Rating: 
Summary: Wasted Space
Review: Sometimes Hollywood studios are so excited about an idea for a movie that they don't even care that another studio is making another film with the same premise at the same time. Unlike the volcanic adventures Dante's Peak (pretty good) and Volcano (really dumb), the competition to "conquer" the planet Mars in Red Planet and Mission To Mars saw no victor getting the spoils. Both of these films would make any god of war run for cover. In Red Planet's case, it's a convoluted mess that, despite some fine actors, never really takes off.
In the future, pollution and overpopulation are making the Earth uninhabitable. Humanity's only hope is to colonize the planet Mars by using algae to produce oxygen, but when the algae mysteriously disappear, a group of astronauts are sent to Mars on a mission to learn why. The spaceship, led by Commander Kate Bowman (Carrie-Anne Moss-in pre Matrix mode), is preparing to land when a sudden emergency forces them to crash on the planet without supplies or equipment. The survivors, including systems engineer Gallagher (Val Kilmer) and scientists Burchenal (Tom Sizemore) and Pettengil (Simon Baker), have to figure out how to return to their ship while also learning the truth about the missing algae. As if things weren't bad enough, they have to avoid AMEE, the ship's malfunctioning robot who is trying to kill them all.
Directed by Anthony Hoffman, Red Planet, suffers from an already weak story made worse by its lifts from the sci-fi classic 2001 A Space Odyssy. I don't know about you, but the killer robot AMEE, with the benevolent neutral sounding voice seems like a retread of Hal. What little suspense there is in the film is watered down by typical plot leaps that occur when the writer gets stuck. Not even Terrence Stamp as Chantilas, the voice of reason can save this dud There's no spark between Moss and Kilmer at all. I could go on....
The DVD has 15 minutes worth of deleted scenes, that wouldn't have made things any better, had they been a part of the final cut. Cast/Director career filmogaphies tops off the lack luster disc.
Red Planet will have you seeing red for being such a waste of time, money and talent.
Rating: 
Summary: MAROONED AND MAUDLIN
Review: RED PLANET has some visually stunning effects, and that's about it. The plot is so contrived and incoherent, one wonders what the movie is all about. The bookend narration by Carrie Ann Moss sounds like something a high schooler would write in a creative writing class, and the performances are all average. Not one performance stands out, and that's a shame with such a great cast, although I've failed to see how Val Kilmer has even sustained a career. Benjamin Bratt is annoying; Terence Stamp is like Peter Cushing on Valium, and the usually impressive Simon Baker (TV's Guardian) is saddled with a thankless role as a "traitor" without any underlying premise.
RED PLANET is ultimately a yawner. It seems like it takes forever to get to the movie's point, and the Martian bugs are neat, but what in the heck are they doing?
Visual eye candy but a lightweight concoction otherwise.
Rating: 
Summary: Yawn...how many more times can they make the same movie?
Review: If you've seen any of the following films, then don't waste your time with "Red Planet":1. Armageddon
2. The Core
3. Apollo 13
4. Independence Day
5. Any "beat the clock & save the planet/city" sci-fi flick made since 1990 that I didn't bother watching. Out of all of these, "Apollo 13" is the best, simply because it's a true story that was made with emotional honesty and a compelling narrative. Here's everything you need to know about "Red Planet": -the best actor (Terrence Stamp) the dies first
-Val Kilmer and Carrie-Ann Moss are in it
-plot of "Apollo 13" + wonky environmental pop-science + visuals from "2001" + Mars + a funky robot who goes all "HAL" = "Red Planet" Plot synopsis: In an attempt to terraform Mars because Earth is so polluted, the "international community" has been seeding Mars with large algae mats to make its atmosphere more human-friendly. Something goes wrong, and a team is dispatched to Mars to investigate. As they enter Mars' orbit, the ship is exposed to a large solar flare, which fries much of its circuitry. Most of the crew go to the Mars surface, with the pilot staying on-board to try to save the ship. The crew jettisons the landing gear and lands, fatally injuring the surgeon/philosopher. The survivors march to a nearby base previously set up by un-manned missions. The base is kaput. One survivor kills another without the others knowing it. They discover that they can breathe the air. The pilot tells them that if they can get to an old unmanned rover several hours away, they can make it back to the ship. Along the way, one survivor goes nuts and is killed by a damaged robot navigator (jettisoned with the landing gear) and some bugs. The biogeneticist figures out why the air is breathable