Red Planet Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Not A Sound. Not A Warning. Not A Chance. Not Alone.
The Color Of Fear
They Didn't Find Life On Mars. It Found Them.
In the near future, Earth is dying. A new colony on Mars could be humanity's only hope. A team of American astronauts, each a specialist in a different field, is making the first manned expedition to the red planet and must struggle to overcome the differences in their personalities, backgrounds and ideologies for the overall good of the mission. When their equipment suffers life-threatening damage and the crew must depend on one another for survival on the hostile surface of Mars, their doubts, fears and questions about God, man's destiny and the nature of the universe become defining elements in their fates. In this alien environment they must come face to face with their most human selves.
| Tom Sizemore | Dr. Quinn Burchenal |
| Carrie-Anne Moss | Cmdr. Kate Bowman |
| Val Kilmer | Robby Gallagher |
| Benjamin Bratt | Lt. Ted Santen |
| Simon Baker | Chip Pettengill |
| Terence Stamp | Dr. Bud Chantilas |
| Jessica Morton | |
| Jessica B. Morton | Website Fan |
| Bob Neill | Houston Control |
| Antony Hoffman |
5.20 out of 10 (12596 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Incredibly STUPID movie.
posted on 31 Jul 2009This is absolutely one of the stupidest movies it has ever been my misfortunes to see. The plot, such as it is, is horrible. The acting is passable, and the special effects are fine, but it's a really stupid movie, with plot not following its original direction not at all. STUPIDITY overwhelms everything else.
NOT Mission To Mars
posted on 27 Jul 2009The most important thing is that this film, "Red Planet," is NOT "Mission To Mars." Even though this is the second Mars movie of the year 2000, this one is done better. It isn't great, but it's entertaining. I didn't want to laugh continuously or get up and leave like in "Mission To Mars."There are some problems with the script, like underdeveloped characters and some unsettled plot details, but if you go in expecting to be entertained with some eye candy and special effects that do look pretty cool, then you'll have a good time.Because, hey, nothing can be as bad as "Girlfight."
Sci-Fi Yawn
posted on 27 Jul 2009A weak plot made this movie nearly painful to watch. I'm very glad I waited for the video. A good cast and special effects weren't enough to save what could have been a good movie.There was too much stuff that was uninteresting (the whole boring trip TO Mars) and not enough of the good stuff (AMEE and those strange bugs). It was also hard to overlook some of the mistakes, too. The bio expert gets the DNA material wrong? The commander gives CPR that looks weak, to say the least. How it could revive anyone is beyond me. And how long did that launch and recover take? He did all of that without oxygen, yet came to after just a few punches in the chest? Oh, and they're going to take bugs back to earth that resemble robots and, though they supposedly feed on algae and produce oxygen, it sure looked to me like they also feed on blood! Even Gallagher admits 'they eat everything.' Sure, so let's take a few to earth. My favorite character was Chantilas. They killed him off far too early.
Why did they get rid of the interesting character and leave the ones you don't know much about and don't care anything about at all? Good sci-fi, as Star Trek showed <g>, should always save the main characters and kill off the extras!This, along with Mission to Mars, make two very boring Sci-Fi attempts in a year. <yawn>
Not Great, but Not Bad Either
posted on 25 Jul 2009This film seems to fit somewhere in the middle of sci-fi films. It's certainly not in same class as the Star Trek films. On the other hand Red Planet is certainly better than Mission to Mars or Lost in space. There are certainly many flaws if you pay any attention to details but, it was ok to watch. 6 out of a possible 10!!!
Lots of holes in this plot...
posted on 21 Jul 2009Overall, this was an okay movie. Don't go into it expecting a great movie, however. There were just too many questions left unanswered. Many of the scenes leave you going, "Huh?" Especially after the movie when you try to piece together what you just saw.I went to the movie with friends, and I like Kilmer and Moss. However, neither of them could save this movie. It is definitely not a thriller/horror/action movie. It only qualifies as a sci-fi in my book. There are a few decent action sequences, little-to-no horror (scary) moments, and the thrill was less-than-thrilling.The movie had potential with a strong cast, but the plot was so simple and uninspiring. Go see it at a matinee or in re-release for a couple dollars, but don't go buy a full-priced ticket.
