Red Planet (2000) User Reviews

Mars in 2000

[Samiam3 · 7/10 · 28 June 2009]

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.

A straight-forward science fiction movie

[Maciste_Brother · 7/10 · 25 January 2005]

I avoided most of the Mars movies when they came out in the past 4 years because the reviews were mostly bad and none of the trailers inspired me. I eventually caught MISSION TO MARS on TV and I was glad I didn't see it at the movies or even rented it. But now I rented RED PLANET last night and I have to say that I liked it a lot. It's much better than the hokey De Palma movie. There are a lot of weaknesses in it but even with all it's faults, the whole package worked.

The problems with RED PLANET: Val Kilmer is miscast. He doesn't seem interested in the story and his acting is lazy. He looks like a lost surfer dude on Mars. They should have hired another actor instead of Kilmer. Some characters were weak (Stamp and Bratt). The designs of the ship's interior were a tad cheesy. The dialogue was sometimes terrible. And the story had some major holes in it, like the idea that the ship's censors didn't detect the breathable atmosphere on Mars.

But aside from those problems, the rest is fun. It's a straight forward science fiction story. If you don't like that kind of story, you'll certainly won't like this. It reminded me of ROBINSON CRUSOE ON MARS or PITCH BLACK, in the way it respected the sci-fi themes and elements without watering them down for the audience. Tom Sizemore and Carrie-Anne Moss are excellent in their roles. Some of the cinematography is excellent. And while the fx are uneven (sometimes spectacular, sometimes obvious), the overall look of the film is always credible. And the ending is thrilling.

If you like straight forward science fiction films like me, you'll enjoy this movie.

not marvelous, but worth the time you spare to see it

[striker-8 · 6/10 · 13 September 2002]

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.

Non-exciting but realistic SF movie

[PhilCo126 · 10 April 2003]

I was amazed when reading so many bad reviews . O.K. there're no spectacular Aliens and we're not blinded by non-stop special effects. The movie has more realism than the traditional Holywood science fiction stuff. Many parts of the Mars mission were based on the NASA reference Mars mission . The Mars explorer spaceship is build in Earth orbit . There're 6 crew-members . Artificial gravity to stimulate adaptation to Martian conditions . AMEE a multi-purpose robot with aerial probe . Cushioned landing . Wearable spacesuits . Other points of realism were the accurate 'fire in space' sequence, and the computer technology used by the crew. Red Planet could have been better, but it's decent compared to most Holywood products. Moreover, real science fiction is a very small niche market and will never draw nor encourage a broad audience.

If you're a fan of science fiction, looking for more realistic spaceflight stuff, watch Red Planet .

Much better than Mission to Mars but not good either

[stamper · 6/10 · 24 September 2001]

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

Enjoyable sci fi escapism

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 25 October 2016]

This is a fairly enjoyable, old-fashioned slice of sci fi escapism which runs through all the old genre clichés without offering up anything you haven't seen before. Released at the box-office at around the same time as Brian De Palma's MISSION TO MARS, for me this is the superior film, although it has to be said that neither are great. Technically proficient, RED PLANET looks and sounds great but is oddly uninvolving. It's kind of like all those old '50s science fiction yarns in which astronauts land on a remote planet, combat and fight all kinds of foes and dangerous situations, and return home. Except the wobbly special effects and spaceships are now replaced with state-of-the-art CGI design and impressive, expensive visuals created by today's top computers.

