When a mysterious storm kills all but one crew member of the first manned mission to mars, a rescue mission is launched. Once on the red planet, the crew finds the sole survivor of the first mission who informs them that this was no ordinary storm. It was meant to protect something. But what?
|Mission to Mars Movie(DivX)||Resolution: 640x272 px||Total Size: 707 Mb|
|Mission to Mars Movie(iPod)||Resolution: 480x208 px||Total Size: 293 Mb||
Mission to Mars is interesting, but a difficult film to appreciateunless you've seen '2001: A Space Odyssey'. Like '2001' and It's sequel '2010', This movie is more of a visualspectacle than an adventure story. The special effects of outer spaceand the surface of Mars are convincing, but lack the ethereal feelingthat is present in '2001'. While the story is never really strong orcompelling, in some ways it is step up from Stanley Kubrick'smasterpiece, although not a huge one. Mission to Mars has morecharacter development and dialog. It manages to be touching at times,but unfortuanely, it fails to be thrilling or suspenseful when ittries. There are also moments when the movie is so scientificallyinaccurate that some might find it amusing, but for most of the time,it avoids going over the top. Ignoring the various other holes, Missionto Mars is decent as a science fiction movie, but may be not foreveryone.
I like space movies. I am still amazed at the quality of "Forbidden Planet," and think "2001: A Space Odyssey" is perhaps the best film in history.Another idiosyncracy: I seldom tape over a film which I've taped. Granted, "Congo," and "Event Horizon" were films I could take only once, but, by and large I keep 'em for those rainy/snowy/otherwisey days when I feel lazy, the popcorn cup runneth over and exerise seems like a form of corporal punishment.This one is among those I'd tape over. The special effects, while okay, were stolen from everything. Did you get "The Abyss?" Of course--as others have noted--"2001?" And others I don't recall at this point.Oh, I'm among the few who liked DePalma's "Bonfire of the Vanities" too. But this one has more cliches than a retirement party! One critic suggested that DePalma is out to get Sinese. "This is MY mission," says the heartbroken widower, who's found an opportunity among the stars. Plllleeeeeeeze.....May I add to that I do like all the actors. Cheadle is remarkable, Tim Robbins is great, even Sinese. Why did they do this one? Well, it pays the bills.Brian, please spend some time on clever scripts along with ORIGINAL special effects.
Oh, brother....where to begin. Inititally, the theatrical trailer last fall looked somewhat promising, but like so many other films, I resisted the urge. Now, after viewing the DVD, I understand why. 1) QUESTIONABLE PLOT, or should I say, a near-total lack of a believable story. Setting the story only twenty years in the future is pretty ambitious, though no more so than "2001" or "Space: 1999"; however...did all space-faring nations suddenly discover an endless pork barrel to finance not only the initial mission, but an immediate rescue mission? One can only hope the future of the Space Program can see this kind of funding. 2) CLICHE after CLICHE. Okay, bad science aside...if you don't have either 1) a believable story, or 2) believable characters, you've got problems that NO amount of glitz and bad CGI can spackle over. I was almost willing to forgive the first half of the movie...the hull-puncture sequence wasn't THAT bad (though I think the amount of time granted our heroes in finding the leaks was to say the least, generous). However...the dreaded "space walk" to the orbiting satellite had me split between nervous giggles, and wiping tears from my eyes. It seems necessary to mention the COMICAL ending that Robbins' character comes to, but we'll save that for the sequel, "Honey, I've Decompressed The Kids!" 3) HORRID ABUSES of SCIENCE DEPT: once again, our hereos' spaceship roars majestically as it passes the screen. Sigh. 4) THE RE-TREAD ENDING: Hmmmm....let's take the beauty of "2001" and toss in more than a heaping helping of "Close Encounters". Let's put the blender on HIGH, and serve this concoction over the finale of "Star Trek: The Motion Picture". Yum! If you get the idea I was definitely NOT impressed by this fiasco, well, you're on the right track....
