Cool News
Light House Shines takes a look at MISSION TO MARS
Hey folks, Harry here with Moriarty's favorite typist, Light House Shines' look at DePalma's MISSION TO MARS... Here ya go...
MISSION TO MARS REVIEW
This slowly hyped science fiction film about the possible origins of the
species on Mars is set to come out next month, and focuses on what a
hapless crew of four astronauts inadvertently discover while on a routine
survey mission to the red planet. Hence the film takes place just after
the first few successful Mars missions, though the exact time frame of the
movie is never quite clear, for while there are some futuristic elements
present in the film, most of its content seems to be fairly rooted in the
present. Only the display panels on computer and television screens appear
futuristic in nature; everything else looks remarkably like what you can
see around you in the world today...just a tad bit cleaner, I guess.
Either way, the first four astronauts land on Mars without so much as a
hitch, only to discover a huge structure that shouldn't be on Mars, as it
doesn't appear to be natural in origin. Which of course fuels the
astronaut's sense of curiosity and leads them to investigate the strange
and unearthly phenomena, with devastating results. As all but one of the
original astronauts are killed in what one might call a very lame yet big
dust devil or funnel, which swoops everyone up and literally tears them
apart. Extremely reminiscent of the water funnel creature in The
Abyss movie, as that is what will immediately come to mind once you
see the giant alien dirt devil onscreen (It really is that lame).
Thus a second crew of hapless astronauts is called in to see what happened
on Mars after a distress call is received from the planet, this crew being
the new or main focus of the film. As no one has any idea how many people
survived or if any of them survived, albeit Captain Woody Blake (Tim
Robbins) and his wife Terri Blake (Connie Nielsen), along side Jim
McConnell (Gary Sinise) and Phil Ohlmyer (Jerry O'Connell) are determined
to find out one way or another. As they attempt to successfully pilot
their ship to Mars under less than favorable conditions and rescue the
original astronauts if they can. Hence this film is a rescue film for the
most part with almost no emphasis on the rescue aspect of the film.
Especially since The film takes entirely way too long to get to the planet
or even inside the Alien construct they discover, as well as spends way
too much unnecessary time dealing with the supposed emotional
ramifications of all the trauma the astronauts have suffered in getting to
Mars. Loosing crewmen, loved ones, and friends, again and again and
again! Which quite frankly became a major bore within the first 30 minutes
of the film! And even more of a bore just after one of the film's major
character dies a most unpleasant death in space, in one of the most
literally painful to watch scenes, as everyone just sits around in a
trance feeling miserable or sorry for themselves for what seems an
eternity. Which simply doesn't work in the way that the film was done,
as you really do not feel a thing for any of the film's characters, and
subsequently when one of them dies, you really do not care.
A major, major flaw in the film, or any film for that matter. Especially
since for most films to be successful in general (or at the very least
enjoyable) there has to be some sort of connection made. Something the
audience can relate to, for if there isn't anything for the audience to
relate to or connect with, what's the point in watching the film in the
first place. Aside from the initially high concept behind the film or
medium to good use of special effects as is the case with this film. For
why watch a movie, any movie, if you couldn't care less about what was
going to happen to the people in it? As this is most definitely one of
the many problems keeping Mission to Mars from being a critical or
at least a commercial success. For it definitely wont be as it stands now,
specifically when you consider that there is almost no connection to be
made at all with any of the characters or their subsequent individual
situations presented in the film (good or bad). Plus to make matters worse
this is a Science Fiction film, which a lot of people already have trouble
connecting with to begin with. So if the powers behind this film cannot
make the audiences that normally enjoy watching science fiction feel
anything for the characters onscreen, what hope do they have for reaching
the people who aren't fans of the genre in the first place. Which
unfortunately is just another piece of bad news the many people associated
with this picture are going to have to deal with once this is released.
Though some positive changes to correct the film's many faults might still
be made before the film opens since not even one of the film's stars Gary
Sinise had seen a recent version of the film when I spoke to him briefly
at the premiere or Reindeer Games on Monday.
Oh and one last thing before I forget, if you do see this film don't
forget to bring the crackers! As this film is so full of cheese, albeit
real American cheese and not that processed Velvetta crap, you'll need
them to wipe up all the cheesy excess! Especially since there are so many
scenes in this film that will literally make you want to vomit, that are
so cheesy it makes me sick just thinking about it now. Like the fact that
Mission to Mars is pretty much a scene for scene rip off of like 3
other movies, most notably The Abyss and 2001 for obvious
reasons, right down the soothing voice of the ship's computer and even
some of the music. Though I have never been particularly adept at
identifying musical scores, even familiar ones. Still I hope Mr. De Palma
is thoroughly ashamed of himself for making a film repleat with so many
blatant rip-offs of other higher calibre films, and he certainly should
be. And to think we use to live in the same hometown and often got a
chance to talk together.
As always, if you have any questions or comments about anything I have
just said or written about. Please feel to email me at
lighthouseshines@hotmail.com and someone will get back to you, thanks!
Sincerely,
Light House Shines
-
+ Expand All
-
I dunno, maybe they think that long drawn out scenes automatically make a movie as good as 2001. Obviously we geeks know that not to be true, but I guess directors assume that they will be taken seriously if they chew up all this time..."Oooh, did you see that 29 second reaction shot? What a professional he is" etc etc. The big joke about films like this (independent of the "originality" discussion on another TB) is that they just rip off so many other movies. Sure there aren't many 'ideas' out there for sci-fi (ha ha, yeah right) but damn at least put an interesting spin on them. And why didn't they ever consult Richard Hoagland (www.enterprisemission.com) about the Cydonia stuff? Sheesh.
-
Sorry, Skoob1, really I am.
It doesn't really matter if you don't care about a character when they die, so long as : GOLDEN RULE : they die in a cool manner. Ie someone's chest eats their arms, etc (ok, so you cared about him , still a good example of a cool death). Doesn't someone take off their helmet in space in this? Worth the entrance fee alone, surely? CYL -
Is the one surviving astronaut from the original crew mutated or does he become more powerful?
If so, shame on DePalma for ripping off Heinlein!! BTW, any news on the Stranger in a Strange Land film?! -
I'd had higher hopes for this one. Tim Robbins and the rest don't strike me as the type who'd be involved with a sci-fi stinker.
By the way, I think I'm going to have to stop reading Light House Shines' reviews. As I appreciate the information. As the text is pretty much unreadable, though. For the whole reviews tend to be disjointed half-thoughts. As tends to be not complete sentences or even anything coherently understandable in places. Hence like demonstrated here.
LHS, sorry to flame you a little here, but you get good scoop, and your opinions tend to be right on. I'd be a much bigger fan of your G2 if it was presented a little more cogently. I know everybody hates the whiners who flame for spelling and all, but come on. Thanks. -
DePalma, ashamed of ripping off a better director? He built much of his career on imitations of Alfred Hitchcock -- some of which were quite good, but nevertheless, identifiably imitations. OBSESSION was a queasy remake of VERTIGO, and DRESSED TO KILL was noticeably close to PSYCHO; his RAISING CAIN included a long sequence of a murderer disposing of a body that was literally lifted, shot-by-shot, from PSYCHO (I will stress, here, that I'm not talking about subtle borrowing, but several minutes of identical shot-by-shot tracery). DePalma has made several good films, and a couple which can arguably be called great, but self-consciousness over borrowing (which he considers homage) is not among his virtues.
-
i'm sorry, but i didn't even read your review, anyone who disses depalma is dumb in my opinion. i would really and truly enjoy seeing you make anything remotely as enjoyable as just one of his films. because, you can't. you're just a frustrated hack who's main claim to fame is as moriarty's favorite "typist", i'd really listen to the opinion of a typist.
-
An earlier post spoke to this, so I counted...18 run-on sentence fragments, 9 grammatical errors, and 6 spelling errors. I want to take your thoughts seriously, LHS, so, in the future, please present them in thoughtful fashion. By the way, I haven't seen the movie but will keep your commentary in mind when I do (I have to; my husband is a sucker for space violence and always makes it a family event).
