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
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews