Rating: 
Summary: Just a silly movie
Review: Well, this one ranks probably as the worst movie I've seen this year, stupid plot, bad directingt... Dont bother
Rating:
Summary: waste
Review: what trash. what the hell are they trying to prove? i really think i could have a better movie. bring on robot monster
Rating:
Summary: Worse than Galaxy Quest
Review: This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my entire life. It has absolutely no character development whatsoever and makes no sense. I love sci/fi movies but this one is not worth the time to even think about.
Rating:
Summary: MTM should have never been released...
Review: I saw this movie with a couple of friends at home on DVD. At first we tried to give it every chance we could, but the amount of stupidity that this movie thrives with made it impossible. What was the deal with the wind in the greenhouse? Did it have a hole in it? Why didn't Jim make use of that oxygen that was brought to him and insisted on choking and fixing a computer instead, it would save all that time he was choking and trying to say commands to a computer. Why did the girl that brought the oxygen to him stay in the middle of the room instead of going up to him and supplying him with it while he was working? How come the computer doesn't have a manual input capability? What if the entire ship was depressurized, they wouldn't be able to say any commands to the computer since sound doesn't travel without air.Why is the reboot mechanism located outside on the ships hull! I can go on and on. What amazes me is with all the money they had for this movie they couldn't hire someone who knew some basic high school physics and had some common sense to read the script and make sure it makes sense. Special effects are the only good part of this movie. Everything else is either below average. The ending sequence was pretty interesting, although in my opinion alien looked a little bit too CG. The whole DNA idea is also very original. Beautiful matte work on those landscapes as well. Unfortunately that's about all the good stuff this movie has to offer. If you still want this movie in your collection, rent it first. I am sure you won't buy it after seeing it.
Rating: 
Summary: A beautiful bad movie
Review: I'd give this movie one star, but it is so nice to look at, that I have to give it two. Rather than reiterate what others have said in their reviews, I'll just offer this piece of advice... Turn down the sound, pop in a nice classical CD and watch the movie starting with the first scene on Mars. This should make the movie watchable. Of particular note is the spacewalk scene which you will really enjoy if you can't hear the dialogue and don't realize how utterly absurd it is.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting , but,,,,,,
Review: Anyway, I enjoyed this movie. Indeed the latter part of the movie made me speechless, but it is a good movie as a whole. Thank you.
Rating:
Summary: The most authentic space movie ever - NOT!!
Review: Mission To Mars is basically a movie about humans (not politically correct to say "mans" now days) making their first effort in venturing to the red planet. Not surprisingly Cydonia is the target zone and of course the "face" at the Cydonia site is not just a natural creation. The movie does have its share of decent special effects though nothing you haven't seen already in many other sci-fi movies. Also included is an over dose of fatal flaws making this a "for fun only" movie. The story line is nothing original either. Sinise, Robins, Delany and one other guy I can't remember the name play the NASA astronauts sent to rescue the first Mars team after thing go awry and contact is lost with them. Clearly the makers of this movie wanted to emulate such classics as 2001 and the not so classic 2010 with a Mars voyager space craft similar to the Discovery and the Leonov in 2001 and 2010 which included a spinning centrifuge to simulate gravity. But alas, such designs as shown are physically impossible because of Newtons Third Law of Physics which would cause the rest of the ship to spin in the opposite direction of the centrifuge (equal and opposite reaction remember?) Anyway I did find the movie to be somewhat entertaining with some nicely done sequences such as the "zero G" dancing scene (they did not do any actual zero G shots in this movie) though the end was a bit abrupt, anti-climatic and oh so predictable with music that was just plain junk at times. And no, this movie does not come within several light years of 2001 and will be remembered as just another typical Hollywood sci-fi. The DVD version includes a documentary on the making of the movie which I always find interesting even though the movie itself may be bad. I don't mean to criticize the hard work the special effects and set builders teams did in this movie which I thought did a good job. Its to bad their talents weren't used in a better written movie.
Rating:
Summary: Worth a Look
Review: Despite the mostly negative reviews, I found this movie to be surprisingly appealing. On one hand, it doesn't have a lot of action, the characters are likable but not well drawn, the dialogue is full of technojargon and occasionally clunky, and the actors give mostly "Star Trek" performances (i.e.: little emotion in the face of awesome events). On the other hand, the lack of action was not a detriment. The slower pace enhanced the suspense of some scenes. The technology, while sometimes laid on thick, seemed authentic and was actually interesting at times. The special effects were quite good. I am constantly amazed at the amount of work (and engineering skill) that goes into producing a film like this. Many reviewers have compared the ending of this movie to that of "2001: A Space Odyssey" - vague, pretentious, and weird. Actually, this film has a very straightforward ending which is not hard to understand at all. Don't be put off by the "lousy ending" reviews. Judge for yourself.
Rating:
Summary: One of the best SF comedies of the year.
Review: My friends and I laughed through the whole thing. We almost got thrown out of the theatre. The situations are hokey, and not even sorta real. Anything that aproaches being technically correct, has something that seriously flaws it (like the presurized fabric greenhouse on Mars, that is blowing in the wind). The micro-meteorite hit is always a possibility, but no astronaut in his right mind would try to fix it without putting on a helmet first. The pacing was too slow. Each problem was neatly solved before moving on to the next challenge. With a big long space in between to reflect on what happned. The characters were wooden, and one-dimensional stereotypes. I'm surprised the actors (who I would have thought were mostly big enough not to get cuaght dead in a film this bad) could keep a straight face through the whole thing.
Rating:
Summary: DePalma aims for 2001, gets 2010.
Review: I have always liked DePalma, even though he's known as somewhat as a hack recently. I even liked most of Snake Eyes, a movie I know that many did not like. Mission to Mars is a Kubrick wannabee, but hits somewhere more in the region of Hyam's (Director of Timecop and End of Days) 2010, which was a pretty decent film that was much more mainstream than Kubricks open ended and very esoteric 2001. Mission to Mars starts in 2020, where Man is launching their first trip to the Angry Red Planet. The team leader is Luke Graham, played by the always wonderful Don Cheadle. He will go there and set up things and they will be followed by a second mission, led by Woody Blake (Tim Robbins) and his wife Terri Fisher (Connie Nielsen). The original captain of the second mission, Jim McConnell (Gary Sinese) backed out because of his wife's death. However, when the first Mars mission goes awry, Jim, who is a master pilot is reinstated into the program. However, the second ship also suffers catastrophic problems and crash lands on Mars, marooning them all. The movie is well made and technically good, however, like most of DePalma's film, it has a glossy, artifical look to it that makes it look unrealistic. The sky is always perfect, the Rover is always clean. It definitely does not look like Tatooine in Star Wars, where everything was dusty and worn. The main problem of this movie is that it moves at a glacial pace and the plotline line seems like something out of National Geographic than anything else. There is no real tension until the Second Mars lander is destroyed. However, I liked the concepts that Mars may have housed a civilization even more ancient than our own and that Mars was once a lush green world like Earth and the little History lesson we get was fantastic. However, it is that gloss and "hollywood-ness" of this movie at the end that is sort of a letdown. The characters are all played well by the main actors. There are no real standout and the weakest link in the movie I felt was Gary Sinese. They aren't given a great character script and I guess many of them (who are great actors) were coasting through it. Sinese, who has done excellent work in the past is beginning to choose roles that are in the Harrison Ford train of thought (how can I become a star?). And the lovely Connie Nielsen (Gladiator, Soldier) is again stunning and beautiful (although not as emotional as she should be). The DVD is crisp and the soundtrack is well laid out on the DVD. There are some extra's like a audio commentary, previews and some other tidbits but nothing really out of the ordinary. This movie reminded me of "The Relic" that was sort of lambasted by the critics as silly, formulaic fare, but I found surprisingly entertaining and spooky. This movie is more mainstream than 2001 and accessible by more people. I sure many will be disappointed that there isn't big explosions, gory martians or steamy love scenes, but this is a decent stab at paying homage to one of the the greatest sci-fi films of all time....Rating: C ps: The soundtrack sucks, and the really cool soundtrack in the previews is not there!
| 
