Red Planet seems to be based on the premise that it's science fiction, so we don't need any science facts. I've seen some pretty stupid sf movies before, but this one outdoes them all. Did the producers deliberately try to make it as scientifically inaccurate as possible, or did they just not try at all? I mean, we're not dealing with difficult concepts here. They only had to pick up a basic biology textbook to find that the bases in DNA are A,T,C and G. Any sort of dictionary would have shown how totally absurd the label "nematode" is for the arthropod-like creatures shown. And surely such an important mission, built by a technology so advanced that they can afford to waste ship space on things like showers, would have anticipated possible problems and included some fairly sophisticated landing gear (not to mention teaching the team members proper CPR techniques). And a massive solar flare all the way out near Mars? Etc, etc, etc.
After establishing its credibility at somewhere well below zero and having practically no plot (just a compilation of cliches), the film then fails to have any sort of point. Particularly puzzling was all the congratulations at the end for accomplishing the mission. What exactly did they accomplish? I give up.
After establishing its credibility at somewhere well below zero and having practically no plot (just a compilation of cliches), the film then fails to have any sort of point. Particularly puzzling was all the congratulations at the end for accomplishing the mission. What exactly did they accomplish? I give up.