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

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.

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.

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.

" 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.

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.

Red Planet is a great rainy, Saturday afternoon film

[m_ender · 22 October 2001]

Whoa there kids! Red Planet is just a movie and in my opinion a pretty good sci-fi picture. Yes, it is not 2001: A Space Odyssey or Mission to Mars (which I think was ridiculous). It is not meant to be. Maybe the characters are not fully developed but name a science fiction movie where the characters are completely developed. The movie is called "Red Planet" not "Who are the People Who are Going to Mars to Save Earth?" and we join the action "in media res" which means in the middle of things so character development is not stressed in the beginning. Good grief. People throw around scientific, cinematic, and character development flaws with the movie instead of trying to enjoy the suspense of this movie.

You are stuck on the planet Mars. No food or water. Someone on the crew is already dead and another is a little sketchy. You have a limited time to get off the planet, your friendly neighborhood military robot has decided to play "Seek and Destroy", and something mysterious is happening on the surface of Mars involving tiny, bio-luminescent aphids.

So imagine all of that and you will get an idea of what the writers and director wanted to recreate for the audience. I liked this movie. I recognize there are flaws in the movie and possibly the acting but honestly I thought it was a great premise. Reminded me of the Greek myth of Jason and Argonauts on their quest for the Golden Fleece.

I would give the movie 4 stars out of a possible 5. Before you write and tell me how inaccurate or misguided a movie-goer I am realize I have read the classic sci-fi adventures from the likes of Heinlein, Clarke, and Bradbury. They would recognize the film for what it was: a piece of escape fiction that had its moments of comedy, intelligence, and suspense.

A Film not that good to be appreciated and not that bad to be criticized

[sauravjoshi85 · 6/10 · 30 July 2022]

Red Planet is a science fiction action film directed by Antony Hoffman. The film stars Val Kilmer, Carrie-Anne Moss, and Tom Sizemore.

In the year 2050 when the Earth is dying, a team of astronauts travels to mars in an attempt to colonize Mars. They soon find themselves in grave danger when they realize that they are not alone.

After watching the film i have realized that the film is a decent one time watch average science fiction film which is been made very straight and plain and the director didn't tried much. The day scenes looked very beautiful but the night shot looked fake.

The plot of the film is good but execution as mentioned is very plain and very predictable and doesn't excites much. The acting is also decently good. The film also lacks in developing the characters and viewers fails to connect with the characters. The climax of the film is decent.

Overall a decent one time watch Sci-Fi film.

For the Viewer, an intolerable Cruelty

[Thorsten_B · 2/10 · 29 May 2004]

To be short and to be precise (I would have been shorter, but IMDb.com insists on ten lines at least): One of the worst films ever produced in the Sci-Fi-Genre. The script is full of clichés, the actors are weak, characters are one-dimensional, the story is as illogical as a story can be. Especially terrible was Terence Stamps character. He plays the skeptic with dubious philosophical insights; characters like this don't live long. Special effects were the best part of it. Everything else was an intolerable cruelty for the recipient. One of the very few films that I just couldn't stand watching to the end (the others include 'EDtv', so you probably know what I mean). I really appreciate film as an art form, but 'Red Planet' a drawback for that affinity.

Beautiful film blemished by avoidable scientific blunders

[Uthman · 7/10 · 12 November 2000]

RED PLANET is decent science fiction in a year that brought us some relatively weak competition in the genre. Outstanding special effects, a competent cast, great sound, and an artistic eye for set design are the film's strong points. After what seems like a long drought, it's nice to see the sleek Carrie-Anne Moss back on the screen. Serious, pragmatic, and physically fit, she is a natural choice for a mission commander. Some might argue that she and the other characters are somewhat wooden, but I would counter that coolness is a requisite trait in those individuals who are selected to fly such a mission. The director had to choose between verisimilitude and dramatic impact, and I applaud his riskier choice of the former.