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.
Boy was this movie a letdown...here I am waiting for a spring sci fi flick to hold me off til may..thinking.."Hey Gary Sinise and Tim Robbins dont make many bad movies"...after this I realized not everyone is perfect....not much really happens in the movie..this movie should have been called road trip..2020. They spend the whole time getting there. They get there and its a big letdown ending. C'mon..--the tear??!!. This could have been so much more
I caught this a little into the movie. It was at the incredibly cheesyscene when Sinise is looking at video of he and his friends at a party.It was laughable but it only got worse. So I watched for about 45minutes before I just couldn't take it anymore. Not a single second ofthis movie was believable. From Dr. Pepper trick to the tether sceneoutside the spaceship. Sinise is a relatively talented actor andRobbins has his moments, well one anyway (Shawshank), they couldn'trescue this flick.After the 45 minutes I was anxious to get here and see the reviews fromthe disappointed. And yes, they are here but I am truly shocked thatpeople not only liked the movie but actually are praising it so highly.Thus my summary tag line. Amazing that viewers can be drawn in to afilm of such low quality.Watched it on a 65" TV with a high end surround sound and there are acouple of moments the movie utilizes the technology available to it butby and large the effects, by today's standards, are amateurish and verylow caliber. This would have been visually stunning in 1976 but in2000, and certainly now, it's somewhat of a joke.But the effects aren't the only downfall. The dialog is equallypathetic. Acting marginal to awful. Direction atrocious. It fails atevery level.And there are people that like it. That is awesome and utterly amazing.
I think the movie could have been pretty good, had it not been too longanddrawn out.....I like the actors in the film, its just that it seemed likethe director was trying to create another 2001, a space oddity.... justwasn't there...
I had pretty much made up my mind about this film, and I read the firstcouple of comments on it here at IMDb and they echoed exactly what I wasthinking. This movie was pretty bad. I almost hate to say that, because Iwas expecting this one to be good. But it just didn't get there. Watchyour step as you read on, I may drop a spoiler or two...It has an excellent story idea, but it gets killed by too many attempts toget the viewer emotionally involved. The sub-plot that deals withMcConnel's (Sinise) deceased wife was unnecessary and it quickly becameannoying. The music used was very poorly done. It was almost always out of place, andit ruined many scenes. Things that should come off as powerful come off ascorny and over-dramatized. Sometimes less is more. One thing that was a clear disappointment was that the beginning of the filmbuilds up the fact that they are about to embark on a mission to Mars, andthen cut, poof, they were there. Where's the lift-off? Where's the settingsail for adventure scene? If it had been there, the music would have beeninappropriate and it would have stunk. And when they finally get to thepayoff scene and our heroes hold hands with a holographic alien, I was sodisappointed. They stole the ending from Contact. But they forgot to makethe Alien look like McConnel's dead wife.Should you go see this at the theater? YES! It looks great, but thedirection kills the story.
In the year 2020, humanity's first expedition to Mars takes place. But ontheplanet's surface, a catastrophe occurs and only one of theastronautssurvives. Then a rescue mission starts on Earth. When orbiting Mars, theyruninto all kinds of trouble before they finally manage to land on Mars.Thesurviving Astronauts are about to uncover an incrediblesecret.Of the three recent big-budget science-fiction movies about Mars(theothers being "Red Planet" by Antony Hoffman and "Ghosts of Mars" byJohnCarpenter"), I've expected the least from this one. And was wrong. Myfirstthought was: "It really doesn't open like a good sci-fi movie should". Butthelonger I've been watching the more I liked the film. After the ending, Iwasreally satisfied at how it turned out. A touching ending for anunderratedscience-fiction movie that also has great music in these final scenes.Themanages to make you care for its characters, a point way too many SFmoviesfail to achieve. Of the three mentioned films, this one may be thebest!
