Rating: 
Summary: Ok movie, well worth watching- a sci--fi fairy tale
Review: I enjoyed this movie. I cried wathcing it, and as far as i'm concerned anything that gives me that relief of spirit because of its beauty then it's worht my time, it's worht my affection.Soem aspects of the movie were "off"- the musical score sometimes boredering on sap and sacharine, but i think the process of criticism, should be one where things are accepted for what they are as they are. Some suspense of disbelief, some effort to appreciate, and what i found in the film was not a scifi- though it's that too. Primarily what's there is a nice fairy tale, sweet and meaningful as long as it lasts, like a sunset. Fools proud to be foolish will criticize its color, its shape, but really, this movie, liek sunsets, defy criticism, for they are above it. Accept it, appreciate it and enjoy it for what it is for as long as it transpires in the world. Truly sweet and inspirational. 3 and half stars.
Rating:
Summary: Not nearly as bad as most say, but still misses the mark
Review: A lot of nice special effects went into this movie as well as some very well respected actors. Unfortunately, the dialogue is terrible and the story seems to meander at times. However, there are a few moments when the movie does rise to the occasion, offering some scenes that are, at the very least, bold and challenging. For those, I give the movie three stars. The music was totally off, though. It sounded like it was intended for a polka than a sci-fi movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Missed-out to Mars
Review: Bathetic character interaction at beginning of film does nothing to draws us in. Thankfully, we arrive at Mars early on, and it looks real enough. The monster twister is visually awesome and quite scary. However, that's the best part of the whole film. The rest involves a space flight with dramatic crises and some nifty effects, but its all just a typically overzealous special effects team attempt to mask the lack of a fleshed-out story. It just doesn't have any plot development to speak of. So, we get all this turmoil in space en route to Mars to rescue the sole survivor of that nasty twister. I found myself thinking, "Enough already! This looks great but it's wearing thin. What does all these problems have to do with anything? Let's get back to Mars, already, jeesh"! De Palma was simply too concerned with shooting 2001 derived scenes instead of cutting to the chase. The space crafts and space itself, with Mars looming ahead, looks like what you'd expect from a modern day film: realistic. It should, what with all the time spent on the visuals. Too bad there isn't as much time spent on developing a story that's as impressive. Like your run-of-the-mill sci-fi flicks, Mission, despite it's attempt at epic granduer, is typically convoluted. When a sweeping statement is strived to be put over by special effects, the result can only be hollow. So, is there a chase to cut to afterall? If there is, is it one worth sitting through? That depends on what you desire to get out of this movie. As light entertainment, it's great. Just don't expect any great shakes. This is for fx heads. More mature or cerebral-minded sci-fi fans will balk at the farcical "decoding" of the Cydonia Martian face message. As for the pseudo-Martian hologram, more balking for sure. It looks like it was created on early 90's computer software! So I'm thinking hollowgram is a more telling description. This is supposed to be epic? Heck, the holographic solar system that our supposedly stunned actors walk through is just plain better. A good idea, as is the display of how our life evolved. Guess which planet is responsible? Ok, while not an original idea, it's nonetheless rendered in an almost original way. Yeah, we only see evolution as we've heard so many times, but a cool, if(here's that word again)derivative moment/sequence, nonetheless. So, Brian De Palma should be given respect for at least attempting this kind of movie. As we see during the making of Mission that's generously included, many people went through a whole lot of very challenging work. I wouldn't say that it was all for nothing, but with a thin story, bland characters and predictable acting, this is the kind of pretentious movie that results. For a considerably more interesting sci-fi film in this vein, do check out, if you haven't already, Stargate, starring Kurt Russell and James Spader. The contrast speaks for itself. It's not classic, but it comes close. Just one more thing. Now I really like Sinise as an actor, but in Mission he seems to me to be holding back, as if he doesn't quite know how to feel the movie. He even appears(to me, anyway)to be somewhat uncomfortable. Gee, I wonder why? hmmm...
Rating: 
Summary: It's a 50s style nod, not Kuberick
Review: I guess some of the rest of the reviewers just aren't old enough to remember the zeitgeist of sci-fi films of the 50s (not the monster bashes.) This movie is more in line with them, not Kubrick's 2001. While the professional reviewers seemed to think DePalma was ripping them off, I thought it was a satisfying retro. De Palma usually goes for hard action and blood, but not in this film. Kubrick made an "awe" movie. This is a "Gee-Whiz" space movie, intended, and carried out. Come on people, didn't you feel a little mystery at what was on that thing on Mars? Sure, we knew it would be one of about 3 standard plot devices, but which one! :) And during the film's sad scene (I won't spoil by saying what it was) wasn't that as sad as Ol' Yeller? It's a classic movie about humans striving in space, not an action flick. You might like it.
Rating:
Summary: Empty, unimaginative, unrealistic
Review: This movie is quite unimaginative, just a ripoff collection. From other great sci-fi movies such as the masterpiece 2001, and its sequel 2010, The Abyss and The Close Encounters.. When I decided to watch this movie I thougth that a scifi movie with great actors (Sinise & Robbins) can't be bad. But it was bad. It had an empty screenplay and stupid scenes & characters such as the histerical housewife astronaut (Connie Nielsen). All the "epic clichés" were used. Sucks.. I just added 2 stars because of the ILM's and Dream Quest Image's special effects.
