean fiction based on scientific reality, not fantasy with a tiny bit of science thrown in for decoration. An example, also using Mars as a vehicle, is Ben Bova's novel "Mars" - which focuses on the very edge of plausibility, only occasionally overstepping the bounds of scientific possibility. Film has rarely achieved this - a few interesting exceptions are Alien (the original), Outland and Silent Running. Hardcore sci-fi, which, I argue, this film could and should have been, is careful about that boundary. And 3/4ths of the way through Mission to Mars, it's still a hardcore sci-fi flick. Then suddenly, it's something else. I will leave that something else for you to discover, and stay focused on what the director and screenwriter were trying to do here.
What we have here is not really a single plot, but a pastiche of plots that have been strung together into one long, mysterious and grandiose story line. The film starts out with a couple of scenes which might have been lost in Appollo 13 - providing a little bit of character development and letting us know that we are about to witness the first manned space flight to Mars. That flight ends pretty quickly, as virtually everything goes wrong. And as a rescue mission begins, the question then becomes, why is everything going wrong? Up to the point where the rescue mission enters Martian orbit, this central question is sustained and developed skillfully, but then , in my opinion, things start to go wrong with the film itself.
There are major problems with what could have been the best aspects of this film. The spaceships are remarkably flimsy and poorly designed, but they look great! The safety protocols for the mission, about which we hear so much, are either not followed or incredibly naive. The heroes are not particularly clever about heroism, and seem to forget, at times, what the actual possibilities are for mobility in space (why not use the tether three times - twice out to Woody and once to get back after you run out of fuel, Terry?). The guy who authored the safety protocols does not appear particularly concerned with safety, or even protocols. The evolutionary biologist on the crew is amazingly poorly informed about the Paleozoic period of earth history and the evolution of species. I could go on.
The film is broadly derivative of 2001 A Space Oddyssey, The Abyss, Star Gate, Event Horizon, Fifth Element, Contact, and a few dozen other somewhat entertaining but not particularly believable space / sci-fi adventures, but while it resembles, and in fact pays homage to these films (especially 2001), it never entertains quite as well. Why? Because these films do not pretend to be based on scientific ideas, but rather, aesthetics and humanism. While most of these films invite interpretation, Mission to Mars simply repeats ideas from previous films and doesn't even bother to recast them into an interesting new light. Mission to Mars is something that has been done many times before, and in more interesting, entertaining, and thought-provoking ways.
Technical proficiency, which is something this film exudes, is no substitute for a compelling story and interesting individual characters. Unfortunately, even in terms of technique, the film has some flaws. Some will disagree, but I found the soundtrack irritating, and the pace of the film very uneven to say the least. And the characters lives are so intertwined in the few character development sequences that only Sinise, Robbins and Bennings' characters develop rudimentary individualities.
Despite his reputation, I can not hold Brian De Palma up to standards which are different than those of other film-makers, and I can not condone creating a special vocabulary or a sophisticated argument to permit interpretation of his films as part of some over-arching theme which only he and a few of his fans understand. There is a fine line between flattering imitation and shameless copying, so I'd rather not get into an extrapolated meta-film discussion of this film's relationship to 2001. I don't think this film is worthy of such a sophisticated analysis.
There are some truly great moments in Mission to Mars. This should not be too surprising with the wonderful cast, big budget, and talented production team. What did surprise me about this film was the 2001-like 180 degree turn it took off of the map of scientific possibility 3/4ths of the way through the film, and I can't say that turn and its outcome really impressed me.
If you're a sci-fi fan, or somebody with a very casual interest in science, you should probably see this. But if you haven't seen 2001 first, by all means, wait until you have. And don't take this one too seriously when you do get around to it. This has much more to do with fiction than science fiction.
I'm a sci-fi fan, and a scientist, so I was initially intrigued by the notion of a big-name dramatic film-maker doing a sci fi epic, which appeared, at least initially, to be hardcore sci-fi. By hardcore sci-fi, I mean fiction based on scientific reality, not fantasy with a tiny bit of science thrown in for decoration. An example, also using Mars as a vehicle, is Ben Bova's novel "Mars" - which focuses on the very edge of plausibility, only occasionally overstepping the bounds of scientific possibility. Film has rarely achieved this - a few interesting exceptions are Alien (the original), Outland and Silent Running. Hardcore sci-fi, which, I argue, this film could and should have been, is careful about that boundary. And 3/4ths of the way through Mission to Mars, it's still a hardcore sci-fi flick. Then suddenly, it's something else. I will leave that something else for you to discover, and stay focused on what the director and screenwriter were trying to do here.
What we have here is not really a single plot, but a pastiche of plots that have been strung together into one long, mysterious and grandiose story line. The film starts out with a couple of scenes which might have been lost in Appollo 13 - providing a little bit of character development and letting us know that we are about to witness the first manned space flight to Mars. That flight ends pretty quickly, as virtually everything goes wrong. And as a rescue mission begins, the question then becomes, why is everything going wrong? Up to the point where the rescue mission enters Martian orbit, this central question is sustained and developed skillfully, but then , in my opinion, things start to go wrong with the film itself.
There are major problems with what could have been the best aspects of this film. The spaceships are remarkably flimsy and poorly designed, but they look great! The safety protocols for the mission, about which we hear so much, are either not followed or incredibly naive. The heroes are not particularly clever about heroism, and seem to forget, at times, what the actual possibilities are for mobility in space (why not use the tether three times - twice out to Woody and once to get back after you run out of fuel, Terry?). The guy who authored the safety protocols does not appear particularly concerned with safety, or even protocols. The evolutionary biologist on the crew is amazingly poorly informed about the Paleozoic period of earth history and the evolution of species. I could go on.
