Mission To Mars Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Let There Be Life.
For centuries, we've searched for the origin of life on Earth...We've been looking on the wrong planet.
Commander Luke Graham is selected to lead the first manned mission to Mars. Upon setting foot on the red planet, the team discovers an ancient, domelike structure which appears to be a beacon. The dome destroys the team and leaves Luc injured. The recently widowed Jim McConnell leads the rescue mission. When they arrive, they find Lke surprisingly alive, and he has spent the time alone learning the secrets of the mysterious construct. The question now becomes: do they enter the dome and answer humanity's oldest question, perhaps risking their lives in doing so, or return to Earth with what they do know and return in force with equipment and supplies?
| Gary Sinise | Jim McConnell |
| Tim Robbins | Woodrow 'Woody' Blake |
| Don Cheadle | Luke Graham |
| Jerry O'Connell | Phil Ohlmyer |
| Peter Outerbridge | Sergei Kirov |
| Kavan Smith | Nicholas Willis |
| Robert Bailey Jr. | Bobby Graham |
| Anson Woods | Child at Party |
| Sugith Varughese | 2nd Capcom |
| Story Musgrave | 3rd Capcom |
| Carlo Rota | Ambassador |
| Dmitry Chepovetsky | Technician |
| McCanna Anthony Sinise | Young Jim McConnell |
5.00 out of 10 (24761 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Film was in color, and for the most part in focus.
posted on 26 Aug 2009This was, without a doubt, the worst movie I have ever seen. Armageddon looks like Citizen Kane compared with this waste of celluloid.The script was filled with hockey dialogue that was for the most part laughable. The plot had major holes, here is an obvious one: why were the circuits only fried on the escape vehicle, yet there are obviously computers working when the rescue team arrives? There are far too many to write.Most of the film seem like it was shot just for product placement. I never saw so many corporate logos in my life. Does NASA slap a "Pennzoil" and "Kawasaki" sticker on all it's vehicles. Or my favorite blatant placement shot: Gary Sinise arrives in his 2020 model Isuzu car which you can make out by the giant "Isuzu" logo on it. The camera zooms in on the subjects as the recite dreadfully cheesy lines then zooms back out to get a full shot of the car and logo before cutting. Some ad wizards at these companies are going to get fired.In all I suggest seeing this film, I want someone to suffer the way I had to.
Still bad.
posted on 18 Aug 2009I watched this a couple of days after it came out in Sweden (My review from that time seems to have disappeared), and I thought it really sucked. I decided to tune in on an airing of the movie on one of the more public channels here in Sweden... It still sucks. The science is iffy (the parts of a DNA strand are NOT called chromosomes, chromosomes are made up of DNA), and the relationships play on just about every cliché out there.*** Spoiler *** Tim Robbins' Death is really badly done. Why the hell didn't they just form a chain of grapples, and bring him in?The less said about the ending the better, but this has to be said: A friend of mine described it as vulgo-Disney, and that's the best comment I have heard about it. It is soooo bad!*** MAJOR SPOILER ***Don't get me wrong; I like the basic premise about the ending (being evolved from aliens... pretty cool thought), but it's performed soooo heavy-handedly, with an alien crying to give a visual cue: "You are supposed to be awed here!" (Basically a big neon cue-card with a huge arrow pointed at it.)*** Spoiler ends ***Credit where it's due though: Strong performances almost all around. Armin Mueller Stahl seems to phone his in, but the rest (Robbins and Sinise stand out) are overall very good.
