Welcome! Log in or Register

Mission To Mars (DVD)

  • image
£3.87 Best Offer by: amazon.co.uk See more offers
18 Reviews
  • terrbible ending
  • Sort by:

    * Prices may differ from that shown

  • Write a review >
    How do you rate the product overall? Rate it out of five by clicking on one of the hearts.
    What are the advantages and disadvantages? Use up to 10 bullet points.
    Write your reviews in your own words. 250 to 500 words
    Number of words:
    Write a concise and readable conclusion. The conclusion is also the title of the review.
    Number of words:
    Write your email adress here Write your email adress

    Your dooyooMiles Miles

    18 Reviews
    Sort by:
    • More +
      28.03.2010 10:04
      Very helpful
      (Rating)

      Advantages

      Disadvantages

      A mission to Mars uncovers more than it bargained for

      FILM ONLY REVIEW

      In the year 2010 a mission is launched to Mars, the crew are hoping to discover new things from the planet. They spend 6 months travelling there and land safely but when they start their work disaster strikes. They are out on the planet when a mysterious wind starts from a rock which they have found and soon the wind has gone into the shape of a worm and killed 3 of the 4 crewmembers. Luckily Commander Graham has survived and managed to send the details of what happened back to NASA.

      At NASA control a rescue mission is launched which includes 4 new crew member which are, Woody, Jim McConnell, Teri Fisher and Phil Ohlymer. After some problems they too make it to the surface of Mars but one member down and set off in search of the station which the first crew set up. When they finally get there they are lucky to find Commander Graham is still alive and he tells them about what happened. He stuns the crew with the news that once the wind went down the rock was uncovered and a giant face was left which is letting out a funny noise. Graham tells the crew what he thinks it is and what they have to do.

      The crew are now faced with the task of uncovering the mysteries of the face and what the planets secrets are but can they do so without upsetting the force and will they all be able to make it back to Earth?

      I had not heard about this film until hubby put it on the other night and I have to say I was not too impressed by it either. The storyline was very good to start with and it was actually quite believable. I think the fact it was set in the future helped with some of the far fetched technology which was used and it did seem to all work and suit the film but when it came to the last 20 minutes I was so disappointed as they had taken the fantasy just too far and made the film seem silly and daft.

      The acting was good and for me the best performance came from Commander Graham who was played by Don Cheadle, he did a good job making his character so believable and I loved how at the very start of the film we got to meet his family so understood about his background. He was excellent in his portrayal of the slightly mad man who had been on his own on a strange planet for several months and I did like how his character had toughened up. The other performance which stood out for me was that of Jim McConnell who was played by Gary Sinise as his role had a bit of depth. We learnt about all the work and research he and his late wife put into the mission and finding out information about Mars and how he lost the chance to go as he gave up on the tests after the death of his wife. I loved how this reflected in his character and explained why he did certain things. All of the other roles were good and well played but these were the two which stood put for me.

      The film was set in space and for the first half we mainly saw the inside of space ships and a space station. I loved the technology which was featured and how they somehow managed to stay grounded when the room they were in was spinning! The sets and props were all very well made and looked authentic. We did get to see a lot of computer based objects and they did look complicated and a little far fetched at times but this can be forgiven as the film is set in the future. The parts of the film which were shot supposedly on the surface of Mars were also good and they all looked like what I expect the planet to look like. It was all very dry and covered in red sand and this is the impression of have of Mars. The scenery on the planet was good and not overly made.

      The special effects in the film were good and all fitted in very well, they were not over the top but for me the appearance of the worm like wind did not look quite right and it seemed a little too far fetched. I think all the times we got to see the crew in space were good and did look quite real and not too much like they were filmed in front of a green screen.

      The ending of the film for me really did spoil what was turning out to be not a bad film. I think it just went too far fetched and so unbelievable. I think that they could have kept the same story basis but not have so many special effects and unbelievable things happening. I think this did let the film down quite a lot and made it very silly.

      The running time of this film is 114 minutes and the certificate is a PG. I think the running time was good and the story did move at a good pace from start to finish and I agree with the rating and think children will enjoy this film more than me. As this is a film only review there are no bonus features to speak of. The film is available to buy for just a few pounds on DVD.

      Overall I am neutral about this film as it was good and had good acting and storyline but for me the ending was a massive let down. I would recommend it to the younger market more than the older one.

      Comments

      Login or register to add comments
    • More +
      09.07.2002 22:07
      6 Comments

      Advantages

      Disadvantages

      There is a short story by Ray Bradbury in which a space walk ends in disaster. The astronauts drift slowly away from one another into the void, radio contact between them slowly crackling into silence. It is a deeply moving story, and like all of Bradbury's science fiction it focuses on the humanity of its situation, not the science. 'Mission to Mars' brings this story to mind for two reasons. Not only because one of its scenes is strikingly similar, but because this scene and all those that follow it share Bradbury's humanity. It is that rare thing amongst science fiction films - a film with a heart. 'Mission to Mars' was almost universally derided on its release, the reasons most often cited for its targeting being the derivative story elements, the weak script and plodding pace. True, the film has all these flaws, and the terrific cinematography and Ennio Moriccone score don't draw your attention away from them. The plot is clumsy and disjointed - the first half, as the crew make their long journey to the Red Planet, emulates '2001's scenes of space flight, but by its alien-contact end the film has become more of a kids movie. The dialogue is clunky, and events unfold so unevenly that their timescale is at times hard to follow. And it is so derivative that it seems at times as though the scriptwriters have simply grabbed a dozen other scripts and pulled the pages randomly from a hat. Yet, despite all its flaws, I love this movie. The aforementioned scene in which husband and wife drift silently and tearfully apart is one of the most romantic things I've ever scene, the kind of plot development that leaves you empty, begging the director to explain why such a traumatic event was necessary in the overall scheme of things. And in the latter half of the film de Palma provides reassurance with an optimistic vision of humankind's place in the universe, directing proceedings with a genuine sense of wondermen
      t. Admittedly, the 'face on mars' theme looks like it was scribbled down after an afternoon perusing the pages of the Fortean Times (old copies at that) - but what the heck, the FT is cool, and so is this film. The relationships between the characters are sensitively (thats 'sentimentally' to the mean-spirited amongst you) portrayed, and with its philosophical ponderings on the implications of establishing alien contact, 'Mission to Mars' has an old fashioned, naive charm about it. Even the special effects (with the exception of a fearsome tornado-like being), reflect an almost childlike vision - the scene depicting Evolution from fish to man is simply wonderful, and brought a tear to this viewers eye. In essence its a feel good movie, like 'ET' or 'Close Encounters'. It isn't made with the conviction of either of those films, but it warms the heart as good as either, if not better. As the credits faded into the darkness of the television screen, I found my eyes drawn to the darkness outside, and up to the stars above. They seemed to shine brighter than I've ever seen them before - so much so that for a moment I dreamt of being an astronaut. For that alone I thank Mr de Palma for making this film.

      Comments

      Login or register to add comments
      • More +
        23.06.2002 22:32
        Very helpful
        (Rating)
        7 Comments

        Advantages

        Disadvantages

        • "terrbible ending"

        Brian DePalma's "Mission to Mars" (2000) is a very odd film. I do not mean that it is surreal or even peculiar, it is however a film that should be awful but it somehow in my mind, manages to be exciting and interesting. I will admit that it on first appearances that it is quite cheesy, in a way that only Hollywood can manage and some of the plot points are incredibly silly but I still somehow manage to like the film. I can well imagine lots of readers wondering why? I hope to explain in this opinion. Before anybody jumps to conclusions, I am not a science-fiction geek. I love most sci-fi films but I am not a Trekkie or Star Wars fan, I can't speak Klingon and I have never been to a convention and met the bloke who played "Third Victim in Episode 2 of Star Trek: The Next Generation". I do however like Brian DePalma. No matter how bad the narratives of his films are (like "Mission to Mars") he somehow manages to make his films at least technically brilliant. This may not be enough for some viewers who like a good story. I don't necessarily need a great plot to keep me entertained. I am a person who gets very excited over long takes and beautifully composed shots. I love directors, cinematographers, editors and composers. For me actors are the least interesting element in a film. Do not get me wrong. I love great acting and sometimes, actors can save a film from being complete crap like Tom Hanks did in "Philadelphia". But like they say; "Film is a directors art". I am not going to get into film theory but Brian DePalma is not an actors director, he doesn't give them hugs and tell them that they are great, he tells them what to do and where to stand. Sometimes the method could illicit terrible acting and sometimes it gives actors and actresses the freedom to invent their own characters. "Mission to Mars" is a film that has bad acting (especi
        ally Don Cheadle and Tim Robbins) and a standard narrative. It also features a great score from Ennio Morricone and some truly stunning cinematography from Steven H. Burum. The special effects are also very good. The film wants to be an entertaining and simplified version of Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyessy" (1968). Like the late film critic Pauline Kael said of Kubrick's "Ultimate Trip"'; "2001 is a film that borders between being hypnotic and incredibly dull". "M2M" wants to be a popcorn version of "2001" and doesn't even come near Kubrick's classic. "M2M" is just "incredibly" bad in places. But like I said, DePalma will shoot with any script. If he gets a good one like "The Untouchables" by David Mamet or "Scarface" by Oliver Stone, DePalma can be sublime, but when he gets a crap script then the films can be bad on a narrative level. "M2M" had three writers. They were Graham Yost, Peter Thomas and John Thomas. Can you see the problem? Disney financed the film, under their film company Buena Vista. They wanted a PG rating and a sci-fi "action" film. Brian DePalma hopped on board and probably gave a list of things that he wanted to include. This when you get "films by committee". Three writers came up with a space rescue narrative that ends with alien contact. The film was simply not about going to Mars. Aliens have to be include and also lots of dangers on the way, so that the journey was part of the films exciting premise. The film prided itself on being more "Science-Fact rather than Science Fiction". This what I like about the film. Everything looks like today's technology. The film's setting is 2020, when the first manned flight to Mars, is predicted to happen. The film's mystery narrative also includes "the faces of Mars" which are taken from real photograp
        hs. These are great plot points for the background. The Plot The year is 2020 and the film opens at a BBQ. A group of astronauts are holding a party for their friend Luke (Don Cheadle) who is manning the first mission to Mars. We learn that Jim McDonnell (Gary Sinise) was intended to man the mission, but his wife and fellow astronaut Maggie died and he left the programme to nurse her. Luke feels guilty but Jim tells him not to worry about it. The film jumps forward by thirteen months and Luke and his team are on Mars. All of a sudden a mysterious low frequency sound is being sent from a canyon in Cydonia, which is an area on Mars. The team investigates and they are attacked by a truly fantastic special effect. A tornado attacks the team and communication is lost. Meanwhile on the International Space Station, the worried friends and colleagues of Luke's persuade Ray, the big boss, to let them fly to Mars and investigate (so far so 2OO1). On the way to Mars, several dangerous things happen and a major character dies, saving his crew. On Mars the remaining astronauts discover something that could change the world. I will not give too much away. But I think the narrative is exciting even if it is a bit poorly written. I actually think the dialogue and cheesy acting spoil this film ore than anything. "M2M" An Analysis I first saw this at the cinema, because the trailer made it look amazing. The film is still a lot better than "Red Planet" which was so bad, "M2M" could have won a "Best Film of the Century" award. I sat in the cinema and the first thing I noticed was Brian DePalma's lovely eight minute long take. The camera floats around the party and picks up on conversations, moves away, and returns to people later. I was impressed and then I started to listen to the risible dialogue like when Luke (Don Cheadle) tells Jim (Gary Sinis
        e) that; "Mars was yours. I would give my mission up if Maggie could come back". Another thing that troubles me was the truly grotesque product placement. In the opening ten minutes there were conveniently placed Budweiser bottles, Dr. Pepper (this product makes several appearances) and Toyota (Jim's slightly futuristic car). This film simply does not give a shit that it is spoiling itself by using horrid product placement. Produce placement is an age-old Hollywood practice, but since the advent of "High Concept" movies, the subtlety that was used up until the 1980's gave way to blatant commercialism. In this film not only do the products simply appear, they are part of the narrative. In space when Derek (Jerry O'Connell), one of the crew members constructs a DNA model using M&M's, with the "M" facing the camera in medium close-up. My favourite scene is when they use a packet of Dr. Pepper to find a leak in the ship. It’s so bad it's hilarious. These little scenes do not help the film. The performances are a bit one-dimensional, but space is no place for Shakespearean dramatics because the actors have to "Circumvent the navi-computer". Dialogue in science-fiction films has always bordered on the ridiculous. The worst performance of the film has to be Don Cheadle. He plays the token black man for a start and he just seems the most unlikely astronaut ever. I thought he was superb in "Out of Sight" and "Traffic" but in this he looks like a fool. Tim Robbins seems to have signed on so that he can fund his next picture (which is a bit Orson Welles. I think Tim Robbins is really cool and "The Cradle Will Rock" was fantastic). Jerry O' Connell seems to be very happy in a big Hollywood film and Gary Sinise (a brilliant actor) was doing a favour to Brian DePalma. "M2M" scores points with its cinematography and c
        amera framing. There are some lovely scenes where the camera turns 360 degrees from a long shot to close up. The scenes on Mars were achieved from spray painting gallons of biodegradable dye onto sand and then using a blue filter on the camera lens. Technically the film is really good. The special effects are also very good and for once in a Hollywood film, they are essential to the plot. The only bad piece of CGI (Computer Generated Image) is the alien being at the end. All in all I think that "M2M" is a worthwhile film with a lot of flaws. If you get past the acting and dialogue, the film is an entertaining and even educational film. It's like a bad-B movie with great special effects. I actually quite like it. It is also interesting to spot all the references from other science fiction classics. If I was insane I would call this film a "Revisionist Masterpiece" but I will settle for entertaining.

        Comments

        Login or register to add comments
        • More +
          20.01.2002 02:40
          Very helpful
          (Rating)
          3 Comments

          Advantages

          Disadvantages

          I should have stopped watching this film after about five minutes, but it was after a long day at work and the children had chosen this from our pile of unwatched movies. So lazing in an armchair I settled down to watch this film. It started with a group of astronauts and their families having a barbecue, the night before the first manned flight to the planet Mars. Haven’t we seen these barbecues enough, in almost every other astronaut film? The characters were introduced in about 30 seconds each - the commander, the brainy one, the coloured guy and the woman. When the next shot was 13 months later after they had landed on Mars I realised that the budget for this film had not even been high enough to film a space launch. What did Mars look like? Well, it looked like a scene from an American western film (lots of desert and large rock formations), except filmed with a red colour filter over the lens. Soon we realised why these characters had hardly been introduced to us, because they were destined to die. (All except one.) The film then follows the rescue mission and the events that follow their arrival. The rescue team consists of a husband and wife, a brainy one, and a guy who was rejected as an astronaut, but suddenly is fit and ready for a six month flight to Mars. The story is absurd and the large leaps in time just make it farcical. The characters are just not believable as astronauts, but more like a group of friends going camping in Devon. The film is supposed to be set in the year 2020, but by today’s standards some of the technology is more like the 19th century. I assumed that the poor technical details were due to the age of the film, but I was dismayed when I found out that it had been made as recent as 2000. The story line of the film is centred on the American belief that “we will always bring our boys home”. But, when this is supposed to be in the form of a 6 month trip either way, c
          osting billions of dollars, it is not very believable. Is one man worth that much? The whole film yells “budget” at you, as almost every shot seems to have been compromised in order to save cash. I know in my movie reviews I normally list the actors and their characters names, but there is little point for this film as they are so forgettable that it is not worth the effort. This tape has been recorded over already (I think we found something on Challenge TV that was much more interesting) and I certainly will not be watching it again. Although this film may seem very appealing to sci-fi fans I really would suggest that you give this film a miss. It is very disappointing and not worth the time to watch it.

          Comments

          Login or register to add comments
          • More +
            23.11.2001 20:29
            Very helpful
            (Rating)
            9 Comments

            Advantages

            Disadvantages

            This film is thoroughly nauseating drivel churned straight out of the Hollywood machine. It is cliched, terribly acted, badly written, boring, and completely devoid of any original touch whatsoever. If you liked this film or don't want to know what happens then stop reading now. As the name suggests the film is about Mars, set some time in the not so distant future. The first irritating thing about the film is the disgustingly overbearing product placement. It hits you immediately and does not give up for the duration. This is so full of product placement I'm surprised they had time to film anything else other than futuristic Budweiser cartons, M&M's wrappers and Dr Pepper. Wait a minute there is something else they caught on film more than the product placement, yep that's right the good old American flag is in every single shot. At the beginning of the film we are treated to the bizarrely well known ritual for all astronauts about to leave earth, a big family barbeque. The family staying behind are quickly established then swept away and we're off into space. Group one are on Mars and something goes wrong with their mission, consequently they stupidly and unrealistically risk another spaceship and four people's lives on the off chance of saving one guy. Needless to say the rescue mission doesn't go according to plan. The guy they are rescuing has been stranded on Mars on his own for a year, of course he is still alive and takes just an hour or so to adjust back to being around other humans. In addition he tells the rescuers that something killed the others and shows them a big alien face. Naturally it takes them around five minutes to solve the mystery he has been working on for a year. Well by a strange coincidence the face is the same face as on thousands of cheesy alien face products, you know the human face but with big eyes basically (that's really using your imagination). Turns out the alien
            s are in fact humans in a higher state of evolution and they left when Mars deteriorated. So Mars was like earth, and when it was hit by a meteor (very topical) the aliens flew away elsewhere, but they sent DNA to earth and left one poor sod behind to wait millions of years for us to evolve enough to reach Mars and unlock the device. What a total load of ludicrous guff. If Mars was like earth and they are humans, only evolved a bit, then why didn't they come to earth when Mars went bad? As if the story wasn't bad enough the acting is appauling. Tim Robbins should be ashamed of himself and his entire death scene, which was meant to be touching or romantic or some such, was actually enough to make me retch. That silly bint who played his wife was perfectly made up throughout the film (make up in space?) and didn't look too upset after her partner died horribly right in front of her. It also means to save one guy they ended up killing another (which is why they wouldn't have tried to save the first mission). Also unlikely they would allow two people in a relationship to go together, and sure enough because of it the silly woman ends up jeopardising the entire mission. I'm so used to seeing Gary Sinise turn out to be the bad guy it was surprising that he didn't here, although his performance was totally wooden. Don Cheadle wasn't much better. The pace did the usual unrealistic Hollywood thing of slowing down when something touching or emotional was happening and speeding up when it was supposed to be an exciting moment. It did occur to me that if they just stopped the staring at each other emotionally rubbish, then they would have had time for all the other stuff without having to rush. As usual with this type of braindead cack America rule space, no mention of how the world has advanced just the suggestion that America will be in charge, pure arrogance. I also think the product placement is the most shamel
            ess ever, they end up making a bloody DNA strand out of M&M's for gods sake. You can just imagine the snivelling advertising rat working out the deal, 'yeah ok 2 million but you have to be able to see at least two of the M's and the packet must be on screen at all times'. The effects and sound are standard. The effects are reasonably good but nothing new, just repeats of effects used elsewhere. The sound is the usual Sci Fi classical music, ripped off from 2001: A Space Odyssey. I suggest you never watch this film as I'm sure it will make you fatter and more stupid. The people responsible for this should be sent to Mars.

            Comments

            Login or register to add comments
            • More +
              22.04.2001 18:33
              3 Comments

              Advantages

              Disadvantages

              Apollo 13 has definitely inspired this god-awful film, and it's obvious. The story of a preditably-downed space craft leaving survivors on the desolate wasteland that is Mars with over-budgeted special effects and unrealistic notions of alien architecture and races. The aliens themselves look incredibly fake, as one should never use orange in CGI. However, giving the film its due, there were several entertaining scenes of tension and intrigue, but it's nothing we haven't seen in the likes of 2001: A Space Odyssey and other science fiction films.

              Comments

              Login or register to add comments
              • More +
                24.02.2001 19:16
                Very helpful
                (Rating)
                4 Comments

                Advantages

                Disadvantages

                The basic plot: The year is 2020, and scientists at NASA are still obsessed with going to explore Mars. The mission will involve two teams of explorers, to stay there for six months each, however it will of course take about six months to get there, not to mention billions of pounds to fund, which is exactly why there must be a good reason to go there - to see if it is inhabitable. Inevitably something goes wrong... THE FILM'S PLOT!!! After the first team lands, an alien typhoon of some sort comes from a mountain and heads straight for them. The bewildered explorers opt out of moving, and stand directly in it's path for reasons beyond comprehension. They all get killed bar one - perhaps. It is on this one very slim chance that this one person is still alive, and will still be alive in the year it takes to wait for the correct time to take off that the intrepid second team set off. Of course it would be wrong to choose anyone emotionally involved with this person on such an important mission (which is solely to bring this man, who is more than likely dead by now, back - a worthy reason to spend billions I think you'll agree), so the captain chooses his two best friends and a husband and wife to command the crew. I wasn't even allowed to work with my girlfriend at BHS, and I think NASA would share the same stance, having already made that mistake earlier in the film where an astronaut throws away his entire career because his wife dies! Anyway, they set off (slowly) and head (slowly) to mars where there are lots of fantastically (slow) paced action sequences. Naturally, the husband commander dies (slowly) and there is of course a (slow) rescue attempt. It's almost too much to take in (slowly). They land, and instantly forget all about the previous incident and continue with there rescue mission. They do not know what they might find, if he is alive, he would surely have gone mad given he is alon
                e, saw his friends die brutally, and is seriously scared of the funny noises and typhoon things outside right? Wrong - he is fine. He has spent the last year analysing the sounds of the typhoon, discovering that it comes in groups of three tones, that all sound identical. By analysing the gaps in the tones, he finds out the secret. He plotted the size of the gaps on a three dimensional graph (as you would) and discovered that it was an incomplete DNA strand. Being astronauts of course, they were experts on DNA and decided that it was a test, and by sending back an encoded message of their completed DNA, they would unravel the mystery. It's so obvious when you think about it! After blasting the sound back at this mountain (which I forgot to mention was a giant metal face - 2001 anyone?), it opens. Inside the explorers find the set of CITV's How 2, starring Carol Vorderman and Fred Dineage, given that it was completely white. There was also oxygen in there, so they could all breathe. What followed was a commercial to promote anti-racism within the universe against aliens, where an alien comes and explains with the aid of a large holographic projector, the fate of mars, and how DNA was sent to earth to create humans - I don't wish to argue with this, it is a sound theory. Of course if the alien wasn't a character from Toy Story it would have been more believable - the smooth edges and very slight texture mapping we saw when computer technology was first introduced. The film has now dragged on for too long, and the producer, director, and actors have all realised that it is going to be terrible, so they say "Let's just end it". So they should end it in an appropriate way right? And have an appropriate action sequence or something. So they all just go home. Apart from one, who decides to go with the alien back to wherever the hell they went to. The others are fine with this, and
                we are then prompted with delightful titles telling us that it is, indeed, THE END. Presumably just in case we thought that the blackness, and nothing happening was another action sequence. DO NOT, I REPEAT, DO NOT SEE THIS FILM!

                Comments

                Login or register to add comments
                • More +
                  01.01.2001 00:17
                  Very helpful
                  (Rating)

                  Advantages

                  Disadvantages

                  Mission to Mars starts out looking too much like Apollo 13, but soon turns into a science fiction adventure with unresalistic notions and an unconvincing plotline. The special efects look good, but they're nothing we haven't seen before, and it does get slightly tedious to watch yet another film set "realistically into the future", predicting what life will be like in a few decades. However, there certainly isn't a lack of tension, especially in a scene orbiting Mars when a crew member finds himself floating away from his comrades and heroically pulls off his own helmet to stop his wife risking her life to try and save him. The final scenes drag on for too long, as we find out the truth behind the aliens, but the film could have been better, in my opinion, if we had never had this scene. The alien looks very computer generated, and cannot be accepted as real to my eyes. There's also a little too much explanation, as we are given information we could have guessed, or just don't want to know. I think a mysterious ending of people walking towards a shadowy alien would have made this film better, and more memorable.

                  Comments

                  Login or register to add comments
                • More +
                  10.12.2000 00:35

                  Advantages

                  Disadvantages

                  After hearing of flashy CGI affects I thought this was going to be a brilliant blockbuster film. But I was rather disappointed when I realized Mission to Mars was just a corny sci-fi flick. However Mission to Mars had an excellent cast which was wasted by a below average film. Gary Sinse, Tim Robbins and Connie Nielsen all acted well. If the script and storyline were better this would have been a tremendous film, it had the special effects and the cast but no decent storyline and script. Definitely not worth a trip down to the cinema or worth popping down to blockbuster to rent it when its out on video.

                  Comments

                  Login or register to add comments
                • More +
                  28.11.2000 22:37
                  Very helpful
                  (Rating)

                  Advantages

                  Disadvantages

                  It seems somewhat trite to talk about what is believable in sci-fi - it's very nature means we are taking a leap of belief. However, one constant is the nature of human relationships and unfortunately it is here where this film comes unstuck. Set in 2020, an exploration mission to Mars results in the death of three of the four person team in odd circumstances the surviving member sends a scrambled message back to the space base. Unsure as to what really has happened and whether the fourth member of the party is still alive after his message the base team decide to send a rescue mission. The rescue mission is made up of four members. Gary Sinise as the researcher who along with his wife developed the first reports of Mars. Having lost his wife after a mission he's brooding and this mission is his return to 'active' service. The rest of the team are made up of a young aspiring computer boffin who's name escapes me despite only seeing the film two days ago (doesn't bode well does it?) and then Tim Robbins and his wife. Yes, another husband and wife duo with top ranking jobs at NASA. The use of Sinise's character as a grieving widower is fine and believable. However the same cannot be said for the Tim Robbin's character and wife. By using (another) husband and wife team it neither reflects Sinise's situation or adds to the film. Instead it smacks of laziness as if by introducing a married couple you don't have to work on the human relationship bonds in the team as marriage makes it a fore gone conclusion. It leads to some overdone gooey romance which is more distracting to the plot than enlightening. Once on Mars after some scrapes and traumas the team finds the original explorer is still alive and that Mars holds a big secret which I won't spoil by describing. There are some good special effects throughout the movie. The movement of the space craft is effective but possibly not
                  fun to watch for those with motion sickness! With a PG rating it is a run of the mill Hollywood sci-fi film which could have been much better had a little more thought and time gone into the character development. Certainly not a great sci-fi film but relatively entertaining if you're looking for a simple, easy to watch film.

                  Comments

                  Login or register to add comments
                • More +
                  28.11.2000 03:37

                  Advantages

                  Disadvantages

                  the cover to this film made it look exciting. but it was slow to start,the plot for the film was that a group of astronauts were going to explore mars,things went wrong and a new team were sent to rescue any possible survivors. things go wrong on the way and when the new team arrive,the last crew member from the previous mission fills them in on what happenend. from then on it loses the plot,things start to get rushed and it seems to change direction from one minute to the next. a sad disappointment to an otherwise excellent film in the right hands.

                  Comments

                  Login or register to add comments
                • More +
                  25.11.2000 00:33

                  Advantages

                  Disadvantages

                  Dennis Penis the carrot top spoof film reviewer once stuck a Mic under Tom Hanks nose at the Apollo 13 premier with the question”Tom you finally made the ultimate space movie, no atmosphere”. Sadly this is the case with Brian De Palma (The Untouchables) who finally gets the budget and chance to show his Californian film school buddies Spielberg and Lucas some sci-fi skills although sadly he falls well short with the only similarities with his illustrious fellow directors is using all the best bits from their monumentus movies. He even has the tongue in cheek audacity to use Kubriks 2001 plot and duplicating the anti gravity space station wheel scene to Journey rather than the more eloquent Blue Danube Waltz by Johan Strauss.Although no doubt the Austrian was the soft rock king of the time. The plot is formulaic with the latest special effects and a bird that sticks her tits out on queue. All the SCI FI cliches are there as the space jocks have the traditional pre launch leather jacket BBQ with the sexy wives. Gary Sinse (You will you know him when you see him) shows us his full repertoire of grins through the flick, as he’s the unlucky one to miss the coming "Mars shot", cause he’s still hurting from the loss of his Astronaught wife who’s missing in action, a concurrent theme in this film. The little robot has finally got around that boulder and has discovered ice on the surface enabling a first manned mission from NASA. Tim Robbins joins the rescue launch as the first pioneers who set up base where mangled as the team investigate a mysterious metallic object on the planets surface which takes an instant dislike to astronaughts who seem strangely unconcerned about an alien whirl wind heading straight at em in a what quite clearly is Arizona with a B56.23 filter. As the heroes blast to Mars they quickly run into the usual space hazards of Macro meteors and trying to looking stunning after a six
                  month unhealthy depreciating ride to The red planet. Robbins looks bored in the film and bails half way through drifting of into space with his bulging pay packet like the plot, although the movie doesn’t quite burn up in the atmosphere. When the boys and girls finally get down to the surface the space base is in worse condition than MIR with surprises in store. Its an ok fun film for families at Christmas and space geeks supporting a PG rating so don’t expect too much intellectual content. The soundtrack and mood music is all-wrong but the effects make it rentable. It’s more Independence Day than Close Encounters.Mr De Palma should stick to the gangsters and Vietnam me thinks.

                  Comments

                  Login or register to add comments
                • More +
                  22.11.2000 03:41
                  Very helpful
                  (Rating)

                  Advantages

                  Disadvantages

                  The basis of the film revolves around two groups of astronauts who are waiting to be the first to land on Mars. Based in the year 2020 and using the space station as a launching platform. The first group arrives on mars – only to be killed! The second group then become the rescue team – and most of them die! I decided not to go to the cinema to see this film, as most of the reviews rated it very badly. I received the DVD from www.dvdboxoffice.com last week and have watched it a couple of times. With the actors involved you would expect the level acting in the film to be of high quality. Unfortunately, the acting is very wooden, even from seasoned actors like Gary Sinise and Tim Robbins. The only saving grace for the film is the number and quality of the special effects. There is a scene on the space ship when the whole room rotates 360 degrees, and another point when you get to see DNA in full Technicolor, using M&M’s. The story is very slow and in many places predictable. With the action scenes few and far between, there doesn’t seem to be any rush to save people, or come to the climax of the film. Who’s In It? Gary Sinise, Tim Robbins, Don Cheadle, Connie Nelson, Jerry O’Connell and Kim Delaney. How long is it? 113 Minutes Other Info! Region 1 DVD Bonus Material: · Audio Commentary · Animatics to Scene comparison · Documentary ‘Visions of Mars’ · Visual Effects Analysis · Production Art Gallery · DVD Rom · Theatrical Trailer · French and Spanish Language tracks · Spanish Subtitles · 5.1 EX Surround · Wide screen (2.35:1) In conclusion, for those of you who bought Lawnmower man 2 learn from your mistake, don’t buy this movie, rent it on a cold night with lots of alcohol at hand.

                  Comments

                  Login or register to add comments
                • More +
                  06.11.2000 23:13
                  Very helpful
                  (Rating)

                  Advantages

                  Disadvantages

                  I saw Mission to Mars in the cinema when it was released. The reviews it received were not very good but I decided to see it anyway. The overall film I would rate as average but it could have been better if it wasnt for the stupid ending. I wont give it away but it seemed that the director suddenly lost the plot and decided to go on a different tangent! This film is about a crew that lands on Mars and finds some special life force. While they are there they loose contact with earth and some other people are sent to Mars to rescue them. Pretty simple plot and nothing really to get excited about. The acting in this movie is ok as well but once again nothing special. Up until then Mission to Mars reminded me alot of Apollo 13. It was quite good but nothing special. Certainly not as good as Apollo 13. If you are after an average space film then you will find this ok. The special effects are good but at the end of the day that does not save this film. Dont expect anything special. This film is average which is a disappointment seeming that so much money was spent on it.

                  Comments

                  Login or register to add comments
                • More +
                  13.09.2000 03:43

                  Advantages

                  Disadvantages

                  I cannot stress this point enough. Do not, if you have any kind of respect for yourself, go to see this film. Acting - terrible, wooden even (Tim Robbins? Why? You did The Shawshank Redemption and The Hudsucker Proxy. I had respect for you. Why?). Script - laughable, risible. A roomful of monkeys typing away may not eventually write a masterpiece, but it sure as hell would be better than this. Storyline - I guess it wanted to be a 2001 for the next generation. Failed. Miserably. I tried to like this movie, I really did. I like Tim Robbins, like a bit of Sci-Fi on me cinema screen. I even like to be made to think deep universe-contemplating thoughts on occasion. But I hated this movie. Don't go see it. Trim your nose hairs instead.

                  Comments

                  Login or register to add comments
              • Product Details

                If Brian De Palma directed Mission to Mars for 10-year-olds who have never seen a science fiction film, he can be credited for crafting a marginally successful adventure. Isolated moments in this film serve the highest purpose of its genre, inspiring a sense of wonder and awe in the context of a fascinating future (specifically, the year 2020). But because most of us have seen a lot of science fiction films, it's impossible to ignore this one's derivative plot, cardboard characters and drearily dumb dialogue. Despite an awesome and painstakingly authentic display of cool technology and dazzling special effects, Mission to Mars is light years away from 2001: A Space Odyssey on the scale of human intelligence.After dispensing with a few space-jockey clichés, the movie focuses on a Mars-bound rescue mission commanded by Jim McConnell (Gary Sinise), whose team (Tim Robbins, Connie Nielsen, Jerry O'Connell) has been sent to retrieve the sole survivor (Don Cheadle) of a tragic Mars landing. During the sequence en route to Mars, De Palma is in his element with two suspenseful scenes (including a dramatic--albeit somewhat silly--space walk) that are technically impressive. But when this Mission gets to Mars, the movie grows increasingly unconvincing, finally arriving at an alien encounter that more closely resembles an astronomical CGI video game. But this is a $75 million Hollywood movie, and no amount of technical wizardry can lift the burden of a juvenile screenplay. Kudos to Sinise, his co-stars, and the special effects wizards for making the most of hoary material; shame on just about everyone else involved. --Jeff Shannon, Amazon.com