The film is broadly derivative of 2001 A Space Oddyssey, The Abyss, Star Gate, Event Horizon, Fifth Element, Contact, and a few dozen other somewhat entertaining but not particularly believable space / sci-fi adventures, but while it resembles, and in fact pays homage to these films (especially 2001), it never entertains quite as well. Why? Because these films do not pretend to be based on scientific ideas, but rather, aesthetics and humanism. While most of these films invite interpretation, Mission to Mars simply repeats ideas from previous films and doesn't even bother to recast them into an interesting new light. Mission to Mars is something that has been done many times before, and in more interesting, entertaining, and thought-provoking ways.
Technical proficiency, which is something this film exudes, is no substitute for a compelling story and interesting individual characters. Unfortunately, even in terms of technique, the film has some flaws. Some will disagree, but I found the soundtrack irritating, and the pace of the film very uneven to say the least. And the characters lives are so intertwined in the few character development sequences that only Sinise, Robbins and Bennings' characters develop rudimentary individualities.
Despite his reputation, I can not hold Brian De Palma up to standards which are different than those of other film-makers, and I can not condone creating a special vocabulary or a sophisticated argument to permit interpretation of his films as part of some over-arching theme which only he and a few of his fans understand. There is a fine line between flattering imitation and shameless copying, so I'd rather not get into an extrapolated meta-film discussion of this film's relationship to 2001. I don't think this film is worthy of such a sophisticated analysis.
There are some truly great moments in Mission to Mars. This should not be too surprising with the wonderful cast, big budget, and talented production team. What did surprise me about this film was the 2001-like 180 degree turn it took off of the map of scientific possibility 3/4ths of the way through the film, and I can't say that turn and its outcome really impressed me.
If you're a sci-fi fan, or somebody with a very casual interest in science, you should probably see this. But if you haven't seen 2001 first, by all means, wait until you have. And don't take this one too seriously when you do get around to it. This has much more to do with fiction than science fiction.
No laser beams. No alien attackers coming to consume Earth. No Will Smith and no Charlize Theron in sexy outfit. Not frightened yet? Read on...
I saw this movie in a cinema with my girlfriend - a Physics teacher. What we both liked was how it followed laws of physics - it was perhaps the first sci-fi we saw which showed properly how space works and what vacuum is all about.
I read in one review that the scene where they raise the USA flag is pathetic, when they should be running into the base to look for survivors; I disagree: Since they arrived nearly a year AFTER the incident, rushing doesn't make any sense.
I liked the "puzzle" part of the movie, as well as the final moments when the truth is revealed. Some laughed at that point, but I liked it a lot.
Remember how Space Odyssey plays with the idea that the intelligent life on Earth might be a product of "targetted imprinting"? Well, M2M suggests yet another possibility, and I find that extremely appealing.
The cast seemed brave to me: No top-class stars, no pretty faces, but instead good actors that are believable (after all, Garry Sinise played in Apollo 13 and Jerry O'Connell played a similar role in "The Sphere").
I saw this movie in a cinema with my girlfriend - a Physics teacher. What we both liked was how it followed laws of physics - it was perhaps the first sci-fi we saw which showed properly how space works and what vacuum is all about.
I read in one review that the scene where they raise the USA flag is pathetic, when they should be running into the base to look for survivors; I disagree: Since they arrived nearly a year AFTER the incident, rushing doesn't make any sense.
I liked the "puzzle" part of the movie, as well as the final moments when the truth is revealed. Some laughed at that point, but I liked it a lot.
Remember how Space Odyssey plays with the idea that the intelligent life on Earth might be a product of "targetted imprinting"? Well, M2M suggests yet another possibility, and I find that extremely appealing.
The cast seemed brave to me: No top-class stars, no pretty faces, but instead good actors that are believable (after all, Garry Sinise played in Apollo 13 and Jerry O'Connell played a similar role in "The Sphere").
In this day and age of computer generated eye candy, it is very common to see movies that are based solely on special effects and nothing else. Movies like Wing Commander have great graphics, but the story line and acting leave you back at the ticket booth.
Mission to Mars does not fit in this category. When I saw previews, the special effects looked great, but I could also tell that there was a plot to this movie. For once, I was right on the mark. Mission to Mars made you think about what was happening and what the consequences were going to be. The suspense takes a firm grip on one's eyelids and pulls them up to the ceiling.
What truly makes this movie stand above others of its ilk is the great acting of the characters. In sci-fi shoot 'em ups, the viewer develops a way of not caring for the characters, as they are uncreative and inflexible. Mission to Mars made me care about every single character; I was eagerly awaiting every twist and relished every event.
The climax (which I will not at all spoil) was hair raising and at the end extremely satisfying. Upon leaving the theater I quickly realised that I haven't seen a better movie all year.
I give every recommendation I know to go see this movie. And, by the way, look out for some foreshadowing. It's in there.
Mission to Mars does not fit in this category. When I saw previews, the special effects looked great, but I could also tell that there was a plot to this movie. For once, I was right on the mark. Mission to Mars made you think about what was happening and what the consequences were going to be. The suspense takes a firm grip on one's eyelids and pulls them up to the ceiling.
What truly makes this movie stand above others of its ilk is the great acting of the characters. In sci-fi shoot 'em ups, the viewer develops a way of not caring for the characters, as they are uncreative and inflexible. Mission to Mars made me care about every single character; I was eagerly awaiting every twist and relished every event.