An Almost-Perfect, Mature SF Film
posted on 12 Aug 2009"Mission to Mars" fits right in with 2001, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and The Abyss. After all, they are all basically the same movie!That's not to imply that Brian DePalma, et al., are plagarists. Rather, the theme that Kubrick set up, space travel as a mode of transcendence for the human species, is explored again in this movie. And very well.Space flight is portrayed as the dangerous, and adventurous, endeavour that astronauts and cosmonauts have known for forty years. The presence of astronaut Storey ("Space is my calling") Musgrave on screen indicates the blessing of those who have been there. Not to mention the co-operation of NASA through the entire pre- and production process.For those who know astronautics, there are a few minor technical flaws to the film, more continuity problems than anything: spacesuits (just like the 2001 variety), having air hoses extend from the PLSS to the helmits, suddenly not there when four astronauts enter the alien sanctuary, those same pesky PLSS's stapped to the astronauts backs while they are in the control cockpit, as well as a ship as sophisticated as the MARS II not having a warning light indicating that a fuel manifold had been punctured by a micrometeorite minutes before the "candle" was "lit". When the production designer and director strive so hard for authenticity, these little bloopers can detract from the film....but not much.The depictions of Mars, and the hardware that is used to get people there is wonderful to watch. The sets (exteriors courtesy of British Columbia) are certainly light years ahead of Classic Trek (think "The Apple"). Sojourner should have been given a consultant's credit.DePalma attempts to create interesting characters for the film, but what emerges is the likability of the actors portraying them. Astronauts in real life are such successful, type A types, that when combined with their training, their perfection becomes boring. Perhaps that was the intention: give the audience a sense of what astronauts are really like. I guess it worked.Note to Gary Sinese: you are getting yourself typecast as a space film performer. Why do you think you were offered this film? Remember Apollo 13? Some casting director thinks you have the "Right Stuff". Please don't do a remake of "Enemy Mine"!At times, this film suffers from editing that is too fast- paced. I understand the mechanics of spaceflight- many of the audience will not. Therefore, without sufficient grounding in the subject, many of the audience will find some of the plot transitions difficult to understand.Or maybe it will kindle their interst in real spaceflight, so that NASA can fly more than 25 year old spaceships to orbiting tin cans in the sky.Well worth seeing several times.
It's not THAT bad...
posted on 12 Aug 2009After reading the other reviews posted here, I went to see this film with some trepidation. But, having nothing better to do that Sunday afternoon, I figured, why not?True, the film is full of cliches, the plot is far from original, the science stinks, and the ending makes you reach for your movie-sickness bag, but, hey, I've seen worse. At least there's no annoying little brat (like in The Phantom Menace), the American patriotism is kept to a reasonable level (except for the scene where they put the American flag back up on Mars, but at least they stopped short of saluting it) so we non-Americans can watch it without throwing up (at least until the end of the film), and the special effects, while not the best in recent films, are fairly impressive.So if it's Sunday, it's raining, and there aren't any game show reruns on TV, yeah, why not go see it?
The Horror. The Horror. Not ever Kurtz could imagine schlock as bad.
posted on 10 Aug 2009I must warn everyone to stay away from Mission To Mars. What a silly movie. It was trying to be the next 2001 or Close Encounters of the Third Kind and it failed. Brian DePalma may have some neat special effects but he ain't no Kubrick or Spielberg. It was godawful. Dumb ending and even stupider lines. How could those fine actors do some schlock like this? How? I am so devastated over it I deserve to be arrested for wasting two hours last night watching it...As Colonel Kurtz said in the way finer Apocalypse Now: "The Horror. The Horror." The whole message aspect of this movie was very pointless and trivial. If I wanted an explanation for evolution I would have paid attention in biology and at least I would not get an alien seeding theory. Boring all the way to the bank. I hope Red Planet can improve on this one.
2001 meets Close Encounters
posted on 08 Aug 2009This was one of the worst Sci-fi flicks that I have ever seen. It was obvious that it was an attempt to fuse "2001: A Space Odyssey" with "Close Encounters of the Third Kind". This is extremely sad because these are 2 of the best sci-fi movies ever made. The acting was as good as could be expected given the story line and careless writing. First of all, the science was awful. I don't even know where to start so I won't. There is just no excuse for this in this day and age of science. Are the writers that ignorant of science or do they think that the public is that dumb? Given some of the recent trends in science and society (Kansas City ruling against evolution in the class room, stupid beliefs in various pseudo-sciences, etc.) maybe the writers think people really are that stupid.Also the story line was just too implausible, especially the scene with the holographic Martian and the demonstration of evolution of life on Earth. How did the Martians know that evolution on Earth would proceed accordingly? Did a Martian hang around for several hundred million years after seeding the Earth with DNA and film the entire process? None of this makes sense. Once again, maybe the writers really think people are that dumb.
DePalma does it again-- and it aint good!!
posted on 08 Aug 2009Take a little of Appolo 13, a lot of 2001, a pinch of Close Encounters, toss in just a touch of the short story Kaleidoscope by Ray Bradbury and you have a mixture to curdle your brain, which is what this film can to do you.