Boring
posted on 15 Jul 2009This movie was so bad that I even decided to comment on it. In fact, at first I thought it was good. Honestly, for about 40 minutes I enjoyed it. Then the only character who could have brought some philosophy and deeper thoughts was silenced (I mean the old scientist guy). And the film turned into some comedy when the robot began making karate moves. Oh, come on! What were they thinking, that this would add some thrills to the movie? It was plain stupid. Period. The events were predictable, and because of that it was boring to watch. The acting was disappointing. The remaining crew members somehow don't give a thought about the others that were lost forever on Mars, they seem to be perfectly fine and under no stress. I guess there are only few good sci-fi movies out there...
Not the right stuff
posted on 21 Jun 2009This movie steps where angels fear to tread: an attempt to attract women to a sci-fi flick.Hence it puts a women in charge of the mission who even refers degradingly to highly skilled engineers and physicists etc as 'you guys'.See, this kind of derogative verbatim would quickly undermine any authority a women would have over a group of 5 highly qualified men 'off the right stuff' over 180 days. Maybe that's why it's set 50 years ahead, making up for the unlikely scenario. And lo and behold; the woman undermines her leadership authority by engaging in a romance with a crew member. Not too credible, or is it? You decide! That aside, there are several other issues that in itself undermines the movie's authority: 1) The spaceship needs to be 'parked' manually between two moons as the female commander proudly accomplish. Of course the entire trip would be automated and run from Houston. No room for a quick human error here.2) It is not likely that such a mission is endeavoured based on a hit an run chance of avoiding a solar storm as occurs and which disables the proud ship. Either adequate protection would be enforced and/or the 'space weather' would be taken into account in the last hours by space 'meteorologists', 'parking' the ship on the backside of Mars in case of any outlook to a solar storm, which can already be predicted based on sun spot activity.3) Given the oxygen level, even though the men could endure the max temperature 20° C (68° F), it's unlikely the could survive the night with the helmet off (for breathing after the stored O2 ran out) as the temperature drops to a minimum of -140° C (-220° F).4) The silliness of the robot-going-killer Amee, a highly advanced machine manufactured to withstand combat situations yet malfunctions after the ballooned landing, subtracts further from the credibility of the movie. I kind of guess it's metal would brittle at the nightly temperatures, but allow for technological advances. Then again it's unlikely it would fail after a planned landing using balloons with some foreseen bumps.5) I also didn't like the very foggy, unprecise and extremely belated report of 'life on Mars' which the sole surviving 'guy' accidentally reports in a side comment at the final rescue. Any astronaut would surely alarm the spaceship immediately of the sensation but waits until the final minutes. Besides, he vaguely reports 'it eats through everything' - given they want to move inside the spaceship, partly made of the same material as the eaten spacesuit was made of, I wonder how they would keep the bugs from eating the spaceship and the cannister it's been captured in? 6) The probability of the 'guys' being caught in the only ice storm on the planet is? 1 to some millions? 7) Given the alleged ice storm to under -50 C, I wonder how both bugs and algae survives? Lava I could understand, but bugs and algae? 8) Out of nowhere on the surface of Mars, the 'guys' can suddenly solder to produce the radio? Solding tools from where? and the power source?9) Even more surprising is the roll of tape the 'guys' produce to support the astronaut with the broken rib.The list of improbabilities goes on and on.Credits earned for great landscaping and good visual effects and the design of the spaceship.Summing up I would say a good effort by many was wasted on a weak script and a leading female with no screen authority to support her role.
Hard Sci Fi, Not the Usual Pablum
posted on 13 Jun 2009Red Planet has action, tension, adventure, but without furry Aliens (see "Mission to Mars") or stupid schtick. The plot is fairly dark.First off, the humans are off to Mars not in a sense of exploration, but desperation, seeking answers to help a dying earth. Everything goes wrong on the mission: no spoilers here, but let's just say Murphy's Law in Outer Space might apply. The mission commander has to try to save the mother ship from massive systems failure while the crew on the planet are in danger of being picked off, one by one, but a variety of forces.This movie might've gotten short shrift since it's a techno-scientific yarn with a lot of unpleasant characters put into conflict with one another. But other than the usual scientists-not-acting-scientific and the mlitary-types being seen as all gung-ho and not disciplined -- all the usual problems in such a plot, no doubt -- the characterizations are fine. Criticism of "hero" Val Kilmer as not being charismatic enough or the dialogue not being scintillating enough miss the point, and the underlying story of the comfort of civilization vs. the cruelty of nature. The story moves along in a fairly sprightly manner after the usual exposition in flight, and the adventure of survival.All in all, a lot more of a true science fiction story than any of the contemporary space yarns that came out around the time it did, and I expect it will wear a lot better over the years.
