Rating: 
Summary: Who could have approved this screenplay before production?
Review: I tried my best to enjoy this movie, and to its credit the special effects and cinematography are quite good. However, the dialogue is sophmoric, the characters are written superficially, and the music is terrible. My wife and I began laughing at sections of the film where the characters deliver just plain bad dialogue, or when the music bizarrely rises to a triumphal climax when the characters do mundane actions such as climbing a hill or opening a door. Likewise, the sequencing of scenes with wildly varying emotional tones provides the audience with no sense of continuity (e.g. the bizarre Van Halen dancing scene between 2 other grim scenes)A bare minimum of quality control on the screenplay combined with a new sountrack composer would have gone a long way towards making this an average sci-fi story with a large movie budget.
Rating: 
Summary: Unlike Leonard Maltin - I like using my brain
Review: Unlike Leonard Maltin - I like using my brain while being entertained. Brilliant, great Fx, thoughtful and imaginative - better than "Red Planet", in my opinion.
Rating: 
Summary: Mission to Mars, THE most underratted movie this year...
Review: Mission to Mars is a great movie. The Critics were VERY unfair to this movie. DePalma is one of the most greatest directors of this time. The Style that Depalma shoots this movie is worth the purchase of this DVD handsdown, seeing this movie in Pan and Scan would be a waste of your time, widescreens A MUST. Like Snake Eyes he has a long one take opening (not as long as snake eyes though!). In a De palma movie there is normally a scene where you go 'WOW' at the direction/camera movements, like i mentioned before in De Palma's SNAKE EYES it was the fantastic opening, but in Mission to Mars the scene would have to be 'The Wheel'. Or according to the SFX people who made this movie 'The Wheel of Cheese' This is a scene where you see the actors/actress walking in what seems to be a 360 degree rotation, this scene plays with your mind, such questions as How do they do that? will come to mind....It is hard to descibe on paper, but it was truly fantastic. Also the "Vortex" scene is magnificent, and it will test your DVD sound System to the limit!. Ignore the critics, See it!
Rating:
Summary: An excellent - and often unfairly underrated - sci-fi
Review: Mission to Mars - which might be the most underrated film ever made - is a pure science fiction movie. This movie has a way less flaws than it has been claimed by many, who often unfavourably compared M2M to other sci-fi films. For instance, in order to generate tension in the movie, even in the superior 2001 Bowman did not wear his helmet either - although he should have (check, please, the stills showing his fully space-suited crew-mate in a similar situation). Besides, three Russian cosmonaut died IN REAL LIFE as they, in accordance with the plans, did not wear any spacesuit and the air leaked out from their space capsule - someone in a rush situation, such as Jim in M2M, could behave even more unreasonably. Also, the decent Contact (another measuring stick) is a much appreciated sci-fi flick, yet Contact has a way more implausible plot (e.g., a space traveller, unlike real-life astronauts, does not have any device showing the elapsed time - a wristwatch, e.g.). As regards to the originality of M2M, this film is as unique as any sci-fi film can be - the film was just ADMITTEDLY influenced by some movies. Similarly, 2001 was affected by George Pal's Conquest of Space, Contact borrowed ideas from 2001 as well as This Island Earth, and regarding Alien, well, sci-fi writer A.E.Van Vogt won a claim that plot of the film was taken from one of his short stories. Many blamed M2M for the commercials in the movie. Firstly, there are so-called "commercials" in virtually every movie - even in the superb 2001. Secondly, there is (and WILL ALWAYS BE) advertising in REAL space missions, as well. Besides, astronauts have to eat/drink/use something [produced by certain companies, who happen to like displaying their names on the product]. As regards to scientific accuracy, M2M is much more correct than an average science fiction film. In the contrary to the common believes, the movie is also right about using liquid propellant for the spaceship, as, in OUTER SPACE, no spacecraft would be equipped an old-fashioned solid rocket. Likewise, any gauge or instrument can malfunction aboard a spacecraft. Again, some of the reviewers compared M2M to 2001; however, without questioning the obvious exceptional value of Kubrick's unparalleled masterpiece, 2001 has perhaps more scientific errors than M2M does (e.g., three different earth-phases in the short moon-sequence, the captain of Aries rests his elbows on Floyd's chair-back in weightless environment, the pod did not move an inch when Dave blows its hatch in space). As for faulty scientific logic, a REAL Mars probe has just crashed because of an unbelievable scientific error [mixing up different units on ground]. Mission to Mars continues the tradition of the imaginative hard science fiction films evolved in the fifties. Since Destination Moon and Rocketship X-M there have been just few really great SCIENCE-FICTION movies produced - and Mission to Mars is definitely one of them. This movie accurately predicts upcoming Mars missions -- as for the end, well, after many tasteless and we-will-scare-you-to-death sci-fi fakes, it is a real treat nowadays.
Rating:
Summary: Not a Space Odyssey
Review: The Mission to Mars trailor looked interesting so I thought I would give the movie a chance. However, when i saw Brian Depalma's name as director I immediately said oh no not Depalma! Yes Brian Depalma the director of such recent "classics" as Snake Eyes, Wise Guys and Mission Impossible was trying his hand at science fiction. Mission to Mars is about a team astronauts sent to the planet to rescue the only survivor of a previous mission. While on mars the astronauts make a significant scientific discovery. The story does have potential but the script is so bad it totally ruins the movie. The characters are like cartoons, the acting is god awful and the dialogue is terrible. Throw in a lame love story (all movies have to have one these days) and the viewer is ready to vomit. DePalma tries his hardest to add 2001 Space Odyssey qualities to the movie but he is so far off the mark that comparing this mess to 2001 is an insult to Kubrick. The ending is almost laughable until you realize that you paid to see this junk. Mission to Mars is a total waste of time except for a couple of good special effects. Maybe DePalma should be forced to go to Mars for continually making bad movies.
Rating:
Summary: SNORE......
Review: Being a Brian De Palma fan and a sci-fi fan I thought how could this movie go wrong- especially with Gary Sinise and Tim Robbins cast. Mission to Mars did not live up to it's hype. This movie was BORING from start to finish. Some of the special effects were exciting- other than this Mission to Mars was a major disappiontment.
Rating: 
Summary: The Abyss Goes to Mars
Review: OK: Start with "The Abyss". Replace the bottom of the ocean with Mars. Throw in some elements from "2001" and "Close Encounters". What you'd end up with would still be better than "Mission to Mars". To make it as awful, you'd need to make sure that no one associated with the movie knows anything about Newtonian physics or the difference between a base pair and a chromosome. OK, fine. The movie has great visual effects. They obviously spent a lot of money on them. But would it have broken the bank to hire a decent science consultant?
Rating:
Summary: Gouge-Out-Your-Eyes Boring
Review: Many people have said how blatantly implausible this movie is from poorly thought out science to inept plot devices. Others have said that it gives an origin story for life on Earth that flies in the face of science as badly as "scientific" creationism. These people are right, but that's not why you should avoid the film. You should avoid this film because it is boring, boring, boring, boring, boring! If I had a sharp stick when I watched Mission to Mars, I would have stabbed myself in the eye just for the entertainment value.
Rating:
Summary: Satisfying SF
Review: It was with some trepidation that I viewed "Mission to Mars" on DVD. The reviews were not good. I was left with the impression this was another shlocky attempt at space opera. Not at all: what we have here is a true SF fan's movie, albeit a flawed one. Exquisitely crafted sets. Breathtaking scenes. But more importantly a story and characters I empathize with. Take two parts "2001: A Space Odyssey"; one part "The Right Stuff", one part "Contact", one part "Close Encounters", ½ part "Aliens"; mix well. I could have done without the ½ part "Aliens". Was this derivative? Yes: gloriously so. If you're looking for a "Star Wars", "Star Trek", "Independence Day" or even an "Aliens" derivative, don't look here. The first manned mission to Mars is almost wiped out in an encounter with an alien artifact, necessitating a 2nd mission to rescue the first. Earthbound controllers don't know what has happened; they conjecture an earthquake (mars quake?) has had devastating effects but there may be survivors. I'm willing to forgive most of the contrived plot devices employed to increase suspense; some worked, some didn't. The Gary Sinise character leaving off his helmet during a literally breath taking rush to prevent total decompression of their ship was particularly goofy; this annoyed me. The Tim Robbins character's demise could have been better orchestrated. The situation ignored common sense and defied Newtonian physics. But, both these scenes were shot in such a breathtaking manner that that they worked for me in spite of these flaws. However, the plot device of having the 1st encounter with an extraterrestrial intelligence end violently is unforgivable. This would be the ½ part of "Aliens" at work. Later, in a strange twist, this device turns xenophobic on the part of the aliens. A more appropriate turn of plot would have had some more mundane human problem necessitate the 2nd mission to rescue the first. Or perhaps a mars quake. The music score felt anachronistic; however this imparted a sense of realism in a movie portraying events 20 years in the future. The somewhat mundane dialogue also served the same purpose and did not detract from the empathy I felt for the characters. Not a chick-flick, probably not a wife-flick (I chose to view this when she was out shopping, however having seen it I might try it on her). Definitely an SF enthusiast's flick even with its flaws.
Rating:
Summary: Awful
Review: No amount of visual artistry could overcome the ludicrous dialogue, poor casting and jarring score of this disaster. Aside from a few special effects, the movie is a complete and utter waste of time. Let's start with the acting. Connie Nielsen's performance during Tim Robbin's death scene was perhaps the most painful two minutes of overacting in years. Barely 3 minutes later, she seems to have forgotten that her husband has turned himself into a popsicle. She shows no trace of sadness or emotional trauma. Then, there's Don Cheadle. Marooned for a year after watching his friends die, he's a nutcase. But he pulls off his comical bushman wig and facial hair and returns to sanity without skipping a beat. The score is a mess, never in sync with the action on the screen and lurching from one musical genre to another with no attempt to weave a coherent whole. From grinding organ tones in one scene (that never reappear, thankfully) to sweeping strings (where silence would have been better), Morricone seemingly cut and pasted leftovers from previous films and hoped no one would notice. This movie deserved every bit of nasty criticism it originally received, and then some.
| 