The climax (which I will not at all spoil) was hair raising and at the end extremely satisfying. Upon leaving the theater I quickly realised that I haven't seen a better movie all year.
I give every recommendation I know to go see this movie. And, by the way, look out for some foreshadowing. It's in there.
¨Mission to Mars¨ by Brian de Palma boasts a good cast with Gary Sinese, Tim Robbins , Don Cheadle , Connie Nielsen , among others . When the first manned flight to Mars ends in disaster , NASA sends a risky rescue mission consisting of Jim (Gary Sinese) , married astronauts Woody (Tim Robbins) and Terri (Connie Nielsen) and generic tech guy (Jerry O'Connell) . All they have to do is align themselves to the correct the orbit , but a dangerous fuel leak may be about to jeopardise their plans . On the way to Mars they become involved into more and more troubles , difficulties and weird surprises . Getting there was the easy part !. Let There Be Life !. For centuries, we've searched for the origin of life on Earth...We've been looking on the wrong planet !.
Decent space odyssey with fine cast , including thrills , chills , and spectacular Mars scenes. This enjoyable picture blends Science Fiction and Fantasy genre , developing an intelligent script that disseminates the clues to maintain the interest and tension of the viewer and reflect on the eternal theme of the confrontation between man and nature , as well as the struggle between faith and scientific reason . However , some incongruous scenes undermine whatever it was director attempting to accomplish . Adding other philosophical themes as theories of Ancient astronauts , crew doubts , fears and questions about God and divine providence , man's destiny and the nature of the universe turn defining elements in their fates . Writers spent a long period investigating with the goal of researching Mars and space travel and studying photography to see how light behaves in the atmosphere . The result is a feature film narrated with rhythm enough , including careful production design and a sober touch on the scenes in which the dazzling special effects stand out . It is an interesting and thought-provoking motion picture , though typical routine -at times- space odyssey that goes wrong when some astronauts find death in diverse strange forms . In the film there're chilling set pieces , suspense , body-count , intrigue and visual wizardy , but the very used plot and some indifferent interpretations spoiled the final result . Mission to Mars (2000) follows the style of other 2.000's films in which expeditions on Mars get in trouble , such as : the subsequent ¨The Last Days on Mars (2013)¨ by Ruairi Robinson with Liev Schreiber , Elias Koteas , Romola Garai , Olivia Williams and being made at the same time to ¨Red Planet¨ (2000) by Anthony Hoffman stars Val Kilmer, Tom Sizemore , Benjamin Bratt , Simon Baker , Terence Stamp ; that was its greatest rivalry and competence . The biggest claim of this space epic ¨Brian De Palma's Mission to Mars¨, (2000)¨ results to be its cast , headed by Gary Sinese , Tim Robbins , Don Cheadle , Connie Nielsen and a large support cast in brief apperances , such as : Peter Outerbridge , Kavan Smith , Armin Mueller-Stahl , Kim Delaney , Elise Neal , among others .
It displays monumental musical score by genius composer Ennio Morricone , adding colorful and brilliant cinematography by cameraman Stephen Burum. The motion picture was well directed by Brian De Palma (Snake Eyes , Mission: Impossible, The Untouchables , Scarface , Body Double , Obsession , Phantom of the Paradise, The Fury , Dressed to Kill , Sisters) who's well known for his visual wizardry and on that element he doesn't disappoint . Rating : 6.5/10 . The pic will appeal to Sci-Fi fans.
Decent space odyssey with fine cast , including thrills , chills , and spectacular Mars scenes. This enjoyable picture blends Science Fiction and Fantasy genre , developing an intelligent script that disseminates the clues to maintain the interest and tension of the viewer and reflect on the eternal theme of the confrontation between man and nature , as well as the struggle between faith and scientific reason . However , some incongruous scenes undermine whatever it was director attempting to accomplish . Adding other philosophical themes as theories of Ancient astronauts , crew doubts , fears and questions about God and divine providence , man's destiny and the nature of the universe turn defining elements in their fates . Writers spent a long period investigating with the goal of researching Mars and space travel and studying photography to see how light behaves in the atmosphere . The result is a feature film narrated with rhythm enough , including careful production design and a sober touch on the scenes in which the dazzling special effects stand out . It is an interesting and thought-provoking motion picture , though typical routine -at times- space odyssey that goes wrong when some astronauts find death in diverse strange forms . In the film there're chilling set pieces , suspense , body-count , intrigue and visual wizardy , but the very used plot and some indifferent interpretations spoiled the final result . Mission to Mars (2000) follows the style of other 2.000's films in which expeditions on Mars get in trouble , such as : the subsequent ¨The Last Days on Mars (2013)¨ by Ruairi Robinson with Liev Schreiber , Elias Koteas , Romola Garai , Olivia Williams and being made at the same time to ¨Red Planet¨ (2000) by Anthony Hoffman stars Val Kilmer, Tom Sizemore , Benjamin Bratt , Simon Baker , Terence Stamp ; that was its greatest rivalry and competence . The biggest claim of this space epic ¨Brian De Palma's Mission to Mars¨, (2000)¨ results to be its cast , headed by Gary Sinese , Tim Robbins , Don Cheadle , Connie Nielsen and a large support cast in brief apperances , such as : Peter Outerbridge , Kavan Smith , Armin Mueller-Stahl , Kim Delaney , Elise Neal , among others .
It displays monumental musical score by genius composer Ennio Morricone , adding colorful and brilliant cinematography by cameraman Stephen Burum. The motion picture was well directed by Brian De Palma (Snake Eyes , Mission: Impossible, The Untouchables , Scarface , Body Double , Obsession , Phantom of the Paradise, The Fury , Dressed to Kill , Sisters) who's well known for his visual wizardry and on that element he doesn't disappoint . Rating : 6.5/10 . The pic will appeal to Sci-Fi fans.
Mission to Mars has divided opinions with its attempt to blend near future space exploration with human drama.
Yes, the writing and acting are not amazing, not even great. It's average and below average at times, but the actors did their best and had some fun while filming.
I have a personal fascination with the nostalgic charm of 90s retro-futuristic spaceship interiors, from the decor and CGI to the overall aesthetics this film did Great.
The film has some great rolling shots that show off where the budget went. The visuals highlight the film's investment in creating a detailed and expansive portrayal of space and the Martian landscape, even if the CGI doesn't always hold up. These moments add to the film's aesthetic appeal, making the most of its visual potential despite other shortcomings in the narrative and character development.
The overall story takes a few twists and turns but keeps it simple and explains what is happening in a subtle manner.
I give this movie a 6/10.
Yes, the writing and acting are not amazing, not even great. It's average and below average at times, but the actors did their best and had some fun while filming.
I have a personal fascination with the nostalgic charm of 90s retro-futuristic spaceship interiors, from the decor and CGI to the overall aesthetics this film did Great.
The film has some great rolling shots that show off where the budget went. The visuals highlight the film's investment in creating a detailed and expansive portrayal of space and the Martian landscape, even if the CGI doesn't always hold up. These moments add to the film's aesthetic appeal, making the most of its visual potential despite other shortcomings in the narrative and character development.
The overall story takes a few twists and turns but keeps it simple and explains what is happening in a subtle manner.
I give this movie a 6/10.
- GreenmanReviews
- Aug 13, 2024
- Permalink
I'm disappointed. No, actually, I'm sad. No, in fact, Iäm rather angry - I have never seen such a great and wonderful idea be turned into something so insanely sappy and corny and cheesy and stupid in my entire life.
It could have been so fantastic - it could have been a "Contact"-class sci-fi flick. Instead, we are served the lowest kind of americanism: staring into space; uttering "Oh my God" a hundred times and at every single event, small or great; A crying alien - PLEASE!; holding hands; the mandatory loss of someone dear; the lone hero who has nothing to lose and so on and on and OOOONNNNNNNN!!!!!! There is only one leniency to be found: it IS fairly scientific and believable, except for the fantastic feat of landing the satellite thingy exactly on the spot.
This is by far the most disappointing film I have seen. It is always terrible to see a really bad movie, but it's a lot worse when they trick you into thinking it could actually be worth watching. This one certainly isn't...
It could have been so fantastic - it could have been a "Contact"-class sci-fi flick. Instead, we are served the lowest kind of americanism: staring into space; uttering "Oh my God" a hundred times and at every single event, small or great; A crying alien - PLEASE!; holding hands; the mandatory loss of someone dear; the lone hero who has nothing to lose and so on and on and OOOONNNNNNNN!!!!!! There is only one leniency to be found: it IS fairly scientific and believable, except for the fantastic feat of landing the satellite thingy exactly on the spot.
This is by far the most disappointing film I have seen. It is always terrible to see a really bad movie, but it's a lot worse when they trick you into thinking it could actually be worth watching. This one certainly isn't...
- Rammstein-2
- Aug 2, 2000
- Permalink
I have been reading some of the reviews for this movie preceding me on this list. I cannot believe how many hated it or considered it a blatant rip-off of 2001 and other movies like it. Hey, good ideas are always borrowed. That's life. Get over it. It was a great movie. Great effects. Music was overly patriotic but it is set in 2020; how are we to know what the future's little details will be?
If the people who hated it and considered the movie a rip-off, then they are looking too hard for something that is not there. Let's see you movie scrutinizers try to make a movie that is not "ripping-off" another movie - I'd like to see you try.
And Mission To Mars dialogue was not that bad; they're supposed to be astronauts, not writers.
I give it 7/10.
If the people who hated it and considered the movie a rip-off, then they are looking too hard for something that is not there. Let's see you movie scrutinizers try to make a movie that is not "ripping-off" another movie - I'd like to see you try.
And Mission To Mars dialogue was not that bad; they're supposed to be astronauts, not writers.
I give it 7/10.
Before watching this film for the first time the other night, I knew this film got middling reviews and after watching it, I can't see why. Just like 2001: A Space Odyssey, Mission to Mars gives us a sense of wonder, of hope, and even of awe. The final half-hour of the film really gives us these emotions. The first part of the film may be a little boring or I shall say intellectual, but I found it interesting to watch. The visuals are really good and especially on Mars and that make the film pretty to look at.
Brian De Palma's film is about how the first manned mission to Mars goes very wrong thanks to a catastrophic and somewhat mysterious event. A rescue team goes to Mars to see if anyone is alive and they discover something that may enchant them forever.
This film has a pretty good cast and it seems like they had a good time. I don't see much of Gary Sinise anymore, but he does a good job as Jim. Don Cheadle is awesome as always. I can't complain about Tim Robbins since he usually does a good job in anything. All in all, everyone has good chemistry here.
Overall, this is a decent, wonder-inspiring sci-fi film. It may not be perfect thanks to some corny dialogue and some times of slowness, but it's much better than what people give it credit for. It's also a film that gives a possible view on where we people from Earth came from. I can't believe people say Morricone's score is bad, but it's far from bad. It's a haunting, stylish score that will stick with you, just like the movie. I rate this film 8/10.
Brian De Palma's film is about how the first manned mission to Mars goes very wrong thanks to a catastrophic and somewhat mysterious event. A rescue team goes to Mars to see if anyone is alive and they discover something that may enchant them forever.
