Planète rouge

I think it will take about as much time to see a good film about Mars as it will take mankind to land on it. Although this film is much better than the (oddly) bigger box-office hit Mission to Mars it still lacks a lot. OK Carrie Ann Moss and Tom Sizemore are good in their roles, but the plot is just too predictable at times. The biggest compliment though goes out to Val Kilmer who on his own earned one of the points I give this film.

6 out of 10

Red Planet may not be sufficient when rated as a science-fiction, but for people who watch the movie for its plot and not with expectations of very high technology and special effects, its not a disappointing one.

It starts with a slow tempo, and although the whole movie takes place far from earth, we are not blinded by non-stop special effects. Instead Anthony Hoffman gives us the story he is telling and does not care much whether he satisfies the science-fiction lovers. By staying away from the unnecessary effects, he keeps our attention on the theme.

The suspense in the movie is quite good, although not many big surprises occurs.

Biggest negative point for me (as a guy not interested in effects but in the way the director tells what he has to say) is Hoffman fails to show us the relationship between the crew and gives us his characters with simple out lines. I guess he knows his weakness here, and so he makes his captain (Carrie-Anne Moss) describe all her crew members one by one.

Finally if you are not especially looking for a science-fiction but say you can watch one, Red Planet will not be a very bad choice. I rate the film 6, but its 6,5 actually.

I don't know why everybody rips this movie. The special effects are very realistic, down to the pink-tinted Martian sky. The plot is plausible (for science fiction), paying attention to many small details that often make these kinds of movies farcical. Most important, it's very existential; humans simply trying to survive against almost insurmountable odds. As the struggle builds, the relationships begin to gel nicely. This IS a movie about human relationships, not Star Wars style hype. I know, there are some weak spots. The opening and closing dialog, Val Kilmer whispering all the way through, some of the dialog, etc. But overall, this movie doesn't try to do too much (unlike the abysmal Mission To Mars), and that's what makes it a success.

What a perfect rivalry this film has with Brian De Palma's Mission to Mars. Two films coming out in the same year, set on the same planet, with the same production values and featuring casts of equal talent. While both movies also feature numerous scientific inaccuracies and stupidities, each has something different to offer. If you are looking for mystique, try Mission to Mars, but if you want action or thrills, then go with Red Planet.

Set in the mid twenty first century, Earth is dying, and humanity has turned to Mars as a potential replacement. An unmanned terraforming experiment has been attempted (according to the introductory narration) Months later, it appears to have failed, so a group of astronauts are sent out to investigate. They are surprised and excited to discover not only breathable air but the existence of life on the barren cold red world. When their space craft shuts down however, not only are they stranded, but they become threatened by the malfunctioning of their navigator droid 'Amee'. These few individuals must survive to carry the news back to Earth which proves that man can live on the Red Planet.

I think the story works decently as a nifty sci-fi thriller. Mars in this film looks quite convincing, because the terrain closely resembles the photographs taken by the Pathfinder in 1997. The color scheme is made up of browns and tans, rather than the over saturated red from Mission to Mars.

Ret Planet was received better than Brian De Palma's movie, and I can see why. Although neither of them are examples of great filmaking, I would recommend them both.

Of Mission to Mars.

Both movies were hastily put together, not out of any creative impulse, but purely to capitalize on the spike in public interest in Mars exploration after the 1997 Pathfinder mission with its Sojourner rover. Both involve manned missions to Mars in spin ships, both expeditions encounter some sort of disaster in Mars orbit in order to kill off a few characters and inject some drama, and both involve the discovery of alien life on the surface. Both premises are highly derivative with cookie cutter dialogue and plot structure hastily adapted to a Mars theme.

Both were also staples of my childhood, but I can honestly say that I did not remember the dialogue in this film being so utterly pathetic. It's as if they didn't have time to write a proper screenplay so they just unboxed a premade 'action adventure movie script', slapped a Mars theme on it, and called it a day. This is some real straight-to-video stuff. There's very little abuse of scientific jargon because they don't even attempt to use scientific jargon. The ship gets hit by a 'solar storm' and it's just 'dead in the water'. Sure, that's sufficient information...

The CGI is somewhat worse than Mission to Mars. At least they tried to hide it tastefully in that movie, here they're trying to make it the main attraction, 10 years too early.

Mission's soundtrack is pretty pretentious but at least it's not total garbage. Red Planet gives us 90's club music. This movie would have been better with less audio in general, let us take in the few worthwhile panoramic shots in peace.

OK, OK, OK. The bit where the Russian lander has a little distressed cartoon bear cosmonaut is pretty memorable for its originality. I mean, it's sort of unintentionally hilarious, but it's memorable. The design of the killer robot is also pretty iconic, totally impractical, but iconic. And the scene where the bug creatures move in unison across the plain is pretty interesting. So this movie has its moments. But on the whole, pretty bad.