One thing the film has in its favour is that it places emphasis on characterisation over a constant stream of action. This may be why it was a flop with younger audiences. Personally I would prefer the former in terms of good film-making but then again I'm not adverse to the latter, being an undemanding genre fan. The cast is an interesting one with some accomplished performers, although it has to be said that everyone seems to be going through the paces with the exception of Tom Sizemore, an actor who grows on me every time I see him. Here he puts in another edgy, likable turn as a sceptical geneticist. The much-maligned Val Kilmer takes the lead and gives a solid but unspectacular turn as the rugged janitor who inevitably becomes the film's hero. Carrie-Anne Moss is actually very good as the ship's commander, here giving a more in-depth and human performance than that in her breakthrough role. The supporting players Simon Baker and Benjamin Bratt are fine, and there's a small but typically kooky turn from Terence Stamp as a philosophising scientist! The special effects are excellent, but you wouldn't expect anything else from a film which cost this much to make. The CGI is also impressive, looking more realistic than most, especially in the form of a well-designed robot named AMEE who is damaged and reverts to her military programming, leading to some tense cat and mouse games on the planet's surface. In fact this killer robot is one of the film's main foes and figures predominantly in the finale.

Being a film set on Mars, there are of course aliens, although not what you would think; rather, these are flesh-eating killer cockroaches who have eaten all the algae on the surface of the planet. Once again they're very well animated and a memorable threat to our survivors. The plot is fairly slow-moving but there are lots of dangerous situations and cliff-hangers, including one of the best "running out of oxygen" scenes I've witnessed in a film, which looks really painful and horrible for the actors. In retrospect, RED PLANET looks remarkable but doesn't offer up anything new to the genre, but then what new films do nowadays? Enjoyable escapism to undemanding sci-fi fans of which I am unashamedly one.

Why? Why did they even bother?

[sdrawkcaB · 1/10 · 30 November 2000]

This movie is so 1) predictable 2) formulaic 3) unscientific 4) stupid I walked out of the movie shaking my head, wondering why did even bothered? What were they thinking? This movie could have been a bad made-for-tv movie or a bad episode of Stargate - but the idea of thinking people should pay for this?!?!?

SPOILERS ABOUND AHEAD:

The anti-science in this movie just makes the entire movie Soooo hard to swallow. There are several other user comments regarding how ridiculous the 'gravity' on the spaceship was. Or setting the AMEE 'navigation' robot up w/ killer capabilities, getting the 50 year old modem to work, and on and on. Add to that: Humans last hope is terraforming Mars. So they send up unmanned drones to 'seed' the planet. And they leave sensors for O2. Nothing else. No flotilla of orbiting satellites to get telemetry. No command system. No visual. In the late 20th century NASA was able to get live VIDEO from an unmanned rover and THOUSANDS of telemetry points from Mars probes. (well, until they crashed...) But a half a century later 'Houston' couldn't dedicate any more resources that O2 sensors: FOR THE ONLY HOPE LEFT FOR EARTH.

When the crew gets to Mars, they are stunned to find that there is breathable air there. Guess the scriptwriters forgot that the entire reason for sending the crew was because the readings from the sensors said the O2 was dropping. Hmm, Mars inflicted amnesia?

This goes on and on. The escape aboard the Russian rock carrier was the only really funny part of the movie. It takes an incredible amount of work to get a ship to have enough power to get into orbit w/o killing everyone aboard. (1960 rockets killed the test animals inside.). So here we've got this old clunker that allows humans to withstand orbit velocity! The air available in the spacesuits is also funny. Early in the movie Gallagher has no air left. All gone. By the end of the movie he has enough to fly off into space. The trapeze 'rescue' by Bowman at the end also makes a mockery of the laws of physics.

PLEASE save time and money and take a nap instead. You'll feel better for it.

Decent space odyssey with fine cast , including thrills , chills , and spectacular Mars scenes

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 15 August 2022]