This film has a pretty good cast and it seems like they had a good time. I don't see much of Gary Sinise anymore, but he does a good job as Jim. Don Cheadle is awesome as always. I can't complain about Tim Robbins since he usually does a good job in anything. All in all, everyone has good chemistry here.
Overall, this is a decent, wonder-inspiring sci-fi film. It may not be perfect thanks to some corny dialogue and some times of slowness, but it's much better than what people give it credit for. It's also a film that gives a possible view on where we people from Earth came from. I can't believe people say Morricone's score is bad, but it's far from bad. It's a haunting, stylish score that will stick with you, just like the movie. I rate this film 8/10.
Not the best space film but yes definitely impactful and make you hooked up into the space world and their dynamics.
Direction is good but the screenplay and pacing could've been better throughout the film. Yes it's a CGi fest but as compared to 2000s era movies it is good to watch.
Character performances & music score is I like the most specially the suit design looks great to watch.
Director has taken the freedom in the storyline and present the unique style of it sort of imagination fantasy and the visuals it create makes my day.
Overall not a must watch but still feel good film with a space ride venture and great character performances...
Direction is good but the screenplay and pacing could've been better throughout the film. Yes it's a CGi fest but as compared to 2000s era movies it is good to watch.
Character performances & music score is I like the most specially the suit design looks great to watch.
Director has taken the freedom in the storyline and present the unique style of it sort of imagination fantasy and the visuals it create makes my day.
Overall not a must watch but still feel good film with a space ride venture and great character performances...
- shaikhirshad-41223
- Apr 14, 2024
- Permalink
I caught this a little into the movie. It was at the incredibly cheesy scene when Sinise is looking at video of he and his friends at a party.
It was laughable but it only got worse. So I watched for about 45 minutes before I just couldn't take it anymore. Not a single second of this movie was believable. From Dr. Pepper trick to the tether scene outside the spaceship. Sinise is a relatively talented actor and Robbins has his moments, well one anyway (Shawshank), they couldn't rescue this flick.
After the 45 minutes I was anxious to get here and see the reviews from the disappointed. And yes, they are here but I am truly shocked that people not only liked the movie but actually are praising it so highly. Thus my summary tag line. Amazing that viewers can be drawn in to a film of such low quality.
Watched it on a 65" TV with a high end surround sound and there are a couple of moments the movie utilizes the technology available to it but by and large the effects, by today's standards, are amateurish and very low caliber. This would have been visually stunning in 1976 but in 2000, and certainly now, it's somewhat of a joke.
But the effects aren't the only downfall. The dialog is equally pathetic. Acting marginal to awful. Direction atrocious. It fails at every level.
And there are people that like it. That is awesome and utterly amazing.
It was laughable but it only got worse. So I watched for about 45 minutes before I just couldn't take it anymore. Not a single second of this movie was believable. From Dr. Pepper trick to the tether scene outside the spaceship. Sinise is a relatively talented actor and Robbins has his moments, well one anyway (Shawshank), they couldn't rescue this flick.
After the 45 minutes I was anxious to get here and see the reviews from the disappointed. And yes, they are here but I am truly shocked that people not only liked the movie but actually are praising it so highly. Thus my summary tag line. Amazing that viewers can be drawn in to a film of such low quality.
Watched it on a 65" TV with a high end surround sound and there are a couple of moments the movie utilizes the technology available to it but by and large the effects, by today's standards, are amateurish and very low caliber. This would have been visually stunning in 1976 but in 2000, and certainly now, it's somewhat of a joke.
But the effects aren't the only downfall. The dialog is equally pathetic. Acting marginal to awful. Direction atrocious. It fails at every level.
And there are people that like it. That is awesome and utterly amazing.
I don't understand why this film is getting such a hard time here ! OK, so it's no 2001 - a film with which is has much in common - but it's certainly no Battlefield Earth either.
The story is engaging - the action sequences are realistic and entertaining - the special effects are excellent, with very realistic spaceship designs and photography. The main criticism I can level at the film is that is totally avoids some important scenes, such as the first landing on Mars, or the landing of Mars 2 crew. Also the initial scene is drawn out and there's far too much hugging going on !
This is an intelligent, but low-key film - it reminded me of some mid-fifties sci-fi, like the Thing. Perhaps audiences today are less sophisticated - having been brought up on a diet of poor action movies and even poorer Star Trek 'science fiction'. Mission to Mars has a more realistic basis, is less flashy - and I don't think there's even one explosion in the whole film.
If you enjoyed Contact or 2001 and want more of the same, then Mission to Mars is a definite must-watch. It's a shame that a quality film like this is getting panned so badly, as movie studios are more likely to avoid similar projects in the future. Would 2001 be made today ? I doubt it.
The story is engaging - the action sequences are realistic and entertaining - the special effects are excellent, with very realistic spaceship designs and photography. The main criticism I can level at the film is that is totally avoids some important scenes, such as the first landing on Mars, or the landing of Mars 2 crew. Also the initial scene is drawn out and there's far too much hugging going on !
This is an intelligent, but low-key film - it reminded me of some mid-fifties sci-fi, like the Thing. Perhaps audiences today are less sophisticated - having been brought up on a diet of poor action movies and even poorer Star Trek 'science fiction'. Mission to Mars has a more realistic basis, is less flashy - and I don't think there's even one explosion in the whole film.
If you enjoyed Contact or 2001 and want more of the same, then Mission to Mars is a definite must-watch. It's a shame that a quality film like this is getting panned so badly, as movie studios are more likely to avoid similar projects in the future. Would 2001 be made today ? I doubt it.
I do not understand why this movie was slagged so badly when it came out. I finally watched it on VHS, and I liked it much better than "Red Planet", its companion Mars movie.
Sure, "MTM" steals from lots of other movies, but what film doesn't? The opening is lifted directly from "Apollo 13", but it serves the purpose of setting everything up rather painlessly. I love the cast, and they do establish a sense of camaraderie here.
I am not an aeronautical engineer, but I do know enough science to appreciate the way the fight to survive the entry into Mars' atmosphere is based on the limitations of their equipment. In most action movies, the hero has limitless ammo, fuel, food, etc. It was truly heartbreaking to see Tim Robbins' character make the choice he did.
Overall, "Mission to Mars" is very enjoyable. It felt like a short story lifted directly out of the Sci-Fi of the 60's, which I grew up reading. The pacing is very good, the acting is good (given some of the cliched situations), the script does not insult your intelligence, and I liked the resolution very much. Fun at the movies, what more can you ask?
Sure, "MTM" steals from lots of other movies, but what film doesn't? The opening is lifted directly from "Apollo 13", but it serves the purpose of setting everything up rather painlessly. I love the cast, and they do establish a sense of camaraderie here.
I am not an aeronautical engineer, but I do know enough science to appreciate the way the fight to survive the entry into Mars' atmosphere is based on the limitations of their equipment. In most action movies, the hero has limitless ammo, fuel, food, etc. It was truly heartbreaking to see Tim Robbins' character make the choice he did.
Overall, "Mission to Mars" is very enjoyable. It felt like a short story lifted directly out of the Sci-Fi of the 60's, which I grew up reading. The pacing is very good, the acting is good (given some of the cliched situations), the script does not insult your intelligence, and I liked the resolution very much. Fun at the movies, what more can you ask?
- raymond_chandler
- Apr 25, 2003
- Permalink
I really liked the cinematography here. Especially the last 2 minutes felt like seeing a dream. Indeed the actors do have a look of awe plastered across their faces, especially Gary Sinise. It is a work of fiction and an enjoyable movie nonetheless.
- sowhatnowthennext
- May 23, 2020
- Permalink
Rarely has a sh*t this bad been packaged this nicely.
I didn't catch the beginning of this movie, but from second one i did see, it was so screaming with BAD i just had to continue watching. Such an overload of clichés is not easy to find. I have an urge to say the acting stinks too, and although it is absolutely true, the actors are totally excused, simply because there's nothing to act on. You simply cannot utter sentences and act out story bits seen and heard so many times and have an expression, apart from cartoon-like mimic and eye-brow work. EVERYTHING was so bad here, from direction to acting to perhaps-good-but-totally-misplaced score to camera, i just had to comment aloud all the time, although i was home alone! I don't do that usually; it was really that bad. Occasionally, computer graphics would appear which, to my surprise, looked exceptionally good (although very kitchy). This made me think "how the hell a director and a story this crappy got so much money for CGI??".
When after the film i read that this is a Brian De Palma movie, i was shocked. Something MUST have gone terribly wrong in the production of this. A badly timed deadline? Urgent need of money? I don't know. And i don't want to know. I want to forget this, as soon as i write this review.
Now, as a youngster i was a great fan of sci-fi literature, and even today i like to see a good SF movie; alas, by now i already realized there is almost no such thing; with very rare exceptions. So i continue to watch the bad ones, this piece of crap included. Thus, as a principal SF fan, i agree with all the people here who say they are sick of all the 'fight the alien monster' movies. But, contrary to most of them, i don't think that making aliens nice and wise makes it a good film, or even story. _Sh*t_stinks_, whatever shade of brown it may be.
Not to forget: shameless ripping off also stinks, especially when it is so obvious, as this rip-off of 2001 Space Odissey is; and even more so when the rip-off is such a simplistic version of the original. As i watched, i kept thinking "When this guy (i.e. director) was young, he wished he made 2001 SO". Eventually he did, and he screwed it up to last bit, and he called it "Mission to Mars".
I didn't catch the beginning of this movie, but from second one i did see, it was so screaming with BAD i just had to continue watching. Such an overload of clichés is not easy to find. I have an urge to say the acting stinks too, and although it is absolutely true, the actors are totally excused, simply because there's nothing to act on. You simply cannot utter sentences and act out story bits seen and heard so many times and have an expression, apart from cartoon-like mimic and eye-brow work. EVERYTHING was so bad here, from direction to acting to perhaps-good-but-totally-misplaced score to camera, i just had to comment aloud all the time, although i was home alone! I don't do that usually; it was really that bad. Occasionally, computer graphics would appear which, to my surprise, looked exceptionally good (although very kitchy). This made me think "how the hell a director and a story this crappy got so much money for CGI??".
When after the film i read that this is a Brian De Palma movie, i was shocked. Something MUST have gone terribly wrong in the production of this. A badly timed deadline? Urgent need of money? I don't know. And i don't want to know. I want to forget this, as soon as i write this review.
Now, as a youngster i was a great fan of sci-fi literature, and even today i like to see a good SF movie; alas, by now i already realized there is almost no such thing; with very rare exceptions. So i continue to watch the bad ones, this piece of crap included. Thus, as a principal SF fan, i agree with all the people here who say they are sick of all the 'fight the alien monster' movies. But, contrary to most of them, i don't think that making aliens nice and wise makes it a good film, or even story. _Sh*t_stinks_, whatever shade of brown it may be.