Special effects and set design really stand out and are worth the price of admission. Just when you are thinking that they are going to use the typical cop-out of artificial gravity on a spaceship, the centrifuges fail, and we are treated to some of the best weightlessness scenes ever filmed. Other reviewers have complained that fire scenes in the ship look fake, but how are we supposed to know what fires look like in free-fall in the first place? I think the f/x people did a great job in speculating on how a fire would behave in such conditions. Scenes on Mars were breathtaking, I think better even than those of this year's earlier release, MISSION TO MARS. Also, this is the first film I can recall that tried to do anything with the fact that Mars gravity is about one-third that of Earth's. I realize that low-g is difficult to simulate on film, but I do applaud the filmmakers for the small (and humorous) attempt they made to accommodate it.

While I do recommend seeing this feature in theatrical release for the majesty of the picture and sound, this is not to say there aren't a lot of problems, some quite massive. Generally these relate to plausibility:

1. The ship design is totally outlandish. The thing is _huge_, with oodles of wasted space. There are two enormous counter-rotating centrifuges to simulate gravity for the crew; this makes the ship more on the scale of the space station envisioned in 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. This is for a crew of six! And with all that wasted mass, the Mars landing module is not much bigger than an Apollo lunar module. Was there any kind of space travel expert to advise the filmmakers on how ridiculous this is?

2. The Martian terraforming theory is completely at odds with what is known about the planet from probes that have been going there since 1976. The movie explains that nuclear weapons are sent to the polar caps to "melt" (actually sublime) the CO2 ice, which then acts as a greenhouse gas to heat up the atmosphere. When it's warm enough, algae are introduced to generate oxygen. The problem is that THERE IS NO WATER ON THE SURFACE OF MARS, GUYS. Algae can't grow without water. Then, there are other ecological aspects that are even more ridiculous, but to go into those gives away too much of the plot. Just be prepared to have your suspended sense of disbelief pulled out from under you.

3. Stupid little script errors that a little research could have avoided. First, don't try to do CPR the way Carrie-Anne Moss did it in the film; it's completely wrong. The geneticist remarks that his work is all about genetic code, you know, "A, G, T, and P." The problem is that THERE IS NO 'P'. It's 'C' for cytosine. Again, sloppy writing.

Now, I realize that there are perennially dyspeptic science nerds out there who can never enjoy a science fiction movie because of this or that little inaccuracy. Trust me; I'm not one of those, and I can suspend disbelief as well as the next person. But RED PLANET just pushes it way too far, to the extent that there is compromise of the movie-watching experience. If you know little about science and nothing about Mars, you may rate the film fairly high, but otherwise, be prepared for a jolt.

I couldn't get enough...very original!

[johngreviewcentercom · 10/10 · 12 July 2002]

I honestly loved "Red Planet." I thought that Kilmer did a great job playing the "rebellious yet skilled" character that he was so deft at in the 80's. I also felt that Moss added another good performance that was similar to her "soldier yet woman" role from "Matrix." The thought of not only oxygen but LIFE on Mars had not really been touched yet but it worked out greatly..think about it: the actors can actually do their thing without having to wear a bulky space suit the whole time...it adds a lot of fast moving action and real drama to the movie. I also love Sizemore's performances. I guess if you like the actors and are open to a new kind of sci-fi/action plot, you at least should give this movie a shot. I loved it!

Better than the other Mars flick...

[Starbuck-13 · 6/10 · 11 March 2001]

...but still not very good. The space scenes seem rather boring, and I don't know if it was our theater but everything inside the spaceship seemed to be too dark to see anything.

The good things: Certainly the shootings on Mars. Very stylish version, I liked the red tones and the barren landscape.

The story does not seem to know where it wants to go - there is the main plot about the oxygene and the algae, then there's the mad robot who seems not really to fit into the main plot and then there's Carrie Anne Moss in the orbit fighting for survival - a not very tough fight obviously, because all she has to do is to kick some control panels and voila, everything is online again...

Like the story, the music does have no real focus as well - sometimes it's a classic score, sometimes it's rock music, this simply does not work for a space opera.

Still, it's a movie that's okay to see. Don't expect too much, and you will have some decent entertainment...

Reaches unmatched depths of inaccuracy

[hitchs · 2/10 · 20 July 2002]

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.