From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Mar 6 12:33:15 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newsfeed.direct.ca!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: "R.L. Strong" Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 5 Mar 2000 19:31:52 GMT Organization: SBC Internet Services Lines: 126 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <89ucn8$hfpc$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer35.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 952284712 573228 (None) 140.142.17.38 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23391 Keywords: author=strong X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer35.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22485 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2624 "Mission to Mars" review by R.L. Strong ** stars out of ***** The realm of Science Fiction has always been an allegory of political and or moral sensibilities. The best tales of the genre deal with mankind's struggle for survival or knowledge. Such popular and noteworthy tomes as "Stranger in a Strange Land" by Robert Heinlein, "Childhood's End" by Arthur C. Clarke and "Man in the High Castle" and "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" by Philip K. Dick all deal with man's need for identity and struggle for self worth. Hollywood has regularly adapted the milieu (if not the message) of Science Fiction since it's beginnings. Most films just created fancy pulp tales with no more thought that the escapism they achieved. It really wasn't until Producer George Pal, took charge of Robert Heinlein's novel "Rocketship Galileo" and crafted the film "Destination Moon", that 'Sci-Fi' (as it is commonly referred to), came into it's own. From there, such diverse filmmakers as Roger Corman to Stanley Kubrick, have sought to express ideas through the medium of the genre. With the release of Touchstone Pictures "Mission to Mars", we have an unabashedly nonchalant Sci-Fi film for those who read The National Enquirer and The Globe. The film opens on a summer barbecue, as Phil Ohlmyer (Jerry O'Connell) woos a young female with his tales of space glory and the upcoming mission. Woody Blake (Tim Robbins) and his wife Terri (Connie Nielsen) commit to his coming authority on the mission, and Luc Goddard (Don Cheadle) consoles his son. Entering the party is Jim McConnell (Gary Sinise), who gave up command of the mission due to the untimely death of his wife, Maggie (Kim Delaney). Luc consoles Jim with Woody's assistance. The three men are friends and carry a fine bond of trust and caring between them. But Jim still longs to set foot on the Red Planet. The mission is in earnest as Luc and his team land in the Cydonia region of Mars. They send out the rover to investigate the area and discover what seems to be water or ice under the surface. Going out to investigate, Luc and his team approach the famed 'Face on Mars'. A strange noise emanates from the rock. As the team tries to scan through the rock with radar, a violent wind storm erupts, creating a vortex that kills all members of the team, save for Luc. Back on the space station orbiting Earth, Woody and Jim receive the information that the Mars landing team is missing. Luc's interference laden emergency message urges the two men to attempt a second mission to the red planet in the hopes of rescuing the previous team. The second journey to the Martian world is fraught with danger. Meteorite showers, explosions, and rescues all come into play as the intrepid heroes make there way to the planet's surface. The big question is, is there now or has there ever been intelligent life on Mars. And if so, what is its relationship with us? Now for the bad news. The entire plot of "Mission to Mars" is based almost wholeheartedly on outdated and preposterous National Enquirer type Martian civilization tripe. The famed 'Face on Mars' becomes the centerpiece of the film, revealing some of the most harebrained sci-fi pabulum the screen has witnessed. Borrowing ideas from such films as "Robinson Crusoe on Mars" (1964), Quatermass and the Pit (1967), "2001: A Space Odyssey", and even Mario Bava's "Planet of the Vampires"('Terrore nello spazio') (1965), "Mission to Mars" is a hodgepodge of ideas that don't add up to a satisfying whole. While some sequences are wonderfully handled and executed, the film remains flat and un-involving. So much time is giving to establishing the lead characters in the film, but to no good use. The performances are all workmen like, with only Don Cheadle (as Luc) carrying any sort of real chemistry. Gary Sinise is wasted in role that requires him to look as if he is experiencing sleep depravation. And the mistaken idea of having Jerry O'Connell (as Phil Ohlmyer) play his part for comic relief is just too painful to excuse. And the less said about Tim Robbins called in from home performance the better. He's just having too much fun here to give a damn. The script has a few lapses, namely that after discovering several breaches in the hull of the ship caused by a meteorite shower, no one thinks of checking the fuel tanks or the remainder of the ship for damage. This of course leads to our heroes having to abandon their rescue ship. Also, when one character sacrifices himself, the character takes on a religious demeanor that is completely at odds with the situation. But the biggest offence in the film is the horrid, intrusive score by Ennio Morricone. Subtlety is non-existent here. In fact in some scenes the music becomes so extravagant that dialogue is almost drowned out. The only sequence in which the score almost works is during the protracted meteorite shower. The pacing of the film is very leisurely. After the opening introduction of the characters (which lasts a full 22 minutes), we are finally dropped onto the Martian surface. Then, there is another long pause in the plot for more character development, including an elaborate dance sequence in zero gravity. The film could lose about 30 minutes and actually gain some momentum. There are so many scenes of talking heads, discussing what we already know is going to happen, that it drags the film to a dead stop. The good news is that the film is absolutely sumptuous to look at. The vistas of the planet Mars are majestic and awe inspiring. The design of the numerous spacecraft and suits are all expertly drafted, with a level of realism that hasn't been seen since "2001: A Space Odyssey". The visual effects are just stunning, from the space walk sequences, to the visualization of evolution on Earth. The only fault come with the Martians themselves, which look more like something out of a plastic model kit than something from another world. Director De Palma stages some wonderfully creative scenes through out the film. The opening sequence alone in a seemingly un-interrupted cut lasting almost 15 minutes (an homage' to Hitchcock's "Rope"), as we are introduced to all of the characters. Scenes in the rescue ship, with its rotating centrifuge, are just amazing in their execution. But the nagging question, is the final explanation worth all of this Sturm und Drang. Sadly it is not. Director Brian De Palma has crafted an extravagant production. The set design and visual effects are all arresting. But it's the comic strip denouncement that ruin what might have been a fine return to good adventurous, thought provoking science fiction. A disappointing film, but one that might still entertain if you can settle for the visuals. © 2000 R.L. Strong www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Makeup/5594/reviews.main From rec.arts.sf.reviews Wed Mar 8 12:10:33 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!uio.no!arclight.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: Christopher Null Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 8 Mar 2000 07:19:39 GMT Organization: filmcritic.com Lines: 80 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8a4uub$58bc$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer08.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 952499979 172396 (None) 140.142.17.37 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23462 Keywords: author=null X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer08.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22553 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2638 MISSION TO MARS A film review by Christopher Null Copyright 2000 filmcritic.com filmcritic.com MISSION TO MARS starts out with so much promise, it's hard to believe it could be anything but successful. The film has already taken a lot of flack for appearing to be a ripoff of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, but maybe, I thought, it would transcend Kubrick's early sci-fi drama and put a new spin on things. Maybe blend it with a little ARMAGEDDON - you know, do the space movie right for once. In 2020, the first manned mission to Mars is about to launch. Under the command of Luke Graham (Don Cheadle), the craft lands without a hitch, and within days they've made a startling discovery. A little radar probing turns up a strange metal just under the surface of Mars, and a mysterious disaster quickly wipes out the crew. Enter Commander Woody Blake (Tim Robbins), his wife Terri (Connie Nielsen), co-pilot Jim McConnell (Gary Sinise), and goofy scientist Phil Ohlmyer (Jerry O'Connell), and it's rescue time: ARMAGEDDON, full throttle. Uh-oh, problems on the rescue ship. Now it's time for some APOLLO 13 action. Tense drama ensues, which isn't half bad. But things don't turn out so hot, and just as quickly we're thrown into a space ROBINSON CRUSOE. With a handful of survivors on the red planet, they figure they'll do a bit of investigating since, you know, they're *there* and all. In a matter of hours, McConnell's got the secrets figured out and *wham!* we're into CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND. (Here's a hint straight from the movie's dialogue: "They are us. We are them." Yes, I'm serious.) Which takes us straight into CONTACT, and from there we degenerate into every bad Disney movie ever made. From the god-awful organ soundtrack alone, you'll think you've landed dead smack in the middle of THE LITTLE MERMAID. But in space. If my rampant sarcasm hasn't clued you in yet, MISSION TO MARS is so unredeemably bad it drew ribald laughter during its Seriously Dramatic Moments and horrendous booing over the closing credits. The acting is so wooden it might as well have been performed by marionettes. The script is so awful I have trouble believing it was not written by primates. The unintentional humor in MISSION TO MARS can certainly make for a lively time at the movie theater, but it's hardly a reason to pay money to watch this disaster on celluloid. If Disney wanted to make this a comedy, they should have taken this advice: Try casting Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Janeane Garofalo, and Jason Alexander as our space heroes. Now *that* would be a mission to Mars. RATING: * [LOWEST RATING] |------------------------------| \ ***** Perfection \ \ **** Good, memorable film \ \ *** Average, hits and misses \ \ ** Sub-par on many levels \ \ * Unquestionably awful \ |------------------------------| MPAA Rating: PG Director: Brian De Palma Producer: Tom Jacobson Writer: Jim Thomas, John Thomas, Graham Yost Starring: Gary Sinise, Don Cheadle, Connie Nielsen, Jerry O'Connell, Kim Delaney, Tim Robbins http://www.missiontomars.com/ --- Christopher Null - null@filmcritic.com - http://www.filmcritic.com From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Mar 13 12:45:56 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!skynet.be!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!nuq-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!sea-feed.news.verio.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: wkwork@airmail.net (W. Keith Work) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Mission to Mars Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 12 Mar 2000 19:12:37 GMT Organization: Airnews.net! at Internet America Lines: 53 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8agq75$gdue$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer11.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 952888357 538574 (None) 140.142.17.39 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23534 Keywords: author=work X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Abuse-Reports-To: abuse at airmail.net to report improper postings Originator: grahams@homer11.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22596 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2653 Take every science fiction or NASA cliché and pack them all into a movie about Gary Sinise staring longingly at films of his dead wife and you'll have Mission to Mars. >From the opening scene, I knew something was dreadfully wrong. We start at the going away party from The Right Stuff where astronauts poke fun at each other's piloting skills just to prove how cool they are. The NASA wives are there grousing around their barbecue. Cut to the scene in Apollo 13 where daddy explains to his boy how far away Mars is and how long it takes to get there. We're introduced to the characters (just like it says in Script Writing for Dummies) - the token black guy (Don Cheadle), the grizzled captain (Tim Robbins), the grounded ace just dying to get back in the saddle (Gary Sinise), etc, etc... You've seen them all before. And the intro wraps up with Robbins giving a heartfelt "Godspeed." He actually says it. Then Cheadle goes to Mars (which looks exactly like a Hollywood set - perfect lighting and all) where the crew watches calmly while a tornado looks around and sucks them in. Hallelujah the first act is over. The second consists of a series of completely contrived and highly improbable difficulties that serve no purpose whatsoever. On the rescue trip, we encounter the floating blood from Star Trek as well as that strange dramatic device known as 'jargon.' Incomprehensible technical problems are put before the audience and we're told it's highly risky and may not work! Then we're told it did and we should be happy and feel closer to the characters as a result. We also get treated to a 20 minute musical montage every time a character has a bad thought. Sinise's wife is dead and he, traveling with a married couple to further deepen his depression, insists on watching every home movie of her that he owns. Where did they get the payload capacity for all this ridiculous sentimentalism? After this we're witness to one of those scenes that's so laughable it's almost worth the price of admission - four astronauts free floating through space on what is obviously a set piece while they all line up perfectly like conga dancers for one of those 50's space movie stills. Finally, they arrive and spend hours dragging a pack through the sand instead of finding their missing crew. Once he is found they investigate the source of the tornado thing from earlier and rip off 2001 in an effort at more preachy sentimentalism. The alien actually sheds a single tear! Then they finally add even more insult to the injury they've put us through when Sinise has some hoaky religious experience while his life flashes before his eyes. The final rip off is from Close Encounters, but I'll spare you. God only knows how this film got made. And with big names too. Suffice it to say that I saw this one so you don't have to. ----------------------------- To reply via email, remove "SPAMMENOT" from the address. From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Mar 13 12:45:56 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!news-FFM2.ecrc.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams ~From: Scott Renshaw ~Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews ~Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies ~Date: 10 Mar 2000 05:26:31 GMT Organization: None ~Lines: 94 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8aa127$gdqm$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer13.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 952665991 538454 (None) 140.142.17.35 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23473 Keywords: author=renshaw X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer13.u.washington.edu ~Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22577 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2647 MISSION TO MARS (Touchstone) Starring: Gary Sinise, Tim Robbins, Don Cheadle, Connie Nielsen, Jerry O'Connell. Screenplay: Jim Thomas & John Thomas and Graham Yost. Producer: Tom Jacobson. Director: Brian DePalma. MPAA Rating: PG (profanity, violence, adult themes) Running Time: 113 minutes. Reviewed by Scott Renshaw. A few months ago, I was at a press screening for another Touchstone film which was preceded by a teaser trailer for MISSION TO MARS. As the trailer unfolded, the critics in the audience began to snicker with increasing frequency. The imagery used was startling similar to images from 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY -- an astronaut in a white room, an approach to a dark object in the distance, a figure spinning off into space. It was comical not just because of the familiarity, but because it seemed so quintessentially Brian De Palma. This was, after all, the director who had built a 25 year career on cribbing from his most talented predecessors. The train station sequence in THE UNTOUCHABLES came from Eisenstein's POTEMKIN; the single-take opening sequence in SNAKE EYES felt like Welles' TOUCH OF EVIL; whole heaping chunks of his early films appropriated Hitchcockian devices and themes. So why wouldn't De Palma take on the most iconic science-fiction film ever made while making his first science-fiction film? Why not add Kubrick to his list of victims of auteur homage? To be fair, MISSION TO MARS the film is not nearly as similar to 2001 as the trailers might lead you to fear. It's more alarming that it's similar to the cookie-cutter Hollywood approach to any story. The film focuses primarily on the aftermath of the first manned mission to Mars in the year 2020. After an unexplainable phenomenon kills the rest of his crew, Mission Commander Luke Graham (Don Cheadle) sends a cryptic message back to mission control. That message sets in motion a recovery mission led by Commander Woody Blake (Tim Robbins) and pilot Jim McConnell (Gary Sinise), both close friends of Graham. The recovery team members face their own perils on the way to the Red Planet, risking their lives to discover its mysterious secret. The frustrating thing about any Brian De Palma film is that you can always count on at least one extended sequence where you realize what a brilliant technical craftsman he can be. That sequence in MISSION TO MARS comes about halfway through the film, a 20-minute stretch following an accident in which the recovery craft starts losing atmosphere. A chain reaction of events following that accident keeps building tension, leading to some genuinely tense moments. De Palma's sense for timing this sort of sequence is impeccable -- recall the editing of Tom Cruise's computer room break-in in MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE -- leading to the hope that MISSION TO MARS can maintain that sort of visual and emotional energy. And then you remember this is Brian De Palma. Every once in a while, by sheer twisted accident, De Palma ends up working with a rich, smart script -- THE UNTOUCHABLES, BLOW OUT, CARLITO'S WAY. More often, you get the impression that he looks for a script with a few places he can show off his visual flair. MISSION TO MARS has its showcase sequence, but it also has a leaden script full of plug-and-play characterizations. Sinise's McConnell is portrayed as haunted by the death from cancer of his beloved wife/fellow astronaut ("NYPD Blue's" Kim Delaney in flashback); Cheadle gets a sensitive moment with his anxious son on the night before his departure. It's the sort of mawkish back-story screenwriters use all the time in adventure films, in a token -- and usually futile -- attempt to show that the people matter more than the concept. Ironically, MISSION TO MARS is that rare case where the concept does matter more than the people. Kubrick understood that 2001 was about the mysteries of the universe and the flight of the entire human race, not just whether Dave Bowman was torn up over his personal tragedies. When MISSION TO MARS gets metaphysical, it makes sure there's someone on hand to narrate every brutally obvious revelation, and someone whose individual journey to wholeness will be completed by this close encounter. This film doesn't end with the awe of creation; it ends with tedious exposition topped off by an interplanetary clasping of hands. There are flashes of Brian De Palma the visceral thrill-master in MISSION TO MARS, but he doesn't seem to know what to do with its limp conclusion. This time around, he opts not to rip-off a master. This time around, it probably would have been a good idea. On the Renshaw scale of 0 to 10 space idiocies: 5. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Visit Scott Renshaw's Screening Room http://www.inconnect.com/~renshaw/ *** Subscribe to receive new reviews directly by email! See the Screening Room for details, or reply to this message with subject "Subscribe". -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Mar 13 12:45:56 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gctr.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams ~From: Jon Popick ~Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews ~Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies ~Date: 10 Mar 2000 05:26:48 GMT Organization: Planet Sick-Boy ~Lines: 70 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8aa12o$dsqq$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer09.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 952666008 455514 (None) 140.142.17.38 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23475 Keywords: author=popick X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer09.u.washington.edu ~Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22578 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2648 PLANET SICK-BOY: http://www.sick-boy.com "We Put the SIN in Cinema" If you’re going into Mission to Mars expecting an Armageddon-like testosterone fest, think again. It’s more of a cerebral space flick, closer to 2001: A Space Odyssey and Contact than Independence Day. Mars is rated “PG,” so the violence is relatively tame, but there are enough edge-of-your-seat, nail-biting scenes to make it worthwhile. In Armageddon, you had a pretty good idea that everything would work out and that the Earth would be saved, but one of Mars’ best features is its unpredictability. Mars opens in 2020 on the eve of a groundbreaking mission to the red planet. The first-of-its-kind journey will take six months each way, with the crew spending a full year on the surface of Mars. During the opening party scene celebrating the impending mission, Mars introduces us to the main characters of the film. There’s the husband/wife team of Woody Blake (Tim Robbins, Arlington Road) and Terri Fisher (Connie Nielsen, Soldier) and the husband/dead wife team of Jim and Maggie McConnell (Gary Sinise, Reindeer Games and Kim Delaney, NYPD Blue). The idea of NASA allowing married couples to participate in the same missions is preposterous, and Mars’ writers brush the issue off like an insignificant complaint. Other characters include Luke Goddard (Don Cheadle, The Rat Pack) and Phil Ohlmyer (Jerry O'Connell, Body Shots), the latter of whom seems way too thick to be involved with space travel. When the party scene ends, Mars quickly flashes forward thirteen months, where the four-man Mars crew has already landed and set up their base camp on an area of the fourth planet called Cydonia. Using a remote-controlled mini-rover, they see a strange triangular mass on the top of a mountain. When the crew tries to bounce radar off of the mysterious object, it gets all angry and creates that red sand vortex thing that you’ve probably seen in the film’s trailer (and last year in The Mummy, but who’s counting?). Casualties ensue, and a rescue mission is immediately launched from the World Space Station to save the remaining member(s). The rescue mission, which is supposed to take six months, is catastrophically doomed, as well. They have to land on Mars during a huge sandstorm, which seems pretty scary since I don’t even like to land at LaGuardia when it’s drizzling. I won’t reveal which characters are in each mission because that would ruin the surprise of who gets bumped off. And it is kind of surprising. Also shocking is the fact that when the rescue mission lands, the survivor(s) are all disheveled and unshaven. Like they wouldn’t have brought razors for the original two-year mission. Mars was directed by Brian De Palma (Snake Eyes) and penned by a hodgepodge of screenwriters (Jim and John Thomas, Wild Wild West and Graham Yost, Hard Rain). The script is pretty well developed, fully focusing on the crew and their mission. In fact, the only non-space scene in the film is the opening party shot. You don’t see the launch, you don’t see what I imagine would be incredible media hype surrounding the mission, and you don’t see any grieving wives and children. What's more, you don’t even know if anyone on Earth is privy to the deep space predicament. Adding to the glossy sheen of Mars are cinematographer Stephen H. Burum (an Oscar nominee for Hoffa), editor Paul Hirsch (Oscar winner for Star Wars) and scoremeister Ennio Morricone (recent Golden Globe winner for The Legend of 1900). De Palma shows why he’s one of the more experienced directors around with just one long scene that takes place in a rotating, no-gravity portion of the rescue ship. Mars’ special effects are solid and the sound is particularly amazing. It may not make you ponder the meaning of Man’s existence, but you should still be entertained. 1:49 - PG for violence and mild adult situations From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Mar 13 12:45:56 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams ~From: Jered J Floyd ~Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews ~Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies ~Date: 10 Mar 2000 05:27:48 GMT Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology ~Lines: 76 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8aa14k$dsta$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer14.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 952666068 455594 (None) 140.142.17.37 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23483 Keywords: author=floyd X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer14.u.washington.edu ~Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22583 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2649 MISSION TO MARS Review by Jered Floyd Rating: 0 (of 10) What would have happened if "2001" wasn't made until after Arthur C. Clarke dies? See "Mission to Mars" and find out. Better yet, if you don't see one movie this season, don't see this one. From the excessive product placement starting in the first scene, to the recap at the end (in case you forgot all of the films atrocities), this movie is an unmitigated disaster. The only thing that made it worth my time was that I saw it in a room full of fellow MIT students who were shamelessly mocking the movie the entire time. I hardly know where to begin. This movie starts out promising (except for the glaring product placements from Isuzu, Dr. Pepper, etc.), at a slow but even-keeled pace to introduce the characters and their emotional backgrounds. Then everything starts to go wrong. An exploration team on Mars sets off what appears to be an ancient booby-trap, almost certainly killing all four members. Instead of calmly planning a next move, the team on the World Space Station swings into action to form an emergency rescue team to leave the next day, even though it will take 13 months to travel to Mars. Are you following this logic? On the way to Mars, the rescue team encounters contrived incident after contrived incident. An encounter with a micrometeorite field serves to show that not a single one of the characters is in control of themselves, let alone remotely qualified to be an astronaut. As oxygen leaks from their ship, the computer voice announces the falling oxygen in a slower and slower voice, as somehow this has forced the ship's computer to fail. I fully expected to begin to hear the strains of "A Bicycle Built For Two" from the dying computer. With lines like "Has the reboot sequence been tested? Are you kidding? These computers are too expensive to test!", screenwriter Jim Thomas shows that he still has no understanding of technology, even after his last disaster "Wild Wild West". Alas, the pain doesn't end there. The script goes on to ignore biology as well, mysteriously representing DNA as a double helix of double strands, and bandying around terms like "chromosome" in the same way that Star Trek uses "tachyon inverter". The plot is barely sensible; a terrible attempt to capitalize on better SF such as "2001" and "Contact." All through the film I grasped at straws to find any redeeming feature of this film at all. I failed. The many of the graphics were amateurish by today's standards, and generally did little to advance the film. The cinematography and direction were utterly nonsensical at times, even for Brian De Palma. Incongruous cuts and absurd segues were the norm. And then there is the tragedy that was the soundtrack. At its best, the soundtrack faded into the background. At its worst, it stuck out like sore thumb pierced by a micrometeorite. From demonic organ music to frentic oboes to melodramatic harps, this movie had it all... especially when it least fits in. The sad thing is, the genre will be judged based on movies like this. If this movie flops, the studios will claim that there isn't a market for science fiction, and the genre will suffer just a little bit more. As a friend commented afterwards, "Howard the Duck" was a better movie. It was at least trying to be funny. This movie scores a big zero from me, not merely on the basis that it was bad, but because the people responsible have absolutely no excuse. For shame! ---- Jered Floyd -- jered@mit.edu -- http://www.mit.edu/~jered/ From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Mar 13 12:45:56 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams ~From: "Mac VerStandig" ~Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews ~Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies ~Date: 10 Mar 2000 05:27:23 GMT Organization: None ~Lines: 56 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8aa13r$bfcu$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> ~Reply-To: NNTP-Posting-Host: homer03.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 952666043 376222 (None) 140.142.17.39 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23480 Keywords: author=verstandig X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer03.u.washington.edu ~Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22591 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2651 Mission to Mars 4 Stars (Out of 4) Reviewed by Mac VerStandig critic@moviereviews.org http://www.moviereviews.org March 8, 2000 USA Release Date - March 10, 2000 ---A copy of this review can be found at http://www.moviereviews.org/mission_to_mars.htm --- Mission to Mars is, simply put, an instant popcorn classic. It is a movie to be seen by the masses over and over; the type of production that will be applauded by audiences everywhere despite critics’ reviews and re-released every so often in order for each generation to take in its full big-screen glory. It’s not a new idea - intelligent life elsewhere. Neither is a rescue mission into the dark realms of space nor a patriotic mid-film moment when an American flag is hoisted into alien soil. Actually, very little in Mission to Mars is original at all. It is the combination of these grandiose sci-fi ideas, some of the most mystifying special effects ever produced, and Brian DePalma’s ability to mix what previous directors Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg offered with his own awesome visions, that make this movie so utterly amazing. First, credit the film for not wasting anytime getting started. The only scene in the entire production that takes place on earth is the obligatory opening where the heroes bid their families tearful good-byes. The next setting: Mars, an unlucky 13 months later. Within moments of the four crewmembers landing, a force like none other sweeps them off their feet and tears their puny bodies into thousands of pieces (and yes, the holier-than-now MPAA rated this movie PG!). But the leader, Luc Goddard (Don Cheadle of Boogie Nights fame), transmits an SOS signal following the chaotic fiasco - suggesting that he might still be alive. Soon a rescue mission is underway. So what happened on the red planet? Well, I don’t like to give too much away, but I will share that the folks over at Disney (Touchstone) assigned the following tagline to the film: “For centuries we’ve searched for the origin of human life on Earth. . .We’ve been looking on the wrong planet.” There are plenty of cheesy moments that will give the overly cynical a reason to chuckle; they won’t laugh with the movie, but rather at it. However, those moments are necessary – this is a true epic. The movie wouldn ’t be nearly as powerful, nor as enjoyable, without the hokey romance, last second saves or dramatic connect-the-dots conclusions. Perhaps you will see this film and find yourself among its critics. Perhaps you will snicker with your friends at the overly cheesy moments. Perhaps you will dismiss its likely huge box office income as being akin to that of Titanic. Fine. But I challenge you to wake up the next morning and tell me that you weren’t mystified as you lay in bed that night or that this film hasn’t changed the way you look at the stars. From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Mar 13 12:45:56 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gctr.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams ~From: Ross Anthony ~Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews ~Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies ~Date: 10 Mar 2000 05:29:15 GMT Organization: RossAnthony.com ~Lines: 71 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8aa17b$dsto$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> ~Reply-To: "ross@rossanthony.com" NNTP-Posting-Host: homer11.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 952666155 455608 (None) 140.142.17.35 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23488 Keywords: author=anthony X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer11.u.washington.edu ~Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22568 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2643 Advertising Space Mission to Mars By Ross Anthony What just happened on screen? Here's the best I can make of it: a rather B-script with some G-force actors. In a ten-minute, backyard-BBQ, introductory scene (here on Earth), we meet the astronauts and their families via some gratuitous, expository relationship background and goodbyes. The next thing we know, these folks are on the red planet. "Mission to Mars" is not about getting there. It's about salvaging the mission of the crew that meets with a rather unexpected, unexplainable catastrophe while hanging out collecting rocks one day. Basically, an upside-down tornado slowly builds up force just meters in front of the four earthlings. Yet, they stand calmly as the martian stones between their feet are pulled forward then thrust a kilometer into the atmosphere. What were they thinking? Turn and run to the ship, you silly mammals! >From there, the rest of the film is a rescue mission launched off of the World Space Station as it floats around the solar system. The humans in their little white suits seem projected onto this man-made Mars backdrop, space, or spacecraft -- kind of like Dorothy's gang in OZ. The special effects are garden-variety: most fine to midland, some cheesy, some impressive. A centrifugal gravity chamber of the rescue craft is very nicely simulated. The suits are convincing, but space movies love to put lights inside the astronauts' helmets. It's dark in space, do they really think space-pioneers would appreciate penlights three inches from their cheekbones shining into their eyeballs? Nope, but it sure looks good on film. Lastly, fossil fuels in deep space in the year 2020? Doubtful. Tim Robbins' presence is the only perfect thing about the film. Gary Sinise's performance is also solid. The producer quips, "If we've done our jobs right we'll be one big advertisement for continuation of human space explorations." Hopefully that's true, but concerning claims of advertisement, "Mission to Mars" shows no shame in selling "space" to cola and candy products. Though a few well-delivered one-liners tickled this audience, there were equally as many embarrassingly unintentional gut-busters. Adequately compelling, you may find the hokey "Mission to Mars" slightly insulting to your adult intellect. However, the patient 10-year-old might just worship this movie (if any exist). FYI: Mars is visible to the naked eye in the night sky and it really is red. Mission to Mars. Copyright © 2000. Rated PG. Starring Gary Sinise, Tim Robbins, Don Cheadle, Connie Nielsen, Jerry O'Connell, Peter Outerbridge, Kavan Smith, Jill Teed, Elise Neal, Kim Delaney. Directed by Brian De Palma. Screenplay by Jim Thomas and John Thomas. Produced by Tom Jacobson at Touchstone. Grade..........................B- -- Copyright © 2000. Ross Anthony, currently based in Los Angeles, has scripted and shot documentaries, music videos, and shorts in 35 countries across North America, Europe, Africa and Asia. For more reviews visit: http://RossAnthony.com From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Mar 13 12:45:57 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams ~From: James Sanford ~Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews ~Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies ~Date: 10 Mar 2000 05:29:37 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net ~Lines: 55 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8aa181$dsu2$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer20.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 952666177 455618 (None) 140.142.17.35 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23492 Keywords: author=sanford X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer20.u.washington.edu ~Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22569 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2644 Many science-fiction epics save their best effects for the finale, forcing us to wait 90 minutes for something spectacular to happen. "Mission to Mars," on the other hand, gives us the best it has to offer in its first 30 minutes. That's happy news for people who tend to doze off halfway through a movie, but not for those who like a last-minute jolt on their way out of the theater. What the special effects crew has come up with is truly a marvel: a Martian whirlwind that churns like a tornado, slithers like a snake and growls like a chorus of angry bears. Anything or anyone that gets in its way is sucked in and torn to pieces. It's quite a sight. Unfortunately, in terms of imagination, it's also the high point of the film. The audience spends the next hour eagerly anticipating the appearance of something even more awesome, more frightening. You might as well be waiting for Godot. If it can't deliver much in the way of mind-blowing surprises, "Mars" deserves some credit for at least trying to create a bit of human drama as married astronauts Woody (Tim Robbins) and Terry (Connie Nielsen) lead a rescue team to the red planet after an expedition is nearly wiped out by that mysterious twister. Along for the ride are jokester Phil (Jerry O'Connell) and the subdued, troubled Jim (Gary Sinise), who is still trying to cope with the loss of his wife, also an astronaut. Director Brian DePalma squeezes a considerable amount of suspense out of the problem-plagued journey to Mars -- some of the trials the crew face may remind you of "Apollo 13" -- while incorporating a lot of the dizzying camerawork he's famous for. There's a real shocker of a moment involving Phil and a nicely executed sequence in which one of the quartet makes a slip-up and ends up adrift in space. The dialogue is often overwrought ("What are you doing?!" "I'll tell you what I'm not doing -- watching you die!"), but that's hardly uncommon in these kinds of adventures and it doesn't diminish the tension. The screenplay by Jim Thomas, John Thomas and Graham Yost has used up all its best ideas, however, by the time the third act begins. After a lengthy and portentous build-up, what the rescuers discover on Mars seems truly anti-climactic, although it should put a smile on the faces of the Weekly World News staff who've long speculated about that odd "face" on the Martian surface. The big revelation about the origins of life seems to have been pulled directly from those pop-science "Chariots of the Gods" books that were all the rage in the 1970s and, without giving too much away, let's just say you'll certainly sense the hand of Disney in the last reel. "Mars" is further undercut by a organ and string-saturated musical score by Ennio Morricone that might have been appropriate for a Barbra Streisand vehicle but sounds woefully out of place here. Instead of lifting us up, it flattens us nearly every step of the way, particularly in the last few minutes. Aside from "Obsession" and "The Untouchables," DePalma has usually been a director more intrigued by sensationalism than by sentiment and that comes through clearly in "Mars." It's evident he's more excited and inspired by the danger of the trip than by the destination itself. In "Mission to Mars," getting there isn't half the fun, it's almost all the fun. James Sanford From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Mar 13 12:45:57 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!news-peer-europe.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams ~From: "Berge Garabedian" ~Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews ~Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies ~Date: 10 Mar 2000 05:29:10 GMT Organization: None ~Lines: 84 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8aa176$4g5k$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer14.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 952666150 147636 (None) 140.142.17.38 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23487 Keywords: author=garabedian X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer14.u.washington.edu ~Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22574 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2646 MISSION TO MARS RATING: 4 /10 --> This movie sucks For more reviews and movie news, visit http://www.joblo.com/ So what do you get when you mix together plot elements from various successful sci-fi films such as CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, APOLLO 13 and CONTACT? Well, whatever it is, you'd sure as hell hope that it would be a thousand times better than this shoddy attempt at such a melange, considering the disastrous results we're left with here. This is a film that takes a little bit of everything, but ultimately adds up to a lot of nothing! It's like I said...this movie sucks. PLOT: A rescue crew of astronauts is sent down to Mars in the year 2020, after an unknown energy force leads to a loss of contact with the previous gang of space aviators to visit the red planet. CRITIQUE: Extremely underwhelming is the best way to describe this movie. Uneven, would be another. The trailer for this movie actually showed some promise, the buzz around it had been so-so, and even the film itself starts off with a decent first twenty minutes, all leading you to believe that it's actually going to go "somewhere". But it isn't long before the entire movie downshifts into neutral, features more space walks than anything interesting on the cherry-colored planet, tries too hard to get us into the "pain" of some its characters and unsuccessfully tosses some romance into the mix. In a sci-fi movie? Well, I don't know, much of it just seemed like a bunch of nerdies talking techie jargon for about an hour and a half, only to figure out some big secret in the end, a secret which practically had me yawning with excitement. Ultimately, this is a movie that starts off with a decent premise, joins the crew in their "misadventures in space" for the main crux of its journey, and eventually settles down for one of the most anti-climactic endings this side of CONTACT. Mind you, if you enjoyed that film's shrug-of-the-shoulders ending, you might just enjoy this frivolous ditty as well. Of course, I don't remember CONTACT having such obvious and painfully distracting computer generated effects at its end of story. Ugh. What a friggin' mess. Films like this generally get me wondering about the brass in Hollywood again. Didn't anybody recognize the crappiness in this script? Didn't they read the bad dialogue, the cheezy lines, the obvious derivative nature of the work (Mind you, with a director like DePalma at the helm, that ain't saying much!). Of course, you can't really blame the brass for the inclusion of Jerry O'Connell in this fine crew of thespians. 'Nuff said. Neither can you blame them for DePalma cranking up the juice on the film's musical score during the last fifteen minutes, presumably in order to wake the audience up (Okay, we get it Brian, this scene is supposed to be powerful...wow...yawn...my ears hurt!). So is anything salvageable in this movie? Sure. Gary Sinise does another great job, as does Cheadle, the film doesn't completely bore you as much as it just moves along slowly without anything really interesting happening, and yes, the "sand-twister" effect that you see in the commercial is well done. Other than that? I guess I could say that I admire how filmmakers have become so much more devious in their product placement strategies...oops, did I say "admire", I meant "am disgusted"! All in all, this movie delivers very little in actual substance, offers two-bit dialogue masked in a lot of sci-fi mumbo-jumbo, pretends to be deep when really it's just sappy, and eventually just settles into an ending which, other than presenting us with a pathetic computer graphic as a part of the story, gives us little more to think about than how we might be able to get our money back for sitting through this rehashed dreck. Go see THE NINTH GATE...now there's a great movie! And on a personal note, I think it's time for DePalma to stop worrying so much about his proverbial 12-minute uninterrupted film sequences, and start worrying more about how crappy his movies are getting. Review Date: March 8, 2000 Director: Brian DePalma Writers: Lowell Cannon, Jim Thomas and John Thomas Producer: Tom Jacobson Actors: Gary Sinise as Jim McConnell Don Cheadle as Luc Goddard Tim Robbins as Woody Blake Jerry O'Connell as Phil Ohlmyer Genre: Science-Fiction Year of Release: 2000 ----------------------------------- JoBlo's Movie Emporium http://www.joblo.com/ ----------------------------------- (c) 2000 Berge Garabedian From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Mar 13 12:45:57 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!oleane.net!oleane!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams ~From: Marty Mapes ~Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews ~Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies ~Date: 10 Mar 2000 05:35:51 GMT Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com ~Lines: 104 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8aa1jn$dspk$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer39.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 952666551 455476 (None) 140.142.17.37 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23499 Keywords: author=mapes X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer39.u.washington.edu ~Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22586 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2650 Mission to Mars A film review by Marty Mapes Copyright 2000 Marty Mapes **1/2 (out of 4) Dear Richard, I know you look at sci-fi movies with a skeptical eye. If the science is wrong because of lazy screenwriters, you get mad. That's why I recommend you don't go see MISSION TO MARS. M2M is set 20 years in the future. Budweiser comes in waxed cardboard boxes, Isuzu builds a single-seat SUV, internal combustion engines are a thing of the past, and NASA is sending the first manned mission to Mars. After a quick introduction to the astronauts and their families, the movie jumps ahead one year, where the first Martian explorers are doing some radar mapping. While investigating a possible source of water, the crew notices the wind start to blow. Soon the wind forms into a giant worm-like dust vortex, which swallows the crew. Earth can't tell what happened, but because of one last desperate signal, it knows three of the four astronauts are dead. Another mission is assembled to rescue the survivor (if there is one) and repair the base camp's systems. They also want to find out just what happened on the surface that day. Richard, I know you're going to see this anyway. At least there are some good qualities to it There are graceful, dizzying scenes of zero-g life onboard and outside the rescue ship. Cinematography, direction, and special effects really came together to produce some beautiful three-dimensional motion. Backing up the great visuals was some impeccable sound editing. In two different scenes the camera circles a room, and the sound of a person's voice or of music circles with it. Home theater DVD geeks will go crazy for this movie. In addition, the screenplay (written by Jim Thomas, John Thomas and Graham Yost) makes an incredibly bold decision that caught me completely by surprise. Naturally, I can't say what it is, but it earned some extra points for its gutsiness. But the movie's science is going to make you mad. One scene crucial to the plot cannot happen. It involves something from the ship drifting back behind it. It's a situation that would only happen if the ship were accelerating, which it isn't. We know it isn't because one of the astronauts just came in from a space walk, and HE didn't drift back. Another part that won't work for you involves DNA. In fact, a LOT of stupid things are said about DNA. Since the movie's climax hinges on the specifics, I won't go into detail. However, I CAN repeat a quote for you that illustrates my point. After glancing at a few dozen protein pairs on a computer model, one of the astronauts says "That DNA looks human!" Finally, with your background in ethics, I think you will dislike the secret behind the dust vortex. The movie tells us why it's there, but the reason it gives doesn't fit with the rest of what we learn. I won't say too much now, but when the movie is over and you think about it, you'll be disappointed. But even WITHOUT the flaws in science and ethics, M2M is really not a very good movie. There were two corny scenes of exposition that were almost intolerably bad. The first happens at the beginning when Jim (Gary Sinise), sharing an emotional moment with the guys, brings up his dead wife. The second happens when Jim and Woody (Tim Robbins) put together their rescue plan, sounding like some 8-year-old's idea of a heroic spaceman. The film's payoff was equally bad. After taking us on a journey across millions of miles, the movie ends with an idea that is neither original, nor exciting, nor thought-provoking. In fact, if you've seen a few trailers, then you've seen just about everything. But I'm sure you'll go see it for yourself anyway. If and when you do, drop me a line and let me know what you thought. I say it a disappointment, but I'm not sorry I saw it. Hope all is well with you. Give my best to your wife. Sincerely, Marty Mapes -- ___________ Marty Mapes mmapes@moviehabit.com Movie Habit http://www.moviehabit.com "You ever want to be somebody else?" "I'd like to try Porky Pig" -- Peter Fonda & Luke Askew, Easy Rider From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Mar 13 12:45:57 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams ~From: "Sean Molloy" ~Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews ~Subject: Review: Mission To Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies ~Date: 12 Mar 2000 19:10:31 GMT Organization: None ~Lines: 112 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8agq37$gdtu$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer38.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 952888231 538558 (None) 140.142.17.40 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23527 Keywords: author=molloy X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer38.u.washington.edu ~Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22595 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2652 Mission To Mars (** out of ****) Starring Gary Sinise, Connie Nielsen, Tim Robbins Directed By Brian DePalma Buena Vista Pictures, Rated PG, 2000 Running Time: 1 Hour 53 Minutes By Sean Molloy [MEDIUM SPOILERS] "I'm afraid there's a few things in his movie that couldn't quite happen. Having people in space take their helmets off is wonderful drama, but..." - Buzz Aldrin, commenting on Brian DePalma's latest film Mission To Mars Before I begin, I have to admit that I went into Mission To Mars armed with a fairly sharp bias. I'm guilty of reading piles of internet anti-hype and spiteful test-screening reviews. I am not instilled with confidence when I hear that instead of showing up to discuss his film with students at a university's Director's Screening Night, Brian DePalma sent along a piece of paper bearing the words "Hope you have fun!" I'm also guilty of hoping Mission To Mars would end up being something it did not aim to be - an intelligent and original science-fiction film. Everything here has been done before - and done far better - by films like 2001, Close Encounters, The Abyss and Contact. Call this course Intro To Science Fiction, and it's being added to the curriculum about thirty years too late. So, I didn't get what I wanted, it's not the first time... instead of the memorable and thoughtful sci-fi epic I desired, or the flaming heap of Armageddon-style dung I expected, Brian DePalma has delivered a beautifully filmed and occasionally effective space melodrama. The astronauts on this Mission are the kind that watch videos of their dead wives, and shed a tear as she stops to deliver a philosophical soliloquy in the middle of a party. They speak in exposition, relaying in movie-science terms the concept of DNA to one another, as if they think their counterparts didn't graduate from high school. They clue fellow spacemen and spacewomen in on what exactly the mission they've been on for thirteen months is. They have their share of improbable but undeniably suspenseful close calls and near misses. Science and logic are freely traded for drama, usually to some degree of success. There's a effectively moving moment where a character removes his helmet in the depths of space... what occurs then on the screen is far removed from what would have actually happened to the poor bastard. Good thing, since the resulting blood-boiling, explosive mess would probably have marred the dramatic occasion a tad. I probably would have even shed a tear if the depth of character development went beyond "is currently involved in a loving relationship" or "was at one time involved in a loving relationship." The upshot of this void of personality is that the script thankfully manages to sidestep the tired introduction of the "crewmember gone bad." Not a one of them falls prey to the dreaded disorder of space dimentia. Could this be the first space movie to feature a crew that actually gets along with one another? The film's greatest strengths are visual ones... Mission To Mars begins with what appears to be a long, continuous take, exploring a group of people at a party. He did the same exact thing at the beginning of last year's atrocious Snake Eyes, only here, it seems as if he's just trying to establish it as some sort of DePalma trademark, because it's absolutely pointless. The film's second major sequence, however, is an absolute stunner... the unsuspecting crew of one of the Mars teams (led by Don Cheadle) accidentally summons up the wrath of the planet itself - if you've seen a preview for the film, you've probably seen the snake-like dust funnel. It's frightening, and it looks fantastic. And as these events are transpiring on the planet, Mission Control is monitoring them millions of miles away, twenty minutes after they actually happen. It's set up as a potentially nifty story-telling device, but unfortunately nothing ever really comes of it. The rest of the film follows the rescue crew as they try to get themselves to Mars and rescue whoever may have survived... There's some satisfyingly suspenseful moments as, inevitably, things don't go quite as planned. Most of the scenes in space are pretty impressive technical feats. DePalma's camera floats and rotates around the spinning space station with disorienting dexterity, but too often it looks like he's doing it just to show off. And the sweeping rocky vista of Red Planet itself looked, well, just like I'd expect Mars to look. As Fozzie Bear used to say, "Getting There Is Half The Fun." Apparently, he's never been on a mission to Mars... Alas, once our intrepid crew arrives on the Red Planet, What They Find When They Get There is insipid and boring. Cover your ears if you don't care to hear this, but I'm not really giving away more than what's in the trailers... if you've seen a single commercial, I guarantee you already know how the Mission ends. I don't know, maybe I've just read far too many science fiction novels in my time, but for my money, human DNA is probably the least interesting item on the list of "cool, exciting things you can find in space." Mix in "lame computer animation" and combine it with "overwrought emotional dreck," and now you know what Mars' limp secret is. I once played a game on my old Commodore 64 called Zak McKraken and the Alien Mindbenders. It was one of Lucasarts' first comic point-and-click adventures, and it featured astronauts that were headed off to explore that creepy face structure on Mars, much like this daring crew. What they uncovered was a sinister plot concocted by a race of Alien Elvis Impersonators to make the people of Earth terminally stupid. Now that woulda been somethin'. _____________ Media Junkies - Movie reviews, music, books, and more http://www.mediajunkies.com Email: sean@mediajunkies.com From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Mar 20 12:45:40 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.ida.liu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!newsfeed1.funet.fi!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed1.uni2.dk!news.net.uni-c.dk!arclight.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: FilmFan16@aol.com (Dustin Putman) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 11 Mar 2000 17:57:02 GMT Organization: None Lines: 97 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8ae1de$fc84$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer31.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 952797422 504068 (None) 140.142.17.40 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23514 Keywords: author=putman X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer31.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22689 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2665 Mission to Mars * 1/2 (out of * * * * ) Directed by Brian De Palma. Cast: Gary Sinise, Don Cheadle, Connie Nielsen, Tim Robbins, Jerry O'Connell, Peter Outerbridge, Armin Mueller-Stahl, Kavan Smith, Elise Neal, Kim Delaney. 2000 - 112 minutes Rated PG (for violence and mild profanity). Reviewed by Dustin Putman, March 11, 2000. Like so many recent films by Brian De Palma, "Mission to Mars" clearly holds promise, but eventually throws it away for a more conventional and disheartening approach to the material he is working with. Unlike in his early career, when he made several stunning motion picture achievements, such as 1976's "Carrie," 1980's "Dressed to Kill," and 1981's "Blow Out," lately De Palma has been on autopilot, developing a haphazard adaptation of an acclaimed novel (1990's "Bonfire of the Vanities"); an idiotic, disposable serial killer movie (1992's "Raising Cain"); and a stylistically impressive, but substantially empty-headed thriller (1998's "Snake Eyes"). Even his 1996 box-office hit, "Mission: Impossible," was a film that left audiences scratching their heads as to what exactly it was about. With "Mission to Mars," De Palma has entered, for the first time, into blatant hack territory, as he dwells too often on melodramatic situations involving characters we don't care about, and goes right over the deep end with a conclusion that caused me to feel sticky afterwards--from all the cheese, that is. Aiming a little higher in the outer space genre, as there are no evil aliens or slimy space creatures to be found, "Mission to Mars" begins at a picnic on Earth for the families of NASA workers who are about to launch up into the great big, blue sky. While it is appreciated that screenwriters Jim Thomas, John Thomas, and Graham Yost opted to show the astronomers' family life before the space mission takes off, it tuns out to (1) be pointless filler, since the other family members are never seen or heard from again following the fifteen minute prologue, and (2) feature terribly arbitrary dialogue that even I wouldn't have the guts to write down on paper. Switch forward 13 months, a 4-person crew sent to Mars to investigate an anomaly turns tragic when a violent funnel arises and eats all but one: Luke Graham (Don Cheadle). Sending an SOS to a space station millions of miles away, several of the head passengers turn out to be friends with Luke, including space cowboy Jim McConnell (Gary Sinise), still grieving over the untimely death of his wife (Kim Delaney, shown fleetingly in flashbacks); the spousal team of Woody Blake (Tim Robbins) and Terri Fisher (Connie Nielsen); and Phil Ohlmyer (Jerry O'Connell), whom we learn nothing about so I have nothing to say concerning him. Problems ensue on their mission to Mars, until they finally make it to the red planet, where it becomes increasingly evident that there is, in fact, other intelligent life in the universe. For a movie that is supposed to be an adventure, never before have I seen a big-budget picture so absolutely laid back in its style. Whenever something troublesome comes up, the film remains slow-moving, as if the lack of gravity has also taken away the oxygen in the characters' brains. Even in certain life-or-death situations, they are constantly calm and collect, and De Palma takes great pains in creating tension and suspense (which he occasionally does achieve) without any action at all (save for the awe-inspiring funnel sequence at the 20-minute mark, which, sorry to say, folks, is as exciting as this film ever gets). For the opening half, "Mission to Mars" was a relatively enjoyable, if problematic, motion picture. Even if they were underwritten, I liked some of the characters, particularly husband-and-wife Woody and Terri, whom Tim Robbins and Connie Nielsen successfully project the feeling that they are in love with each other. There are also three great scenes--the aforementioned funnel death setpiece; one in which there is a leak somewhere in their spacecraft, causing them to slowly lose oxygen; and another in which a key character accidentally overshoots their aim outside the ship, causing him/her to hurl out into space to the point of no return. 'Abysmal' is the best adjective to describe the latter half of "Mission to Mars." In place of the previous tautness is a treacly encounter with an extraterrestrial (who looks about as realistic as Wiley Coyote), followed by a sap-inducing vomit bag of a finale that, if the movie hasn't lost you before this, will most certainly run right off the tracks for you here. Amidst it all is the eventual answer to the origin of life on Earth, which, I guess, is passable, but certainly nothing earthshakingly original or profound. Special mention should go to Ennio Morricone's laughably bad score which, at times, is so overwhelmingly soap opera-ish within scenes that aren't even dramatic that it elicited at least a couple laughs from me throughout. The organ music (yes, you heard that right) is a little better, and certainly the most unconventional element of the film, but it still seems out of place. Since some of the actors are big talents, even when they are simply cashing paychecks (as they are doing in "Mission to Mars") they still equip themselves admirably. What isn't admirable is their choice to make this picture at all, which holds nothing in the way of inventiveness (it's all been seen before, in one way or the other, in such superior films as 1968's "2001: A Space Odyssey" and 1977's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"), and everything in the way of corniness. "Mission to Mars" isn't exactly a dull experience, but it is a monotonous one, because the capabilities it so obviously holds is put to zero good use. - Copyright 2000 by Dustin Putman Http://www.young-hollywood.com Http://www.atnzone.com From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Mar 20 12:45:46 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.ida.liu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!uninett.no!newsfeed1.telia.no!masternews.telia.net!newsfeed101.telia.com!newsrouter.euroconnect.net!newspeer.ebone.net!sunqbc.risq.qc.ca!arclight.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: "Stephen Graham Jones" Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 11 Mar 2000 17:57:42 GMT Organization: None Lines: 65 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8ae1em$cr8g$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> Reply-To: "stephen graham jones" NNTP-Posting-Host: homer09.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 952797462 421136 (None) 140.142.17.35 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23519 Keywords: author=jones X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer09.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22696 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2666 Mission to Mars: Houston, we have a problem Aliens taught us that in space, no one can hear you scream. Mission to Mars teaches us something a little closer to home: that in the theatre, everyone can hear you scream. That's about the only fitting response to something like this, though. Quite simply, Mission to Mars played a lot better as a trailer--where things don't have to make sense--than full-length. It does have one cool effects shot (that dust tornado), but other than that it's just Contact and Total Recall meet 2001 and Sphere at Apollo 13's pad and sit down to watch some Abyss. And not even the director's version, either. Not that they pay much attention, anyway . . . The year is 2020. We know this because the Isuzu's look different. And the mission is of course that first jump to the red planet. Remember all the hoopla a year or two back about the 'face' on Mars? It matters here. First, however, there's months and years of getting there. Though all the time in between is taken care of with subtitles ("X months later," etc), once the dialogue starts trying to account for that missing time, it'll feel like years. Clunky, contrived--the same kind of bad-idea lines Double Jeopardy required to 'account' for Ashley Judd's time in prison. Mission to Mars could have seriously benefited from condensing the action down to a day or two, then presenting the rest out of order. We are a sophisticated audience, after all; we can make sense, don't need everything laid out in obvious cause and effect order. Too, and in large part due to all the forecasting which results from presenting everything in 1-2-3 fashion, it's not at all difficult to figure out who's dying here, who's staying where, all that. I mean, even without Mission to Mars, lots of the developments are cliché by now: did the captain not die in Supernova, in Pitch Black? was it a good idea in Event Horizon to send a grieving spouse into deep space? In addition, all the warm-fuzzy parts of Mission to Mars are cloying, to say the least: zero-grav dances, watching old home movies (per Strange Days), heart-to-hearts with the director of operations, a wholly ridiculous raising-the-flag scene, all that. It doesn't help any that these space-shuttles which the crew inhabits for long long months don't look all that lived in, as Ridley Scott might have done, but instead look as sterile as ever. But that face: is it, as the trailer strongly intimates, our alien ancestors? When we first see it, yes, it does look cool enough to carry us over all the other already-apparent flaws in the movie. The problem is, it just doesn't really get any cooler, ever. I mean, yeah, our 'worthy' survivors here do eventually get inside, but, instead of having that jack up the action any, it's a long releases of tension. Now we know everyone's going to be OK. All that's necessary is the movie has to end for fifteen minutes, fifteen minutes which includes an ill-advised alien (long-finger, crying, a little too benign?) and a really bad answering-machine joke. And this is a movie which includes talent like Gary Sinise, Tim Robbins, Armin Mueller-Stahl? Regrettably, yes. To their credit, their performances are of course nothing less than we'd expect, it's just that what they're performing is perhaps the weakest space-movie to come along in a while. Including the direct-to-video slasher-in-space stuff. The one good thing about Mission to Mars is that DePalma finally rolls the credits at some arbitrary point, and you can leave. If you were careful, too, your fond memories of 2001 will still be intact. Mission to Mars is forgettable enough that that shouldn't be a problem. (c)2000 Stephen Graham Jones, http://www.cinemuck.com From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Mar 20 12:45:49 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newspump.monmouth.com!newspeer.monmouth.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!nuq-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!sea-feed.news.verio.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: Homer Yen Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 17 Mar 2000 03:00:06 GMT Organization: None Lines: 94 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8as73m$ga4u$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer22.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 953262006 534686 (None) 140.142.17.35 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23537 Keywords: author=yen X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer22.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22611 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2654 “Mission to Mars” – Fanciful Space Odyssey by Homer Yen (c) 2000 If you’ve ever seen pictures of Mars and have ever wondered about a fuzzy photograph that resembles a face on the Martian surface, this movie has a colossal idea of what it might just be. What the filmmaker presents is probably wacky in real life. But, I remind you that this film is purely science fiction. The whole objective is to take a wild idea and build around it. Do you remember a recent sci-fi film called “Independence Day?” Then, we were asked to make a leap of faith and to believe in the Roswell UFO incident. If we didn’t want to open our minds to that, then the movie would have collapsed in a heartbeat. As you may know, however, “Independence Day” shattered records at the box office. So, most of us took that leap of faith. Remember, in science-fiction, there is no limit to the imagination, so everyone is free to dream the impossible dream. Director Brian DePalma dreams the impossible dream. And the result is “Mission to Mars,” a fun space odyssey set in the year 2020. Did I say fun? Perhaps you’ve heard all sorts of negative reviews coming in from around the country. Well, I urge you to ignore them and to first ask yourself this question. Did you make that leap of faith in Independence Day? If you did, then take only a slightly larger leap (Martian gravity is less than Earth’s, you know?) and you’ll find yourself enjoying a cosmic cocktail that’s one part rescue mission and one part imagination. The rescue mission arises because of what happens when Cmdr. Luke Graham (Don Cheadle) and his team arrive on Mars. The team discovers a small mountain that seems to be made out of metal. This has Cmdr. Luke baffled, but when they begin a more intense examination of the area, an unnatural force is unleashed. Luke barely manages to send a weak distress call to the World Space Station orbiting Earth before his transmission is lost. On board the station is a handful of Luke’s closest friends and colleagues whom immediately mobilize to begin a rescue operation. Captained by Woody (Tim Robbins), and supported by a crew of three specialists, they ready themselves for the journey to the Red Planet. The crew members include Jim (Gary Senise), who has obsessed over the secrets that Mars might hold; Terri (Connie Nielsen), a strong-willed woman and wife of Woody; and Phil (Jerry O’Connell), a sharp-witted young scientist. Travel to Mars will take many months and will not be uneventful. In a suspenseful and clever sequence, meteor pellets penetrate the ship’s hull, eventually culminating into a catastrophe that makes the “Apollo 13” accident seem like a nosebleed. The gritty astronauts eventually do make their way to the planet surface and discover some fascinating information. This is where you are asked to make the leap of faith. The remainder of the film moves away from the rescue component and now dabbles with the metaphysical. I had no problems with where the film was going, and to be honest, the experience can be described as a trip to a really cool planetarium where we are given a Discovery Channel-esque presentation. And this is the turning point that every moviegoer will come to. If you can’t make the leap, then you’ll find this to be a soppy finale. If you can stay the course, then imagination will reward you. Sure, it could have been much, much more. There could have been better scripts for the characters. The pace of the film could have been more exciting, though it is quite suspenseful. And, some of the concepts could have gone through a reality check. The film also does not chart new frontiers and the ideas may be hokey. But it is a film that establishes good pace, offers great visual effects, and tells a fine fictional tale. Grade: B S: 0 V: 1 L: 0 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Mar 20 12:45:53 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!news-peer-europe.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.cwix.com!nuq-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!sea-feed.news.verio.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: mleeper@lucent.com (Mark R Leeper) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 17 Mar 2000 03:00:24 GMT Organization: None Lines: 104 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8as748$ial8$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer33.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 953262024 600744 (None) 140.142.17.35 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23540 Keywords: author=leeper X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer33.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22613 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2655 MISSION TO MARS A film review by Mark R. Leeper Capsule: Two missions to Mars highlight Brian De Palma's first foray into science fiction. The film borrows heavily from older space exploration films but still manages to stroke our sense of wonder with strange structures which have stranger behaviors. The film falters a little in the final reel, but generally is entertaining and even exciting. Rating: 7 (0 to 10), low +2 (-4 to +4) HEAVY SPOILERS discussing the ideas follow the main review. In 1950 ROCKETSHIP XM went to Mars and brought back to Earth a secret that might determine the future of the human race. It was the first major film of the 1950s science fiction cycle. ROCKETSHIP XM was early in a sub-genre of space exploration that included FRAU IM MOND, DESTINATION MOON, PROJECT MOONBASE, THE CONQUEST OF SPACE, 12 TO THE MOON, COUNTDOWN, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and possibly CONTACT. These are films that have piqued our sense of wonder. Sadly, we have not seen many of them of late. Science fiction films have gone in other directions with monster films, psychotic killers in space, martial arts, and chases. While MISSION TO MARS makes a few false moves in the final reel, in particular some errors in science, it is a great ride and it brings back the sense of wonder of some of the 1950s space explorations films, back when the sky and the future were limitless. This film begins in the year 2020 with the first mission to Mars. Four people are sent to the planet Mars. The expedition seems to be going well until an unusual formation is noted on a nearby hill. Going to investigate, things go mysteriously and spectacularly wrong. Now there is at most one Mars astronaut alive, Luke Graham (played by Don Cheadle). A second mission is sent to rescue Luke and continue the mission. On this expedition are Jim McConnell (Gary Sinise) and Woody Blake (Tim Robbins wearing the most uncomfortable-looking piece of jewelry I have seen in a long time). Along the way they face some of the problems and dangers we have seen dramatized previously in films, but have not seen since visual effects in films have become so agile. Some of the effects work, particularly motorized vehicles on Mars, do not look well rendered, but elsewhere some of the effects work is quite good. The destruction of the first mission is deliciously eerie. Another novel scene involves an explosion that could only happen in the conditions of space and the special effects to portray the scene are fascinating. What we get is a film with a sort of nostalgic feel but which also has a timely sense as consideration is given to staging a manned mission to Mars. This is Brian De Palma's first science fiction film and he has a healthy respect for the older films. This is a science fiction film without guns and chases. (It is a pity it did not leave out the product placements also.) Gary Sinise is a good actor, but his performance seems a little stilted here. He is playing a man who keeps his emotions bottled up, as does Robbins so we have to infer emotions from the situations. Sinise deserves good roles, but we see little of his talent here. Robbins we do not expect an evocative performance; we expect his style of under-acting. Also present are Don Cheadle and Jerry O'Connell of "Sliders," and both are fine. There is a fair-sized role that goes to a mysteriously uncredited Armin Mueller-Stahl. The critics are not being very kind to MISSION TO MARS, but I strongly suspect there will be a contingent of older science fiction fans who were brought up on 1950s space exploration films and who will enjoy this film as much as I did. I rate it a 7 on the 1 to 10 scale and a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale. Spoiler...Spoiler...Spoiler...Spoiler... I do not know if sending married couples into space has been considered. But it would be a questionable NASA policy for precisely the reasons that this film makes clear. Some readers will know why I was a little disappointed that when they found Luke he did not ask his rescuers for a piece of cheese. Evolutionary biologist Stephen J. Gould would have a fit if he saw this film. The implication of what is learned in the final reel is that the human stands at the top of the evolutionary tree and that all evolution is aimed at creating a humanoid creature with our DNA and even our facial expressions. That is not the way it works. We were formed by our environment in a random walk of adapting to the natural world. Plant the same protozoa DNA on two different planets with different conditions and the resulting species would rapidly diverge. It is highly unlikely that the most intelligent species on each of two planets would so resemble each other. And even if there was a guiding force they would not end up so different looking. The error in this film is closely related to that in THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL, but the probabilities are far lower here. A much better thought out film on Martian survival strategies is Nigel Kneale's QUATERMASS AND THE PIT (FIVE MILLION YEARS TO EARTH), which I have long considered the best science fiction film I have ever seen. Previously hard to find, it currently seems to run monthly on the American Movie Classics cable channel. It seems unlikely that with two missions to Cydonia there would be no mention of the famous Cydonia Face on Mars, and in fact they seem unaware of it. It is like being in Roswell, New Mexico, and not knowing about the supposed crashed flying saucer. Mark R. Leeper mleeper@lucent.com Copyright 2000 Mark R. Leeper From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Mar 20 12:45:59 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gctr.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: flyers130@aol.com (John Carroll) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 17 Mar 2000 03:32:07 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Lines: 112 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8as8vn$hvpq$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer09.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 953263927 589626 (None) 140.142.17.39 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23557 Keywords: author=carroll X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer09.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22638 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2660 A review by John Carroll for MISSION TO MARS (2000). MISSION TO MARS, starring Gary Sinise, Don Cheadle, Connie Nielsen, Jerry O'Connell, Kim Delaney, Tim Robbins, Elise Neal and Jill Teed. Directed by Brian De Palma. 2000. Reviewed by John Carroll. Back in 1968, 2001: A Space Odyssey challenged the thought process of all film-goers. Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece was hard to understand, until the end. It all made sense. While sitting through Mission to Mars, those who have seen 2001 beforehand may be expecting the same type of ending. While the film does heat up in interest near the end, Mission to Mars still disappoints. Brian De Palma really screwed this one up. Really. Mission to Mars could have been many things. First and foremost, a wonderful popcorn flick with top-notch graphics and tense moments that could bring the chills of Apollo 13. On the other hand, it could have been a great character drama focusing on the groundbreaking experience of a mission to Mars, and the tremendous pressure of such a mission. Or finally, it could have been a mental challenge the likes of 2001. Instead, De Palma tries to throw in a touch of each, and what he comes up with is an average film, but considering all of the high possibilities, an ultimately disappointing one. Mission to Mars seems to have three different plots, each corresponding to the genres stated above. Separate, the plots would work great. Put together, they are absurd. The overview of Mission to Mars is as follows: Luc Goddard (Don Cheadle) is leading the first mission to Mars, and the first mission to land on Mars. They land, but while inspecting a mountain of rock, a force generates and strikes from the top. The entire first crew, excluding Goddard, is killed. Did I just ruin a part of the film? No. De Palma accomplishes this in the first ten minutes. In fact, I already had a question: Wouldn't a mission to Mars be the talk of not only the United States, but the WHOLE WORLD?!? De Palma does not show a launch, the furor of the world, or any preparations. All we see is a birthday song to Jim McConnell (Gary Sinise), the original captain who was scrapped after the death of his wife, and then 'voila' they are on Mars. The plot(s) are absurd, but the casting was so perfect that you just want to believe. In fact, the cast may be the only aspect of Mission to Mars that keeps you from leaving during the first hour. Gary Sinise and Don Cheadle, two of the most underrated actors in Hollywood, try their best with what they are given, but the age old lesson is that you cannot do much if you are not given anything. De Palma just seems to try and pay homage to sci-fi films of the days of yore, but insteads he just insults the whole genre by ruining a film of such great potential. To continue this pointless plot, the 'Face of Mars' develops after the carnage that ruined the first mission. The rushing of this segment was horrible, but gave me hope that De Palma was rushing to get to some great things in the future of the film. Therefore, a rescue mission is planned. For some odd reason, the whole crew is absolutely positive that Luc is alive, and have no question that he will be once they get there -- over a year later. Doubts arise on the rescue mission, but they forge ahead. I will not spoil what happens next, but let's just say that De Palma makes a TON of assumptions for the future of the space program. The film still drags. Finally, they get to Mars. When the second crew reaches Mars, De Palma hints at what Mission to Mars could have been. Was it an accident? The way the rest of this film plays, it probably was. The film finally hints at other life on Mars, other forms of habitation. It may seem absurd, but all sci-fi movies cannot be factually correct. This ending segment of the film probes the possibility of life on other planets, and how similar that life may be. De Palma takes a different look than 2001, but once again ruins it. Kubrick put 2001 all out on the table and let the audience decide. De Palma attempts to challenge the viewer and then in either a stupid decision by him -- or a forced one from studio execs -- has his actors explain everything right after bringing it up. At this point, Mission to Mars is all wrapped up in a nice package, although the package itself is horrible. Thoughts are brought up, then quickly explained, alienating the audience completely. If you want to see this movie, your pay-off comes at the end. Goddard, McConnell and Terri Fisher (Connie Nielsen) enter the 'Face of Mars.' This segment is absolutely beautiful. The effects prior to this is Mission to Mars were good, but limited. In all actuality, Mars is like a desert. While it may take a great amount of effects and work in front of a green screen, the pay-off is not as good, as say palace in The Phantom Menace. However, the 'Face of Mars' and its simplistic holdings are beautiful. This phase of the film is wonderful, challenging the life process and if we are truly alone in the universe. The pay-off? Horrible. Once again, De Palma goes to an underdeveloped part of the film (in this case, McConell's deceased wife) and goes for the sentimental touch. It may have payed off, but De Palma never went in-depth to the relationship between the two, or the psychological trauma at her death. Instead, he feels he is justified in getting sentiment just because she is dead. It may work on some people, but the majority of audiences will feel cheated at such a terrible ending -- especially since it follows the one extremely enjoyable experience of Mission to Mars which hinted at what Mission to Mars could have been. Mission to Mars tries to be an epic, but obviously comes up short from everything previous. However, my one true peeve from this was the film score. Fortunately, De Palma did not try to hire big bands to supply the music. However, after hearing the corny music (unfortunately for me, there is no other better way to put it) I would have rather heard the characters spout pure gibberish just to talk over the innane music. When all is said and done, Brian De Palma comes to fault for the debacle known as Mission to Mars. Instead of focusing on one aspect of the sci-fi genre (effects, character drama or challenging thoughts) he tries to do all three. Stabley Kubrick was able to pull this off with 2001, but not even De Palma can be stupid enough to see himself as Stanley Kubrick. Mission to Mars's cast hints at what this film could have been, but they cannot rewrite the script. The Mission to Mars is mediocre, at best, but 'The Face of Mars' salvages what is left. Here's crossing my fingers for Red Planet. Final Verdict: C The Movie Page- http://moviepage.hypermart.net/ Reviews, Previews, News and So Much More! From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Mar 20 12:46:08 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gctr.net!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: "Rose 'Bams' Cooper" Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 17 Mar 2000 03:33:08 GMT Organization: '3 Black Chicks Review...' Lines: 140 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8as91k$6o36$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer31.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 953263988 221286 (None) 140.142.17.37 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23564 Keywords: author=cooper X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.0 (PPC) URL: http://www.3blackchicks.com/ Originator: grahams@homer31.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22634 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2659 '3 Black Chicks Review...' Mission To Mars (2000) Rated PG; running time 113 minutes Genre: Science Fiction IMDB site: http://us.imdb.com/Details?0183523 Official site: http://movies.go.com/m2m/ Written by: Jim Thomas (based on a story by Lowell Cannon) Directed by: Brian De Palma Starring: Gary Sinise, Don Cheadle, Connie Nielsen, Tim Robbins, Jerry O'Connell, Kim Delaney Review Copyright Rose Cooper, 2000 Review URL: http://www.3blackchicks.com/bamsmission.html It was an odd coincidence that the first trailers for "Mission To Mars" came out right around the time when NASA's Mars Lunar module got lost in space. It was almost a joke (although at $165 million, not a very funny joke) at the time, that "Mission" had as much a chance to succeed as that failed space mission did. And though it took first place in its first weekend, a lot of reviewers said that, as a movie, it was a critical failure. What does Yours Truly say? Well, I reckon you'll have to read on to find out. The Story (WARNING: **spoilers contained below**): Beginning in the year 2020, Mission Commander Luke Goddard (Don Cheadle) prepares, with the support of friends and fellow astronauts Woody Blake (Tim Robbins), Woody's wife, Dr. Terri Fisher (Connie Nielsen), scientist Phil Ohlmyer (Jerry O'Connell) and "stick jockey" Jim McConnell (Gary Sinise), for an historic mission: the first manned mission from Earth to Mars. But when a "mysterious force" causes a disaster on Mars, stranding Luke and possibly his team, his support team sets off from Earth on a rescue mission that puts them in as much risk as those they're attempting to bring back. The Upshot: Two things I noticed right off the bat in "Mission": -Except for two specific pieces of music (the opening Zydeco piece, and the Van Halen "dance" number), the background music was truly awful. Whoever came up with the bright idea to have Cheesy Organ Music throbbing in the background, should be taken out behind the woodshed and severely scolded - just before they're dropkicked right out of the movie business. -If this movie is any indication, future space missions will be commercial-laden: "product placement" takes on a whole new meaning when your brand name is written in great big letters along the side of a rocketship. Ok, actually, make that three things I noticed right off: the third being the genuine "closeness" I perceived between the characters. I know I said pretty much the same thing in my "What Planet Are You From?" review, but the feeling of real camaraderie struck me even harder here. Struck me so hard, in fact, it moved me to tears at one point (you'll know the point when you see the movie). There have been real-world scientists, along with not a few laymen and movie critics, who've taken "Mission" to task for where it went wrong; but there have been just as many who've praised it for where the movie got the science, and the story, right. I fall squarely in the latter camp. I don't know from physics, or whether an orbit around Mars should be asynchronous or bsynchronous; but I do know a well-told, heartfelt story when I see one, and that's what I saw during the 113 minutes of "Mission". True, it had its flaws; it often got thick on the melodrama, and Kim Delaney (playing Jim's dead wife Maggie, via home movies) proved herself once again to be a fifth wheel in the presence of much greater actors. And did I mention that godawful music? But I easily looked past its flaws and saw the essential human story it told. I found the tight-knit group of characters entirely believable, got a warm 'n fuzzy feeling from watching their interactions, and was simply blinded - in a good way - by the science of it all. The special effects were brilliant, but not so-much-so that they overwhelmed the story itself. And I still can't speak of the spacewalk scene without feeling a lump in my throat. After his terrible miscalculation in "Reindeer Games", I was heartened to see Sinise bounce back so strongly here. Cheadle's performance was likewise strong [and you know I gotta feature him in the "Black Factor" below], O'Connell was humorous but not stupidly so, and though Nielsen suffered by comparison in her "alone" scenes, her chemistry with Robbins was right on the money; they made a great couple, and I'd love to see them act in something together again. Will we Earthers really reach Mars by 2020? Well, we missed the "Space 1999" deadline already, and a lot of "futuristic" movies and TV series of the past will soon be shown to have been a little more optimistic of the advancement of the human race than we've proven ourselves to be capable of thus far. But the question for me is not so much "Will we get out there?", or even "Who else will we find when we do?" - but instead, "What will we do about each other *here*?" The "Black Factor" [ObDisclaimer: We Are Not A Monolith]: "Mission Commander Luke Goddard, played by Don Cheadle". Man, do I love typing that. A powerful actor whose "quietness" almost - but not quite - masks his incredible acting abilities (c.f. "Devil In A Blue Dress"), he succeeded where Angela Bassett failed in the dreadful "Supernova" earlier this year: neither making his "Blackness" pronounced, nor putting it away in shame, Cheadle, through Luke, built on the legacy of a very few Black actors who've slowly chipped away at that old stereotype (began with "Logan's Run", I believe; correct me if I'm wrong) that the Black "race" won't survive in any meaningful way, into the future. Cheadle joins a chosen few in making space, on the Silver Screen, "safe" for Black Folk again. Bammer's Bottom Line: While no "The Right Stuff", "Mission" had its heart in the right place. And the way I see it, "heart" is what propelled it well out of the lesser orbit of that other dramatic space flick of 2000...uh, y'all know the one I mean. I just can't bring myself to type the name of that most dreadful collection of frames of moving images running swiftly together which would normally be called "film" but could not by any stretch of the imagination be honoured with such a label, so soon after I've eaten. "Mission To Mars" (rating: greenlight): This flick did what even the noteworthy "The Green Mile" couldn't do: it made me cry. And for all its flaws, that goes a long way towards proving its worth, in my book. 3 Black Chicks...Movie Reviews With Flava! /~\ Rose "Bams" Cooper /','\ 3BlackChicks Enterprises /','`'\ Copyright Rose Cooper, 2000 /',',','/`, EMAIL: bams@3blackchicks.com ICQ: 7760005 `~-._'c / http://www.3blackchicks.com/ `\ ( http://www.dealpilot.com/?partner=1987 /====\ From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Mar 20 12:46:32 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!uio.no!arclight.uoregon.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: Michael Dequina Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 17 Mar 2000 03:55:13 GMT Organization: None Lines: 82 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8asab1$49qu$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer36.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 953265313 141150 (None) 140.142.17.40 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23581 Keywords: author=dequina X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer36.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22655 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2663 _Mission_to_Mars_ (PG) ** (out of ****) Virtual missions to Mars are not new to the Walt Disney Company. Long before its much ballyhooed revamp, the Tomorrowland area of Disneyland prominently featured (right next to Space Mountain) a little curio called Mission to Mars. It was an attraction, not a ride: patrons would sit in a circular auditorium that was made to look like a spaceship, and through some images projected on screens, fancy lighting, and--most important of all--some vibrating seats, earthlings made "trips" to Mars by the hundreds about every half hour. That attraction was indeed cheesy, but after seeing Disney/Touchstone's new film bearing the name _Mission_to_Mars_, I could not help but feel nostalgic for those long-gone yesterdays in Tomorrowland. For one thing, at least Mission to Mars (the attraction) had vibrating seats--something that would make this shockingly cornball effort from director Brian DePalma a little easier to sit through to the very end. But not by much. The year is 2020, and NASA has sent a four-astronaut crew to the red planet. After encountering a strange storm-like force, the only person left alive is Mission Commander Luke Graham (Don Cheadle). A rescue/recovery team is soon deployed; in this team are Graham's old friends Jim McConnell (Gary Sinise), Woody Blake (Tim Robbins), and Woody's wife Dr. Terri Fisher (Connie Nielsen), as well as scientist Phil Ohlmyer (Jerry O'Connell). Of course, such an operation is easier planned than executed, and the crew of the Mars Recovery Mission run into their fair share of trouble en route to the planet. Their troubles are encapsulated in an effective extended suspense sequence where one calamity seamlessly and convincingly leads to another. The palpable tension that DePalma is able to create easily compensates for some shameless product placement. It's quite unfortunate, then, that this sequence would end on a forced, unintentionally comic note of melodrama, not helped by some amateurish emoting by Nielsen. Just as, at one point, an indicator on Terri's spacesuit reads "Point of no return," this is also the juncture where _Mission_to_Mars_ gets progressively, irreparably worse. Upon landing on Mars, the film, which had been a diverting spacefaring adventure with an impressive command of technical detail, decides to become a sci-fi film of ideas, à la _2001:_A_Space_Odyssey_ or _Contact_. Those familiar with DePalma's body of work know that his instincts are more attuned to the former than the latter. The problem with the turn runs deeper than a directorial miscast, however. _Mission_to_Mars_ has already used up over half of its 113-minute length by the time the script goes all profound, hardly enough space to tackle the highfalutin ideas writers Jim Thomas, John Thomas, and Graham Yost want to tackle. So it's little surprise that this part of the story feels rushed, which, in turn, results in a superficial treatment that renders the point laughably trite. The film's trailer not only completely divulges its big "secret" (I won't spoil it for those who haven't seen it), but also lifts the film's exploration of this idea in its complete form. Those intrigued by the trailer and looking for deeper backup of the central idea in the actual film won't find it, for what's in the trailer is all there is. Such a disastrous final act is especially disappointing in the case of _Mission_to_Mars_, for it is an adequate entertainment for its first two-thirds. Pedestrian story details such as Jim's sadness over his deceased astronaut wife are smoothed over by the convincing acting of Sinise, Cheadle, and Robbins; the effects, which are, if hardly groundbreaking, functional; and the painstaking attention to the technical side of space travel. Unfortunately, what one remembers strongly about _Mission_to_Mars_ is the corny conclusion, which leaves a bitter taste--so bitter, that it was able to completely wash away the flavor of the unlimited free Mars candy bars given away at the press screening. Michael Dequina twotrey@juno.com | michael_jordan@geocities.com | jordan_host@sportsmail.com | mrbrown@iname.com Mr. Brown's Movie Site: http://welcome.to/mrbrown CinemaReview Magazine: http://www.CinemaReview.com on ICQ: #25289934 | on AOL Instant Messenger: MrBrown23 ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj. From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Mar 20 12:46:35 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: "Fontaine Lien" Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 18 Mar 2000 17:47:46 GMT Organization: University of California, Los Angeles Lines: 34 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8b0fg2$hjbc$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> Reply-To: fonnyl@ucla.