Review: "Mission To Mars" 460
Review 1: Jamie and Michael
Michael: I don't want to keep you in suspense here: movies just don't get much worse than this. And I've seen both Waterworld and Attack of the Killer Tomatoes , so I think I know what I'm talking about. When Brian De Palma says on the movie's official site, "I tried to avoid all the cliches of science fiction movies and to give a whole new look and approach to this fantastic story," all I can think of is that someone needs to call the FBI because the movie he made was obviously switched with someone else's fifth or sixth-rate NYU-film-school production before it reached the theaters.
Jamie: People are going to say we're taking this too seriously, and maybe I did expect too much going in. But I really hate seeing wasted potential.
Michael: The whole premise of the film is based upon a scene where one astronaut makes a zero-gee sculpture of M&M (tm) brand chocolate candies rotating freely and circularly in the shape of a DNA helix. Newton's first law? Anyone? Anyone? Brian De Palma was a physics major? I can see why he switched careers.
Jamie: Thanks for pointing out that URL, Michael. When I read this, I don't feel so bad for slamming the film:
"The various things that happen to the Mars One and Two crews in this film all come out of the physics of what could happen in the situations presented in the story. So, it is realistic and extremely authentic."
Ha. The scriptwriters must have had a quota of a scientific impossibility every ten minutes, and they made their quota easily. Spacesuit thrust jets at shoulder-level. A plot device that depends on the concept of inertia, followed by an attempted rescue that defies the law of inertia.
This was kind of like watching The Poseidon Adventure, and then suddenly halfway through the movie everyone discovers that they can breathe water and eat plankton. No explanation, that's just the way it is. They all swim out of the ship into the Pacific and then climb ashore, wading up onto the Chicago beach.
Michael: We are of course treated to many close-up shots of M&M (tm) brand chocolate candies along the way, including several gratuitous close-up and pan shots where we focus in on the "m"'s and the bag to make sure that we do, indeed, realize that these are M&M (tm) brand chocolate candies and not some inferior brand X chocolate candies, but real, honest-to-god, M&M (tm) brand chocolate candies. If you didn't realize they were M&M (tm) brand chocolate candies, we'll later spill them all over the floor and stare at them for about 20 seconds straight, with a statistically unlikely distribution where the vast majority of the candies land with the "m" up, just to make sure that we notice that these are M&M (tm) brand chocolate candies.
Also plugged: Isuzu, Pennzoil, SGI, Barq's Root Beer, Dr. Pepper, several others that I don't recall just now. The product placement was offensive enough that if I was writing this review I'd make a really big deal of it. Oh, I guess I am. Like watching two hours of commercials.
The "plot," if one must call it that, was as exciting as watching paint dry. Or maybe watching a "cinematic blend of texture and movement" as your clothes whirl around in the dryer. There's a lot of stilted acting, some manufactured crises, and a mysterious alien thing. "Hey look! I can spin the camera around so it looks like I'm in a rotating ring! Let's just spin! For about 3 minutes! We're spinning! Whoo-hoo! Just like a dryer!"
Jamie: Yes; there's homage to 2001 , and then there's a dull recycling of a special effect that was cool 30 years ago.
Michael: Finally we meet an alien. It's glowing, it's got baby blue eyes, it smiles at us, some beatific music swells, and then it hands us some M&M (tm) brand chocolate candies to munch on while it explains, with a handy diorama, just why it has been living in a big human face on Mars for the last few hundred million years.
Jamie: Don't forget the tear. The big sad crystal tear dangling sadly from the sad, sad alien eye. Did I mention it was sad? It was crying, it was so sad. You could tell it was sad because it was crying a big crystal tear. Also the fact that we'd just watched its entire planet destroyed in a fiery cataclysm. So there were two ways you could tell the alien was sad: the tear, and the incineration of its homeworld.
I had thought at first that the alien was a hologram, but later, it takes the humans' hands and it looks awfully real. Except for the fact that it looks awfully fake and computer-generated. Or maybe this alien race just happens to look like big nine-foot fake computer-generated holograms.
Inside, by the way, the Cydonia "face on Mars." This is the structure photographed in 1976 by the Viking probe, which caused wild speculation that it was an artificial construct. Unfortunately for De Palma, it was almost two years ago that high-resolution photos from the Mars Global Surveyor showed it was just another rocky plateau.
Let me spoil the big secret: the aliens are us. We're them. Obviously the scriptwriters graduated from a Kansas high school, because it turns out that the Precambrian explosion was actually seeded by DNA from Mars, thereby producing fish, alligators, brontosauruses, woolly mammoths, and (six hundred million years later) humans. But meanwhile, apparently, the Martians are us. We're them.
So there's a big weird mystery that the astronauts have to solve, which they do by looking at a rotating computerized graphic of a DNA molecule on a spacecraft that can't take off because all its computers are fried.
Michael: The electromagnetic pulse was selective, you see. Important things like wave analyzers and radar guns and remote-controlled toy cars were EMP-protected, while unimportant things like navigation computers were not.
Jamie: Right. Anyway, in the future, all astronauts are required to memorize the entire human genome, because they can look at the graphic which shows human DNA at the atomic level, recognize that two chromosomes [sic] are missing, and (I'm not making this up) enter the missing atomic structure of the chromosomes that were left out. They complete the graphic picture and open up the door to the giant white room which ripped off both 2001 and THX-1138 .
How did the Martians know what the proper DNA sequencing for those two chromosomes were? How did they know how many chromosomes humans have?
Because they're us, we're them. They created multicellular life, and apparently evolution is not random natural selection at all because this weird holographic Martian DNA doesn't change in 600 million years.
I can't stand movies that go back and forth between hard science and the worst kind of pseudoscience. Give me one or the other, OK? But don't base the plot around science and then expect me to suspend scientific disbelief every ten minutes.
One more example. There's a tense moment inside the THX-1138-style white room where Gary Sinese takes off his spacesuit. But he knows it's OK because he watched the air pressure rise: 6psi, 7psi, etc., and as he cracks his gloves off, another character is saying excitedly "12psi, 13psi." So they know that 14psi is Earth normal and we're expected to keep in mind the difference between Mars air pressure and Earth air pressure.
But for the last hour, the plot has hinged on this guy stranded on Mars for a year, who has stayed alive and healthy by growing plants in a canvas greenhouse.
OK, forget the fact that there's no water in the Martian atmosphere - none. Forget the sunlight being half Earth's and filtered through canvas. Forget canvas not producing a greenhouse effect by any stretch of the imagination. Forget all that; he has some magic beans that let him grow a splashy leafy warm wet jungle inside a canvas greenhouse. OK.
This canvas greenhouse is tethered to the Martian dirt by ropes. It flaps in the Martian wind. It looks about as airtight as, well, a Boy Scout tent. And everyone inside it gets to take their helmets off because it is an Earth-pressure atmosphere. Inside the canvas tent. Mars-pressure outside. Earth-pressure inside. Pressure differential between the two: one ton per square foot. Canvas and rope are going to (a) hold down a thousand tons of force and (b) flap in the breeze. Right!
Michael: Don't forget the temperature differential: Mars' average temperature is something like -70 Fahrenheit. Much colder at night, of course. But I guess the magic greenhouse can fend off -70 degree temperatures too. I wish my military-issue shelter half had been made of that material!
Jamie: And finally, at the end of the film, the astronauts climb into the return vehicle and blast off for Earth. As the credits roll they begin starving to death, because it's a six-month minimum journey and it's already been established they have no food. What a happy ending.
Robert Zubrin, co-author of The Case for Mars , was an advisor to this film and he must have held his nose all the way through it. Zubrin is a rocket scientist who has spent the last ten years telling anyone who would listen about a very realistic, practical system for getting people to Mars within ten years. I know he must have had his reasons for signing on but he must be a little embarrassed now that he's seen the finished product.
The reason this movie offends me so much is because it treats the red planet, and space travel in general, with disrespect. It tries to be realistic, but whenever the science gets in the way of Hollywood, Hollywood wins. It did have some powerful moments, true, and they were especially moving if you believe (as I do) that space exploration is important. But when a science-fiction film jettisons the science, it turns into campy space opera - which makes the good parts just that much harder to take.