Pretty good with a different approach to Mars
posted on 16 May 2009I was surprised by some of the comments on this one. It seemed, those that hated "Mission to Mars" liked this one and vice versa. I saw "Mission to Mars" and I enjoyed it. I also enjoyed this one. The main plot was a little slow but it was a believable film. They were fairly close to what would happen in space although they did take a few liberties with the physics of the some of the scenes. They were needed to make the film flow better. Some of the sub-plots I felt detracted from the film and could have been left out. However, the idea of terra-forming Mars for human colonization was good. The makers also left a few mysteries for the viewer to think about.Overall, this one is worth your while. Good special affects, and pretty good plot line. (7 out of 10)
oh dear - dross
posted on 02 May 2009Dross. Pretty much sums it up. I rarely give a film a 1, but this is truely terrible. There is little storyline, poor screenplay, and very un-engaging characters - after having been a big fan of the matrix and Carrie Ann Moss I was very disappointed to see her in such a poor film.If I had seen this at the cinema I would have walked out - at one point in the film the crew are in an 'action' sequence where they might die. I wished they would so the film would end more quicklyplease don't see this - and if you have watch something else quickly to take away the memory !!
One word: Predictable!
posted on 28 Apr 2009SPOILER ALERT Everything that could possibly go wrong in this movie does go wrong. I guess all it takes to make a feature film is good special effects, lots of action, death, and the pathetic love story where the guy (I mean Hero) ends up with the girl in the end. *YAWN!* How about something ORIGINAL, please!
The Movie that proves the point...
posted on 10 Apr 2009that science fiction will never make it in Hollywood, because anything approaching science in a movie is seen as dull, boring, lame, and directionless by the audience. Ask most movie goers to name a science fiction movie and they'll likely spout off Star Wars, despite the fact that it is a fantasy movie. You see you actually have to have science to be considered science fiction, and the closest the Star Wars series gets to science is muttering some vagaries about metachlorians being responsible for the Force. This movie, on the other hand, has a plot totally dependent upon the science in the movie and one of the central questions in the story is actually a purely scientific puzzle: what happened to the oxygen producing algae on the planet and why is there a high oxygen content in the atmosphere despite its disappearance. With central plot points like that you quickly put the dim bulbs that constitute the majority of movie-goers world-wide asleep. I'm not saying this movie was a paragon of science fiction purity, but it is one of the closest attempts in recent memory. That being said, I found this movie to be entertaining, with an engaging plot, serviceable acting, spectacular visuals, and interesting characters. The most ridiculous thing in the movie, the "crazed, killer military robot", was obviously added by studio execs and marketing types at the last minute before filming to try and make this movie play like more of an actioner. Why? Because they know this fact as well as I do: real science fiction is a small niche market and will never sell to a broad audience. Given this knowledge, the fact that this script ever got greenlighted for a big budget production is extremely surprising. All I can think is the writer must have blackmailed the producer, who was desperately searching for a "Mars movie" to ride the anticipated Mission to Mars wave.
Nothing special...
posted on 08 Apr 2009Just finished watching this movie and i thought "excuse me?"This movie wasn't anything that special to be honest, i just didn't either feel for this movie, or think too much of it. It just didn't have any redeemable features which i could relate to and in the end, it just made me want to go back to bed.The characters in this movie, if i can be blunt, were a total mistake. Why the hell did they put so many in there?!? I could understand such big names as Val Kilmer, and Carrie-Anne Moss, but other people like Terence Stamp just baffled me? WHY were they there? They attempted the impossible, they put too many people in there and then thought that we would love them, when in reality you just streched the fabric of the movie so far that i couldn't understand why you would even bother in the end :(The other thing which i didn't like about this movie was the fact that it didn't seem to be based in science *enough.* I like movies which are based in Sci fi, and yet somehow remain plausible, it just made me wanna scream sometimes, for example:If there was enough oxygen for there to be a "viable" atmosphere, then the sky shouldn't be red anymore, the only reason that the sky is red in the first place is lack of oxygen! It should have turned blue in relation to amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.That one was of the things which really annoyed me, other things which annoyed me was the simple fact that this movie was it was a mediocre attempt at something which has (probably) been tackled better in other movies! I didn't dislike this movie, but at the same time i CERTAINLY didn't love this movie, i thought that there could be alot to say about this movie, but this isn't the place for that type of language!I would have rather put something else on than watch this if i'm honest with you, i haven't seen anything *this* dull for some time :(
Disappointing
posted on 08 Apr 2009I rented this movie last night after hesitating since its release to buy it. And I must say I'm glad I didn't buy it first. I am a great fan of Val Kilmer and sci-fi movies, but I like a good story too. And this one hasn't got one. The few things that made this movie watchable, was the robot Amee and some of the other special effects. The soundtrack was also pretty good. I am hoping for better days and better roles for Val.
