Rating: 
Summary: Nice job with a predictable take on Mars exploration
Review: Plot synopsis: Mission to Mars takes off and lands. Strange storm kills explorers, but one radios back to mission control. Rescue team takes off, encounters problems along the way, and eventually lands on Mars. Discovers amazing secret (not so stunning if you're familiar with other sci-fi).Actually, the movie was better than I expected. They did make an attempt at character development, although a bit one-dimensionally (Sinise's character McConnell is pre-occupied with the death of his wife). The plot, although predictable, was at least an enjoyable ride while it lasted. The ending was too pat for me, but at the same time, I'm not sure how they could have handled it better. (Warning: plot spoiler ahead.) Anytime we "meet" an alien species for the first time in a sci-fi realism movie, it comes across as stilted and lame, and this case is no different. There's something about Sinise that makes me think about sleazy characters, and I found it hard to put that out of my mind when I was watching the movie. And what's with Tim Robbins recently, acting in a string of mediocre movies? Funny (or not-so-funny) sidenote: it made me think about all the problems we've had with our missions to mars, losing contact with our satellites and probes. The difficulties the missions encounter in movie ("oops, we're coming in at the wrong angle") may foreshadow actual events to come unless we can get our collective scientific butts together.
Rating: 
Summary: Mission to boredom
Review: As a sincere fan of science fiction movies, I must say that this is one of the all time worst sci-fi films I have ever seen. The ironic thing is that the talent pool which went into the making of this movie was quite impressive. Gary Sinise and Tim Robbins are two actors with impeccable credentials. Brian Depalma movies are usually a bit on the weird side, but he is nonetheless normally a capable director. However, in this sorry excuse for a movie, all of their efforts go to waste. Even the soundtrack, written by the usually dependable Ennio Morricone, comes off sounding like the score to a second-rate horror movie. The movie details (duh!) a mission to Mars. Fair enough. The problem is, once the astronauts get there, the plot becomes incredibly contrived and, for the most part, nonsensical. The movie comes across as a very, very, very [I'm talking skid-row] poor man's version of "2001: A Space Odyssey." However, instead of the Nietzschean overtones of Arthur C. Clarke, we get a lame story that seems like it was written by a child in elementary school. On retrospect, I'm not so sure it wasn't. If you want to see a good sci-fi, stay away from this one. Even the most adamant sci-fi fans will come away from this one shaking their heads. This film is Cheesy with a capital "C."
Rating:
Summary: MISSION TO NOWHERE
Review: I like SInise and Robbins. As for Tim, I've never particularly watched a film featuring him that I didn't like. Brian de Palma is also a great director. But this movie is a shame to the science-fiction genre. The dialogues are so numb, the plot so stupid. For God's sake, the dancing scene in the ship is annoying, forced to the audience, embarassing. A sad experience.
Rating: 
Summary: Very entertaining
Review: Why no one likes this film is a mystery to me, because I thoroughly enjoyed it. Though it begins slowly and kicks off as being all talk, the film much improves. It is quite thought- provoking and makes you think about why we are really here, and that kind of stuff. :) Emotional at times, and ultimately worth seeing!
Rating: 
Summary: Brian De Palma's Homage to Kubrick's 2001
Review: Okay, so the Epcot-esque finale is more fromage than homage, and is remniscent of the touchy-feely, ending of THE ABYSS. But there' enough hard-SciFi realism to rivet the attention spans of most physicists. Leave no doubt in your mind, the worst Brian De Palma flick is leagues better than the best Michael Bey(Armageddon) opus. If you thought that Armageddon was good SciFi, then I'm surprised you're reading this. As a matter of fact...I would be suprised that you would know how to read, at all?! The plot, what little of it there is, concerns Tim Robbins and Gary Sinise who play astronauts on the 2nd Martian mission. It would seem that Don Cheadle is the only surviving member of the first mission, whose purpose was, apparently, to build a bridge between the two peaks (wink wink to Monty Python) of Mount Olympus...or some such foolishness. But the plot, as in Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, is secondary to the breathtaking visuals of the dangerous crossing from Earth-to-Martian-space the crew endures. Without giving too much away, there's a frightening depressurization when the ship strikes micrometeorites just prior to Mars orbital insertion, and the ensuing action is gripping enough to hold fans jaded by most "junk science" space movie fare.
Rating: 
Summary: WAAAAY underrated
Review: I have to wonder if most of the people who watch and review this movie actually READ any scifi. This is an excellent film in the style of classic scifi novels by the likes of Asimov and Clarke. I find it depressing that a movie like this gets bashed and then The Matrix is heralded as a great movie.
Rating:
Summary: Ya gotta think 1957--NOT 2001
Review: The key to enjoying Brian DePalma's "Mission To Mars" is to think in terms of "Forbidden Planet" and "The Day The Earth Stood Still", NOT "2001" or "The Right Stuff". I don't recall reviewers of "Raiders Of The Lost Ark" using phrases like "juvenile" and "cornball" to describe Steven Spielberg's "retro" approach to telling an old fashioned sci-fi adventure story,so why should DePalma get slammed for using the same device? Ever heard of the phrase "suspension of disbelief"? (Remember, it's called "science FICTION" for a reason...if you'll only accept "realism" and "accuracy" in a space film, go watch that "noble" overrated snore "Apollo 13" again!) While the special effects are impressive,and the director's distinctive visual style displayed in full regalia, DePalma's main strength here lies in giving the audience some genuine emotional involvement with the characters, which is rare in a sci-fi movie. For sure, the script could have snagged a few more IQ points in places,and that organ music does start to grate on you like a Rick Wakeman solo, but I really think DePalma was just out to make an entertaining "popcorn" adventure film, as opposed to an Important Statement. So on that level, "Mission To Mars" works just fine, certainly helped along by its appealing and talented cast.
Rating:
Summary: Just not what it could have been.
Review: I really wanted this film to be so much more. The moment I caught a glimps of the trailer, I wanted to see it. After it's release I heard so many bad reviews, I stayed away. When I finally had the chance to watch it at home, I found I was actually excited about seeing it. I can't say that it's a bad film. It's good. I think I just expected to much. With so much talent in a film, it's hard to have low expectations. These actors do an incredible job in their roles. I did feel like Tim Robbins (The Player, High Fidelity) was not giving his all, but the rest of the cast was as on as ever. Don Cheadle (Traffic, Boogie Nights) shows that he is one of the top talents working in film today. Sinise (Forrest Gump, George Wallace) is great as always and Jerry O'Connell (Sliders, Jerry Maguire) does a good job as the younger crew member. It's not a bad film really, just not what I had hoped for with all these talented actors and a legendary director like DePalma (Carrie, The Untouchables). If you see this on cable, check it out. I don't think you will feel the need to own it though.
Rating:
Summary: 2001 Lite.
Review: Remember the last time you took your car in for repairs? You asked the mechanic what was wrong with it and got the impression that he just wanted to pat your hand and say "Don't worry about it sir...we're taking care of it". I got the same impression with MISSION TO MARS. It's like someone is showing only what they think you'll like but getting it all wrong. Am I wrong or was the only blast off scene in this picture the toy rocket at the beginning? The rest are already in space...or worse, already at near orbit around Mars. When Ron Howard gave us his masterpiece Apollo 13, he had the savvy to show all the intricate processes of getting a rocket to the moon. So the audience could feel the urgency and vulnerability of the whole thing. You get none of that with MISSION. It's difficult to suspend your disbelief that all the special effects are just that...effects. With Apollo 13 it's believable that those 3 men are headed toward the moon in what amounts to a fancy tincan. MISSION could've been an update of 2010: The Year We Make Contact (2001 sequel). The story was similar. However, remind yourself about how much better 2010 (also 2001 AND Stargate for that matter) is than this. MISSION fails to achieve the same kind of wonderment as those films did. I would imagine the 2010 DVD is a sight to behold. So why 3 stars? Well, the last 45 minutes or so is interesting. Most of the effects are quite nice (similar to The Mummy). I'm a sucker for great special effects. The scene with the martian reminded me of a much better scene in CONTACT (another winner).
Rating:
Summary: "I Wished I Had Been Warned!"
Review: Don Cheadle, Tim Robbins and Gary Sinise, have all done quality work, including memorable characters. Saying this, I thought it was pretty safe to rent, "Mission To Mars" without a lot of fanfare. I was sorely mistaken into thinking I was going to see a good movie, with a strong story and highly capable actors. Not being the average Sci-Fi buff didn't deter me either. But this awful movie was far-fetched beyond belief! Immediately after viewing this horror, I kept asking myself if it was really that bad. Upon seeing how other reviewers trashed it I refused to jump on the bandwagon! But the truth hurts. This movie is really that bad! First, I couldn't conceptualize this being a futuristic movie- The setting is 2020, and NASA, is still in effect. Don Cheadle sets out to MARS first, he assists in the unveiling of a natural disaster, which fatally kills three fellow astronauts. A distorted transmission from Cheadle confirms the tragedy, and he is assumed to be the only survivor. Initially it's thought to be an earthquake, but further research determines it to be a form of alien life. Sinise and Robbins, along with two other crew members, including Robbins' wife, take off for MARS to save Cheadle. After Robbins' silly death, which includes a forgettable scene between Robbins and his wife. A love story is clumsily injected in the story between Sinise and his late wife,(Kim Delaney) who's prophetic words unlock the mystery of the universe. I guess it sounded great on paper, but on video it's a convuluted mess. Cheadle is near psychotic once retrieved, he then reforms back into his old-self in a matter of minutes. Sinise, the genius of the bunch, determines the land mass which erupted earlier, is alien life, who's requesting a DNA confirmation to grant access. The level of stupidity is so great at this time, I keep looking at my watch hoping that it's over soon. This movie attempts to pull the wool over our eyes in it's own attempt to be a real sci-fi movie.."What a shame!!!!!! I want my money back!!
|