-
Having just read LHS's review of 'Mission' I am left with many questions. Not the least of which is the comment about the "water funnel creature in The Abyss movie, as that is what will immediately come to mind once you see the giant alien dirt devil onscreen (really is that lame)."
Talk about stacking your critical deck! What forever do you mean "lame" when "speaking" of this bit of FX? Was the effect lame in The Abyss? Is it only lame now? Very unclear! And while I support any critical voice when it comes to film, rambling without context is just rambling.
And so as not to ramble, I'm off! -
I can only assume that LHS went to the movie looking for a docutmetary of what a mission to Mars would really be like. Like you said in your review, it's science FICTION!! Jesus, just leave it alone.
-
I think for the next review you should have one continous sentence for the entire review. Now that would be a feat.
-
Feb 22, 2000 10:17:39 PM CST
Sounds like every movie Depalma makes with 'Mission' in the titl
by the black adder
Is it me. Or dose reading this. Guy's reviews. Make you. Sick? ;p
-
And who's grammer would you be talking about?
-
You were correcting someone who was already correct with something that was wrong. (How's that for grammar)
-
DePalma is an awesome director. There's no need to argue. Mission Impossible is the closest melding of action and art, I've ever seen. I'd much rather watch that than the Blair Bitch Project anyday. He also made that awesome flick about the chick with telepathy. And for God's sake he made Blow Out!! As for Hitchcock- ppf, booring!!! Sure, it's great filmmaking, but it's BORING!! It's like watching an old oak tree. Everyone holds him so dear to their hearts, but to me he's boring. I'd much rather watch The Third Man, than Family Plot. Hitchcock is a slick filmmaker, but too slick for my taste. I like a little grit and grime, DePalma makes the right balance of both. Ok, Raising Cane was pathetic, but did you see Rope? It's terrible, too. You film geeks read books by stodgy old critics that say, Hitchcock is the master and DePalma rips him off. But, you've never really made any opinion of your own. Just Parrots. I mean, for fuck's sake! Every director from Truffaut to Spielberg rips off Hitchcock!! What the fuck is your point? Shakespeare ripped off everybody!! Hitchcock ripped off everybody!! DePalma is a master, and until you make a flick as good as he has, kiss his royal ass, you pathetic weiners.
-
This fucking moron lost any credibility with his review as soon as he says "loosing" in place of "losing". now by the gods im not one to be a grammar check talkbacker, we all type this shit in quick so we can hopefully get on with our real lives, but seeing a reviewer try to convince me of his "expert" opinion by showing what a dumbass he is is just insulting.....hehe, yknow sometimes i amuse even myself...I cant stand the reviewers on this site,do they all have their heads up their ass? once I saw the hairstyles they were using for this movie, i knew it would bomb...I guess the one thing that will thankfully remain true forever...put no stock in other peoples opinions. some will like this movie , some will not, and as you sit their in the theater with your critical caps on, remember, the only expectations this has to live up to is your own. fuck em all...RipReaver shutting up now
-
...I've seen this review on about 20 other websites, although some more guff is added onto this version. I'm not saying I think this'll be a critical success, but dammit it'll hopefully be entertaining. I'd go to see it just to see Tim Robbins get squished. Of course, the words "Snake Eyes" do sometimes occur to dent the confidence. And that bit in the trailer where Sinise admonishes Connie Nielsen - something to the tune of "this could be one of the greatest discoveies in mankind's history!" (unintentionally hilarious) - why does she have to wear a spacesuit while he is casually attired in a t-shirt? And why are all these astronauts married to each other? NASA must be really desparate in 2020 for qualified personnel...;-)
-
When I first saw this trailer I broke out laughing. First there is the BLATANT rip off of 2001 through out the whole trailer. I think a trailer should set up the story of a film without giving to much away, (granted the state of Trailers today are horrible overall) but I couldn't follow this trailer at all. A Depalma film is such a mish mash of stuff with no coherent structure, that I wouldn't be surprised that part way through a Depalma film you would see a 4 minute shot of Rhino's humping.