When first going to see this movie I expected an epic. What I got was abeautiful visual movie, 2 thumbs up to the people at ILM once again youhavecreated a master piece. The story line is another story. It was editeddownto a simple fast action story, emotion had no time to truly affect theaudience, the lines that were given to the actors degraded there image asgood actors (the director probably had alot to do with this aspect).Viewersalso could easily see all the publicity stunts, that Im sure went for highdollar. Throughout you saw Dr. Pepper, M&M's, Kawasaki, Penzoil, Isuzu,andothers. This was very distracting to the overall plot. Also the end lefttheviewers disappointed with the not trying to capture the rest of the storyonfilm.Overall: good special f/x, script was horrible, writers should beshot....sorry guys, I usually don't bash this hard, but this one deservesit.
I thought this movie was GREAT! People are forgetting the fact that theyare seeing a MOVIE! And this movie Rocks (The mind). This movie is for thehardcore Sci-Fi fans, like myself. Yep, I like seeing space, spacestations, planets, aliens and stuff other people might find boring.I thought is was facinating that the base camp on Mars was so close to the"Mars Face". Of all the places that NASA has sent probes (in real life)they seem to be going to the wrong areas. It's like someone from anotherplanet sending probes to the North or South pole on Earth and expecting tofind life or signs of life there. I'm not implying that there really issomething up there on Mars but just thinking from the scientific side ofreality of what if?I read and heard all the negative reviews on this movie and I had to setthem aside and see it for myself, and I'm glad I did. My girlfriend wasupset that I didn't take her to see it and I'm kinda sad that I didn't.Maybe next time.
Well, they shot this movie on top of a landfill, and it smells every bitofit. Folks, we are not talking about some average turkey here, or evensomegolden turkey of a movie...no, this is the MOTHER of all turkeys. Disneyhas rocketed so quickly to the top of my s*it list, they flew right off ofit. Here are a few of the many issues I have with thisstinker...-Absolutely disgusted with the TONS of blatant, in your face productplacements. I.E., "look, I've got Dr. Pepper (holds up to camera), and Ican save the day with it!" Also Budweiser, Kawasaki, Compaq, SGI, Issuzu,Penzoil, Sony, and M&M's (hey, made by Mars, Inc.--puke, gag, barf).-They hit you over the head with pathetic back-story (i.e., "But GarySinise, if you hadn't trained for this for 12 years and blah blah blah..."ugghh!)-ABSOLUTELY NO CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT WHATSOEVER!-A very very annoying computer voice for the ship's computer.-Sickening musical score (organ music??!!!)-*SPOILER IMMINENT* there is NO WAY they could have that big a gash intheirfuel tank without an alarm going off...I mean, they're getting ready tofiretheir engines, and all this fuel is spewing out into space, so how couldthey not detect the drop in fuel pressure?!-*ANOTHER SPOILER* Last time I checked (which I think was in the 6thgrade),dinosaurs did not evolve into Mammoths. Any paleobiologists care torefutethat?-Much too much use of Panavision's new "Sideways" 4-axis remote head.Nausea upon Nausea.-at least three times in the movie, Gary Sinise casually inserts the factthat he is 100 million miles from the earth into his dialogue.-for its being a "Mission," the objective of that mission is very unclear.It is never said WHY they are going to Mars and what they are supposed todowhile there. The film is uninteresting because the astronauts are notgivenany reason to be there in the first place! Come on HOLLYWOOD, charactersneed to have GOALS!!!The whole thing was one big advertisement, with no reason for me to beinterested in the characters, no reversals or plot twists, and reallyreallyuninspired writing, and even worse, the execution of that writing! (Withalook as if he's just had THE EPIPHANY, Gary Sinise says, "Wait, if youwereto work it backwards, and come up with the missing sequences, it justmightwork!")I am officially on a boycott of Disney, and I implore you to join me.Thisincludes films regurgitated by Touchstone and Miramax to name a few, anddon't forget to stop watching ABC.
The problem with it is: it's boring. Even the "action" sequences had methinking about what to make for dinner tomorrow. Most of the ideasseemed half-baked and there were many moments that just didn't makesense. Such as when a crew member sees droplets of blood indicatingwhere the air hole is but minutes later she does not seem to rememberthat useful trick and at the same time another crew member is notwearing his O2 helmet for no good reason and it is HE who has the ideafor using liquid for find the air leak. Nevermind the logos everywhere.De Palma is much better off when he directs things he writes himself(for the most part). Even though instead of riffing off of Hitchcock,in this movie he riffs off of Kubrick. For a much better De Palmamovie, see Blow Out. For a much better sci-fi movie, see Solaris.
I haven't fully recovered from this nutcracker of a moviequiteyet. I'll try to systematically, and in no particular order,inform you about everything that can, and did, go wrongwiththis stinker. It's such a shame, since Brian DePalma hasalways been one of my favorite directors. It's hard tobelievethis film came from the same man who gave us Scarface,BodyDouble, Blow Out and Dressed to Kill.1. Ennio Morricone has to start thinking about retirementreal soon. This score was probably the worst musical scoresince Tangerine Dream scored The Keep in the mid eighties(goodmovie, though). Here he's rehashing his themes from TheThing,Once Upon a Time in America and every other movie he's ever scored. Not asingle note feels newly written. Even worse, it's totally disengaged fromthe screen action, playing sweet noteswhen it should be playing the opposite and vice versa. Completely wrong,allthe time.2. Characters. You don't care for any of them. Mainly becausewhat they say, and do, are all clichees. Ask yourself onequestion while watching this movie again (yeah, as if!):Haveyou heard any of the dialogue before? Yes, in every b-grade sci-fi movieever made, actually. And don't even get me started on the cheesysentimentalscenes Gary Sinise's character has with his dead wife on tape. Anendurancetest, if there ever was one.3. Rip-offs: Such shameless rip-offs have rarely been seenin modern history. 2001, Abyss, you name it. And yeah,whatexactly was the point of showing the spinning gravity roomscene, other than to show off the production values?4. Tim Robbins, Gary Sinise and everybody else was justphoningit in. I hope for their sake that they got a lot of money for it. Theseareseasoned pro's, they should know better.5. SPOILER. Ending: The benevolent, divine and godlike alieninthe end (overused CGI anyone?) was just too much. I couldnotstop laughing, nor could the rest of the 300 people watchingit with me. Granted, it's nice to encounter a friendlyalienonce in a while, but do they have to hammer it home? All tothetunes of Ennios annoying tearjerking (at least that's whathethinks) score.
This is a truly terrible movie. The dialogue is stilted and lousy fromscene one right up to the end; the premise is preposterous; the scenewhereTim Robbins and his astronaut wife dance in a weightless chamber ispainfully embarrassing; and, despite the filmmakers' obvious intentions toappear politically progressive, they still manage to sneak in a little bitof racism. Tim Robbins must have pleaded for a way to bail out 2/3 of theway through the movie, and he's lucky the producers let him go. If therereally is life on Mars, they'll want nothing to do with us after they getaglimpse of this movie.
Well i have to admit i adore Sci-Fiction films so ,ok that could be a reason,but i see on the other hand no reason to vote low i vote a 9!,for story andplot,act's was also good nothning unreal things to me so yeah! ,i love itand recomand it to all who also love and adore Sci -Fictionfilms!
I avoided this movie like the plague when it was in theatres because of the dismal reviews. I decided to rent it, and boy was I surprised. The movie is pretty good. Now I don't understand what the bad reviews are based on.Sure, this is the typical space movie where the focus is on a group of people who are heading out into unknown territory, and of course, something has to go wrong in space. But heck, that's what makes the movie interesting and suspenseful. But aside from not coming up with new unchartered territory, the story was actually good. You care about the people, and the special effects were good.As for the ending, I found that acceptable too. It basically set forth a theory that I've heard people propose ... and I think they were sane...or at least they think they are. Any way, after having rented it, I'm going to purchase the movie. It's one I'd like to watch again to see if I missed anything.