Sinise, Cheadle and O'Connell give us solid, workman like performances, though Sinise does look a little bit embarrassed a couple of times. The usually reliable Tim Robbins is just too stolid and John Wayneish in this role. Armin Mueller-Stahl looks so totally unhappy that one has to wonder if he would have preferred to be in a dentist's chair to doing the film. It is interesting to note that he is not credited in the cast list. By choice I'd bet.From a technical stand point the film is well made. The screen play is a hodge-podge of other writer's ideas. The direction is a hodge-podge of other directors work. The end result is just plain awful. I stayed with it because I really wanted to like it but my brain kept muttering"will this never end".If you are a die hard, uncritical sci-fi movie fan, the sort who will sit through the remake of The Thing more than once, you may like this unintended disaster. Otherwise, spend your money on The Day The Earth Stood Still and watch a real classic.
Serious sci-fi fluff saved by dashing effects
posted on 04 Aug 2009From the cinematic mind of Brian De Palma (Mission: Impossible), who made a name for himself 20 years ago by paying homage to Alfred Hitchcock, comes this sci-fi thriller about a rescue mission to the Red Planet. If you're not into heavy science fiction, don't worry. There's a good reason this thing's rated PG, and it's not just for a lack of violence and naughty language. While 2001: A Space Odyssey was cerebral, Mission to Mars is a little like that movie's sequel, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, in that there's no overwhelming mysticism that can only be dealt with through the use of non-prescription drugs. Don't get me wrong, 2001 was a magnificent movie, but I've always suspected that being in tune with an alternate reality was the best way to view it.Mission to Mars is about the journey of the second such undertaking to Mars. Its mission: find out what happened to the first mission. Sounds a little like 2010 there, too. Tim Robbins is the commander, and all his team has to go on is a last-minute transmission by the last mission's commander, Don Cheadle. Luckily, we in the audience see what's happened: The first team, on one of those standard reconnaissance, rock-finding, fact-finding tours, finds a big rock that uses a tornado to shoot lots and lots of little rocks at them. And that's pretty much all we know till the Robbins crew shows up.I'm not going to delve any deeper into this plotline, because it's not as complex as all that. Because we know so very little about space and its floating inhabitants, much is left to the imagination of the screenwriter, who in turn uses that lack of knowledge into a mysterious aura. Somehow, everything has to MEAN something in a space movie.The acting is fine, but nothing to speak of. Hey, you're not looking at sci-fi for acting, are you? Robbins is earnest, but he's unfortunately miscast. Sinise is.. Well, he's Gary Sinise. He's convincing, he's believable, and he's ultimately the best character in the movie. The rest of the cast is able, but not terribly noteworthy, except for two possible exceptions. Don Cheadle (the commander from the first mission) is very good, showing even more promise than his earlier work in Volcano and Devil in a Blue Dress. And the eminent German actor Armin Mueller-Stahl is solid as their ground-control commander.All in all, well done, and worth a look in the theater. I wouldn't recommend waiting for video, because the effects are definitely best appreciated on the big screen.
Catch it at the matinee.
posted on 31 Jul 2009If you're really hot for computer animated FX then you'll probably love this movie. Most of the special effects are excellent but there is one spot where the viewer gets a serious let down when a cartoonish looking character intrudes looking like a Disney reject. The plot is fuzzy but entertaining. The director seemed to be going for a 2001: Space Odyssey feel but misses the mark by a mile. Needs to be seen on a big screen but don't pay full price.
The answer to our quest(ions)
posted on 31 Jul 2009This movie is very much underrated. I would give it a big 8. The characters ar nicely build up during the beginning of the movie. The trip to mars was not that spectacular but i think that the makers wanted to make a movie that was based on facts en very much likely possibilities. Thats why it was easy to believe the story, it felt absolutely plausible and true. The discovery of the stone on mars reminded me of the story's of Staley Kubrick's A space OdysseyI remember the feeling when i saw the end/plot of the movie. It was beautiful and it gave me a warm feeling like now i finally understood where we came from ...like all the pieces felt in place.
In spite of Reviews SEE THIS ONE!!
posted on 27 Jul 2009This movie while being filled with cliche' is a worth while movie that will restore your hope for a bright and happy future. It may not be the most technically sound movie but it is enjoyable and worth the money. The acting is above average and believable, not to mention you feel like you've met the cast somewhere before. Of all the Science Fiction films currently released, this one is definitely a 10, if not a 10 of all films currently released.
Nicely photographed...
posted on 27 Jul 2009The problem with it is: it's boring. Even the "action" sequences had me thinking about what to make for dinner tomorrow. Most of the ideas seemed half-baked and there were many moments that just didn't make sense. Such as when a crew member sees droplets of blood indicating where the air hole is but minutes later she does not seem to remember that useful trick and at the same time another crew member is not wearing his O2 helmet for no good reason and it is HE who has the idea for using liquid for find the air leak. Nevermind the logos everywhere. De Palma is much better off when he directs things he writes himself (for the most part). Even though instead of riffing off of Hitchcock, in this movie he riffs off of Kubrick. For a much better De Palma movie, see Blow Out. For a much better sci-fi movie, see Solaris.
Give us some credit Hollywood!
posted on 25 Jul 2009"And the winner for most misleading trailer of 1999 goes to..."For anyone with a shred of intelligence and dignity this movie is quite painful to watch. I can accurately summarize M2M as several hundred painfully corny emotional scenes interspersed with the occasional contrived space-vehicle action sequence.The acting was horribly hammy, though in the actors' defense, there was little anyone could do with the cheesy, unnaturally dramatic dialog that populated this film. "If only (dead character) could be here to see this." "He is. He did it for all of us. Here, he would have wanted you to have this."The special effects were enjoyable in their early appearances, but the plot and script soon overwhelmed the enjoyment this brought. The early sequences of the film were almost exciting (if the schmolzy BBQ at the start didn't send you to sleepy-land) but after that, the awful plot reduces any special effects to the movie-making equivalent of rhinestones glued to a cheap polyester tuxedo.The insulting lack of subtlety of the movie is also worth noting. Flashbacks of the dead wife, replays of scenes of the film to "remind" us of important clues, "You know and I know there's only one man for this mission" - sheesh. It was also very Americo-centric, the non-American actors had about a minute of screen time, whereas the scene of the star spangled banner flapping in the Martian breeze got two. "World Space Station" my ass.Also, as one with a degree in Astrophysics it would be appropriate to comment on the scientific plausibility of the film, except that I don't think I really have to at this point, do I. Hooray for Hollywood!I was forced to watch "Armageddon" because I was on a plane, but alas I paid for this one. Don't make my mistake - steer clear of it unless you're somewhere over the Pacific and can't sleep.
I've Seen 2001 and this is NO 2001
posted on 23 Jul 2009I've Seen 2001 and this is NO 2001The mere mention that this odd excuse for a sci-fi film is anyway related or comparable to 2001 is amazing. This thing muddled about for 2 + hours and ended like it began with a yawn. Oh yeah I will applaud its efforts in remaining scientifically accurate and leaving out any flesh eating aliens however that does not excuse it from offering a what could have been a great film. I won't spoil the movie with explicit details on key mistakes in the film (although I really, really want to). Instead I will give you a few broad pointers to look for so your experience can be as rich as mine:1) Look for odd unexplained pauses in the movie, were characters just seem to be standing around waiting for the scene to catch up with them.2) Search for the most cheesy and pointless dialogue, its FUN! Make it a contest! Play it with your friends! there so much to choose from you will never get bored.3) Find the most shameless Commercial Product promotion (hint, look for the Budweiser in a box)4) Marvel at the ability to skip over what could and should have been key scenes to grab to viewers attention in the movie, OK just one spoiler, the next line down***Spoiler***Although it is called mission to mars you never actually see them land on mars or take off from earth. You think the accomplishment of humankind landing on another planet would at least make the cut. For example Apollo 13, no you really didn't need to see them take from earth to understand the movie, but its a transition, it moves you from area of the film to the next.***End Spoiler***5) Music, Music, Music - Yes Mr. De Palma bad soundtrack can kill a film, and it did its deed in this one.So Yes you should still go see this movie, it sucks but if you are a sci-fi fan it is always fun to watch sci-fi movies good or bad, I just wish there were more good ones.
Are there two Brian DePalmas?
posted on 23 Jul 2009It's extremely difficult for me to imagine that the director of "Carrie" and "The Untouchables" ever had his hands in this mess. The DePalma I remember would have recognized the weaknesses in this screenplay and called for a rewrite. What's truly sad is that the film starts out with some potential, and provides some rare "real science fiction" touches that we don't see much these days.Unfortunately, the first act is scarred by foreshadowing underlined with a highliter and punctuated with exclamation points. God forbid we should miss a hint. Later plot points, while interesting, make very little sense and fail to stand up to scrutiny. Finally, the conclusion tries for a "Close Encounters" like emotional catharsis, appealing to the sense of discovery and adventure. It comes off instead as smarmy and insincere sentimentality, and worse, just plain goofy.The actors, a dream cast including some of my very favorites such as Tim Robbins, Don Cheadle and Gary Sinise, act their little hearts out in an attempt to wring some humanity out of the story. Sadly, there's just no making gold out of lead. 4 out of 10.