Considerably better than "Mission to Mars", but still lacking something...
posted on 02 Apr 2009Well, seeing that I had to wait 7 months for the "other Mars movie" came out (aka "Red Planet"), I was anticipating that tonight would prove that this movie *was* how it was anticipated to be: better than "Mission to Mars".
And it was.I saw this movie with my dad, who is not an easy moviegoer...any movie without war or extensive action is not good enough, but I was really into it. The special effects were very well-done and quite imaginative, especially the maps and the action sequences. Looking into the future has never been so well-developed than this movie, in my opinion...very imaginative. The cinematography was pretty good...it creates a pretty unsettling environment for the viewer, which is probably what the director intended it to be, which is a harsh environment for these characters.
Speaking of characters, Carrie-Anne Moss, Val Kilmer, Tom Sizemore, and company give pretty good performances, but they did the best with what they were given, and that is the second part of my review.There are some parts of the movie that don't have the best writing and dialogue that could have been delivered. Like said, the actors used what they got to their best. Some of the character development was not as extensive as one would want it to be...never got to really "get into" a character's shoes. Especially Kilmer's role. I've never seen him in action as the "space janitor", but I know he has that occupation by what the characters say. Also, getting back to action, I will admit that this movie does lack in action sequences. Nonetheless, this is made up by the special effects and the climax of the film.Bottom line: Good movie, great effects, exceptionally well-done by the actors, but don't expect too many action sequences and deep character development. Recommended to sci-fi fans and people who despised of the earlier Mars movie. 8/10P.S. Try not to sit in front of an annoying teenage group and behind a coughing old lady!
Terrible film...
posted on 11 Feb 2009This movie is just awful. The notion that the survival of the world depends on these people is absurd. The characters are sloppy, emotional, careless, and somewhat unstable. Can you imagine the psychological testing that candidates for a mission like this would endure? The finalists would be calm, secure, businesslike, and professional.Cliches abound (just like that one) and everything is painfully predictable. Things are spelled out in the most elementary way, and the plot points are obvious. Please don't waste your money
Sci fi movie with heroes and heroine
posted on 24 Jan 2009Red Planet was highly entertaining to me because it was not the usual run of the mill sci-fi movies. It has a simple and believable story where the cast played out an interesting mixture of characters, with no shortage of a ego-maniac, spiritual guy, a hero and a heroine. While the visual and sound effects were stunning, it was the strength of the acting that impressed me most. The audacity and self sacrificial acts portrayed in the movie touched my heart.
Will appeal more to science fiction magazine readers than to science fiction movie watchers
posted on 22 Jan 2009Traditionally, science fiction movies and television, and science fiction books and short stories have appealed to different audiences. science fiction movies and television often have very little science, but are rather fantastic adventure stories depending for their appeal upon action, acting, and allegory. By contrast, while science fiction books and short stories retain action, a great many have had slightly awkward characterization and somewhat contrived plots, but also are based on far more science and technology, Red Planet reverses this tradition entirely. The strong point in this film is in the visual effects, which are spectacular, and the science and technology are head and shoulders above most science fiction movies, but everything else suffers. Val Kilmer and Carrie-Anne Moss both show great evidence of talent, but their performances are choppy, and the other performances are not so good at all. The cause of the problem is obvious. Neither the director nor the screenwriters have much experience, and it shows. The plot is not pulled together well, and the inexperienced director is either unable to extract the best performances, or unable to edit them properly. The effect is of "2001: a Space Odyssey", re-edited from the outtakes, visually and scientifically strong, but not a harmonious work of art.This movie could be an under-appreciated gem however, for the right person. The plot and scientific elements are not so accurate so as to be probable science, but they are as good as it gets for hard science fiction on screen. If you can put up with indifferent acting and somewhat contrived plotting, the comparative soundness of the science and the great visuals will make this a winner.
Stale and boring
posted on 16 Aug 2009This movie has everything a fun sci-fi movie should have: Killer bugs, a lethal robot, hostile enviroment and more. What it doesn't have is the glue to hold it all together.
With all of the exciting things in it, there's almost no suspense at all and everything is done in the most boring way possible. Everytime a threat appeared I got excited and hoped that the action adventure will finally kick off, but every threat was resolved in an anemic anti-climatic fashion. Boooring.