Rating: 
Summary: SCIENCE FICTION ON FILM HAS NEVER LOOKED THIS ORIGINAL
Review: Are you sick of high action films with lame plots, dialogue and wirey techno music, then stick to your basic science fiction films or you can watch Mission To Mars directed by Brian De Palma. In my opinion this film is a classic like all the rest. It is the most incredible science fiction film I've ever seen in a long time. The music sounds like a voice from the past, timeless. I've never heard music so orginal than Ennio Morricone's with a sense of direction that seems cut-off from all the rest of the sci-fi film compositions. It has a different older feel to it, that changes the film as well as how you see all the actors. Sinise looks and seems as if molded into the movie itself. My favorite part is when he's looking off into the distance and onto the tree house realizing that the mission with him and his wife landing on mars had been swallowed up by his wifes tragic death, and that his first step on Mars didn't seem to mean anything to him anymore. The film moves slow but it's the kind of slowness that I find exhilerating, not boring. I think another reason why some people don't like this movie is because it's sort of an emotional flick (rather than action-packed) and most sci-fi flicks I've seen are not as slow or as simple as this one. So to those of you who have seen 2001: A space odyssey as well as Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind or Alien perhaps you will appeciate the orginality of this movie. Move over 90's space bacon here comes something meatier.
Rating:
Summary: A little corny, but always entertaining.
Review: Yes, I've noticed some corniness in Mission to Mars, but if you can get past those moments then you should be thoroughly entertained by the movie. I'm a little surprised by some of the bad reviews. In terms of script, it's every bit as intelligent (or some moments lackthereof) to James Cameron's The Abyss and it maintains more suspense than that film. Oh, well.
Rating: 
Summary: Seeing is believing - it really is a stinker!
Review: After watching this movie, I was compelled to write a review. I found the other reviews quite entertaining to read! I don't understand how anyone could watch this and think it was worthy of even 1 star. It was supposed to be a suspenseful drama about a space mission to Mars set in the future. Instead, it sounds like the first screen test each of these fine actors must have made years ago. The acting is just unbelievably bad. (After the movie, my 6 year old son asked me if the movie was a comedy!!) I suppose everyone should watch the movie and judge for themselves. I just must tell you my favorite part: When the rescue crew gets close to Mars, they get some photos of the surface and are scanning them for signs of life. Jerry O'Connells' character gets very excited because he can only see 3 graves. He takes that to mean the fourth guy survived. If he saw 4 graves, would he have turned around and gone home? Duh, 4 dead guys can't bury themselves!
Rating:
Summary: Like it, but unrealistic.
Review: I like this movie, but there are unrealistic parts which makes me give this movie 4 stars. (1) Why didn't Luke (the chief of the crew) evacuate his men when an enourmous storm happened? He just stood there and watch them die saying, "Oh my god." (2) In the rescue mission, how could the NASA ship so fragile? The ship got totally ripped just by the micro meteoroid. They should have anticipated such a thing in the design time. It reminded me of the movie Armageddon. Their ship was not practical enough to land on the comet. I don't think NASA is that stupid enough to run a mission like this. (3) I wonder why the Marsian had to kill the crews just because the tone didn't match the DNA model. (4) If the Marsian knew that the Earth was habitual, why didn't they move to the Earth when meteoriod hit the Mars instead of just seeding their DNA to the Earth? I don't get it. (5) The ship for rescue mission looked very advanced, but it didn't detect the leakage of fuel. Isn't that kind of dumb? (6) When Jim (Gary Sinise) was trying to fix the atomosphere leakage, he didn't wear his helmet. He passed out when the atomosphere was only 10%. Impossible... (7) Could a space ship's (REMO) door opened from outside? (8) Why didn't Luke try to fix the computer after he recovered from injury and try to contact with the people back home? He had rather had a lot of time trying to figure out the sound? I would try to contact the people back home to ask for rescue me... (9) Could M&M make exact genetic composition of an ideal woman? It looked kinda short for human's DNA... (10) Why did the Marsian's ship that Jim went into have to break the whole face made from rock when leaving? Couldn't they just open a small hole for the ship to get out? These questions may seem to be dumb... But when I watched the movie, these questions popped up right away. Other than these questions, I like this movie including actors, like Gary Sinise.
Rating:
Summary: Definitely Not One of the Ten Worse Sci-Fi Films
Review: I was surprised to see that critics rated this film as one of the ten worse science fiction movies of 2000. Brian de Palma did a great job of directing this film. The special effects are excellent and everyone gives a sterling performance. I liked the film better the second time I saw it and I immediately went out and bought a copy. Gary Sinise and Tim Robbins always give wonderful performances and their supporting cast was great. I rate it as an excellent movie about Mars backed by hard science and good acting. It remains one of my favorites.
|