and kills himself before the bugs can eat him. Meanwhile, the pilot has repaired the ship. The lone survivor gets to the rover, fights the robot, steals its battery, and makes it back to the ship. End of story. There. In 15 sentences (including "end of story"), I have told you THE WHOLE STUPID MOVIE. That's it. There's nothing else to know about this movie. The premise of the conflict is wholly absurd and serves as the engine of a barely-mediocre flick. In order to make near-future sci-fi compelling. the science must be relatively sound. So here are the two big science stinkers (leaving aside the whole atmosphere issue) that make this movie wholly implausible: 1. There are things called circuit breakers and other safety devices to prevent power surges from frying stuff. All satellites and space equipment using solar panels have these devices and have survived many many solar flares. Why would they build a ship without these precautions? 2. None of the Mars survivors consumed water once they reached the surface. With demanding physical activity and little-to-no atmospheric moisture, they would have died of dehydration sometime during the second march, if not on the first day. Don't waste your time with this movie. Rent something good. Heck, if you just have to see bad sci-fi, watch "Jason X" - the visuals are just as good, and you'll be much more entertained. This movie gets 2 stars for graphical competence and having Terence Stamp utter a few lines. Can I have my money back?
Rating:
Summary: Good flick, just needs some characters
Review: I am a SF junkie and will watch just about anything - even if I don't like it. Red Planet - With Carrie Moss, Val Kilmer, Tom Sizemore and Terrance Stamp - isn't in that category but it teeters at times. The special effects are not bad. The science IS bad, and inconsistant, but since this is a movie and not a documentary, so I suppose that's allowable. I would have loved to see more Terrance Stamp. The relationships between the crew are not well explained and take unexpected turns here and there. The flashback- oh yeah - this happened - scene to explain the Kilmer-Moss relationship irritated me. Why on earth (or Mars) not show it as it happened - then we might all understand the situation. At times, I was wondering "Why are they acting like this?" Not bad - SF fans will still like it - keep expectations low. Mike
Rating:
Summary: Soporific space opera
Review: Every astronaut on NASA's team must have blushed with shame at seeing this pitiful rendition of their abilities. Set on a partially "terra-formed" Mars, so that the stranded team doesn't have to wear EVA helmets for the length of this tedious film, five men - quickly pared down to three, then two, then . . . struggle to survive. As if the lack of food, water and story line weren't enough, there's a rabid rover that strives to do them in. In a sense, the rover is the only one with any acting ability. Its quick-change mode of operation, baleful countenance and dedication to destruction at least provide it focus. The humans, by contrast, fumble about the landscape, perform feats of derring-do, sink into sloughs of despair and surrender to base instincts. All the while trying to convince us they are real people. Is there one heroic figure? Ah, yes! Far above struggles [what else] the heroinic commander [i'm not making this up!] of the expedition, Carrie-Anne Moss. Not reachable by AMMEE the Rampant Robot, C-AM must emulate Sigourney Weaver's role in her efforts to subdue a recalcitrant space ship. C-AM has the help Sigourney lacked in the voice of the ship's computer. Sultry, soothing, empowering, this computer voice REALLY communicates. What its technical abilities are remain a mystery throughout the film. Perhaps the best dialogue of the film is C-AM and the computer arguing. Sigourney would be as embarrassed as those NASA astronauts. There's little chance this review can give away much about the plot. There's so little of one, and the elements are cadged from a multitude of sources any SF fan will recognise in moments. To call the performances wooden is to insult whole forests. Speculative Fiction has enough of a quest achieving mainstream acceptance without disasters like this setting back the genre further. There are countless stories out there awaiting filming - a Canadian author's work comes immediately to mind. Come North, Hollywood, where real plots abound. But please don't take our lumber, put in front of a camera, and call it acting. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]
Rating:
Summary: Above average movie.
Review: Reasonably above average movie with Val Kilmer and Carrie Moss as a misson goes to the red planet on a mission to save Earth's dying enivorment from final destruction. Kilmer pretty much carries the whole movie with his honest acting and for once, the CGI effects are not bad, the script is manageable and the rest of the cast are pretty good also.
| 