Not to forget: shameless ripping off also stinks, especially when it is so obvious, as this rip-off of 2001 Space Odissey is; and even more so when the rip-off is such a simplistic version of the original. As i watched, i kept thinking "When this guy (i.e. director) was young, he wished he made 2001 SO". Eventually he did, and he screwed it up to last bit, and he called it "Mission to Mars".
Mission to Mars is superior to Red Planet because (A) It has an uplifting, forward-looking ending, while Red Planet is nothing but an action movie in space. And (B) because Mission to Mars doesn't gratuitously announce that Mars must be colonized because decades of neglect by humans has all but destroyed the environment on Earth as Red Planet does. That said; I was only impressed enough with Mission to Mars to rent it twice, not to own it. Although Gary Sinise's character is our protagonist, I was more impressed with the sacrifice of Tim Robbins' character. I've never liked Tim Robbins in a movie until this one. His character makes the ultimate sacrifice, and nothing anyone else does can equal it. The climax struck me as a little too neat and clean. The "suspense" over whether Terri and Luke will make it back to the ship before it lifts off isn't suspense at all because we know they're going to make it. The special effects surrounding Sinise's boarding of the alien ship were overdone. And what was the point of immersing him in water? Do the filmmakers really believe we'll think he's going to drown? The ending would have been better if Tom Hanks had reprised his Forrest Gump role and met Sinise in the alien spaceship. "Lieutenant Dan!" he would say, "I've been waiting for you."
This film is such a mess that I had to wonder as I watched it, if I wasn't watching a rough-cut (a cut of the film shown to preview audiences, sometimes before end credits, some visual effects, or music is added). While there are some films that are so bad, it seems they never should have been started, this one probably shouldn't have been left on the scrap heap and never finished. Imagine the money they would have saved on visual effects, which are awesome, and have some serious sound design to go along with them. Everything else (acting and storytelling), unfortunately, is treated as secondary. It's as if director Brian DePalma were trying to beat an impossible deadline set by the studio.
A committee of writers wrote this thing but, despite this, the story is promising. It's the year 2020 (a bit optimistic, I'd say) and we've managed to open an orbiting, multi-nation mission control station. From there, the first manned mission to the planet's surface is launched, led by Luke Graham (Don Cheadle). I was disappointed that they skipped past Man's First Steps on Mars and picked up the mission a few days in. Guess they figured we'd see the real thing soon enough. Before long, the crew meets disaster when they are attacked by a really cool special effect. Mission control has no idea what happened to the crew of four, but they have reason to believe someone may have survived. Jim McConnell (Gary Sinise), was supposed to be the first man to Mars but was forced out when his wife became ill, will now finally get his chance.
DePalma is very dependable when it comes to staging action sequences and incorporating special effects (the only factors that saved "Snake Eyes" and "Mission: Impossible," his last two films). Too bad he can't always get David Mamet (DePalma's The Untouchables) to write his scripts for him. This one seems thrown together, having been either written on the fly or ignored. Just about every cliche' ever used in movie dialogue is dusted off and incorporated somewhere in this script. I felt sorry for this seasoned crew of actors (Tim Robbins, Jerry O'Connell, Kim Delaney, Connie Nielsen, Armin Mueller-Stahl, Sinise, Cheadle) who did the best they could delivering their stupid lines. At times, I just wanted to cover my ears because I couldn't take it any more. Speaking of covering my ears, I could have done without Ennio Morricone's score. When he composed this music, was he watching the wrong film? The inappropriate, distracting score actually ruins some well-executed action sequences.
My conclusion about Mission To Mars is that this could have been a decent sci-fi film if it weren't ruined by amateurish oversights. The finished product, a curious melding of two genres, the realistic space mission movie, ala "Apollo 13," and science fiction, is a mere shadow of what it could have been. The studio probably envisioned something along the lines of Cameron's "The Abyss" or even Kubrick's "2001," but fails. Unfortunately, this means Verhoeven's "Total Recall" is still the best Mars flick around.
Grade: D-
A committee of writers wrote this thing but, despite this, the story is promising. It's the year 2020 (a bit optimistic, I'd say) and we've managed to open an orbiting, multi-nation mission control station. From there, the first manned mission to the planet's surface is launched, led by Luke Graham (Don Cheadle). I was disappointed that they skipped past Man's First Steps on Mars and picked up the mission a few days in. Guess they figured we'd see the real thing soon enough. Before long, the crew meets disaster when they are attacked by a really cool special effect. Mission control has no idea what happened to the crew of four, but they have reason to believe someone may have survived. Jim McConnell (Gary Sinise), was supposed to be the first man to Mars but was forced out when his wife became ill, will now finally get his chance.
DePalma is very dependable when it comes to staging action sequences and incorporating special effects (the only factors that saved "Snake Eyes" and "Mission: Impossible," his last two films). Too bad he can't always get David Mamet (DePalma's The Untouchables) to write his scripts for him. This one seems thrown together, having been either written on the fly or ignored. Just about every cliche' ever used in movie dialogue is dusted off and incorporated somewhere in this script. I felt sorry for this seasoned crew of actors (Tim Robbins, Jerry O'Connell, Kim Delaney, Connie Nielsen, Armin Mueller-Stahl, Sinise, Cheadle) who did the best they could delivering their stupid lines. At times, I just wanted to cover my ears because I couldn't take it any more. Speaking of covering my ears, I could have done without Ennio Morricone's score. When he composed this music, was he watching the wrong film? The inappropriate, distracting score actually ruins some well-executed action sequences.