¨Red Planet¨ (2000) by Anthony Hoffman boasts a nice cast with Val Kilmer , Carrie Anne Moss , Terence Stamp , among others . Some stronauts (Val Kilmer, Tom Sizemore , Benjamin Bratt , Simon Baker , Terence Stamp) , and their robotic dog AMEE (Autonomous Mapping Evaluation and Evasion) commanded by Bowman (Carrie-Anne Moss) are sent to a dangerous mission : search for solutions to save a dying Earth by searching on Mars , only to have the mission going terribly awry. When the manned flight to Mars lands on the desert location , things go awry . As expert astronauts endure a hard assignment to Mars in hopes of finding some sign of life . As usual , during the expedition , risks and distresses happen step by step , but it eventually ends in disaster . As weird beings and unfortunate events cause wreak havoc while the equipment suffers life-threatening damage and the crew must depend on one another for survival on the hostile surface of Mars . In this alien environment they must come face to face with their most human interior . As a number of "living" astronauts decreases , a race against time unfolds for any astronaut hoping to return to earth safely . The search for life is about to end !. Not A Sound. Not A Warning. Not A Chance. Not Alone. In the near future, Earth is dying . A new colony on Mars could be humanity's only hope. The Color Of Fear . They Didn't Find Life On Mars. It Found Them.

This enjoyable picture blends Science Fiction and adventure genre , developing an intelligent script that disseminates the clues to maintain the interest and tension of the viewer and reflect on the eternal theme of the confrontation between man and nature , as well as the struggle between faith and scientific reason . Adding other philosophical themes as crew doubts , fears and questions about God and divine providence , man's destiny and the nature of the universe turn defining elements in their fates . Filmmaker Anthony Hoffman spent a long period at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston (Texas) with the goal of researching Mars and space travel and studying photography to see how light behaves in the atmosphere. The result is a feature film narrated with rhythm enough, with careful production design and a sober touch on the scenes in which the dazzling special effects created by the Cinesite Inc. Company also responsible for ¨Deep Blue Sea¨ and ¨Matrix¨stand out . It is an interesting and thought-provoking motion picture , though typical routine -at times- space odyssey that goes wrong when some astronauts find death , one by one , in diverse strange forms . On the way , they encounter problems you've seen in other , better-done sci-fi flicks . In the film there're chilling set pieces , suspense , body-count , intrigue and visual wizardy , but the very used plot and indifferent interpretations undermine whatever it was attempting to accomplish. Red Planet (2000) follows the style of other 2.000's films in which expeditions on Mars get in trouble , such as : ¨Mission to Mars¨ by Brian de Palma with Gary Sinese, Tim Robbins and the subsequent¨The Last Days on Mars (2013)¨ by Ruairi Robinson with Liev Schreiber , Elias Koteas , Romola Garai , Olivia Williams . Although the greatest rivalry and competence was ¨Brian De Palma's Mission to Mars¨, being made at the same time . The biggest claim of this space epic ¨Red Planet (2000)¨ is its cast , headed by Val Kilmer (The Saint) as a mechanical systems engineer who goes from being in the background at the beginning to gain more relevance throughout the film and Carrie-Anne Moss as valiant and risked commander Bowman at the head of the expedition , along with Tom Sizemore, Benjamin Bratt and Terence Stamp.

Highlights the mysterious and suspenseful musical score by Graeme Revell . As well as colorful , though dark at times cinematography by cameraman Peter Suschitzky , David Cronenberg's regular cinematographer . The yarn was adequate and professionally directed by Anthony Hoffman , though with no originality , because copying other films . Being Hoffman film debut , he's presently working on an ambitious feature film that he wrote and with direct for 20 Century Fox, 'Fox Hunt' that will shoot in Hong Kong and Los Angeles, in addition a ten part series 'The Keepers' set in the world of illegal animal poaching across the globe. Rating : 6.5/10 . Well worth watching . The pic will appeal to Val Kilmer and Carrie Anne Moss fans.

Is this worse than Mission to Mars?

[Charles-31 · 2/10 · 26 December 2001]

I've had a real dilemma since seeing Red Planet. For this year, which was the worse movie, Red Planet or Mission to Mars? It's a tough call. I gave both a 2, feeling the sometimes fun special effects saved each from being "Plan 9" level. But, these are both truly awful science-fiction films. What is so amazing is how both turned out to be just about the same film. Both are based on the "big accident when we get there" plot line. At least Red Planet avoided the "Faces on Mars" nonsense of Mission to Mars. But, the idea that we can have massive terraforming efforts going on on Mars including a built habitat without noticing lots of life forms, dramatically increased oxygen levels, and everything else this movie just pops out of the woodwork is so moronic as to be just about "Plan 9" level. As if that wasn't enough, we throw in the "killer robot"/"military hardware run amok" standard plot line #17 just for good measure.