I wish I could tell you how much I wanted to like this movie, but even myrose colored glasses could help me do that. It was disappointing to saytheleast. Bad acting, a shocking script, it seemed to be ended in a hurry,(Oh,Jeez! Ten minutes left... let's see... they do this, he does that, theygetback, he get's in a thing and zzziiippp! Thanks for coming.)This was worse than Armageddon, and that hurts to say.Redeeming features? Two nice demonstrations: one of Newtonian physicsgetting Tim Robbins out of the way, and how a little space rock can domorethat chip the paintwork.The other thing... the helmets looked like the ones in 2001, but thats asfar as I will go on connecting the two films.
"Some couples dance, others go to Mars."This is the story of the first mission to Mars. When it all goes wrong,a rescue mission is sent to bring any survivors home.The resulting space adventure is not that great. The story is bad, thescript is bad, the actors are bad, the director is bad and the music isbad. Or to save time, they are all bad.The story is bland and full of problems. First off, the ship. Therotating habitat was all wrong. In order to generate gravity it shouldhave been larger. 10 meter radius, at least. And it rotated way toofast. There is a limit to how many rotations per minute a human cantake and that limit is very low. Like... 2. Yeah, that low. And thegravity generated would be small. Tiny, in fact. And if you go on anextended mission, you don't build your ship to be open space. You haveto build some proper rooms and provide some intimacy. If you don't wanteverybody to hate everybody else by the time they get there, that is.Then on the surface. The thing had a security system??? And if itdidn't get the right answer it killed everybody? Why? What kind ofadvanced civilization would do that? And who did they think would getthere? A Gila monster? A cave bat? A zebra? Godzilla, maybe?The script is also terrible. The dialog is poor, the situations arelame and the overall story is boring. I though somehow a mission toMars would be far more exciting. Plus, they saddle the guy with so muchgrief for an entire movie and for what? They robbed a team of smartpeople of any fun they could have, only to ham fist the ending in? Whatkind of idiot does that? Smart people should be fun to be around. Theyshould be hilarious, in fact. But you make them sound like dimwits justbecause you have an agenda? Please.And so on. The direction is terrible, the actors aren't allowed to doanything, the special effects are... less then they could be, the musicis quite bad and so on. In fact, the music is not that bad; it is justfrom the wrong era. I got that there were a lot of references to thespace movies of the 50s, and I was fine with that. What was not fine,however, was that the movie forgot to make the trip back to it's owntime. It went to the 50s and it got stuck there.Mission to Mars. A bad space movie. Expensive, too. 2/10.
The opening frames of this film is a portend of how slow the film is andrestless the viewer!The opening drop (music) is off putting and the first fifteen minutes areasboring as could possibly be with absolutely meaningless prattle from partygo-ers and relatives of the astronauts. I thought I was at the wrongscreen.This couldn't be Mr. De Palma setting up the character exposition...butafter I walked back out and checked the screen, I walked back in and begantapping my foot for something to happen that would grab my attention. Itmust have been 45 minutes before I perked up, somewhat, when the filmturnedto face it's title and some true and interesting action occurred. Thevisualtreats were very,very good and well done and convincing, but again, Mr. DePalma reverts to character exposition of the married astronauts on board(bored) (again boring as heck) (I don't think the next line is a spoilerbutfor those who can't stand a clue don't read it) and the widowed astronautthatwas left on earth because he couldn't overcome the death of his wife intimeto qualify. There are some wonderful "Space Odessy: 2001" reverent scenesand some neat visual action on Mars, but overall this is an unconvincingspace film and It's obvious Mr. De Palma did not have a script worthworkingwith. THIS IS A BORING FILM...