My conclusion about Mission To Mars is that this could have been a decent sci-fi film if it weren't ruined by amateurish oversights. The finished product, a curious melding of two genres, the realistic space mission movie, ala "Apollo 13," and science fiction, is a mere shadow of what it could have been. The studio probably envisioned something along the lines of Cameron's "The Abyss" or even Kubrick's "2001," but fails. Unfortunately, this means Verhoeven's "Total Recall" is still the best Mars flick around.
Grade: D-
- mercury-26
- Apr 13, 2000
- Permalink
The worst film ever made? A statement almost as ludicrous as considering it the best film ever made! If people don't like this they can't like Alfred Hitchcock for instance, or indeed any film made by anyone in the world before the 1960's because family entertainment nearly always came before Art back then – plot non-sequiturs, nonsensical plot holes, fuzzy mcguffins, logic cliffs and scientific balderdash was the norm in the effort to entertain ordinary people. Scientists and art critics came probably near the bottom of the expected target audience. Those people who consider this to be the best film made probably have never seen a Kurosawa film though. This film is merely entertainment with a dodgy sense of realism but a great line in viewer engagement.
4 astronauts from NASA land on Mars, only to encounter a violent mysterious disaster. Rescue mission is sent heavy with emotional baggage but light on serious planning to encounter further mind boggling problems. To me it's a very well done soap opera: for example Woody's loss in space, Terri's horror and Luke's later realisation of his loss is so expertly handled I'm always impressed. Nothing wrong with soaps – millions of ordinary people watch 'em every day while Artheads snicker. The acting is OK, production very good, stirring music as usual from Morricone, story (for non-scientists) is great. It must be good because that wonderful Arthead director Ridley Scott ripped off the main idea in Mission To Mars for his Prometheus 10 years later, unless Quatermass from the 1950's can be considered as the original.
It's corny, witty, emotive, deadpan, infuriating, satisfying – in fact all ingredients in a good movie.
4 astronauts from NASA land on Mars, only to encounter a violent mysterious disaster. Rescue mission is sent heavy with emotional baggage but light on serious planning to encounter further mind boggling problems. To me it's a very well done soap opera: for example Woody's loss in space, Terri's horror and Luke's later realisation of his loss is so expertly handled I'm always impressed. Nothing wrong with soaps – millions of ordinary people watch 'em every day while Artheads snicker. The acting is OK, production very good, stirring music as usual from Morricone, story (for non-scientists) is great. It must be good because that wonderful Arthead director Ridley Scott ripped off the main idea in Mission To Mars for his Prometheus 10 years later, unless Quatermass from the 1950's can be considered as the original.
It's corny, witty, emotive, deadpan, infuriating, satisfying – in fact all ingredients in a good movie.
- Spondonman
- Dec 29, 2012
- Permalink
Moe, Larry, Mars! Moe, Larry, Mars! Ok, its not that bad but clearly we have a sort of Apollo 13 where Mission Control is merely a spectator. True there is a 20 minute time-gap for transmissions, but the Mars team might as well be sending postcards. They solve all their near-disasters through improvisation and doing back of the envelope calculations on their wrist computers.
The characterizations are poor. We are supposed to believe these guys all love eachother, they are men who hug. What are their motivations, what makes them tick? 5 minutes of FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON or THE RIGHT STUFF has more character development than the whole interminable two hours of MISSION TO MARS.
Did anyone remember that there is supposed to be "science" going on for these multi-billion dollar missions? Other than one 30-second tricorder scan which goes horribly wrong, there is no telemetry, no data collected, no instruments deployed. Apollo 11 only spent 2 hours on the moon and they did 100 times more science than these guys.
The characterizations are poor. We are supposed to believe these guys all love eachother, they are men who hug. What are their motivations, what makes them tick? 5 minutes of FROM THE EARTH TO THE MOON or THE RIGHT STUFF has more character development than the whole interminable two hours of MISSION TO MARS.
Did anyone remember that there is supposed to be "science" going on for these multi-billion dollar missions? Other than one 30-second tricorder scan which goes horribly wrong, there is no telemetry, no data collected, no instruments deployed. Apollo 11 only spent 2 hours on the moon and they did 100 times more science than these guys.
I have seen many reviews bashing Mission to Mars. I see why they've attacked the film but I think they missed that the excitement, action and deep humanity of this film far outweigh the forced quality of a few scenes. There is scene after scene in this movie that pulls the viewer's heart and mind nto some of the deepest veins of human emotion. More than once I felt myself drawn into the middle of intense depictions of love, terror or excitement. If a little subtlety were mixed into just a few scenes this movie would have stood out as one of the greatest and lasting human dramas in science fiction history. I heartily recommend this movie; it will transport you and involve you if you are just a little forgiving.
"Mission..." offers the audience a good cast, good special effects, good sets, some excellent production talent, and an interesting story. It builds from a hokey backyard barbecue opening to an outer space technodrama and waxes in the denouement to a ponderous fantasy. Overall the flick is solid entertainment. If "Mission..." has a problem, it's the daunting task of crossing the left-brain/right-brain barrier (most people are one or the other and not both) in a difficult genre.
This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen... My heart goes out to Tim Robbins and Gary Sinise, two of my favourite actors. Okay, the first half is not a total loss, but when the second mission to mars comes along... phew!!! Stink-city! One major point: The parts of a DNA-helix are NOT called chromosomes!!! Chromosomes are made up of DNA!!! A good description of the second part: "Vulgo-Disney". (A friend of mine who saw the movie at the same time...)
Don't see this movie! Instead see 2001 and/or Contact. You'll feel better for it!!!
Don't see this movie! Instead see 2001 and/or Contact. You'll feel better for it!!!
- Morpheus-20
- Apr 14, 2000
- Permalink