-
Please learn how to write something that looks like a halfway presentable review. With all those spelling mistakes and the fractured grammar, I just can't take it seriously. I still hope the movie is better than what I was able to get out of the review.
-
Thanks for the spoiler warning you fucking shit.
-
Feb 23, 2000 8:50:14 AM CST
I ALWAYS KNEW 'RED PLANET' WOULD BE THE ONE WORTH WAITING FOR!!!
by mickey rourke
Well, the cast of 'Red Planet' has some of the most talented and exiting star's of the moment:Val Kilmer;the most talented actor of his generation.Carrie ann moss;the most exiting female action star ever.Plus two of the best character actor's around in Tom sizemore and terrance stamp.Plus a new director with fresh and exiting idea's and a great script.MISSION TO MARS has got a terrible cast;TIM ROBBINS,GARY SINISE AND DON CHEADLE,yes all good character actors but hardly great leading men actors.Brian de palma is a tired old hack who's best years are well and trully behind him, look at 'Snake eyes', starts off great but turn so bad you gottta throw up. The guys judgement has become terrible.The title 'MISSION TO MARS' IS pathetic compared to the short and sweet RED PLANET.Do you really think Warner bros would hold back Red planet till after 'Mission To Mars' if they thought for a second they had a dog, infact the early rushes look spectacular compared to the bland images we've seen of Mars. So folks..KEEP THAT MOOLER IN THE COOLER THIS SUMMER..AND WAIT FOR 'RED PLANET'.ITS GONNA BE VAL KILMER'S YEAR.
-
Tim is a GREAT leading man. Ever see Shawshank Redemption? And this movie may suck, Tim may get squished...but it's still Tim, so I'm seeing it anyway (even if he's only in it for 30 min).
-
I remarked on it in his "Gladiator" review, and I'll say it again. Write properly, or don't write at all! Did you have an early moring English class that you consisently slept through or what? Grammar, syntax, word usage, this guy consistently gets it all wrong. Harry, slide those screening tickets to a new reviewer, or just stop accepting his reviews. They make the site look amateurish.
-
That I saw on Garth's site a few days ago? Has to be, I remember the "bring your cheese" shit.
I too, will be waiting for the other Mars picture later in the year. Why? Because Val Kilmer is awsome and Tim Robbins sucks shit. (and he's married to a hag) -
Hey Mickey,
What is your (painfully obvious) connection to RED PLANET? I assume this is why you hate MISSION TO MARS so much. Are you Val's much needed publicist? Did you write the screenplay? Are you in the marketing department at Warner Bros? If you are going to wait for RED PLANET, you should also mention that Red Planet has been pushed back from April to June to November because of the disastrous shoot (as reported on Mr. Showbiz and Page Six.)
-
If there is something that is getting to my nervers is the common complaining (more like bitching) of some movie lack of "emotional core" or "emotional identification", whatever that means. specially from you americans. Movies to be interesting don't need to be sap-operas! Because of that attitude you have condemned many great movies to box-office failure. need examples? Here it goes: BLADE RUNNER, THX 1138, GATTACA, LA CONFIDENTIAL, PAYBACK, HEAT... i'm not going futher because naming more movies would get very depressive!
Still, you seem to reward trash-easy-fell-good-or-fell-sorrow-you meat-head-audience easy sentimentalities. Even a possible masterpiece as APOLLO 13 lost all it's chances on greatness because everytime we get a real interesting and intense scene in either in capsule or in the mission control room, ther woulf be a switch of scene to some godawfull family-kids-desesperate-spowse-optimistc-sennile-grandmother crapfiest. And APOLLO 13 is just an example in excelence! Imagine the really bad ones! The problem with the so-called lack of emotional core of a movie is not the movie itself but rather an supersentimentality view you american have on how should a movie be. Have you never heard of "subtlery" or "underacting"? -
If there is something that is getting to my nervers is the common complaining (more like bitching) of some movie lack of "emotional core" or "emotional identification", whatever that means. specially from you americans. Movies to be interesting don't need to be sap-operas! Because of that attitude you have condemned many great movies to box-office failure. need examples? Here it goes: BLADE RUNNER, THX 1138, GATTACA, LA CONFIDENTIAL, PAYBACK, HEAT... i'm not going futher because naming more movies would get very depressive!
