arthurwest-07516
Red Planet came out when there was a rush for Mars films(there was also De Palma's Mission to Mars released the same year). This is a decent film featuring some good actors and fine special effect but the plot is bare. A group of scientists head to the red planet and something goes awfully wrong and they are stranded. Then it is a matter of time and life and death. I won't spoil anything for you but this is one of those in flight movie type of films that you watch and forget. Not bad- just average. (Decent science fiction adventure).
Rainey Dawn
It's not a bad science film but it's not a good one either. I liked to a degree - for the entertainment value. I think it's good for a one time watch if you like science fiction movies.********* Spoiler *********** It's a predictable movie - a group of scientists on a desolate planet (Mars) and they have a sentient robot with them AMEE. Something will have to happen to cause drama and action with the isolated group and what better to be the enemy than their own AMEE that turns on them. To add more to a space drama you will need to have something to go wrong - in the case of this film it's the oxygen running out.***************************** In spite of the predictability of the movie it is a good watch for those who have not seen the film. It is entertaining.6.5/10
chaos-rampant
At its time, all those 13 years ago, the film probably went by on its, for the time, palatable effects on a big screen, decent cast not totally phoning it in and fairly simple story of Martian exploration. Watching it now is to get the sense that in another 13 years it will be looked back as amusedly as It - Terror from Outer Space or any number of those 'guys in a tin can pretend to fly in space' sci-fi films of the 50's.It's truly bad. The story is as silly now as it was then, the science and technology as ludicrous (a robot with ninja moves!), the performances as theatrical. But what really has sunk it, I think, is the handling of cinematic space.Films set in space only bring to the fore, with more clarity than usual films, cinematic space as the main anchor of a story-world. 2001 got right a set of notions about the gravity of things in space, the viewing gravity that creates immersion, so every extravagant thing down the road was rooted in our first having been transported to space. I'm eagerly anticipating Gravity as the new template in this field.Here everything feels phony.An unfortunate contrast with the closing theme, so to speak, which is how god, what we call god, is the willingness to not give up, on close ones and otherwise, and this willingness is nothing else than not losing track/sight of the presence of another human being in space, a matter of persisting vision. When the female captain in the end hurls herself from the main vessel, attached to merely a chord, to recover the sole unconscious survivor, this should have been a powerful moment to capture this commitment, had we been rooted as firmly as they are.
gtitus09
I thought it was an interesting enough movie or I wouldn't have bought it. It may not be a 4 star movie but it was at least worth 2 and 3/4 stars. Or a 7 out of 10. The only thing that troubled me is the scene where they've landed on Mars and finally made it to the base. They find it all torn apart. The thing I don't understand is how all of these intelligent men can see the pieces of material from the wreckage and that, MOVING BACK AND FORTH. Now. What is causing these pieces of material to move back and forth? Could it be um, hmm.. AIR? None of them seem to realize this and it's only by the time they have run out, inside the suits that Val Kilmer's character hits his visor accidentally, causing it to come up, and he realizes HE CAN BREATHE!I find it hard to believe that I've never seen this mentioned not one time before, and could not find it at this website in the Goofs either.However all that aside I thought the film interesting enough, with good performances from Moss and Kilmer and most of the other actors.
AD