I have long wondered at the workings of Hollywood. Two completely separate groups both decided to make a bad Mars movie in the same year? How does that happen?

Entertaining, but the politics of Earth's "sky is falling trope" began even in 2000.

[wm_sea · 7/10 · 23 May 2021]

Entertaining, but the politics of Earth's "sky is falling trope" began even in 2000. Why is it that Global Alarmist types logic religiously would believe that going to some other inhospitable planet like Mars would be easier to establish life by terraforming or industrializing (thereby polluting again like Earth's industrial revolution), when it would be beginning at zero, when it would simply make more sense to clean up the Earth, which is our perfect planet already where we evolved? Space exploration makes sense, but the ideas of the resources it would take to better a cleaned Earth makes no sense.

Inaccurate annoying science, combined with predictable plot

[parasietje · 3/10 · 28 July 2016]

The movie has a predictable plot and ticks off all the clichés in the book. However, I want to commit on the "scientific accuracy" for a bit.

A reviewer of The Martian recommended this movie to me, because of its scientific accuracy.

The following is a small list of the accurate points: Rotating parts on the spaceship for artificial gravity // The landing probe // The space suits // The delay for communicating with Earth

The following are the cringe-worthy elements I still remember: Solar storm they had no shielding for whatsoever ? A solar storm like that would have fried _all_ of earth's satellites (Earth is closer, energy dissipation is cubic) // No satellites in orbit around Mars, so they could see what was going on? // All of our electronics are fried, let's launch NOW! (our orbit takes about 8h, so launching 2h in advance would land them about 90* or 5000 km off course) // The "reverse the rock formations from the HAB" trick // The walkie talkie they made from the mini-Rover (real rover is bigger, and where the hell did they get the soldering iron??) // AMEE gone rogue because of an EMP storm (??) // The launch from the Russian probe would have killed the guy (G-forces) // Their orbits at the end match perfectly, both in location (0.3km apart) and speed (perfect match)

And finally, the interface on the Russian probe takes the cake.

Long story short: bad science, horrible plot, but a decent delivery from the actors and nice special effects.

A human face to sci-fi

[tgarrett007 · 9/10 · 4 February 2005]

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.

Better Val than Nothing

[Quicksand · 7/10 · 4 January 2001]

There are worse ways to spend 100 minutes. Val Kilmer was lots of fun, Carrie-Ann Moss actually CAN act, and the screen-writers actually had HALF a brain. Okay, so they ignored the whole gravity thing, but at least that had a reason why the characters didn't run out of air. It wasn't a great reason, but at least it was a reason.

It plays like some mediocre sci-fi story that might have been written in the 1950's. And next to the indescribably awful "Mission to Mars," this movie is Citizen Kane. Screenwriter Chuck Pfarrer isn't too incredibly original, but director Antony Hoffman put it together pretty decently. An A for effort, but the movie is only a 6 or 7 out of 10, depending on how YOU feel about the actors.

Unlike, say, "Mission to Mars," which had a great cast working from a script written by drunken chimapanzees.

Boring Start, Uncompelling Action, Slow Moving

[SnoopyStyle · 4/10 · 1 November 2013]

Earth is suffering from environmental damage. Mars has been slowly terra-formed as an alternative home. However it is somehow losing oxygen. A space mission is sent to discover the cause. The spacecraft is damaged by massive gamma radiation burst and the crew crash land to investigate Mars.

It takes too long to get the movie going. There is too much tech talk without any magic. They don't even get to Mars until after 30 minutes. They spent too much time talking on the spaceship. I think we're suppose to be awed by all the spaceship special effects. It's not that special. Most of the start could easily be thrown out.