Still, you seem to reward trash-easy-fell-good-or-fell-sorrow-you meat-head-audience easy sentimentalities. Even a possible masterpiece as APOLLO 13 lost all it's chances on greatness because everytime we get a real interesting and intense scene in either in capsule or in the mission control room, ther woulf be a switch of scene to some godawfull family-kids-desesperate-spowse-optimistc-sennile-grandmother crapfiest. And APOLLO 13 is just an example in excelence! Imagine the really bad ones! The problem with the so-called lack of emotional core of a movie is not the movie itself but rather an supersentimentality view you american have on how should a movie be. Have you never heard of "subtlery" or "underacting"? -
This review seems so bitter and spiteful. It seems like this guy either A.) Has some sort of personal grudge with one of the cast/crew or B.) did not like the film, but had to jazz the review up to make himself look like a real critic (but failed). I am giving no heed to this review.
-
over his career, he's ripped off so many other movies... is he original at all? Just from the trailers you can tell this one rips off of 2001 in sooo many ways.... Why would I want to spend $8 for a cheap knock-off when I can rent the ground breaking original for $1.99 and watch it as many times as I want? (even though I own it on video, you get the point.)
-
I don't know what cheese you're talking about? There wasn't an ounce of cheese anywhere in the film. Granted the characters didn't have the depth of a film like Shashank Redemption, but they were all very three dimentional. I cared about all the characters, especially Tim Robbins and his wife! And I also cared a great deal about Gary Sinise. In that unfortunate space scene where you know who dies, the audience was devastated! So how can you saw there wasn't a connection between the audience and the characters in the film? And yes, the film did have hints of the Abyss and 2001, but what movie can't be compared to other movies? You can't call it a rip-off! The movie was great. Definitely worth seeing if you're into a believable space movie with cool sci-fi elements.
-
Ok...I've read your posts and know what a few of you in here think of his past films, but Mission to Mars is far superior to any of his other films, including The Untouchables. He took a great script, brilliant cast, the most increddible special effects I've ever seen, and put them all together in what is the new paragon of Sci-Fi entertainment. If you miss this film, you'll never forgive yourself.
-
DePalma's a genius! He made a great movie! He made was could have been just another sci-fi films and turned it into a smart roller coaster ride. The only reason why some of you think it started slow is because you're use to movie's with no character development like Ace Ventura. Well if you wanna see an Ave Ventura, then this movie isn't for you. And the end wasn' cheesy at all! C'mon, you meet an alien, you're not going to have this honkey-dorey "How's the wife doing" conversation. The ending with the alien was perfect. Keep in mind people this isn't a movie like Explorers where the aliens are immitating Gilligan's Island! I think this is going to be one of the best sci-fi films of the year.
-
Ever wonder what DePalma is really thinking? I see orange, red, magenta, cyan, saffron, candy apple, fire engine, crimson,and best of all cherry. I don't think he is ever really conciously subverting the masters (think Kubrik) I don't know about the rest of you, but I still get all warm and fuzzy inside when I get a fine dose of DePalma. This is just that. Kinda like the early years of Henri Matisse when he let go of line in favor of color. Okay, maybe maybe only in the actual MARS scenes, but you gotta admit that it was beautiful. Everyone needs to see this flick, regardless. Never a waste, and must be seen on the big screen.
-
Feb 24, 2000 3:39:41 PM CST
how can some of you people think this movie isn't going to be ch
by athensboy
after seeing the most cheesy movie ever in snake eyes i don't expect to see anything less from depalma. i don't know why anyone would want to act in his movie. cage is laughed at by every actor in hollywood thanks to his role in snake eyes. depalma should have got him to star in this movie. be smart wait until it comes out on video.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts