Mission to Mars

Throughout his career, Brian De Palma's sensibilities have been at odds with mainstream audiences. He's a trickster and a formalist, and those looking for realism and carefully sketched characters are often left confused by his constant homages and emphasis on technique.

"Mission to Mars" introduces its playful intentions with its very first shot. A toy rocket, accompanied by carnival music, shoots up into the air and explodes. De Palma is here to play with his toys. The very next scene is an overly elaborate long-take in which all the film's characters, their loves and losses, are introduced.

As a formalist, De Palma often calls attention to the artificiality of art. Here he has two astronauts holding video cameras as a CGI beast veers toward them. We focus on Don Cheadle's eyes as he watches these two film-makers, the word "synthetic" stencilled in bold letters behind him. This whole action scene is fake, created for the audience. De Palma wants you to focus not on story, but the design and look of the thing. Likewise, the aliens at the end of the film are themselves artists who've designed man. As such, they demonstrate this knowledge to their audience (the astronauts) with a "film".

De Palma once said that space travel and scientific conquest are the only things that he can generate genuine optimism for, and one feels this in "Mission to Mars". The film has an overwhelming sense of earnestness. De Palma characters have never seemed so pure, optimistic, good natured and filled with humanity. There's no cynicism or bitterness here. Upon first viewing I found this all very cheesy, but now, coupled with Ennio Moricone's sweeping and romantic score, I find the film's broad brushstrokes very moving.

"Mission" also continues De Palma's trend of turning classic films on their side. He's done this to Hitch, Fellini, Anotonioni and Hawks. Now he does it to Kubrick (one scene literally has "2001: A Space Odyssey's" monolith on it's side).

Does this make De Palma a hack? No, It makes him a giddy delight if you're a film fan. "Mission to Mars" is a bit more straightforward than "2001," it's a little friendlier, but it's practically the same movie. Just replace the monolith with the "Mars face," and drop Hal. Both films' spaceships also look alike, and the white room used in the climactic scene strongly resembles the room at the end of "2001." And of course, where Kubrick gave us spaceships dancing the waltz, De Palma gives us astronauts dancing in zero gravity.

But De Palma doesn't stop at Kubrick. His film has a character named Luke who spends one scene talking about a mysterious "force" (Star Wars), a spaceship commanded by a man named Jim (Star Trek), and many overt reference to "Flash Gordon", "Robinson Crusoe" and "Teasure Island". Noticing that his tale is a virtual rehash of "The Abyss", De Palma also tips his hat to James Cameron by having Gary Sinese become submerged in oxygenated water (like Ed Harriss) during the film's finale. And of course both films have a CGI tentacle. Cameron gives us water, De Palma gives us sand.

Everything De Palma touches has been covered before. He acknowledges this. But it's how he touches, that's magical. His entire film is elegant and fluid. Every shot is just a little bit wider or closer than usual. His camera pans and tracks with robotic precision, dancing, points of views shifting, perspectives changing. There's a perfection in his form. Every shot is beautifully precise.

But what about the trite story, critics say? Yes, the story is silly, stupid even, but it's all told with such an earnest "awww shucks" feeling that it sucks you in. And besides, De Palma is never about story. Compare "Femme Fatale" to "Double Indemnity". "Compare Vertigo" to "Body Double" or "Obsession". He takes the core ideas of all these films and multiplies them by ten. You want "Double Indemnity"? De Palma gives you triple indemnity. You want Hitchcockian voyeurs? Hell, De Plama's voyeurs are watching voyeurs who themselves are being watched by even more voyeurs. You want illicit Hitchcockian affairs? Screw that. De Palma gives you Vertigo with incest. You want a slow-mo Hitchcock knife stab? Hell, De Palma kills you with a power drill and chainsaw.

Nothing in De Palma's cinema is real. He knows that all films are about other films. Everything he's done has been done before. This is what all formalists (Coens, Tarantino, Leone) are about. They're interested in the act of watching and how we catalogue what we see.

After 4 viewings, the only flaw I see in "Mission to Mars" is the film's unimaginative ending. Someone concerned with style and superficial form really should design a more imaginative ending. De Palma's silly alien hologram feels hokey, though Morricone's score does lend it an emotional sweep.

But this fault, I think, can be blamed on Touchstone. The studios had an 80 million dollar budget on the line, and weren't happy with where the film was going. They wrongly thought they had another Appolo 13/Gary Sinese rescue movie on their hands. And so looking to save cash, they chopped the budget and gave De Palma several months less to shoot the final act. Hence the film goes nowhere after the EVA sequence. But this sort of studio meddling is typical with De Palma (Snake Eyes, Mission Impossible, Casualties, Dahlia, Obsession, Bonfire etc were all taken away at some point).

8.5/10- The film has aged well. Gorgeous visuals, beautiful music and an affecting sense of optimism. The only flaw is the last act, which still works thanks to Morricone's score and an emotional flashback montage. Requires several viewings.

After a second viewing, I can say that I am still not sure what to make of this film. Many will see this as something of a remake of 2001. And yes, the film is visually almost plagiaristic of the Kubrick masterpiece. The two biggest problems are a lack in originality and thoughtfulness. From my rating, you can see that I did not despise this film. It's visually nice, and the performances are all good. However, I am not sure I can recommend it.

I'm a sci-fi fan, and a scientist, so I was initially intrigued by the notion of a big-name dramatic film-maker doing a sci fi epic, which appeared, at least initially, to be hardcore sci-fi. By hardcore sci-fi, I mean fiction based on scientific reality, not fantasy with a tiny bit of science thrown in for decoration. An example, also using Mars as a vehicle, is Ben Bova's novel "Mars" - which focuses on the very edge of plausibility, only occasionally overstepping the bounds of scientific possibility. Film has rarely achieved this - a few interesting exceptions are Alien (the original), Outland and Silent Running. Hardcore sci-fi, which, I argue, this film could and should have been, is careful about that boundary. And 3/4ths of the way through Mission to Mars, it's still a hardcore sci-fi flick. Then suddenly, it's something else. I will leave that something else for you to discover, and stay focused on what the director and screenwriter were trying to do here.

What we have here is not really a single plot, but a pastiche of plots that have been strung together into one long, mysterious and grandiose story line. The film starts out with a couple of scenes which might have been lost in Appollo 13 - providing a little bit of character development and letting us know that we are about to witness the first manned space flight to Mars. That flight ends pretty quickly, as virtually everything goes wrong. And as a rescue mission begins, the question then becomes, why is everything going wrong? Up to the point where the rescue mission enters Martian orbit, this central question is sustained and developed skillfully, but then , in my opinion, things start to go wrong with the film itself.

There are major problems with what could have been the best aspects of this film. The spaceships are remarkably flimsy and poorly designed, but they look great! The safety protocols for the mission, about which we hear so much, are either not followed or incredibly naive. The heroes are not particularly clever about heroism, and seem to forget, at times, what the actual possibilities are for mobility in space (why not use the tether three times - twice out to Woody and once to get back after you run out of fuel, Terry?). The guy who authored the safety protocols does not appear particularly concerned with safety, or even protocols. The evolutionary biologist on the crew is amazingly poorly informed about the Paleozoic period of earth history and the evolution of species. I could go on.

The film is broadly derivative of 2001 A Space Oddyssey, The Abyss, Star Gate, Event Horizon, Fifth Element, Contact, and a few dozen other somewhat entertaining but not particularly believable space / sci-fi adventures, but while it resembles, and in fact pays homage to these films (especially 2001), it never entertains quite as well. Why? Because these films do not pretend to be based on scientific ideas, but rather, aesthetics and humanism. While most of these films invite interpretation, Mission to Mars simply repeats ideas from previous films and doesn't even bother to recast them into an interesting new light. Mission to Mars is something that has been done many times before, and in more interesting, entertaining, and thought-provoking ways.

Technical proficiency, which is something this film exudes, is no substitute for a compelling story and interesting individual characters. Unfortunately, even in terms of technique, the film has some flaws. Some will disagree, but I found the soundtrack irritating, and the pace of the film very uneven to say the least. And the characters lives are so intertwined in the few character development sequences that only Sinise, Robbins and Bennings' characters develop rudimentary individualities.

Despite his reputation, I can not hold Brian De Palma up to standards which are different than those of other film-makers, and I can not condone creating a special vocabulary or a sophisticated argument to permit interpretation of his films as part of some over-arching theme which only he and a few of his fans understand. There is a fine line between flattering imitation and shameless copying, so I'd rather not get into an extrapolated meta-film discussion of this film's relationship to 2001. I don't think this film is worthy of such a sophisticated analysis.

There are some truly great moments in Mission to Mars. This should not be too surprising with the wonderful cast, big budget, and talented production team. What did surprise me about this film was the 2001-like 180 degree turn it took off of the map of scientific possibility 3/4ths of the way through the film, and I can't say that turn and its outcome really impressed me.

If you're a sci-fi fan, or somebody with a very casual interest in science, you should probably see this. But if you haven't seen 2001 first, by all means, wait until you have. And don't take this one too seriously when you do get around to it. This has much more to do with fiction than science fiction.

I don't understand why this film is getting such a hard time here ! OK, so it's no 2001 - a film with which is has much in common - but it's certainly no Battlefield Earth either.

The story is engaging - the action sequences are realistic and entertaining - the special effects are excellent, with very realistic spaceship designs and photography. The main criticism I can level at the film is that is totally avoids some important scenes, such as the first landing on Mars, or the landing of Mars 2 crew. Also the initial scene is drawn out and there's far too much hugging going on !

This is an intelligent, but low-key film - it reminded me of some mid-fifties sci-fi, like the Thing. Perhaps audiences today are less sophisticated - having been brought up on a diet of poor action movies and even poorer Star Trek 'science fiction'. Mission to Mars has a more realistic basis, is less flashy - and I don't think there's even one explosion in the whole film.

If you enjoyed Contact or 2001 and want more of the same, then Mission to Mars is a definite must-watch. It's a shame that a quality film like this is getting panned so badly, as movie studios are more likely to avoid similar projects in the future. Would 2001 be made today ? I doubt it.

Mission to Mars has divided opinions with its attempt to blend near future space exploration with human drama.

Yes, the writing and acting are not amazing, not even great. It's average and below average at times, but the actors did their best and had some fun while filming.

I have a personal fascination with the nostalgic charm of 90s retro-futuristic spaceship interiors, from the decor and CGI to the overall aesthetics this film did Great.

The film has some great rolling shots that show off where the budget went. The visuals highlight the film's investment in creating a detailed and expansive portrayal of space and the Martian landscape, even if the CGI doesn't always hold up. These moments add to the film's aesthetic appeal, making the most of its visual potential despite other shortcomings in the narrative and character development.

The overall story takes a few twists and turns but keeps it simple and explains what is happening in a subtle manner.

I give this movie a 6/10.

I do not understand why this movie was slagged so badly when it came out. I finally watched it on VHS, and I liked it much better than "Red Planet", its companion Mars movie.

Sure, "MTM" steals from lots of other movies, but what film doesn't? The opening is lifted directly from "Apollo 13", but it serves the purpose of setting everything up rather painlessly. I love the cast, and they do establish a sense of camaraderie here.

I am not an aeronautical engineer, but I do know enough science to appreciate the way the fight to survive the entry into Mars' atmosphere is based on the limitations of their equipment. In most action movies, the hero has limitless ammo, fuel, food, etc. It was truly heartbreaking to see Tim Robbins' character make the choice he did.

Overall, "Mission to Mars" is very enjoyable. It felt like a short story lifted directly out of the Sci-Fi of the 60's, which I grew up reading. The pacing is very good, the acting is good (given some of the cliched situations), the script does not insult your intelligence, and I liked the resolution very much. Fun at the movies, what more can you ask?