The action is confused and rather uncompelling. It doesn't get any better on the ground. It's a slow moving grind. The orange look, the helmets, and the buzzy voices all make for a tiring watch. Watching people slowly suffocate is really boring. Having Carrie-Anne separated from everybody doesn't help. The climax (if you could call it that) has no suspense. It is completely uninteresting.

Fairly good Sci-Fi entertainment.

[TxMike · 20 June 2002]

"Red Planet" builds on an interesting premise - send bioengineered algae to Mars to produce oxygen so that settlers can leave the increasingly polluted Earth and preserve mankind. However, the algae starts to disappear, based on Earth measurements, so about 2050 a team is sent to Mars to find out why. They encounter the mandatory storyline problems - a sunflare triggers a burst of radiation which mainly disables the mothership so the crew has to escape prematurely, but the captain (Carrie-Ann Moss of Matrix fame) stays behind to try and salvage the ship, otherwise they are all doomed to be stranded on Mars.

The 4 men make a very rough landing, and even with the balloons deployed, the older one gets a ruptured spleen and stays behind to die. The others make it to the home base that had been built previously, only to find it destroyed and all supplies gone. About to die of oxygen starvation, Kilmer opens his mask to find they can breath.

So, the rest of the film is their dealing with one difficulty after another, not the least of which is an ice storm with 115 mph winds and minus 53 degree temperature. One by one they expire, but Kilmer gets to a 50-year-old Russian module that had failed to fire, and with a jury-rigged old radio and 50-year-old modem is able to download instructions to launch the ship. He gets into orbit, Carrie-Ann retrieves him, they finally kiss!

Kinda cheesy in many places, most of the "science" is very shaky, some of the funny lines are clever, others are stupid, but as a Sci-Fi film not to be taken too seriously, it is fun entertainment, especially on DVD with a good sound system. The Dolby 5.1 surround channels are used very well, and the several blasts and explosions are very energetic. Carrie-Ann only does one nude shower scene and it is near the beginning, about 8 minutes into the film.

Yes its is Sci Fi and Its not a bad movie! But not a great movie.

[hrobertsizemore · 6/10 · 2 October 2005]

While there are some mistakes made in the science parts of the movie. The movie is not that bad as indicated by a large number of viewers. Having watched both Mission to Mars and Red Planet back to back thanks to the SciFi channel M2M is not as good as Red Planet. Having watched M2M 3 times now, I would recommend RP 1st. It is a nice twist of the 1950s B grade sci-fi movies.

Overall I would recommend the movie. I did enjoy Tom Sizemore and Val Kilmer. Moss's role was limited in imho and the cast was limited as it was. The movie would probably been much better if 1.) the movie had taken more time to tell the story and 2.) there had been a better job of editing.

Pros: cinema-photography, Val Kilmer, Tom Sizemore, sci-fi, Cons: Lack of character development, a few sci-fact goofs (the space fire is not a goof); film editing.

Something old, something new...

[cdh-2 · 7/10 · 16 July 2001]

Director Antony Hoffman's "Red Planet" is an old-fashioned sci-fi action picture with some modern twists. The gum-chewing, wise-cracking mechanic, who would have been a quickly-killed-off supporting character in a 1950s movie, is now the lead. He is solidly played by the quirky Val Kilmer. The tough-as-nails, damn-my-orders-I'll-save-my-crew captain is a woman-Carrie-Anne Moss from "The Matrix." The gray-haired old scientist-an underused Terence Stamp-has turned to philosophy and religion, where in the old days he would have been a hard-headed skeptic (that role is left to biologist Tom Sizemore). The premise is that, by the year 2057, Earth is so badly polluted that we are seeding the sands of Mars with algae to produce oxygen so that humans can colonize the red planet (don't algae need water to live?)-but the algae have suddenly vanished from our telescopes. So Commander Bowman and her crew are sent to investigate. While she orbits in a crippled spaceship, the five men (including pilot Benjamin Bratt and Simon Baker-the obligatory Guy From Brooklyn) land on Mars in a suspenseful crash scene. I won't give away what they find, but I will say the solution to the mystery is more like something out of a good science fiction novel than a Hollywood sci-fi movie. There is life on Mars, but it's not a typical movie monster. But there is the expedition's robot, AMEE, which is damaged in the crash landing, reverts to its original military programming, and starts stalking the men like a rogue lion. This leads to scenes reminiscent of another Val Kilmer film, the underrated "The Ghost and the Darkness." The premise may be far-fetched, but I thought the execution and resolution of "Red Planet" were exciting and satisfying. (And yes, guys, Carrie-Anne does get one brief, gratuitous shower scene.) I haven't seen "Mission to Mars," so I can honestly say that this is the best Mars movie I've seen this year.

If the Devil's in the details, this film's a cesspit of pure evil.

[SeethingSage · 1/10 · 21 May 2001]

**SPOILERS**There are so many other negative comments about this movie that I can't believe I'm writing this. But it was SO bad that I just gave Red Planet my first "1" rating on IMDb. That by itself led me to write this. I wasn't expecting much at all - and I was STILL disappointed. I thought that a sci-fi film with Val Kilmer and Carrie-Anne Moss couldn't be all bad, despite what I'd heard. Ha! It insults the viewer. I try not to nit-pick movies, but when the errors JUMP out at you for the entire movie, it's unforgivable. Even Mission to Mars was better.

Some of the visual effects were adequate, but overall this movie fails miserably. The premise was weak, the plot was cliched, the script was dull, the acting was poor, and the physics/science was WAY off throughout. About the best part of the movie was the gratuitous Carrie-Anne Moss shower scene. But it's really not worth watching just for that.

I disliked this film from the start. A decent movie at least needs a good premise. I stopped the tape 5 times in the first 5 minutes so I could rail against the totally lame, error-filled, and illogical premise of Red Planet.

Supposedly, by the year 2000, humanity is starting to realize we've so polluted the Earth that the only alternative for humanity is simply to "find a new home." So we began a 20-year program of algae seeding on Mars, to create a breathable atmosphere. But something goes wrong, and the algae are suddenly dying. Our heroes will have to go to Mars to figure out why, and save humanity. It's only sci-fi, and they need some reason to go to Mars, but this premise bites. The dates/years don't add up, and there are several other obvious holes and lame assumptions too. Any moron should realize that it would be a million times harder to terraform and colonize an entire plant (in the very near future no less) than it would be to just fix the environmental problems we've created here on Earth.

I thought the movie might still be worth watching, despite the weak start. Nope. They just threw in every cliche and hackneyed plot device they could dredge up from other movies, and tried to make it work. But they didn't put enough passion, effort, or plot twists into any of it, and an awful mess was the result. There was NO suspense; NO surprises. I knew what would happen in almost every scene. I never cared enough about the characters to even really sympathize much with their predicament either.

******** SPOILERS ********

OF COURSE, as the mission nears Mars, a huge "solar flare" virtually cripples their ship, to the point the crew must abandon it. One person (Moss) must stay behind and manually initiate the escape sequence for the others. They have to jettison their invaluable navigation robot on the way down, but it only gets slightly damaged on impact. By the way, it just happens to look like a giant feline terminator, has a combat mode that it gets locked into when the crew, to their detriment, tries to deactivate it later.

OF COURSE, the lander module crash-lands, but the crew somehow survives, and manages to crash very near the (previously constructed) Mars habitat, which contains food and oxygen. But when the crew reaches the habitat, it's been destroyed. In orbit, Carrie-Anne manages to repair the ship enough to return to Earth. She assumes the crew is dead. But they manage to make contact JUST IN TIME, via a 50-year-old modem no less, that was conveniently located nearby in some old abandoned equipment. Right! (Similar to the improbable upload of the virus into the alien computer system in Independence Day.)

OF COURSE, they discover, as they are running out of air, that they can somehow breathe fine on good ol' Mars after all. LOL. But it doesn't really matter, because they have no way to get off the planet anyway. EXCEPT for the old Russian probe that failed to return to Earth 50 years before. It just HAPPENS to be nearby too. Wow, it's a small world after all! But there won't be room in it for everyone, so one person will have to stay behind. But we know that their nav robot-turned-killer will make that problem moot, unless the nasty Mars bugs eat them first. (Can anyone say, The Mummy?) Turns out the bugs ate all of the algae from the terraforming project, and produce oxygen themselves, which is why the crew can breathe. That doesn't even come close to accounting for the temperature and pressure changes, etc., that would be necessary for humans to breathe unaided on Mars. But Hollywood thinks we're all MORONS, right?

OF COURSE, then Kilmer (sole survivor) can't get off Mars after all, because the Russian batteries have died. In one of the few mildly interesting scenes, Moss talks to Kilmer when it seems he must surely be left to die. Can you say The Abyss? (Although far less moving.) As Moss prepares to leave, Kilmer realizes he can use the robot's battery to power the probe's launch, if he can get its battery while it's trying to kill him. He does just that, with NO problem, and launches the probe, into JUST the right orbit to rendezvous with the main ship, JUST in time!

OF COURSE, Moss must go EVA and snag Kilmer with a tether, and once inside she must perform CPR to save him. (The Abyss again!) At least Val brought a couple of bugs with him, to take back to Earth to be analyzed. Yippee, he's a hero! OF COURSE, nothing is really answered - there are tons of loose ends.

My description almost makes the movie sound like it could be mildly entertaining. Sorry. It isn't. 1/10.

" Nice Job Space janitor "

[thinker1691 · 7/10 · 2 July 2007]

The population of Earth has spent its life taking from it's mother without regards to consequences. The farther man goes into his future, the more aware of his mistakes he becomes. This film is one of a dozen which depicts what will eventually happen to the inhabitants when those mistakes catch up with apathy. The year is 2025 AD and Earth has sent it's first planetary probe to the "Red Planet." It's mission; to discover why it has refused to sustain an artificial atmosphere. A team of six, including a multi-functional, multi-purpose, mechanical robot named 'Amee' is selected and sent. However as the ship approaches its destination, an unexpected solar flare, disrupts the carefully planned mission, forcing the five man crew to eject prematurely to the hostile, lifeless, planet. Now begins an immediate and desperate objective; to stay alive. Val Kilmer is Robby Gallagher, the Machnical Systems Engineer who proves that when machines go bad, it's important to have someone who knows how to fix or combat them. Benjamin Bratt is Lt. Ted Santen, an ego driven pilot who finds it's hard to be humble. Tom Sizemore plays Dr. Quinn Burchenal, who searches for a reason to questions he knows have an answer. Terence Stamp plays Dr. Bud Chantilas, an engrossing astronaut who expects more out of the mission than mere science. Carrie Moss is Kate Bowman and Simon Baker is Chip Pettengill. The film is believable enough and the space crew's enemies are not confided to those expected. One, they brought with them. The further one proceeds into the story the more harrowing the dangers become. ***

Meh

[josenelias · 5/10 · 24 February 2020]

Meh. Cardboard characters, without depth, jokes and basic teenager semi-sexual atmosphere. It looks a bit like a western movie.

A good Sci-fic movie.......

[UR60x · 7/10 · 24 December 2003]

Although there aren't much movies about space science yet the movies have made are nice. Red Planet is also good movie. It start is not so good but it turns good as the movie goes. It is a very little cast move. Only 9 or 10 actors are in this movie. Set in 2057, a divers team of astronauts travels to Mars to investigate human living conditions on the Mars because Earth becoming unlivable for human beings. But the conditions get bad and bad for them when they lands on Mars including a bad spacecraft's equipment, and increasing tension among the crew members. Although the script of the movie is good yet there are certain things are unexplained. But as the movies is based on just images and articles provided by NASA one should clearly understand the idea. Recommended for those who love to watch science-fic, adventure and action. I give "Red Planet" 8 out of 10.

Boring

[honeyhoney-2 · 3/10 · 14 June 2006]

This 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...

GOOD, INTELLIGENT THROWBACK TO 1950S SCI-FI

[KatMiss · 8/10 · 2 July 2001]

Movies like "Red Planet" remind me why I enjoy science fiction so much. Most sci-fi films today put the special effects first before characterizations. While that's not a bad idea (I have enjoyed several films in that vein such as "Independence Day"), films can become too dependent on that and that's when the fun drains away.

"Red Planet" is a film that has solid special effects, but also a strong story and good characterizations. It was the second film released in 2000 to have Mars as its backdrop, the first being "Mission to Mars". "Mission to Mars", despite having top stars,master craftsman Brian DePalma directing and phenomenal special effects, was a little too pat and resorted to cliches (Not that I blame DePalma; he did the best he could with the script he had and the film wasn't bad at all)

I didn't know anything about the plot and I think that helps with a film like "Red Planet". It allows suspense to be created from the series of crises that spring up on the astronauts and that's a benefit. But I will say this: the marketing campaign for "Red Planet" advertises this as your typical good guys versus evil aliens action fest. It is not. This is a more intelligent and stylish film than given credit for. It owes more to "2001" and "The Black Hole" or even the classic Republic serial "Radar Men from the Moon" than "Alien". It is about ideas, not effects and I LOVE films like that.

I know a great many people will hate this film. That is because popular culture has brainwashed people into thinking mass entertainment revolves around effects only. There are some flaws (mostly in technological probability and pacing in the first 20 minutes)but writer Chuck Pfarrer and director Antony Hoffman remember that great sci-fi is also about the story and characters and the result is the best sci-fi film in recent years.

***1/2 out of 4 stars

Solid Space Trip

[Tweetienator · 6/10 · 24 November 2020]

Solid space adventure flick with some action going on. Special effects department, crew and story are all on full solid mode. I watched Red Planet twice, and every time I was well entertained.

Not Awful But Not A Great Movie Either

[Theo Robertson · 5/10 · 24 April 2005]

With a cast featuring Val Kilmer , Carrie Anne Moss and Tom Sizemore and with a script by the screenwriter who wrote NAVY SEALS you might expect this movie to be an unlikely fast paced action adventure . It's unlikely alright but it's not much of a fast paced action adventure

!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!! I instinctively felt that this movie started off in the pipeline as a thought provoking intelligent Sf movie based on scientific fact but the studio intervened to make the most of box office potential and this injures any integrity the movie might have had

A bunch of 21st astronauts travel to Mars to find out what's wrong with the terraforming experiments . The stakes are high because Earth is a dying planet due to pollution . This draws one to ask if it wouldn't be simpler and cheaper to get the Earth back into good health ? I mean if humanity has the technology to terraform other planets surely they could regenerate the home planet ? The cost of travelling all the way to Mars and colonising it must be prohibitive ? We also have a ridiculous explanation of how to terraform Mars - By growing a special type of algae on the surface of the planet . Hmmm so what about an atmosphere then ? That can only come about via massive quantities of water and " A type of algae that gives out oxygen wouldn't be enough to bring about an atmosphere and at no point in the movie are we shown any oceans

That's the main problem with RED PLANET , we're treated to plot twists that aren't explained . The survivors of a space fall soon find their oxygen supplies running out and one of them decides to end his suffering by opening his helmet only to find that the planet does have an atmosphere . Wouldn't equipment on the mother ship have noticed this long before then ? The mission commander also points out that there's an ice storm coming like it's a natural phenomena to Mars . Again ice storms would only happen if a planet has an atmosphere something the commander takes in her stride , and despite everything no one ever realises that Mars is a low gravity planet

I guess I'm being pedantic because in some places RED PLANET is scientifically correct and this causes the audience to notice when the movie decides to ignore facts when the story suits it . It's not a terrible movie and comes across a bit like SATURN 3 meets SCOTT OF THE ANTARTIC with high production values but it's not the greatest movie you'll see this week