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: homer18.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 953401666 576876 (None) 140.142.17.40 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23608 Keywords: author=lien X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer18.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22674 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2664 "Mission to Mars" Review by Fontaine Lien Spoiler warning. "Mission to Mars" is one of those annoying movies where, in the middle of the movie, you get the sneaking suspicion that the reason the trailer looks so good is because they showcased ALL the best parts of the movie: all five minutes of it. "Mission" *does* give you payoff; but when it does come, it's too little, too late. "Mission" has some good ideas, but they get lost in the unbearably boring delivery, dime-a-dozen dialogue, and spate of good actors wasted in cardboard-cutout roles. I'm sure the director and writers were very proud of each Hallmark moment they came up with, so they stretch each dramatic moment out like silly putty until it loses all its charm. Glances don't communicate any deeper emotions just because you draw them out for five hours on end. The film spends an hour on this kind of stuff, building to its climax. A lot of it is a cliched glorification of family relationships, marriage, friendship, unite we stand divided we fall kind of crap. There are some spectacular special effects sequences in this film, and I give it points for trying to stay true to the science I know (trying is the key word here). The sequence with the Martian demonstrating their history is oddly beautiful and touching, but as mentioned by then we're so sick of the goddamn thing we want the movie to be over. Great design, good intentions, but no cigar. If you're not a die hard sci-fi, FX or Jerry O'Connell fan (his character is the only one who has some semblance of character), don't waste your eight bucks on this. And what the hell, Tim Robbins died halfway through the movie, in a STUPID way too. That's just unforgiveable. Rating: C- (First viewing, 3/11/00) From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Mar 27 12:26:07 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newsfeed.online.be!news.algonet.se!algonet!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!hardy.tc.umn.edu!news.nero.net!news.uidaho.edu!sea-feed.news.verio.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: Jamey Hughton Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 23 Mar 2000 05:44:36 GMT Organization: University of Washington Lines: 112 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8bcb04$6o2k$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> Reply-To: bhughton@sk.sympatico.ca NNTP-Posting-Host: homer08.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 953790276 221268 (None) 140.142.17.35 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23674 Keywords: author=hughton X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer08.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22745 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2669 MISSION TO MARS * (out of four stars) A review by Jamey Hughton Starring-Gary Sinise, Don Cheadle, Tim Robbins, Jerry O’Connell, Connie Nielsen and Kim Delaney Director-Brian De Palma Canadian Rating-PG Released by Touchstone Pictures - 03/00 MOVIE VIEWS by Jamey Hughton http://Welcome.to/MovieViews It’s been hours since I returned from the much anticipated sci-fi opus “Mission to Mars”, and I can still detect the reek of moldy cheddar. Why? The movie is a shoddy cheesefest full of digital eye candy, stapled carelessly onto a flimsy screenplay which somehow manages to leapfrog the great promise of a space opera, instead shooting for the angle of a feel-good science fiction drama more akin to “2001: A Space Odyssey”. I got the feeling that most of my fellow movie-going patrons were expecting another “Armageddon”. But no, “Mission to Mars” certainly isn’t one large action sequence about colossal disaster. This is a supposedly thoughtful, family-friendly space flick in which the apocalyptic excitement takes a back seat to visual elegance and uplifting drivel. You have been warned. Of course, crafting a tightly claustrophobic space drama is not impossible (see “Apollo 13” for an excellent example), but few directors possess the skill and craftsmanship to pull it off without seriously scarring their reputation. Brian De Palma has enough directorial expertise and visual wizardry up his sleeve to pull it off. When he gets his hands on an intelligent, systematically practical script like “The Untouchables” or “Mission: Impossible”, the director has the ability to create a sound technical achievement (although his overly indulgent style becomes bothersome more than occasionally). Of course, there’s also the inexcusable string of crap that has carried his name (including “Snake Eyes” and the notorious bomb “The Bonfire of the Vanities”).... all of which makes me want to call De Palma the most talented hack in Hollywood. That term may be too harsh, but if I were judging him solely on the perpetual waste of talent that is “Mission to Mars”, my choice of words would have been slightly less lenient. If I were Gary Sinise, I wouldn’t touch De Palma with a 10-foot pole. Sinise is a wonderful, wonderful actor, but after appearing in “Snake Eyes” and this vomit-inducing sham, I’m sure he wouldn’t want to risk the embarrassment of a third collaboration. The Academy Award-winner plays NASA astronaut Jim McConnell, a man who recently lost his wife (Kim Delaney) and is apparently psychologically unfit for an upcoming space shuttle mission to Mars (oops, forgot to mention the year - 2020). After a barbecue get-together for the astronauts, we cut to Luc Goddard (Don Cheadle) and his team, who are already taking measurements and calculations on the Red Planet. Suddenly, a towering formation of rocks and soil - probably best dubbed a “sand tornado” - appears and creates a whirlwind of suction. For some reason, the astronauts just stand there calmly to admire this, as if it were a lovely piece of art. The team is killed within seconds, expect for Luc, who was able to send one final transmission and may still be alive. Immediately, a second mission - consisting of astronauts McConnell, husband and wife Woody and Terri Blake (Tim Robbins and Connie Nielsen) and Phil Ohlmyer (Jerry O’Connell) - are dispatched to rescue Luc and discover the mysterious secret of planet Mars. Let’s put the “secret” on hold for now, and discuss the trip there. It is explained, whether scientifically accurate or not (probably not), that a trip to Mars takes roughly six months. I’m not sure why the quartet of screenwriters behind “M2M” didn’t capitalize on this juicy opportunity of creating tension and claustrophobia. Instead, we join the team during their final days aboard the ship. What happened during the five months prior to this? Did they just play cards and tell dirty jokes? Still, there are few nicely tense moments (maybe the only in the movie) during the time-frame involving a fuel leak. DePalma’s direction is quite good in these scenes, although the score by Ennio Morricone is largely inconsistent (organ music in space? C’mon). There’s a few good, imaginative ideas in the landslide of cheese, a sad realization that causes me to sigh out loud. It’s a colossal bummer that “Mission to Mars” is poorly assembled and laughably written, with a dubious and supremely silly finale that will only satisfy dedicated optimists. As mentioned before, anyone looking for some disaster-movie carnage is going to feel savagely disappointed... maybe even cheated. After the unbelievably hokey final shot (with the words ‘The End’ somehow adding insult to injury), a few audience members made the effort to boo and hiss at the screen. Others muttered obscenities, shaking their heads in disbelief while mumbling “Jeez, that sucked.” Okay, it did suck. But you have to show the actors some sympathetic mercy... after all, they do pretty well. Sinise is sincere and effective in many of his scenes, Robbins and Nielsen wholeheartedly convince as a loving NASA couple, and funnyman O’Connell - well, he has a couple lines are actually amusing (and intentionally so). The digital effects accompanying the sand tornado sequence are quite impressive. So, by golly, where did this “Mission” go wrong? Looking back on the appalling experience, I would say in practically every conduit and crevasse it could have. While watching “Mission to Mars”, my suggestion would be to immediately abort, or better yet, don’t even strap yourself in for lift-off. © 2000, Jamey Hughton MOVIE VIEWS by Jamey Hughton http://Welcome.to/MovieViews Your Comments Appreciated! movieviews@hotmail.com From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Mar 27 12:26:13 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!news-peer-europe.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.erols.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!hardy.tc.umn.edu!news.nero.net!news.uidaho.edu!sea-feed.news.verio.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: John Beachem Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 25 Mar 2000 17:41:24 GMT Organization: University of Washington Lines: 80 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8bito4$3l3m$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer25.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 954006084 119926 (None) 140.142.17.39 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23703 Keywords: author=beachem X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer25.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22795 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2670 MISSION TO MARS Review by John Beachem * * Directed by: Brian DePalma Written by: Lowell Cannon (story), Jim Thomas As I was walking out of "Mission to Mars", the first thing that flashed through my mind was: "I think I just watched a really cheesy version of "The Abyss". This isn't surprising, as director Brian DePalma has a history of bad movies. While he may have experienced a brief moment of brilliance with "The Untouchables", back in 1987, the majority of his career has consisted of films such as "Bonfire of the Vanities" and "Snake Eyes". "Mission to Mars" is no exception. While it may have an occasional moment of humor, mainly due to the presence of Tim Robbins and Jerry O'Connell ("Scream 2", "Jerry Maguire"), the majority of the film is packed with horrifyingly bad dialogue and some amazingly cheesy special effects. The year is 2020, and mankind is finally going to send astronauts to the surface of Mars. The mission will consist of four astronauts, led by Luc Goddard (Don Cheadle). While things appear to be going well at first, the group is suddenly attacked by a massive hurricane on the surface. A rescue attempt is immediately planned by Jim McConnell (Gary Sinise), who was originally supposed to lead the first mission, but suffered from something of a nervous breakdown when his wife died. Going with McConnell are Phil Ohlmyer (Jerry O'Connell), Woody Blake (Tim Robbins), and Woody's wife Terri (Connie Nielsen). This group's mission is to discover what went wrong on the surface and bring back any possible survivors. With a great cast like the one here, you have to ask yourself how even Brian DePalma could go wrong. Perhaps the biggest problem is that most of the characters have no personality. Robbins and O'Connell may be humorous, but we couldn't care less about their characters. Gary Sinise, normally a great actor, looks half asleep throughout the entire film, and Connie Nielsen ("Rushmore", "Soldier") is given absolutely nothing to do. Only Don Cheadle ("Out of Sight", "Bulworth") manages to spark some life into his role. I think "Mission to Mars" was supposed to be something of a disaster movie, but it's hard for a disaster movie to work if the audience isn't attached to the characters. Another thing I noticed, as I was slowly being put to sleep, is that everything in this film moves very languidly. The movie is filled with boring scenes such as the camera panning sluggishly over the horrible looking Mars sets; or a trio of astronauts descending towards the planet for several minutes without the camera moving or even any music playing. I was actually, at times, reminded of "2001: A Space Odyssey", but without the wonderful music. On the rare occasions the music is present in "Mission to Mars", it's corny and melodramatic, even during scenes which aren't remotely emotional. To go along with this trite, stale music, we're usually given cheesy and overly dramatic dialogue in even more overemotional scenes. I will admit that "Mission to Mars" starts to pick up near the last thirty minutes or so, only to fall flat on its face in the last ten minutes. The one remarkable thing about this film is the amazing cyclone used near the middle of the story. However, after the extraordinary effect created here, we're then given some of the worst effects seen in the past five years near the end of the film. I found it surprising that while "The Abyss" changed from disaster movie to emotional alien encounter movie flawlessly, this same transistion in "Mission to Mars" feels incredibly out of place. Actually, I'd suggest that everyone go back and rent "The Abyss" rather than see this film. "Mission to Mars" runs an amazingly long 113 minutes, and I can't honestly recommend it to anyone. I give the film two out of five stars. Comments? Feel free to e-mail them to: johnbeachem@dependentfilms.net For past reviews, movie news, and other fun stuff, visit: http://www.dependentfilms.net * * * * * - One of the greatest movies ever made, see it now. * * * * - Great flick, try and catch this one. * * * - Okay movie, hits and misses. * * - Pretty bad, see it only if you have nothing better to do. * - One of the worst movies ever made. See it only if you enjoy pain. From rec.arts.sf.reviews Fri Mar 31 12:16:53 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: Scott Hunt Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 30 Mar 2000 07:05:32 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 73 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8buubs$7tuk$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer10.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 954399932 260052 (None) 140.142.17.38 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23745 Keywords: author=hunt X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer10.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22847 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2674 Mission to Mars (2000) Review by Scott Hunt Visit me at Movie Hunt http://netdirect.net/~hunt/index.html) Cast: Gary Sinise, Don Cheadle, Tim Robbins, Connie Nielsen, Jerry O'Connell Writer: Lowell Cannon, Jim Thomas Director: Brian De Palma Rating: Off Target (1 out of 4 stars) After a marketing windup of striking visuals and the promise of star caliber actors, Mission To Mars ends up throwing a whiffleball. Fiercely unoriginal, Director DePalma cobbles together a film by borrowing heavily from what has gone before him. There are aliens similar to those in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The stranded astronaut theme is reminiscent of Robinson Crusoe on Mars. The astronauts encounter space flight difficulties that smack of Apollo 13. Interior spacecraft visuals are redolent of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Instead of using these components as a launching pad to create his own movie, De Palma stops right there, refusing to infuse the film with anything even remotely resembling cleverness or heart. Mission to Mars takes it's first wobbly steps at a pre-launch barbeque in which the perfunctory character introductions are done. During these surface scans of the characters, we learn that Jim McConnell (Sinise) has lost his wife. It's a plot point revisted throughout the film with jackhammer subtlety. The rest of the crew exhibit a bland affability. There is no contentiousness, no friction to add the the dramatic tension of these men and women being confined to close quarters for an extended length of time. Maybe DePalma was going for the comraderie of The Right Stuff, but in that movie, the astronauts had embers of personality to warm us through the technical aspects. It's the year 2020 and this is NASA's first manned excursion to the red planet. A crew, led by Luke Graham (Cheadle), arrives on Mars and quickly discovers an anomaly, which they investigate with tragic results. Graham is able to transmit a garbled distress call back to Earth. In response, Earth sends a rescue team comprised of McConnell, Woody Blake (Robbins), wife Terri Fisher (Nielsen) and Phil Ohlmyer (O'Connell). Obstacles are put in the crew's way and and they matter-of- factly go about solving them. I should say, McConnell goes about solving them. Time and again, McConnell is presented as some kind of wunderkind, which wouldn't be so bad if the rest of the crew didn't come across as so aggressivelly unremarkable. (Mention should be made of the misogynistic handling of Fisher in a situation where the entire crew's mission and life is in mortal danger. On a team of professionals, she is portrayed as an emotion directed weak link. Women serve no purpose in the movie other than to serve as a reflection of a male character's personality trait.) By the time they land on Mars and try to solve the mystery of what occurred, Mission to Mars starts laying on the cliches and stilted dialogue with a heavy brush. There is an adage in film to "show, don't tell." Mission to Mars does both. Repeatedly. Characters obsessively explain the obvious, explain their actions as they are doing them, explain to fellow astronauts facts which should be fundamental knowledge to them. The film's conclusion is momumentally derivative, anti-climatic and unsatisying. As I walked out I wondered who the target audience might be for this film. The best I could come up with is pre-teen age boys, but in this media saturated era, this film's components would have been old hat even for them. I have to think what attracted such talent to this film was the lure of making a good, modern day B-movie. The key to such a venture is a certain depth and sincerity towards the material. I felt no such earnestness. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy. From rec.arts.sf.reviews Tue Apr 4 13:28:41 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: "Walter Frith" Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 2 Apr 2000 19:52:27 GMT Organization: None Lines: 107 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8c88dr$iaie$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer28.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 954705147 600654 (None) 140.142.17.38 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #23811 Keywords: author=frith X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer28.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:22902 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2676 'Mission to Mars' (2000) A movie review by Walter Frith wfrith@cgocable.net Member of the 'Online Film Critics Society' http://www.ofcs.org Cast - Gary Sinise, Don Cheadle, Connie Nielsen, Jerry O' Connell and Tim Robbins. Directed by - Brian De Palma Written by - Lowell Cannon, Jim Thomas, John Thomas, Graham Yost Produced by - Tom Jacobson (Rating) > Motion Picture Association of America - PG (Parental Guidance) / Rated PG for sci-fi violence and mild language. (Rating) > Ontario Film Review Board - PG (Parental Guidance) / Rated PG. May offend some. Frightening scenes. Running Length - 110 minutes. Distributor - Touchstone Pictures. Brian De Palma. A man I have trouble accepting as a film director. Michael Cimino wins the Oscar for directing 'The Deer Hunter' in 1978 and then flops big time with 'Heaven's Gate', takes time off to recover and then is given the opportunity to direct 1985's 'Year of the Dragon' and then he is all but forgotten with the exception of only a few minor films since then. De Palma gets huge budgets for his films and flops at almost every single one of them. HOW DOES THIS MAN CONTINUE TO WORK IN HOLLYWOOD? This can only be truly understood by the film buff who shakes his or her head in disbelief whenever a Brian De Palma film comes out. De Palma just doesn't understand sub text. His films all have long static tracking shots of no interest and his films move along usually at the pace of being stuck in a traffic jam. 'Mission to Mars' has all of the ingredients of a Brian De Palma film without the usual trait of trying to copy Alfred Hitchcock. It is 2020 and people are still the same. They live in houses, have kids, barbecues, drink beer and appreciate their friendships. Jim McConnell (Gary Sinise) is a man still suffering the loss of his spouse. Luke Graham (Don Cheadle) is the captain of the first human exploration to the red planet, Mars. Jim and Luke take Woody Blake and Terry Fisher (Tim Robbins and Connie Nielsen) and Phil Ohlmyer (Jerry O'Connell) and a couple of other astronauts with them. The space frontier holds many mysteries and NASA has lost probes near Mars before so who knows if an exploration of Mars should ever be attempted. Some believe that a cosmic whirlwind or some other scientific force caused particles from Mars to drift to Earth and that our ancestry and entire life force is indeed Martian in nature and this is what 'Mission to Mars' tries to explain with an "in your FACE" style of presentation. You'll know what I mean by the quotation marks and capital letters after you've seen the film. Luke and some others explore Mars and all are killed except for Luke and a rescue mission begins to find them. This is the first major problem the film has and it's a problem I had with Oliver Stone's 'Born on the Fourth of July' in 1989. We go from one normal scene to a completely different one without any transition in viewing it. In the case of Stone's film, it showed Tom Cruise from his rainy prom night to his immediate tour of duty in Vietnam. 'Mission to Mars' goes from Earth quickly to the mission without showing us anything about the departure from our world. A film needs a send off like the launching of Apollo 13 in the film of the same name from 1995. 1997's 'Contact' had the major blast off shown in quite a different way but at least it was there. You simply can't get an audience fully interested in your main frame of story telling if you don't show them how they get there in order to know where they're going next. There is one totally tedious part of 'Mission to Mars' where a space walk takes place in order to retrieve a craft and one of the rescue crew dies and it is one of the most boring things you will ever see on film. In 1984's '2010', we see two astronauts about to board the Discovery. One is American and one is Russian. The space walk is quick, timed perfectly with reflective dialogue of their situation along the way. There are no long shots that go on and on and on. De Palma had me looking at my watch several times during this scene and during the film in general. The performances in this film are nothing to rave about either. They are standard, lack depth and have only a flurry of interest towards the end of the film. The film also has a problem with theories and proof of geographical origins such as the notion of continental drift. Many of the insights the film projects about the world we know of make us say, "Okay, I've known or suspected that for sometime. Why can't this movie create a situation or theory I can think about long after I leave the theatre." Isn't that the point of most good science fiction? About the only thing I liked in 'Mission to Mars' were the visuals and the fact that the film did run under two hours, thank God. It really looked and felt like Mars and being partial to a good soundtrack, the film had many sound effects that provided much needed ear candy and the eye candy helped out a great deal. The film sort of feels like ordering from a menu in a restaurant and upon finding out that they don't have your meal on the menu, you settle for second best and comment that although you didn't get what you wanted, it was still pretty good. De Palma does deserve some credit for this film which is better in its second half but it still is a far cry from good science fiction, which playing second fiddle to comedy, is the hardest thing to pull off successfully in motion pictures. Let's hope that De Palma doesn't try to be (intentionally) funny anytime soon. OUT OF 4 > * * 1/2 A film must receive a three star rating or higher to be eligible for a recommendation. Visit FILM FOLLOW-UP by Walter Frith http://www.cgocable.net/~wfrith/movies.htm From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Apr 17 00:11:26 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.ida.liu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!news.net.uni-c.dk!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: "Shay Casey" Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 16 Apr 2000 18:51:33 GMT Organization: None Lines: 142 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8dd23l$cobu$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer07.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 955911093 418174 (None) 140.142.17.37 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #24065 Keywords: author=casey X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer07.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:23152 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2684 Mission to Mars *1/2 out of **** Year: 2000. Starring Gary Sinise, Tim Robbins, Don Cheadle, Connie Nielsen, Jerry O' Connell, Kim Delaney, Elise Neal, Peter Outerbridge, Armin Mueller-Stahl. Written by Lowell Cannon (story), Jim Thomas & John Thomas (story & screenplay), Graham Yost (screenplay). Directed by Brian De Palma. Rated PG. There should be a requirement that a potential viewer be under a certain film IQ in order to see "Mission to Mars." There are probably quite a few people who are going to enjoy it, and most of them will probably be those who have seen very few films of its kind. But there are those who will not, and those will most likely be people who have already seen one or more of the following movies: "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Armageddon," "Apollo 13," "The Abyss," "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial," "Alien," and "Aliens." Why? Because there is not one original idea in "Mission to Mars." All of it is cribbed from other films (and in most cases, better films). If this is the sort of thing you don't mind, you might like the film. Of course, there are other reasons not to like "Mission to Mars," the main one being a script written by people who seem to assume their audience is filled with people who haven't used their brains in some time, and who don't intend to start during the film's running time. "Mission to Mars" manages to be both stupid and boring at the same time. The plot, cribbed greatly from "2001," concerns a team sent to Mars, the first manned trip ever made to the red planet. Luke Graham (Don Cheadle) leads the team, jointly formed of Americans and Russians. The team encounters a mysterious monolith that emits a strange pulse (this being nothing like the pulse-emitting monolith in "2001" -- that one was on the *moon*), but when they try to study it, a giant sand tornado comes out of the top and swallows them (all except Luke, who survives long enough to send a garbled message back to the rotating space station, which looks strangely like the rotating space station in "2001"). A rescue mission is planned with husband & wife team Woody Blake (Tim Robbins) and Terri Fisher (Connie Nielsen), obligatory pilot with a troubled past Jim McConnell (Gary Sinise), and extra crew member Phil Ohlmyer (Jerry O'Connell) along for the ride. After some zero-gravity dancing, they run into problems when one of their engines is blown, forcing them to attempt a desperate landing aboard a supply vessel. Now stranded on Mars with minimal supplies, the team must decide whether or not it can risk entering the monolith or if they should return home. After all, that monolith just might contain information about how life originated on Earth. "Mission to Mars" is one of those films that makes a critic wonder where to start when talking about all the things that are wrong with it, so let's start with one of the things that does work: Director Brian De Palma manages to create some eerie tension in a few scenes during the middle of the film. That's it. Everything else fails. The failure isn't De Palma's fault; he's working from an atrocious script. Only during the sequence aboard the ship (looking an awful lot like the Jupiter vessel in "2001") where the rescue team's air begins running out and they must frantically search for the hole and patch it up does "Mission to Mars" come to life. A scene where they attempt to save a comrade floating away into space also provides some tension, until you realize that the entire danger/more danger/attempted rescue sequence has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the film; it's just a contrived way to generate thrilling scenes. Take it out, and the plot isn't affected in any way. The sequence also suffers from a few plot holes (as does the rest of the film): Why is the ship's computer (which sounds strangely like HAL from, uh, "2001") able to detect a hole in the main chamber but not one in the engine? Why did Tim Robbins' character have to go outside the ship when the solution easily presented itself from inside? Shouldn't the astronauts be better trained to deal with a hull breach? Why are the characters such idiots? Because the script makes little attempt to properly develop them. All the "conflict" is clumsily delivered in excruciatingly obvious exposition in the opening scene (which rips off Orson Welles and Robert Altman by utilizing a long opening tracking shot) during which the characters repeatedly tell each other about things all of them should already know: "Jim, it's too bad you can't go on this mission because you were determined 'psychologically inadequate' because your wife died right before you were to go on the mission together" -- does anyone really talk like this? Can't we find out these things in a less grating matter, like maybe in a flashback? The whole film is like that. The filmmakers are not content to merely show us something and assume we know what's going on; they must *tell* us exactly what we're looking at *every* time. Sample dialogue from the film: (Shot of Mars) Astronaut A: "Look, there's Mars" Astronaut B: "You sure that's Mars?" Astronaut A: "Yeah, that's Mars all right." Astronaut C: "Hey, are you guys looking at Mars?" That exchange isn't actually in "Mission to Mars," but I wouldn't be surprised if it were. For all their cribbing from Kubrick, Spielberg, James Cameron, and even Ron Howard, the makers of this film haven't learned to do something all those directors did very well: show and don't tell. De Palma used to know how, but seems to have forgotten. This is mentally-challenged filmmaking; they assume the audience won't get what's going on, so they explain everything five times over. Fourth-graders may appreciate this, but more learned viewers will have their intelligence insulted. The principal actors sleepwalk their way through "Mission to Mars," never managing to do away with an apparent "I'm just here to get a paycheck" attitude. Cheadle stumbles over his awkward lines. Armin Mueller-Stahl manages to thoroughly embarrass himself in an unbilled cameo. Robbins puts his game face on and phones in his standard "decent guy" performance. And Sinise hams it up with "wistful" facial expressions while watching tapes of his dead wife (played by Kim Delaney, who only has one scene during which she still manages to deliver some ridiculous dialogue in a heavy-handed monologue about the meaning of life), and especially during the stolen-from-no-less-than-three-movies (a lollipop to whoever names them) conclusion, which combines endless, obvious explanation and sub-par CGI effects with gagging sentimentality and is sure to alienate any viewers who had been enjoying the show up until then. And of course, these aliens from Mars who facilitated the evolution of life on Earth are entirely different from the aliens in "2001" who facilitated the evolution of life on Earth; those aliens were from an *unknown* world. It could be said that fans of brainless action films might enjoy "Mission to Mars," but such a comment ignores the fact that the film is also incredibly slow-going. Leisurely pacing might have helped a film with a little more substance to it, but all of the substance of "Mission to Mars" has been stolen from other films, and those other films dealt with their ideas in a much more thoughtful fashion and generally contained more engaging characters. Supposedly we're intended to choke up when one character decides not to return home at the end of this one (totally different from the one-character-decides-not-to-return ending of "Armageddon"), but I suspect most people will either be laughing or groaning. Me, I alternated between the two. There is only one good thing about the way "Mission to Mars" finally ends: the fact that the movie is over. -reviewed by Shay Casey For more reviews, go to http://www.geocities.com/sycasey/movies.html From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Apr 17 00:12:46 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.ida.liu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!hermes.visi.com!news-out.visi.com!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: Brian Matherly Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 16 Apr 2000 18:52:28 GMT Organization: The Jacksonville Film Journal - http://www.jaxfilmjournal.com/ Lines: 93 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8dd25c$coca$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer23.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 955911148 418186 (None) 140.142.17.39 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #24070 Keywords: author=matherly X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer23.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:23167 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2686 Mission To Mars (2000) Rating: 0.5 stars out of 5.0 stars *** Warning - The following review contains spoilers *** Cast: Gary Sinise, Don Cheadle, Connie Nielsen, Jerry O'Connell, Kim Delaney, Tim Robbins, Elise Neal, Jill Teed, Jody Thompson, Bill Timoney Written by: Jim Thomas, John Thomas and Graham Yost Directed by: Brian DePalma Running Time: 115 minutes The first big event movie of 2000 turns out to be anything but. Gary Sinise stars as an astronaut who is removed from a Mars mission when his astronaut wife, Maggie (Kim Delaney), becomes ill and passes away. Don Cheadle is then given the mission along with a Russian couple and a young hotshot. When a strange whirlwind shot from the top of a Mars mountain range attacks the crew of the mission, Sinise and Robbins convince their superior to let them, Neilsen, and O'Connell perform a rescue mission for whatever crew might be remaining. What they discover on the surface of the planet will dramatically change their lives forever (although no one watching the film will come away profoundly affected). Before I ever saw the film, I was aware of the promotional campaign with Dr. Pepper. Every time I would see a bottle of the soft drink, the Mission to Mars logo was emblazoned upon it. Little did I know that the plot would be taking a back seat to the product placement of the drink and several other products. Dr. Pepper saves the day at one point, and a dream sequence/flashback features Jerry O'Connell shoving M&M's in our face. These are but a couple of the ridiculous examples of product placement scattered throughout the film. Clichés are also the order of the day with Mission to Mars. Dialogue and character motivations are all lifted directly from countless other science fiction films that have all done it better and with more style (even Independence Day, which lifted all of IT'S premises from other sci-fi films was better than this film, and I don't like Independence Day). Films like 2001:A Space Odyssey, The Abyss, and Close Encounters of the Third Kind are all blatantly stolen from (and poorly at that). There is even a sequence where a rover is traveling through a canyon, and I couldn't help but whisper "u'tinni" to myself and wait for a Jawa to quickly hide in the rocks before the rover could get a glimpse of it. This film also features one of my all-time least favorite movie clichés: the "he would have wanted you to have this" moment, where one character gives another a trinket that yet another character is established as constantly having (and is usually made fun of by the character who ends up getting all sappy over it later on). Scenes like these always bother me when they come out of nowhere in regular films, but in a film as cliché ridden as this, it is particularly irritating. Ennio Morricone's music is usually considered to be some of the best stuff in the projects he works on, but here it is dreadfully overbearing. His music sounds like it came straight out of a Vincent Price movie in certain scenes. At other times his music is unbearably over-dramatic. One sequence involving a daring spacewalk rescue is given a particularly cheesy sting when it is discovered that the grappling hook device used for the rescue won't reach its intended target. Mission to Mars is push button filmmaking to the greatest extreme. Events are set into motion that are obvious to anyone who has ever seen a movie and seem like they are just there to evoke an emotional response in the audience. We are apparently supposed to be upset that Tim Robbins character removes his helmet in deep space and kills himself to save his wife, but I felt extreme boredom coupled with a twinge of disinterest. What makes it all worse is that fact that there is no real reason that Robbins' character needs to turn himself into a popsicle, except to invoke an emotional response (I could think of at least ONE way to save him, and the NASA clowns in this film are supposed to be "smarter" than I am). During the finale, when we are finally introduced to the translucent, conehead, kitty-faced aliens that we ostensibly sprung from, we are presented with some of the most ridiculously cartoonish CGI ever put to film (just slightly worse than the plane crash at the end of Air Force One or the Hell scenes in Spawn). A brief history lesson about "where we came from" is proffered, then Sinise is whisked away to be with "the rest of our people" (he does this because his late wife proclaims in a video he watches early on that "this is a chance to step foot where no one else has"). >From the press I've been seeing this film receive, it is apparent that Mission to Mars will be dying a quick death at the theater. I'm sure the first weekend or two will be huge, but once word gets out people will stop going. Let's just hope the upcoming Red Planet is better than this and isn't hurt by the negativity this film is generating. I'd venture to say it won't be worse than this waste of time. [PG] Reviewed by Brian Matherly - bmath2000@hotmail.com The Jacksonville Film Journal - http://www.jaxfilmjournal.com/ From rec.arts.sf.reviews Thu Apr 20 13:55:21 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!news-peer-europe.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!portc03.blue.aol.com!portc.blue.aol.com!verio.MISMATCH!iad-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!sea-feed.news.verio.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: Ukcritic@aol.com (Ian Waldron-Mantgani) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 19 Apr 2000 16:21:14 GMT Organization: None Lines: 79 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8dkmdq$ebqa$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer06.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 956161274 470858 (None) 140.142.17.40 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #24128 Keywords: author=waldron-mantgani X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer06.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:23218 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2687 Mission to Mars 1/2 Rated on a 4-star scale Screening venue: Odeon (Liverpool City Centre) Released in the UK by UIP on April 14, 2000; certificate PG; 113 minutes; country of origin USA; aspect ratio 2.35:1 Directed by Brian De Palma; produced by Tom Jacobson. Written by Lowell Cannon, Jim Thomas, John Thomas, Graham Yost. Photographed by Stephen H. Burum; edited by Paul Hirsch. CAST..... Gary Sinise..... Jim McConnell Tim Robbins..... Woody Blake Don Cheadle..... Luke Graham Connie Nielsen..... ..... Terri Fisher Jerry O'Connell..... Phil Ohlmyer Peter Outerbridge..... Sergei Kirov Kavan Smith..... Nicholas Willis Jill Teed..... Renee Cote "Mission to Mars" is too long-winded and stone-faced to be intended as comedy, and yet I wonder how anyone could expect us to take it seriously. This is one of the most ridiculous sci-fi movies ever made, which is no mean feat, considering all the trashy B-pictures of the 1950s and zombie flicks of the 80s. The tone is set early on, by clunky passages of dialogue designed to get the audience up to speed on the plot. An example: "Hey, man, you must be feeling really upset now, because this used to be your mission. Jeez, if only your wife hadn't died, and you hadn't gotten so depressed and had to pull out." Give me a break. The speaker is Luke Graham (Don Cheadle), an astronaut preparing to go on a four-man mission to Mars. His team's goal is to research the feasibility of human colonisation. When drilling for water on the red planet, his partners come under the spell of a giant face-shaped sculpture, which sucks them into a sandstorm reminiscent of last year's "The Mummy" and disembowels them. News of the deaths reaches NASA headquarters. Soon afterward radio contact is lost. A new quartet, played by Gary Sinise, Jerry O'Connell, Tim Robbins and Connie Nielsen, are sent to the rescue. The three of them who survive the trip find Graham with Christ-like hair and beard, ranting and raving about the mystical life forces that guide us, or something. Everybody gathers round to look at the big sculpture, and through guesswork so miraculous that it must be based on telepathy from the gods, they suss out how to enter it safely. This illogical business leads to an amazing moment in which the film's heroes discover an alien learning zone; it's a visually arresting scene, but too little too late to save this silly movie. Want to know why only three of the four rescue pilots make it to Mars? Because halfway through their journey they abandon ship and decide to float through outer space to another one. Robbins is unable to manoeuvre himself successfully -- what a surprise, I thought the task would be something anyone could pull off with ease! They've taken the drastic measure because of an emergency onboard their rocket, which emerges completely nonsensically, when O'Connell is typing an instruction into the ship's computer. For no particular reason, the keyboard breaks, and in an unfathomable development, this causes the cabin to start losing pressure. At first we don't even realise there's any danger, partly because of the situation's implausibility, but mainly due to the scene's lack of urgency. The characters drift around without any panic, talking things over in technical jargon, as a slow, toneless organ tune plays on the sound track. Odd for most movies, typical of this one. "Mission to Mars" was directed by Brian De Palma, who once made pictures like "Carrie", "Blow Out" and "Scarface". Watching it, I was reminded of a television interview with Quentin Tarantino, in which he mentioned that a lot of good filmmakers lose their creativity, and end up doing bad studio vehicles just for the pay packet. I hope De Palma isn't going down that road. But surely even Tarantino, who is one of the director's greatest fans, will recognise that "Mission to Mars" is not a good sign. COPYRIGHT(c) 2000 Ian Waldron-Mantgani Please visit, and encourage others to visit, the UK Critic's website, which is located at http://members.aol.com/ukcritic From rec.arts.sf.reviews Thu Apr 20 13:58:34 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!fu-berlin.de!newsfeed.ision.net!ision!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!portc01.blue.aol.com!portc03.blue.aol.com!portc.blue.aol.com!verio.MISMATCH!iad-peer.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!sea-feed.news.verio.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: tlcclp@aol.com (Christian Pyle) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 19 Apr 2000 16:21:28 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Lines: 62 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8dkme8$fnag$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer29.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 956161288 515408 (None) 140.142.17.40 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #24130 Keywords: author=pyle X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer29.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:23225 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2688 Mission to Mars Reviewed by Christian Pyle Directed by Brian De Palma Written by Jim Thomas, John Thomas, and Graham Yost Starring Gary Sinise, Tim Robbins, Don Cheadle, Connie Nielsen, and Jerry O'Connell Grade: C+ "Mission to Mars" opens in 2020 as a group of astronauts gather for a barbecue to celebrate the upcoming jaunt to the red planet. Then we jump ahead thirteen months and scientist Luke Graham (Don Cheadle) is on Mars with an international team. They're out surveying when a sudden tornado attacks them with a supernatural malevolence. As the dust clears, a giant stone face is revealed beneath the Martian soil. Only Luke survives to crawl back to his base and send a brief message to mission control before contact is lost. At mission control on the World Space Station, Luke's pals Jim McConnell (Gary Sinise) and Woody Blake (Tim Robbins) plan a rescue mission. A year later, their ship nears Mars with two more astronauts along: Woody's wife Terri Fisher (Connie Nielsen) and the inexperienced Phil Ohlmyer (Jerry O'Connell). Things don't go quite as planned, however, and the rescuers find themselves in mortal danger before they even get to the planet. Although it sounds like "'Saving Private Ryan' in space," "Mission to Mars" is an equal mixture of "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Apollo 13," "Armageddon," and "Contact." (For most of the movie, I was mentally naming the source of each scene and motif.) "Mars"' closest kin are "2001" and "Contact" because the central storyline is humanity encountering extraterrestrial life. Certainly "Mars" is nowhere close to the magnificence of "2001" (which ranks among the greatest movies ever made), but it compares favorably to "Contact." While "Contact" did a better job at making the translation of a message received from aliens seem believable ("Mars" rushes through the interpretation of its message), "Mars" has a better resolution. "Contact" built a lot of suspense for the meeting promised by the title, then let audiences down by having the alien and its world appear as projections from the protagonist's memory. As a character on "South Park" put it, "I waited two hours to see the alien, and it's her goddamn father!" "Mars" has a much stronger ending. Produced by a collaboration of the screenwriting team of "Predator" and the author of "Speed," the script for "Mars" has plenty of thrills and chills, but character development occurs in awkward patches of down time that almost seem to have a blinking subtitle saying "character development." Jim misses his dead wife. Woody and Terri love each other. Phil is . . . uh . . . wow, they must have cut that scene. The premise, of course, is nonsense. NASA would never undertake a rescue mission like this to save one astronaut who may already be dead. It would be too expensive and time-consuming to be feasible. (The rescue team arrives a year after they lost contact with Luke.) Scientifically-minded folks may also pick apart the movie's science, but to an English major like me most of it seemed realistic. (And in the movies it's not important to be real, only to seem real). Bottom line: Semi-intelligent fun with sporadic action. © 2000 Christian L. Pyle Read my reviews and others at the Mad Review: http://www.madreview.com/main.html From rec.arts.sf.reviews Thu Apr 27 15:00:28 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!newnews.hk-r.se!news.lth.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!news.algonet.se!algonet!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.gtei.net!news.alt.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: "Alex Ioshpe" Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Mission To Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 25 Apr 2000 17:26:09 GMT Organization: Telenor Online Public Access Lines: 47 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8e4kfh$bl4g$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer38.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 956683569 382096 (None) 140.142.17.38 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #24248 Keywords: author=ioshpe X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer38.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:23335 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2692 "Houston. We have a serious problem." RATING: 2/10 After making "Mission: Impossible", Brian De Palma has a lot to live up to. By making an epic science fiction and inviting great cast and talented crew, he hopes to reach the modern audience. And the possibilities are certainly there, but the result is a great disaster. Starting in a near future, with a prologue copied from "Apollo 13", De Palma slowly builds up his "story". The human race has already set foot on Mars. A research expedition has vanished without trace on the red planet and another one has been sent to find out what happened. This is basically the whole plot. So it's hard to imagine that it can be stretched to 2 hours. But De Palma manages to do that. It is not a very good achievement. As we follow this expedition to Mars and watch them slowly float in space, the hardest thing to do is stay awake. The film's major problem is that it tries to seem more clever than it is. David Mamet's dialogue, while trying to seem natural, is distant and simply fake. De Palma and Mamet wanted to combine action with a thought provoking plot. The result is more like an unsuccessful mutation of Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Apollo 13" and "Godzilla". To make time pass , the creators have inserted several "refreshing" scientific details, that would not convince a half-crazed frog. It consists of multiple copies and direct ripp-offs from several great science fiction films and stories. When it finally presents an almost original idea, it falls flat because of its uncovered stupidity. I can't even call this film predictable, since no one with a healthy imagination can come up with something like this. Sometimes it gets so cheesy, that you'll start laughing when you're supposed to cry and cry when you're supposed to laugh. You'll see enormous sandstorms, hear mysterious sounds and, last but not least, on this "constantly surprising" tour you'll see -- an alien. It's really hard to find comparisons to such an experience, and I know that I've never said that before (I thought I never would), but "Lost in Space" is actually better. That's an achievement in itself! Director Brian De Palma has stroke gold with "Untouchables" that became an instant American classic. It is for this film that he will be remembered, while all his other failures will be forgotten. He'll live to fight another day! I send the actors my condolences, since they truly do try to transform into their undeveloped and dull characters. And both the cinematography, production design and art direction are very decent. It is because of the achievement of 254 people, that I rate this film 2/10. Unfortunately their hard work was in vain. If you have problems with insomnia, I recommend you this film. If you're not asleep within the first half hour, consult your doctor. From rec.arts.sf.reviews Sun Jun 11 09:44:20 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!newsfeed.direct.ca!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!crtntx1-snh1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!dfw-peer.news.verio.net!sea-feed.news.verio.net!news.verio.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: Michael Redman Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Mission To Mars (2000) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 7 Jun 2000 15:56:57 GMT Organization: ... Lines: 69 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8hlrc9$cn34$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> Reply-To: redman@indepen.com NNTP-Posting-Host: homer28.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 960393417 416868 (None) 140.142.17.38 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #24973 Keywords: author=redman X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer28.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:23973 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2742 Maybe this mission should have been scrubbed Mission To Mars *1/2 (out of ****) A film review by Michael Redman Copyright 2000 by Michael Redman There's a world of difference between artists and technicians. The artist has a vision to create something new. He may not do it well, it might be sloppy, but it's something you've never seen before. A good technician can make it look good, but without direction from his own inner artist or someone else, it's going to be just a Xerox. Obviously successful films need both skills. Brian De Palma is a masterful technician. He's spent his career copying others, most notably Hitchcock. He usually knows exactly what to do to make a scene work, but only because he has learned it by rote. Aside from rare flashes of originality, his films are often soul-dead. In De Palma's latest, he turns his attention to Stanley Kubrick. To tell the truth, I enjoyed portions of this movie, but I liked it a lot better over 30 years ago when it was called "2001". I enjoyed it even more when it was titled "Close Encounters". NASA has set its sights for Mars. When the first crew meets with disaster, a rescue mission is sent to the red planet. They don't do so well either, but eventually meet up the lone surviving astronaut-gone-Rasta and solve the mysteries of the universe. And it's all so boring. There are so many scenes that just don't work, it's difficult to begin. When the first crew is a few feet away from a raging massive upside-down Martian tornado (which looks remarkably like a sandworm from "Dune") destroying everything in its path, they just hang out watching. Error. The most interesting character (and that's not saying much) is killed off. Error. The alien is laughable. Error. The rest of the characters are the dullest people imaginable. Error. There's some nice eyecandy. The face on Mars, which turns out to be a giant metal Thai Buddha head, looks cool. A three-dimensional holographic planetarium is more fun to watch than anything at Disney World. Maneuvering in space suits outside the ship seems realistic. But there's so much more that feels as if we've been there before. From "2001", there's the rotating space station, the blinding white room. >From "Close Encounters", they solve a sound puzzle and play it to the aliens. The list goes on. The actors are mostly mobile wooden statues. Even Gary Sinise and Tim Robbins can't muster enough emotion to convince us they are breathing. No one seems to care about anything that happens. You won't either. The absolutely worst sin is the blatant product placement as Dr. Pepper, with a 20 foot tall logo, saves the day. They should save the commercials for those insipid bits before the film. (Michael Redman has written this column since before Mars was discovered and if that planet is as exciting as this film, he thinks he'll just stay home. Email your Martian chronicles to redman@bluemarble.net.) [This appeared in the 3/16/2000 "Bloomington Independent", Bloomington, Indiana. Michael Redman can be contacted at redman@bluemarble.net.] -- mailto:redman@bluemarble.net Film reviews archive: http://us.imdb.com/M/reviews_by?Michael%20Redman From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Nov 25 17:08:24 2002 From: Jerry Saravia Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000) Approved: ramr@rottentomatoes.com Followup-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 20:07:25 -0000 Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com Message-ID: X-RAMR-ID: 33373 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 813637 X-RT-TitleID: 1095393 X-RT-SourceID: 875 X-RT-AuthorID: 1314 X-RT-RatingText: 1.5/4 Summary: r.a.m.r. #33373 X-Questions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Submissions-to: ramr@rottentomatoes.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com Lines: 65 Path: news.island.liu.se!news.Update.UU.SE!puffinus.its.uu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!news-peer-europe.sprintlink.net!news.stupi.se!news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsfeed.news2me.com!sn-xit-05!sn-xit-06!sn-post-01!supernews.com!news.supernews.com!not-for-mail Xref: news.island.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:5222 rec.arts.sf.reviews:412 MISSION TO MARS (2000) Reviewed by Jerry Saravia RATING: One star and a half Firstly, Brian De Palma has aped Hitchcock in most of his work, and done it with real style and pizazz. Sometimes his work turned to other corners of inspiration, like his homage to Eisenstein's "Potemkin" in "The Untouchables." Then there were his early political films like "Greetings" and "Hi, Mom!" But where on earth does "Mission to Mars" belong in this director's career? Somewhere between the botched "The Bonfire of the Vanities" and the ludicrously overwrought "Scarface." "Mission to Mars" is a bad film, a sort of cinematic link to Kubrick's "2001," but it is a boring, highly unimaginative work, not the sort of enjoyably sleazy badness of "Body Double" or the campiness of "Raising Cain." All you might do is doze through most of this mission. A few astronauts in the year 2020 are sent to Mars to excavate and discover the red planet where no atmosphere exists. According to this film (and I suppose this is a known scientific fact), it takes six months to get to Mars from Earth and another six to return naturally. It felt like six months sitting through this mess. But I digress, as we discover in the first half-an-hour that a trip to Mars was a foolish idea from the start. A sandstorm with a peering, snakelike tornado sucks in everything in its sight, including two fellow astronauts. One survives, as played by Don Cheadle, which makes sense since he is the best actor in the group. Other astronauts at a nearby ship in space decide to go to Mars and get Cheadle back safely. The actors playing this other group of geniuses include Tim Robbins, Gary Sinise, Jerry O'Connell and Connie Nielsen. They all seem out of place, as if they rather be somewhere else. To be fair, "Mission to Mars" has some bravura moments since no De Palma film can be without at least one (remember the breathless long take at the beginning of "Bonfire of the Vanities," for starters?) A tense sequence in the ship which is slowly coming apart due to holes in and around the exterior is a vintage suspense piece. I also liked the sand storm that sucks everything in its sight. And there is a nifty long take inside the ship as it rotates and we see all the different characters defying gravity. Still, Stanley Kubrick mastered those kinds of shots with far more finesse and control than is evidenced here. And that is it, folks. The ending is protracted and corny, including the sight of an alien that would barely survive as someone's desktop background in their computer. It takes so long to get to the rushed climax that all I said to myself was, "Is that it?" Can De Palma be serious trying to pass something meaningful and poetic in what appears to be a video game sequence that would not make it any arcade? I sat dumbfounded and annoyed with "Mission to Mars" because everyone involved can, and should, do better. I know De Palma is trying to get back into the game with a box-office hit. "Mission to Mars" is the low road to desperation - unexciting, inert and innocuous. It is clear evidence that De Palma is temporarily AWOL. For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at http://www.geocities.com/faustus_08520/Jerry_at_the_Movies.html Post any thoughts or comments at the forum at http://moviething.com/members/movies/faust/forum.shtml ========== X-RAMR-ID: 33373 X-Language: en X-RT-ReviewID: 813637 X-RT-TitleID: 1095393 X-RT-SourceID: 875 X-RT-AuthorID: 1314 X-RT-RatingText: 1.5/4