Not THAT bad - quite solid, actually.
posted on 11 Jul 2009Dunno what film those other people saw, I'm not sure it was the same that I saw. My comments in brief:* Solid story, even though it was nothing we haven't seen before.* Very solid acting, especially from Sinise and Robbins.* Did the production company force DePalma to cut about 30 minutes from the movie? A slower pace might have helped in some places.* Probably not technically sound enough to please the average nitpicking sci-fi aficionado. Good enough for the rest of us, though.* DePalma has watched 2001 a few times too often, or he is an avid fan of that movie. The amount of references was impressive.In brief: n othing extraordinary, but solid entertainment. You money for the ticket is NOT wasted.
Mission to Mars: F-
posted on 07 Jul 2009Mission to Mars is nothing short of a complete snoozefest. From the moment it started to the moment it ended, I sat in my seat yawning like crazy, and wondering "where the heck is the actual movie?" It truly was one of the most stupid films I've seen in quite a long time. Gary Senise was ok, but in every scene you saw him in, I thought "Man, they really put on a couple coats of make-up on him, didn't they?" The actual only convincing acting in the whole film was done by Kim Delaney, seen only in flashback videos as Senise's dead wife. The special effects were at least half-way decent, but couldn't make up for the atrocious dialogue and film itself. Mission to Mars tried too hard to be a combination of 2001, The Abyss, Apollo 13, The Mummy (yes, I said The Mummy), and Close Encounters. I pity everyone involved in this disgraceful attempt at a film. And you could tell the writers didn't know what they were doing, because in the obvious places they encountered writer's block, they just inserted a scene where Gary Senise remembers his dead wife and is sad, as if the audience is really supposed to sympathize or something. The film is a laughable mess, from beginning to end.
Bizarre...but not completely worthless.
posted on 03 Jul 2009Brian De Palma has gotten really mainstream lately. I've always found his films to be dark and strange but it was his style. When he did "Mission:Impossible" in 1996 I remember thinking..."This is a Brian De Palma movie?" Speaking of thinking, he must have not done a lot of that to come up with the last 20 minutes of this film. But surprisingly, I found everything up to that point really working for me. "Mission to Mars" is an unusual film indeed but it is far from, as some have said, the worst movie so far this year. It's so routine to say movies like this have great special effects. So what? But I found the character drama to be satisfying. The opening sequence involving a Mars mission send-off party was really nice and introduced the characters well, whom I liked a lot. Sci-fi could use a big shot in the arm these days I'll admit but the genre isn't totally far gone and completely lost. With films such as these, the climactic delivery is vital. If you fail at that, you lose credibility. Still, I consider this film better than "The Phantom Menace". Now THAT was a bad movie!!
Appalling
posted on 15 Jun 2009Although this film cannot be said to be boring, it is so cliche ridden and corny that it is laughable. I find this sort of thing difficult to accept from a director of De Palmas stature. The ending was so naff that the audience actually groaned at the scene prior to the final credits.Maybe it was deliberately made this way? Its a film that is probably okay if you like formula written sci-fi but not one for true Science Fiction connoisseurs.
The worst movie I have ever seen
posted on 28 Aug 2009All I can say is what were all of these excellent actors and the director thinking? Probably "blockbuster" or "money." Unfortunately they managed to make a movie that will probably make a lot of money without providing a good movie experience to anyone.I came into the theatre expecting a smart, exciting movie with a believable plot and cool CGI. Did I get any of that? Did anyone who saw the movie? Doubtful. The characters were one-dimensional and initially had strong emotional foundations- unfortunately those strong emotions did not carry throughout the whole movie. The dialogue was hilariously terrible and every shot could have been cut by at least 5 seconds. The "crises" the characters were put in did not seem nearly as dangerous or suspenseful as they should have. At several points I found myself able to think of a couple solutions to their supposedly impossible problem. The score was also completely inappropriate, better suited for a really bad b-movie.The movie seemed to switch gears from sci-fi action to culminate in a goofy-not-quite-good-enough-to-be-campy-feel-good ending. The film also lacked any sort of resolution.In short, the movie drags on through one ridiculous scene after another, each of which is funnier than the one before, but not intentionally so. It is so bad, you have to laugh. Otherwise you would cry because you paid $8 to see this instead of staying home and watching the Lifetime Original Movie, which was probably far superior.