Michael: This movie looks like it was stitched together from a couple of thoughts the director had and thought were cool. (The studio probably thought they were being slick, capitalizing on Mars enthusiasm generated by NASA missions, so they rushed it through production, never figuring NASA would just hurl probes at the planet like a bunch of lawn darts.) There's zero consistency between those parts, not even hand-waving, you just jump from one to the next with no explanation whatsoever.
Maybe you could justify spending $2 on a non-new-release movie rental of Mission to Mars, assuming it's even released on video, which I honestly think would be a sick joke. But $30, which is what it costs for two people to attend a movie and buy a soda in Manhattan? I'd rather gouge my eyes out. This one definitely gets two thumbs down, and if I had more thumbs, they'd be down too, unless they were holding a bag of M&M (tm) brand chocolate candies.
Other Reviews:
- Salon: Disney, We Have a Problem
- Rotten Tomatoes has a great pick of choice quotes from dozens of reviewers around the U.S.
Review 2: JonKatz
I had two primary responses to Mission. The first was disbelief that Brian De Palma -- the same man who made Wiseguy, and Scarface, among others -- could have made it. The second was awe at the impact of sophisticated animation on movies. It's now possible for a movie to be beautiful, even awe-inspiring and touching at times, and still be a lousy movie. To me, that was the real fate of Mission To Mars.
The characters were so noble, self-sacrificing and one-dimensional, they were practically cartoons. And what Kubrick and Lucas have done so brilliantly -- remember that space and sci-fi ultimately revolve around very human people and stories -- DePalma forgot. He was so busy evoking awe that any sense of humanity was drowned out.
In fact, DePalma's efforts made me appreciate Lucas especially, who I was beginning to resent for all of his mega-hyping. Whatever Lucas's failings, in all of his movies, you're occasionally blown away by the idea of what might be out there, while still identifying with the hapless humans who are trying to sort it out. DePalma gives us instead some God-like alien life force powerful enough to run the universe, but too dumb to figure out the motives of the encroaching humans. And not a single line of dialogue uttered by any star in this movie made them appear real or relevant. Still, the movie was gorgeous, which is why it will sharply disappoint some people. Three or four space scenes, and some of the scenes on Mars, were really jaw-dropping, and made the movie quite worth seeing.
But DePalma seemed way over his head with the subject matter. High-class science fiction isn't all that easily to replicate, it turns out. In terms of character and narrative, Mission to Mars was a stinker. But I won't be surprised if people with imagination and heart will go see it and be touched.
The review you ignored. (Score:1)
------
Oh my god. This movie was such shit, I can't even begin to warn you.
- -
Don't EVEN get me started on that steaming turd. I saw it about a week or two ago, and... I was STUNNED. It was like being unexpectedly punched in the face. I was numb and flailing about afterwards.
My expectations were low, sure. But nothing could have prepared me...
The corner of the theatre I was sitting in turned into a ad-hoc "Mystery Science Theatre 2000" show, so I was at least entertained by my friends.
There hasn't been this much product placement since "Mac and Me."
Things about M2M that utterly suck (partial list)
-----------------------------------------------
* The trailer and posters literally gave away the "surprise" ending
* The one-shot "exposition picnic" ("Gee, wonder what'll happen to the guy
going to Mars who's reading his kid 'Robinson Crusoe'?")
* The futuristic Yugo (or whatever the hell it was...)
* The Gen-X astronauts (it's 2020 remember?!) reminiscing about...Flash Gordon?
* The astronauts looking apathetically at the giant sand tornado about
to kill them
* Easter Island obelisk apparently couldn't be seen from earth, even though
three tiny graves nearby could be
* The big MultiNational Space Station with five people on it
* The etch-a-sketch computers
* Don Cheadle's "Help me, Captain Kirk!" scene
* The horrible, indecipherable scene where they come up with a rescue plan.
* "There's only three graves!" "No, there was just no one to bury him."
* The outer space ballroom-dancing scene
* Gratuitous, pointless "walking up the wall" 2001-ripoff spin-the-set scene.
* The Dead-Wife-On-Video-At-The-Party speech
* "Let's explain what DNA is with M&Ms because it's going to come up later."
* The "Monkey Jumping on an Organ" soundtrack
* The Dr. Pepper that saves the mission
* The DA-DAH! music cue when the fishing line runs out
* The bizzaro "take off my helmet" scene
* Don Cheadle's Sanford-and-Son afro.
* The greenhouse
* The ridiculous story about Cheadle digging a grave for the two bodies he
couldn't find, cuz it "just felt right"
* The "Solve the DNA Puzzle" alien test
* Mrs. Butterworth, the weeping alien who wants to hold your hand.
* The "2001 meets Epcot center" CGI climax
* "We've waited billions of years for you to show up... Well, gotta go."
* The fact that this highly evolved species decided to evacuate the planet
AFTER, not before, it was bombarded by a meteor
* Sinese's "Close Encounters" decision to go with the Aliens. (I hope in
the Special Edition we get to see the inside of the ship)
* The exchange: "Where's Sinese?" "He caught another flight! Har har!"
* The flashback ("Remember all these shitty moments...")
* Alien Shmalian...is there or isn't there water on Mars?
See the reviews on aint-it-cool-news for more.
STAY AWAY
I loved it (Score:1)
Nah, see, there's a difference. (Score:1)
See, this movie would have been fine if it had done one thing: not purported itself to be real. Mission to Mars implied that "this is how it really is, no really", when in fact it's obviously a bunch of pseudoscience crap.
Star Wars, on the other hand, is fantasy, fairy tale... not science fiction. It says "what if the world were like this," and "just imagine." This affords a lot more suspension of disbelief.
Remember, in science fiction, the science is supposed to be "right," but everything else is made up. ;)
A fellow moviegoer said it best - (Score:1)
A fellow moviegoer said it best.... (Score:1)
well... (Score:1)
Re:Good reviews (Score:1)
What do you expect from a movie who's target are Trekkies and PC gamers?
I'm putting my hopes on Titan AE. There might be a chance to show that the US can put something that can compete with Anime and Manga that not aimed at 3 year-olds. (I was goin to say Trekkies, but that would've ben an insult to the 3-year olds)
Re:am i alone here? (Score:1)
And cute chicks in tight black leather!
And cool flashing computer lights!
And tonnes of awesome special effects!
The Matrix was easily the best movie of the 90s for the action/scifi/kungfu genre.
Rotating M&M Helix (Score:1)
Re:Rotating M&M Helix (Score:1)
Because that explains the scene. That is the point of the exercise isn't it.
If you corner hard enough, yes. Think about the situation where you slam the brakes really hard. If you're not wearing a seat belt then you fly through the windshield. If you corner hard then you feel yourself being pressed against the side of the car facing away from the turning corner. A fly does smack against the windshield if you slam the brakes hard (try it, it's fun).
That's because the fly has the ability to fly away from the window which is coming towards it. An M&M doesn't have the muscle power.
I believe you're thinking of "momentum" and not "inertia".
My devil's advocate theory is that the spacecraft is rotating. The spacecraft causes the occupants to rotate also either by butt friction on seats or by applied force through seatbelts. The M&Ms would only be "attached" to the spacecraft via frictional forces with the air in the craft. This tiny force would certainly allow them to remain stationary while the craft rotates, giving the illusion of rotating M&Ms to all occupants of the craft.
Oh please no, don't send your money to this film (Score:1)
-Derek
Star Trek (Score:1)
HINT: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, as I understand it though IANAP, states that one cannot know where more than one particle (is this right?) is at any given moment. Magic, I say. I bet having a job on the writing staff at Paramount would be fun as shit.
Why they should avoid Asimov (Score:1)
People are just trying to figure out why it sux... (Score:2)
Even the score was bad!!!! (Score:2)
For instance, during the suspenseful where an astronaut almost died from oxygen deprivation because he preferred floating around to actually putting on his helmet. The score consisted of a stupid organ player pounding his hands down on the keyboard. "Thunk" (two second pause) "thunk". Repeat for five minutes. I wanted to scream. Really...
And how about the awful camera pans? The director's favorite shot seemed to be to put the camera 2 feet away from a bulkhead and move it slowly over random dials and crap until it finally rested on something interesting. All this time the insipid dialog was the only thing of interest. Or at least of interest to SOMEBODY.
Geez. What a waste of time. Hope the other one is better.
No satellites around Mars? (Score:2)
Perhaps (Score:2)
it was OK (Score:2)
Close your eyes for a minute, and imagine what it would be like if the public suddenly gained interest in a manned mission to Mars. Think if Bush or Gore, as the next President, made a speech ala JFK. Think if in 2009, NASA launched a ship for Mars.
A crappy movie or two would be a small price to pay for such an accomplishment.
Re:MPAA!! (Score:2)
ObMovie: My friends and I (all big movie buffs) play a game called "The last time that was made, it was called..." We watch previews and commercials for movies and see the reused plotline. "Mission to Mars" was decided as "The last time they made that movie, it was called 2001, and, unlike MTM, it was a good movie."
I could have told you MTM was going to suck. Just a feeling.
Re:Pitch Black (Score:2)
The planet just "happens" to have a breathable atmosphere. Yeah, it's a bit low on O2, but you don't see that bothering them too much after the first few minutes. Then again, if they'd been in spacesuits we wouldn't have been able to see Riddick's eyes as well, so they might have had to find another effect to show us over and over again ad nauseum.
What Did You Expect? (Score:2)
They're hoping to pander to an audience whose willingness to swallow pseudo/non-science has been nurtured by several years of X-Files.
Scully's tits...arousal...insert Alien/Cattle-mutilator/Conspiracy meme...tits...ahhh!...Scully's emits seamingly reasonable 'scientific' assumptions to explain the strange event...tits...Mulder mocks her for 'ignoring' the 'obvious' 'Truth' that is 'out there'...tits...Mulder's right again...look at that ass...when will Scully learn to stop thinking and accept that whatever the California New Age Police say is true is true?...nice crotch shot, even with clothes on...ooh! Leather!
Take two m$m's 'n call me in the morning.
Re:A family Sci-Fi (Score:2)
The constant bombardment of media, especially big budget sci-fi movies, as made a lot of people very cynical. I wouldn't rate it as one of the greatest movies of all time but I didn't feel ripped off. It was either go see a movie or sit in traffic for three hours listening to my kid try to convince me that he is slowly dying by starvation and boredom.
$8.50 sounds like too much. I see from your bio that you are from Annandale, Virginia. I live down in Newport News. The most expensive movie I have gone to here was $7.50. I can assume from your e-mail address that you are attending Virginia Tech (need to update your Bio page and say hello to my cousin Kim Orrell who is a Biology Grad student). Maybe when you are done with college you may want to consider moving into the Hampton Roads area.
Where I live now I'm 30 min from Virginia Beach (babes), 30 Min from Bush Gardens (vicarious thrills sitting outside the log ride on a cold day waiting for chicks who weren't expecting to get wet walk by), 3 hours from DC and four hours of so to Nags Head. The cost of living is excellent, lots of jobs especially slack government positions. There are pleanty of hi-tech jobs in the area including good starter positions at the company I work for Newport News Shipbuilding. And last, but not least the AMC Hampton 24 Townecenter Cineplex. 24 screens with stadium seating, awesome sound and big screens (tihs place has ruined me to watching movies anywhere else).
A family Sci-Fi (Score:2)
I wound up going to the movie with my four year old son because of a traffic jam. I chose the movie because of the PG rating. You surely can slam on this movie for technical reasons but it has to be the first Sci-Fi in a long time that doesn't revolve around gratuitous violence or focus on the negative aspects of human nature.
There were only two scenes where I had to cover his eyes. The scene in the beginning where one guy gets a rock in the face and another gets ripped apart and the freeze dried guy near the middle.
If aliens watched this move they would garner that humans are decent, courageous people who care about each other and strive for greatness. The whole movie is a message of hope and a reflection of our own wishes to find we are not alone in the universe. The cinematography it reminded me a little of " Robinson Crusoe on Mars" [easynet.co.uk].
But it didn't have a cryptic meaning or a French tragic ending or a "to be continued" so the critics don't feel satisfied. The techie nitpickers didn't get to see all of the true boredom of day to day life on a spaceship or on Mars so they aren't happy. Meanwhile I walked away from two hours of enjoyment with my son that hopefully showed him a little of the wonderment I feel about space travel and exploration. I guess with $40 in ticket sales the first weekend a few others maybe agreed.
"Mission to Mars" wasn't all that bad. Sheesh (Score:2)
What I can say is that all of us were rather impressed that the film was really quite decent. The acting was well above par most of the current Hollywood fair (most of us are actors, so we should have some idea what constitutes good and bad acting). The visual effects, while obviously computer enhanced, didn't look all that bad either. Thankfully, the scenes stuck more to science fact than science fiction. Some of the fact was in fact exaggerated, yes, but in all it seemed fairly correct.
As a side note, it was pleasant to see Gary Sinise in a leading role like this. Many of his roles are inexcusably forgettable. This one, however, will hopefully propel him towards the stardom that he just deserves.
Aside from some of the cliches (the rocket pendant, the footprint in the driveway, etc.), I found the movie to be a great way to blow a few bucks on a Sunday.
As a side note, I saw the movie in a DLP (Digital Light Processing) theater. Quite and experience! The quality was excellent and many times some of the original film artifacts could be seen. Yes, there was a little pixelation, but generally the visuals and sound were absolutely superb.
To all those panning it for lack of anything better to do, see it again. See it with an open mind and a child-like curiosity. Notice a lot of the details in the background and I believe you'll be pleasantly surprised.
Re:am i alone here? (Score:2)
Well, The Matrix had the advantage of being the first *good* cyberpunk movie.
---
Naw. [i]Bladerunner[/i] beats The Matrix hands down when it comes to capturing Gibsonian cyberpunk. I liked The Matrix, but it's definately not in the same realm.
- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com [velocinews.com])
Minor non-nit about that exposed fuel line (Score:2)
So this must have really been a USN ission, and NASA was just along for the cover story
--
Advertising.... (Score:2)
Hehehe, Remember Austin Powers II? There was the intentional humorously subtle product placement throught the entire movie. ("Would you like a Hot Pocket? An Eggo?") That was funny, and added to the movie. Also, remember Twister? Great movie, but one big Dodge commercial. ("That's a Nice Truck!")
In the case of a regular movie with lots of product placement, it's always funny to see how they work it in. I remember back when E.T. first came out, the people who made the film originally wanted to use Skittles. They brought it to the Skittles people, and they said "No. This movie is going to be a flop." and pulled out. So they went to Reese's, who happily said that ET was permitted to munch on Reese's Pieces. Then the film was a huge success, and everyone wanted Reese's Pieces.
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
Re:More annoyances (Score:2)
One only has to look at pictures from Russia's MIR space station with the spagetti of electrical and fuel conduits zip-tied to the walls and running through hatchways, thereby preventing sealing those sections of quickly in an emergency. When MIR was hit by that cargo ship several years ago it took several minutes to disconnect all the equipment so they could close the hatch. And as a result, they lost use of the electricity produced by one of the solar arrays.
NASA has learned from MIR...and routing cables and pipes on the out side is one of them.
Don't you get it? (Score:2)
Re:For all you non-physics type people.... (Score:2)
And then there are those people.... (Score:2)
I think the general consensus is that MISSION TO MARS is a horrible movie.
Problem is, one Richard C. Hoagland (of MONUMENT OF MARS infamy) put a spin on the movie that Director Brian de Palma is trying to prove that NASA covered up a lot of information about Mars they don't want us to know (and other gobbleybook bulls***). Methinks that radio talk show host Art Bell should permanently disassociate himself from Hoagland and save us the need to take painkillers and antiacids when trying to buy Hoagland's "washing machine spin cycle" spin on this whole subject.
Re:The biggest flaw, unmentioned (Score:2)
BUT, it could just be the M&M's and DrPepper talking. Mmmm, DrPepper.
Bad Mojo
Re:Good sci-fi? (Score:2)
Not only did she (unknowingly) have 16 hours of recorded static, everyone else working on the project (I guess) just backed out and didn't want to help present a strong argument in her favor. I guess they must have all been payed government contractors or something.
Bad Mojo
revenge of the apologist (Score:2)
HOWEVER I do not have any sort of patience for stories that out and out insult my intelligence, which is what MTM appears to do. (I have no desire to see it, esp. after reading the reviews here and at Salon)
Some of my favourite movies ever aren't necessarily "realistic" vis a vis real life, but if there's self-consistency, that's WAY more important.
Apollo 13 set out to be a docu-drama and kept to real-life physics, because to do otherwise wouldn't have made sense. MTM wants to be scientific in the same vein, but fails miserably. And there's the difference.
Pope
Go see Bulworth (Score:2)
_________________
"A-List" (Score:2)
This looks like one of those movies where you watch it and say to yourself "How could they actually release this?" Another example was a movie I saw on tv several months ago, the title of which I don't remember. The original robocop was in it, and there was some kind of hostage situation and he was hiding in a secret room and the bad guys had some kind of a heat-sensitive map of the building. So the good guys know that the bad guys can see them and what do they do? Robocop goes to the sink with two towels, wets them, brings them back to the computer guy, puts one on his head and the other on the computer guy's head. Computer guy asks, "what are you doing?" and Robocop replies, "Disappearing!" Then we cut to the bad guys' IR map and we see the two guys' heat signatures fade out. Then the bad guys basically go "huh!"
The movie wasn't a comedy, but I laughed quite hard at it. Ah, IMDb reports that Robocop man was Peter Weller [imdb.com], but I can't find the name of the movie. There was a woman in the movie also, I want to say Meg Ryan, but it wasn't Meg Ryan. She was his love interest (and special agent) and he was a cop or soldier or something. If anybody knows the name of this movie, please let reply let me know, now it's bothering me.
_________________
Re:What keeps the earth spinning? (Score:2)
_________________
Re:For all you non-physics type people.... (Score:2)
btw, haven't you ever heard of curveballs? <g>
_________________
Re:Hollywood Strikes Again! (Score:2)
Did you read Heinlein while you were asleep or something? Did you only read his Boy's Life stories or something?
Regardless of whether you like him or not, Heinlein was never shallow, even in his light hearted novels. Often he had major problems with fully dimensional characters, but he usuall made up for that with dozen or so mind-blowing thoughts.
Why don't scriptwriters get expert advice! (Score:2)
But there was one glaring, stupid thing in the movie. The main character is going to be an informant for the FBI, and the G-man instructs him:
"We need you to copy your drive C onto a floppy".
So many people in the theater laughed out loud I missed the next line of dialog.
Why, why, why, don't script writers and directors get someone to read through the script and fix stupid things like that? It would have been so easy: "We need you to copy (some file) onto floppy" would have done it.
You know what would be really cool? During the Oscars, the host or hostess could take them apart. Mock them, rip them to bits in front of millions of people. Maybe next time they would make the effort to get it right.
Slashdot Interview suggestion: A director or screenwriter willing to face the heat!
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Re:For all you non-physics type people.... (Score:2)
THE WHOLE DAMN UNIVERSE MUST HAVE BEEN ROTATING AROUND THE M&M'S!!!!!
That solves the acceleration problem. The M&M's were really staying still!!!!
(No, I'm not this stupid in real life)
I eat dog. Free DVDs [opendvd.org]. Horray!
This is nothing compared to Supernova (Score:2)
But... I'd take this movie any day over Supernova. Supernova [imdb.com] has to be the *worst* Sci-Fi movie I've ever seen... Really... And I've seen a lot of really bad Sci-Fi movies.
Supernova(a movie that was supposed to be released in 1998) was originally directed by Francis Ford Coppola. (yes, THAT Francis Coppola). He quit half way through, and they went through a slew of other directors and crew. This is the only movie in recent memory that had *NO* opening credits, and very short closing credits... Nobody wanted to be associated with this.
It had plot holes up the wazoo. First, they were a kind of space ambulance. They'd receive a distress call, and go rescue people. To do this in a speedy way, they had to use some kind of warp drive. However, to use their warp engines, they all had to get naked and get inside these protective bubbles. They had 6 crew members, and 6 bubbles. So, if they actually did rescue someone, they had no hope of bringing them back.
Also, space ambulances apparently have a whale problem, since they had CO2 powered harpoons all over the ship, that they used several times.
Oh yes, and zero-gravity sex. Many many unnecessary times. (and it's PG13, so it's kinda pointless boring shots)
They actually had a guy wrapped in a sheet or something, and said he was a robot. He limped. I still don't get it.
They found some 9th-dimensional matter, too. Apparently, you can make a big-ass bomb out of it. *puke*
How does the movie end? Well, a supernova started, and the impact is going to reach earth in 51 years. What happens to earth? What happens to the two people who survived?(who had to both share a protective bubble-thing on the way back, and had their "DNA mixed") No idea. I'm not waiting for the sequel.
Does it suck worse than Plan 9 From Outer Space? (Score:2)
Perhaps one day I'll go make a movie..
--
***Shudder*** (Score:2)
A wealthy eccentric who marches to the beat of a different drum. But you may call me "Noodle Noggin."
Re:Put down the bong... (Score:2)
Do you realize that I was mocking the belligerent attitute of your first post, and highlighting some discrepancies between your statements and your apparent ideology (or, perhaps, highlighting contradictions that are inherent to your ideology)?
I read _Starship Troopers_ about seven years ago and enjoyed it, because I found it to be a very strong, yet subtle, criticism of fascism hidden inside a juvenile space adventure.
Of course, a lot of people have mistaken it to be *advocating* the society presented in the novel.
Even people in this thread.
Along comes the movie, and wow, it's a rather blatant satire of facism, complete with 90's themes, and targeted toward teenagers in a sort of self-deprecating comic book style. I though people would actually get it this time. I really enjoyed it, though I went into it thinking it would royally suck.
But of course, movie critics, stupid as ever, mistake this movie for advocating the society presented within it. "Nazi 90210" is as it was often described.
I even got in arguments about it. No one saw past the violence and militarism. You'd think people would respect a realistic depiction. I mean, they are fighting giant insects with machine guns. Of course they'd be slaughtered.
Now, consider this. How violent was the book? I remember one scene where Rico launches a grenade into a school or church-like building, slaughtering hundreds of civilian skinnies. The movie get's nowhere near that.
Yup, It sux0rs. (film student talking) (Score:2)
The one high point was meeting Jerry O' Connell after the show. We were standing there making fun of it, and he rushes over with "what'd ya think, guys?" I just reached out and pumped his hand-my friend couldn't think up anything polite to say so he just stuttered a bit.
-brett (hopefully I can do better than this someday)
YAY (Score:2)
It's as if the people who made it wanted to make their little mint, with no intent to tell a story, portray a theme, express a thought. Nope, it would appear to be all about money. And the person who made this movie, although perhaps upset at its apparent failure as a motion picture, will still rake in the money for it. Until the reviews come out.
This sort of thing reflects on the problems that accompany having a *few* people with the money to make movies who make movies to make money, versus the ideal situation where people with a story to tell get to tell a story, like it was with books. (Not to say that books are always good! Ha!) The problem is in the barrier to entry. Many people have great ideas about movies, like a traffic cop's "Star Trek", which was an idea that inspired, well, a culture.
Mission to Mars won't be inspiring many cultures. It has no theme, a thin plot, dull witted characters, insulting science fiction, among various other complaints that you don't need to be reading. This movie, like so many others, irks me with its existence in spite of the lack of competence existing in making it.
Did anyone else notice how Jupiter lacked moons? ... of course some of you did ...
If you would like to know a *real* or at least compentent (and in my humble opinion excellent) rendition of a possible mission to mars, read Kim Stanley Robinson's Red Mars, Green Mars, and Blue Mars Trilogy.
Re:For all you non-physics type people.... (Score:2)
yea, the fat kid from "Stand by Me" could throw killer ones.
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
Had to have a special "Critics Corner" for this... (Score:2)
I saw it yesterday up in Wyoming (where it's cold) with some friends of mine who were playing there that night. This movie was so bad, we had a special event and admonished everyone in the bar that night to avoid "Mission to Mars" and instead, go on a much more productive "Mission to Bars." Needless to say, our mission was a success.
Like the NYU screening (see Salon article), we couldn't help but laugh when the laws of physics were suspended for a rescue attempt that would have been more at home during a Mr. Show with Bob and David episode. "Oh, look, her determination will pay off! oup, nope, couple feet short, time for the touching suicide of a main character 100 yards in front of the love of his life.
The only way to see the movie is to sit in the front row and loudly and verbally belittle it to the delight of your fellow move-ie go-ers.
--
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
ba-bu-ba-ba-baaa, da-da-dum. Re-boot the ser-ver.
Re:CHROMOSOMES IN DNA??? HELLO! (Score:2)
Actually, that's not true either. They are base-pairs. Every three base-pairs contains information to code an amino acid during translation, which go on to become proteins. They fucked that up, and the fact that the entire human genome would require somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 odd million more base pairs, and that human DNA is indistinguishable from dung-beetle DNA simply by looking at a 3D model of a double-helix.
----------------------------------
Re:More annoyances (Score:2)
The solution is to route the wires externally, then to put covers over the wiring for protection. This may not be crucial to the ISS, since it may well have a lifeboat. However, if you're making a ship for a mission that places you six months away from anything else, these lines become a crucial component and must be protected!
Exposed fuel lines on a manned mars mission should get the engineers' licenses revoked, and possibly jail time. But even if the ISS doesn't have maze covers, anyone who engineers external lines without maze covers on a
Re:Good reviews (Score:2)
Did anyone catch the make-up that Gary Sinise was wearing? He looked like a New Orleans drag queen.
The movie _could_ have been good if it had a better basis for its story and it had been better written. I swear, I could make a movie that's ten times better than that thing with a hangover.
The movie ammounts to a bad remake of 2001 with way too much drama thrown in. The one-after-another emergencies were there to stretch 120 minutes of a plot that couldn't realistically fill up the screen for more than half an hour.
CGI sucked too (Score:2)
- shots of the ships were well done, but that's just expected...and no better than you could see on Star Trek: Voyager every week on TV.
- The sandstorm/tornado-type thing was OK, but The Mummy did a better job of that last year
- Shots of Mars were remarkably dull. When the Tim Robbins character says "hello, beautiful" as they're approaching Mars, I was expecting a correspondingly beautiful shot of the planet. Instead, we get a faded red sphere with little texture and detail.
- I don't know if that alien was supposed to look computer generated, or whether that was actually how the species supposedly looked like, but it was embarassingly amateurish and fake.
- The explosion of the face thing and the escape of the alien craft at the end, the only fireworks in the entire movie, were extremely poorly done. Granted, it's hard to make fire look real with CGI, but with $100 million, they could've done a hell of a lot better than this. Look at the Deep Space Nine episode The Sacrifice of Angels. That is how you do CGI. And that's a TV show, something I can watch for free.
It speaks volumes about how bad a movie is when even the effects suck. It's not just De Palma, or the actors, or the scriptwriters who should be embarrased about this. It's all of Disney. There's just a staggering amount of incompetence showing on every level of this horrible movie...the first giant turkey of the millenium.Re:Just like Starwars (Score:2)
The biggest flaw, unmentioned (Score:2)
MTM attempts to present an answer to the origin of life on Earth. The answer it presents, in such high and mighty terms "500 mil years ago, an explosion of life....and nobody knew why. And now we do" (dramatic music.)
OK, that is just bad. Not just scientifically, but philosophically. This doesn't answer any questions about the origins of life! It just confounds them! Now we have to find out where
This arrogant attempt at philosophy is what angered me most about the movie.
Re:What keeps the earth spinning? (Score:2)
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leapsec.html gives 1.4 milliseconds per day per century ,ie, the day is 1.4 milliseconds longer today than it was 100 years ago.
Re:For all you non-physics type people.... (Score:2)
Ryan
Re:Funny that you should mention science (Score:2)
Yep. The Star Wars trilogy made no pretense to be more than a classic space opera with modern SFX. This turkey gets 25 demerits for building up expectations and not delivering.
/.
Re:Mission To Marz - excellent! (Score:2)
Or disclaimers dismissing the producers from responsibility if you happen die of embarrassment at the thought of having paid to see this movie with money....
/.
Another Physics Problem (Score:2)
I liked the movie (Score:2)
that is one looong and we-are-trying-very-hard-to-be-funny-and-sarcastic review.
yeah: the science was not rock solid
but: It's is movie! I expect it to have its stupid moments, and it is interesting to think that life originated on a different planet. I think it is an interesting concept; and there were people who said 2001 was boring;the only people I saw dissappointed at this movie were those who came in to see armageddon-style blow everything in sight action. Its a movie, it has artistic license; do not expect to apply today's science to a science fiction movie and come out a winner.
yeah: there was a ton of product placement
but: lets face it; this does look like an untapped advertising source. Take the Bond movies, look at ANY sporting event and see brand names splashed on every piece of plastic, cloth, canvas, metal, wood etc. Its a form of advertising just like the banner add at the top of this page. Would you prefer TV with no commercials and product placements instead? Think about it.
The movie has a cool concept. It is not the best movie I've seen, but it definitely does not deserve such scathing reviews! Sounds like phbs criticizing Matrix because it was about hackers.
Re:am i alone here? (Score:2)
Good Science Fiction doesn't break the rules (Score:2)
The only time you're really allowed to break a currently known physical law is when its central to the plot. I think that was one reason that Star Trek had such a stronger impact in its original version. The created tech had more room to be plausable. Now that science has caught up so much, the Trek franchise is caught in the dilema of abandoning its previous 'tech' or start breaking rules that current science is beginning to establish.
Again, transgressions against science in science fiction are ONLY okay if its central to the theme. This just really irks me as a scientist myself because people don't seem to realize that unlike other laws the laws of physics can't be broken.
The best science fiction manages to blend plausable science and its influence on social structures. Of course I may be impartial on this since Asimov is my favorite SF author and that was one of his central themes.
am i alone here? (Score:2)
What seems wierd to me is i dont remember anyone slamming 'The Matrix' this hard. Its theme was just as ripped off as this one, and alot of its tech just as bad.
so why is one rip-off better than the others?
This is nothing new (Score:2)
Actually, you're wrong about Heinlein. You state that "he had practical experience as a Naval Officer in World War II". He didn't. He was a Navy officer, but he was discharged prior to WWII (1937 I think) due to an injury (his back?). His stint in the military was decidedly short and unglamorous and, it's reasonable to assume, less than what he wanted (cf. the scathing view of the Navy in Starship Troopers).
Further, I don't know that you can call S.T. "a polemic against Communism/Fascism" since RH is clearly using the book to espouse a system of "rule by the military" -- i.e. fascism. Benevolent fascism, sure, but the difference between Heinlein's system and Hitler's is ideology, not method. Take a look at Glory Road or Cat Who Walks Through Walls or, better yet, Between Planets.
Sure DePalma/Hollywood twists stories to better grind their own political axes, but so do writers. Heinlein in particular is a horrible example. How many of his stories at at least -- at minimum -- 25% filled with his characters in some sort of Socratic dialog about politics. And who always gets to be Socrates? Heinlein.
The fiction-as-pulpit racket is nothing new -- it's just that the sermons have changed.
Agreed... And... (Score:2)
: scientific innacuracy in Star Trek:
: Insurrection, or (god forbid) The Phantom
: Menace, would be extremely geeky. (In the
: negative sense.) But MtM was heavily promoted
: for its realism.
Don't forget that is HAS been done right a number of times over the years.
Remember Apollo 13? The director actually went through the trouble of using NASA's "Vomit Comet" aircraft in order to determine how things REALLY behave in microgravity. As I recall, didn't they actulally FILM a significant protion of Apollo 13 IN the "Vomit Comet"???
Deep Impact, while more flawed than Apollo 13, did a pretty good job of realisticlly showing a near-future space expidition. (aside from the "synchronise the nukes" TOTALLY destroying the last comet (all that mass and energy STILL has to go SOMEWHERE (ie. into Earth's atmosphere, just not all on one place))).
2001 did an EXCELLENT job of a realistic near-future space expidition. Aside from overly optimistic predictions of our progress by the year 2001, that is. Oh, and the sentient computer turning on its masters as well. (Both of these flaws can be forgiven tho I think, as they were very common themes in 1960's SciFi.)
Even a low-budget affair like HBO's miniseries "From the Earth to the Moon" did a vastly superior job than this "Mission to Mars" drek.
The point?
It CAN be done right. "Mission to Mars" just CHOOSE not to.
john
Poor little troll has to resort to spelling... (Score:2)
: I should just rest my case there, but:
If you do a careful comparison, I bet you'll find more fradulent science in M2M than in all the examples I listed (including Deep Impact) COMBINED!!! Hell, throw in Armegaddon, and I bet M2M would STILL be trying to pass off more fradulent science as the real thing!
:: [sic] FILM a significant protion [sic]
Gee, the best you can bitch about are typos and rushed grammar? Gee, so sorry that I don't compose my posts in a word processor with spell and grammar check and meticulously proofread every detatil before I post. Gosh darn, call the f-ing language police. Are you french?
Obviously you know nothing about angular momentum if you think that Mission to Mars' microgravity scenes were filmed in an actual microgravity environment. Such cluelessness is worthy of nothing but contempt. Try picking up a physics text book sometime.... or even just read the rest of the reviews, they may just use small enough words for you to comprehend.
: This film can be appreciated for its accuracy.
: Some people just CHOSE not to
Uh yeah, if your idea of accuracy doesn't include Sir Issac Newton, sure.
Since you obviously didn't bother to read the earlier posts in this thread, I'll repeat. The problem is NOT that it was inaccurate. The entireity of the Star Wars/Trek sagas have laughable science.
The point is that M2M CLAIMS to be accurste (you DID read the cited quote from DePalma, yes? Well, obviously not, otherwise you'd have a clue), while passing off bas pseudoscience rubbish as the real thing.
john
The Greatest Waste of Film Ever Coneived by Man (Score:2)
Furthermore, I was invited to see Mission to Mars by a friend, who is also an employee of said theatre, the night before it opened! What luck! I would be able to see the movie before the majority population even had a chance! It was a mistake I will forever regret.
This movie was BAAAAD. (Not the good kind of bad that some of my friends use, but the "I would rather pluck both my eyes and my testicles out of their respective cavities with a dull, rusty spoon and then switch there locations than watch this movie again" kind of bad.)
The plot (What Plot?!) was weak at best. And the musical score! Who wrote it? I want him fired, maybe even blacklisted from his profession. Furthermore, there is the suspension of common sense and everything you ever learned in school. I can't count the times (and I consider myself a good counter, being able to go to at least 127 or so) that I wondered what in the Ninth Level of the Inferno was going on, since it certainly wasn't possible. This movie was so bad (same definition as the above "bad") that even though I didn't have to pay a thing to see this movie, aside from a little gas money, I still feel cheated. I feel I should be somehow compensated. Maybe some Ben and Jerry's ice cream would help.
Please, take my warning: unless you are a masochist ( and if you are, that is your business), DON'T see this movie. Do something more productive, like eating, sleeping, or masturbating.
Re:Hollywood Strikes Again! (Score:2)
The movie is a parody of the ridiculous book. Yes, I read it. No, I don't like Heinlein. He was a blowhard.
Verhoeven has much more talent than Heinlein ever did -- but it's harder to see that talent, because you have to actually think when you watch his movies, rather than sitting there, thinking "rah rah our side" or "rah rah oooooh a sex scene" as you read Heinlein.
Are you SURE you read it? There's no sex scene in the book you jackass. Heinlen was an excellent writer, that doesn't require that you like him, but at least acknowledge his talent.
Kintanon
Re:felt the same about Independence Day (Score:2)
You weren't supposed to be paying attention to the plot! you were supposed to be watching the big colored explosions and oohing and aahing at the neat forcefield effect on the alien ships. What are you trying to do? Ruin the movie industry with your nitpicking over whether a Powerbook would be able to interface with the alien mothership and infect the completely incompatible computer with a Mac virus? Yeesh, philistine!
Kintanon
Re:I liked the movie (Score:2)
A) I'll even give the director a few mistakes in the physics - hey, it is a movie. But a major theme of the plot hinges around some VERY shaky ground. Basic physics point: an object in motion tends to stay in motion. Basic orbiting fact: if you want to get into a lower orbit, you have to slow down, not speed up. Then a major moment involves them trying to catch an orbiting object , in which a character aims at a sattelite and hits the thrusters. Come on! He's out in space going forever if he does that. For that matter, don't even *mention* the braking manuver, AKA, Hang A Left When You Get To The Planet. It's all goofy, beyond belief.
B) OK - even if I get past the science (which takes a *lot*) the product placements are abomniable. Take the "Izuzu" placement - guy drives up the driveway in a car. The shot pans across the people down the driveway, and *noticably DIPS* to show the logo. It's embarrassing. De Palma should be embarrassed. That shot is just badly done - it reminds me that this movie is sponsored by Izuzu, not "transports me to another place". I knew exactly where I was and was insulted. Ditto the Dr. Pepper placements, and by the time the M&Ms came about, I was mad. I'm paying for the movie, not the ads. And if the movie contains bad shots specifically made bad so that the "placements" get in there, someone's forgetting that people have to watch the movie.
I'm calling it a bad movie, because it directly claims to be scientifically accurate, and it isn't, and because a movie should be shot well to enhance the story, not poorly to allow an advertiser to get his product in.
Doones
Re:It wasn't the science... (Score:2)
It must be pretty bad when buying (for the sake of argument let's call it) food from MickeyD's is better than this movie.
And the critics? (Score:2)
Only listen to your freinds' movie reviews, or those of people who aren't paid to give reviews.
Re:Go see Bulworth (Score:2)
Spoiler Alert
Unfortunatly the ending was the only real way to end the movie realisticly. We all know that powerful figures that stray outside of the mainstream are eliminated by those who wish to maintian the status quo. To add to this, Bullworth was a black leader. Of course he was going to take a "cap in the ass." Also, he had to die, cuz if Bullworth had survived, America would have gotten better, which it obviously hasn't. Like, we might have honest politicians, and a government run by good honest citizens instead of religous zealots, crack heads, and crooks, like the one we have now. Infact, one of the presidential canidates running right now is a coke head, and the other a crook, go figure. If bullworth lived, that movie would have been as unrealistic as MTM.
Re:Suck. (Score:2)
Doesn't get much worse than that.
Agreed! One of the worst movies I've ever seen. The whole theater was laughing all the time.
Worst lines:
"50% Point of no return"
"Oh, look they're leaving the planet" (as the alien ships are leaving the planet)
"Oh, look, one stays behind!" (as one alien ship stays behind)
Sooooo bad...
What happened to them afterwards?? (Score:2)
I like to imagine that without enough food for the return trip, Stand By Me's Vern ate Cheadle and Delaney, while Sinise grew gills in his suspension bath and came back as Aquaman for the sequel (including a suitable number of flashbacks--just in case you didn't remember how much the movie sucked the first time.)
Nitpickers.com (Score:2)
Add your own nipick for M2M here [nitpickers.com]. Have fun! =)
Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".
Good sci-fi? (Score:2)
Anyway, he said in Washington DC, where he saw it, by half way through the film everyone was LAUGHING at it, and by 2/3 of the way through, he and his friends we doing their best MST3K and people were paying more attention to their jokes, than the film.
EEEESH. it must have REALLY sucked... my friend simply isn't that funny! :-)
It seems Hollywood doesn't know how to make a good sci-fi flick anymore. Star Wars and Trek don't count.... not to me anyway (no flames please). But not counting those films, what was the last GOOD Sci-Fi flick Hollywood did?
Aliens?
What do you think? I haven't thought that much about it, but don't know. I'll have to spend more time thinking about it.
Apparently nobody noticed how obvious it was (Score:2)
We've been looking for the origin of life on Earth. We've been looking on the wrong planet.
GEE, YOU THINK THEY MIGHT FIND THE ORIGIN OF EARTH'S LIFE ON MARS??
Frankly I don't know why this article contains the words "spoilers inside". Spoilers implies a secret to be spoiled.
Re:Where were the geeks? (Score:2)
"Uh, about this dialog, either re-write, or give me another million, because this is humiliating!"
Exactly! Why do you think actors get paid obscene amounts of money for bad movies like this?
What we really need is to make a bunch of movies with good actors who get paid like mortals.
Re:Get a grip - it's a moo-vee (Score:2)
"Didn't anyone ever read the first fundamental of theatrical entertainment: Suspension of disbelief."
Ah, but the idea there is that the movie is supposed to make you suspend your disbelief. It should be good enough (i.e. good enough plot, acting, etc.) that we're willing to believe things we know to be wrong.
In other words, suspension of disbelief is something that the movie is supposed to achieve--not something we shoud have to consciously do to make the movie survivable.
I went, I saw,I agree (Score:2)
IT'S A DISNEY MOVIE (Score:2)
Then, I remembered that it was DISNEY.
Then, in my mind, I realized that if the thing had been animated, and the astronauts had been monkeys or fish or something, it would have been perfect for an 8 year old kid.
The only real flaw of this movie, then, was that it was live action, and used good actors, and a name, geeky director. Besides those [small] items, it was a prototypical Disney cartoon, about what you would expect from the Mouse. The addition of live action and good actors increased our expeectations, and BOOM, disapointment.
At least they didn't sing.
Donut
Re:am i alone here? (Score:2)
'The Matrix' was based on the premise that whole thing was in a computer-generated dream world, and that the laws of physics and gravity could be broken. 'Mars' Pretends that 'that's the way things are in the real world.' It relies on the audience to conveniently forget what they may know about physics and the makeup of Mars.
If 'The Matrix' ripped off any movies (I can't think of any), it was maybe one or two. Reviewers have cited five to six well-known movies.
'The Matrix' also lacked the shameless product placement of 'Mars.' All companies and products were made up. Even the cell phones, which were clearly Nokias, lacked the Nokia name on them.
In short, 'The Matrix' is an example of a superbly made action/science fiction movie, one that I am eagerly awaiting the sequel to. If a sequel to 'Mars' were made, it would be a bad punchline to a horrible joke of a movie.
On my way to buy the soundtrack (Score:2)
Re:These aren't reviews... (Score:3)
Then please do so.
Air friction will very quickly drag each individual M&M into the same inertial frame as the air itself, which had long since adjusted to the normal rotation. (Let's forget about random variations in the airflow caused by ventilation that absolutely must keep the air moving at all times, or cause harmful-or-deadly dust pockets to form; even if the model was connected by something, which people seem to imply it wasn't, the entire model would quickly migrate to other locations.)
I haven't seen the movie but I assume it actually held together, despite a lack of glue. Instead, even if the astronaut could magically (or through extensive practice) nullify the rotation of the spacecraft, in a matter of seconds, the M&M would take the velocity of the air around it and begin hiking back to the outside. The only effect of Coriolis "force" (which isn't, of course) would be if you wanted to compute where it was going to land.
This was a science-fiction movie about science and that's an accomplishment in itself.
Perhaps, but my professors don't think much of that argument. "Well, prof, I did the assignment! Even though it completely failed to meet any of the requirements, I don't think I deserve this flunking grade!"
This movie sucked me right in, and I enjoyed it (in spite of the self-indulgent tracking shot it opens with). So shoot me.
Accurate != enjoyable, which too many geeks forget aometimes. But enjoyable != accurate, and for that matter, enjoyable != good. If you want to enjoy it, fine. But it doesn't make it accurate or good. (I enjoy the occasional bad Easter marshmallow candy too, but it still is cheap crap.)
The zero-g pas-de-deux was brilliant, and there were a number of things I doubt any of these griping geeks could have done as well in a million years.
Of all the demographics I can think of to say that about, geeks, the culture where prestige is measured in accomplishments, are the last I would say that about.
Suck. (Score:3)
The rumours are true, this movie is brutal.
I've tried all sorts of ways to justify what seems to be an unrepentantly bad movie, but it just makes me angry to think about it. There are lots of things that reeked in the movie (dialogue, realism, music...) but let me sum it up with this:
A computer generated alien who sheds a single tear for his race.
Doesn't get much worse than that.
Hotnutz.com [hotnutz.com] - Funny
Nothing can compare... (Score:3)
-sirket
De Palma Bucking for Appointment? (Score:3)
De Palma is suffering from a degenerative neurological disorder. (We guessed 70% odds.)
De Palma has joined some religious cult. (We guessed 20% odds.)
Something unimaginable.(The remaining 10% odds.)
Upon further investigation of The Phenomenon, I discovered a promotional trailer for the movie which stated:
"For 25 years, the government has concealed evidence of a life-like formation on Mars..." [artbell.com]
This raises the odds of a religious cult as the source of The Phenomenon, IMHO.
However, upon further reflection, I see we may have been a bit narrow in our thinking. What if Brian De Palma is bucking for Dan Goldin's job as NASA Administrator? Please hear me out -- it can't be any worse than paying $8.50 and 3 hours to experience The Phenomenon:
This being an election year, everyone seems to be jockying for some sort of appointment with one of the major candidates. What if Brian De Palma noticed that the primary product of NASA these days is a series of bad computer-generated animations of Things Doing Stuff In Space that have less and less to do with reality? Take "The International Space Station" as an example. We actually had a space station called "Skylab" back in the 1970's but as soon as NASA started putting together animations of space stations, it seemed increasingly interested in developing advanced ray tracing algorithms with texture mapping as spin-offs to the game industry and decreasingly interested in any sort of real, up and operating "Space Station". Hell, in the mid 80s they shit-canned the privately financed Commercially Developed Space Facility rather than do anything along these lines. Indeed, the only real International Space Station thus far has been the Russian Mir. Did NASA pitch in and contribute modules to it? On the contrary! NASA has been hell-bent on getting the Russians to ditch it! The reason? Simple, NASA doesn't want any physical realities impinging on their increasingly virtual realities. So if we take this policy trend to its logical conclusion, what do we get as NASA's future?
Brian De Palma directing bad ray traced animations of stupifying space operas on the NASA channel so we will all think April 15 is good for something even if it is only cheezy space opera on late night cable.
Re:Nothing can compare... (Score:3)
Hollywood Strikes Again! (Score:3)
Paul VerHoeven did the same thing to "Starship Troopers," written by Robert Heinlein as a polemic against Communism/Fascism (he had practical experience as a Naval Officer in World War II). Additionally, the book contained a _very_ moving theme about why soldiers _really_ fight (HINT: it ain't '...for the greater good'), ending the book with "...his name is Zim," that always brought a lump to my throat.
Paul VerHoeven, the producers and Sony _totally_ ignored the _true_ subtexts of the book (even to getting the nationality of the hero wrong - in the book he's Filipino, in the movie, some Aryan-Spanish idiot) in order to promote their 'fascist techno-future' and 'ain't it awful, to vote in the future, you gotta join the military' themes. They didn't even _attempt_ to explain the context in which the political system arose. Then they went on the stump, making sure to talk their leftist, pacifist, trash, while neglecting to mention that the 'themes' they were espousing on their soapboxes weren't even adequately covered in their movie! They defaulted to F/X and gore, as always.
Looks like DePalma took a really good premise and used it for his own political/social ends. But what do we expect from the Money Machine? Until we stop voting with our pocketbooks, they'll continue to pander to the lowest, most ignorant, Luddite common denominator.
Its all about the Benjamins...and the limelight.
It wasn't the science... (Score:3)
The problem with this movie was the absolute terrible, hideous execution of character development and plot around a fairly neat idea.
The idea of "seeding" earth is one that has been used in a lot of sci-fi movies and scenarios, so that central idea was kind of neat.
But..
Best part of movie: I went for a Sunday afternoon matinee, only spent four dollars. Worst part: I could have purchased McDonald's value meal with that four dollars...
Really peeved at the physics (Score:3)
SPOILER ALERT!!! (Not that it matters anyway)
The rescue attempt in space was ridiculous. So they had to abandon ship when their engines blew up? OK. Fine with me. Do a 1 km walk to the old module still in orbit. No problem. Tim Robbins bouncing off the module becuase he can't get a firm grip - going too fast? No problem
But someone tell the producers about angular momentum. He gyrated wildly when trying to grab hold! Why isn't he spinning?? OK - maybe he didn't gyrate to hard. Forgive.
Then he *stops*! Sort of just hangs there in space. This is space. Pressure is low. There is no drag, he shold have continued going on! Granted, they said that over the intercom. But he doesn't look like he's moving with respect to the module. OK, maybe between all the cuts, you can't tell. Fine. Forgive.
Next the rescue attempt. I don't understand this. Same problem. What's the big deal about the fuel? Rockets give thrust. Why give so much thrust if you wanted to save fuel? Someone tell them about Newton's law please. You don't need fuel to maintain motion! So the rescue is slower if you don't move too fast. Big deal! It can be done!
Then the rescuer - the woman astronaught, goes to the *half-way* point (burning fuel in the process) and stops. Shoots the tether, wanting the other guy to take it. Hello?? If they guy grabs the tether, and they reel him him, she will end up in more than the half-way point! Someone tell them about Newton's third law please!
But that's no problem! After all, you don't need much thrust to come back, provided you are willing to wait. But no!! The 1/2-tank is the point of no return? Hahaha! If your space had drag, and the rescuer were to try to return with the poor victim, you will need more fuel than half a tank to come back, becuase your combined masses are larger!
Actually, I am not too sure if it was 1/2-way or 1/2 tank. Either way, it could not have been done!
Some realism! And I don't even want to get into all that space-alien hokey business!
More annoyances (Score:4)
By far the most egregious and laughable error is the "greenhouse" that Cheadle supposedly lives in. Nevermind the fact that a blisteringly hot Martian day might break -60 degrees Fahrenheit, and ten seconds spent in this contraption on the dark side of Mars would kill any human, period. Give them a half a point here for at least trying to explain this one away by saying that the base camp was at the South Pole of Mars, which I assume would give it six months of frigid, deadly daylight before the six months or frigid, deadly darkness set in.
Tim Robbins manages to remove his helmet in outer space, which, as far as I know, is not possible to do using the standard NASA latching mechanism for a spacesuit.
Micrometeors appear to hit the ship from at least twelve different directions simultaneously; one has to wonder as to the astronomical probability of particles traveling several thousand miles per hour converging on relatively the same point in time within a split second of each other.
The meteors manage to nick an exposed fuel line, an idea which completely contravenes all conventional engineering wisdom as well as any design that Nasa has set forth to date.
I could go on, but the nausea overpowers me. The whole thing wreaked of a 2001 ripoff when it managed to raise itself to even that level.
--
I hate to be the dissenting voice... (Score:4)
First, some background. I used to be like a lot of the reviewers, in that I couldn't stand pseudo-science, but I eventually came to the point that I realized that it's science-FICTION, not science, and that transgressions in the scientific area are totally OK, since it takes some suspension of belief to even think up a movie where people are walking on Mars.
My main criticism of the movie is that it takes half the movie to establish the premise (one mission lost, a second mission to mars to save the losers abandoned from the first) and that for a sci-fi movie, it has a lot of human interactions in it, and not as much galactic piracy, violence, wormholes, etc. That's not necessarily bad, but it's not what I look for in sci-fi.
I too didn't like the constant product shots, but they weren't nearly as obtrusive as some of the slash team's reviews said they were, (with the exception of M&Ms - that was pretty obvious). Most of the product shots consisted of a "pennzoil" sticker on a mars lander in the background and so on. If you're looking to ferret commercialism out of these movies and criticise it on that point, then there will be plenty of ammo in this movie, but I'm straining to think of a movie I've seen in the last few years that didn't have these types of blatant promos in them, and I'm wondering why the reviewers chose to screw the movie based off of those, when they seem to be everywhere.
For me, sci-fi is about suspending disbelief, and in a way, being like a child, and just enjoying wherever it is the movie maker wants to take you. I think all of us have plenty of the cynical bastard type of mindset that permeates professional work. YOU DON'T GO TO SCI-FI MOVIES TO CRITICISE THEIR SCIENCE - LARGELY BECAUSE IT'S NONEXISTANT, NO MATTER WHAT TYPE OF SCI-FI IT IS. (There are some exceptions to that, but not too many)
I thought it was pretty good, all in all. I left the movie theater feeling like I got my money's worth. I understand that there's a lot of people that hate it, but I feel they're hating it for all the wrong reasons. Sort of like how for any given movie, no matter what the premise is, you can find small plot holes and problems in it, small incontinuities, etc. to the point where if you really want to, you can convince yourself that the movie sucks rocks. I think that's what the slash team did in this instance.
Now that my post is on, I think I'll don my asbestos underwear....
Plausibility and Star Trek (Score:4)
I stumbled on an interesting book on the Origional Star Trek series (published sometime before '84). It was full of facinating stories and interviews with people involved with the series. The tone is set with the discussion of Gene Roddenberry's desire to do SciFi differently in an era where "SciFi" meant bugeyed rubber monsters.
Some of the interesting stories are where Gene got his ideas. Many came from discussions with NASA researchers. The Enterprise design. Ion drives. Transfering energy from one form to another (transporters).
Other stories come from the public's reaction. One company had called the studio demanding to know who the information leak was. Seems they were working on a top-secret product and it had shown up on an episode of Star Trek. Diagnostic medical beds; the idea had made sense at the time. The fact that someone was already working on making the idea a reality was a coincidence. Another medical musing was the discussions Deforest Kelly (Bones) had with real doctors over his medical equipment. They were quite impressed with the concepts the show used, if not disappointed to find out the actual "instraments" were salt shakers.
The show was making up its own physics as it went along. Sometimes some scientific concept would make it in to a show. Sometimes an arbitrary decision was made that later became a rule (the Vulcan nerve pinch). But once a rule was made, it was followed. Walter Coenig (Checkov) once got in to an argument with a guest director over the layout of his station's instrament pannel. The director wanted him to flick some switches. Walter refused on account that activating those particular switches would destroy the ship.
Star Trek wasn't perfect (I'm sure a greater Trek fan than myself could list its faults by heart). Its views have, in many ways, become dated. But at the time of its creation, it was unique in the amount of science and detail it involved.
The lessons of the Origional Star Trek has been lost on the new Star Trek offerings. In some cases, they have the story right. They have characters. But the science is nothing more than a writer's note of "(techno babble)" to be filled in with a string of Trek buzzwords as an afterthought. No reasearch. No theory. There is no science. Instead, it is CGI induced fantasy. And merchandise.
But we still love Star Trek. We still enjoy the latest episode even if it involves a sudden resolution involving Tachyon particles. We know its fantasy. And we're willing to buy it.
I think this is the failing of Mission to Mars. Star Trek's new writers are comfortable in their science fantasy world. They make no claims to their science heritage. However, the makers of Mission have a different claim. They claim true science. They boast, "it is realistic and extremely authentic."
But its not.
It is fantasy. The science is along just for the ride. And merchandising.
Glad I'm not the only one... (Score:4)
Beginning of the movie: hmm, we're going to mars...BLAM! We're on mars. Oops! We pissed off a sandstorm with our radar! Ok, scratch one mission.
Next mission: the moment they lose radio contact, they send another ship. Nevermind the fact that 6 months after the first ship was launched the launch window to Mars would have long since passed, and a launch would not be feasible for about another 18 months. (Oh yes, here's where we begin to use this "suspension of disbelief" thingie.)
Anyway. Now we're almost to mars. Oops! The ship is pelted by fragments of rock. Also, the ship is conveniently NOT plated with any sort of protective layer thick enough to prevent cosmic pebbles from penetrating the ship, the magic SGI display, and neatly through someone's hand. No matter, we'll patch it up with our Magic Goo(tm). Problem solved. Next!
Now for the spacewalk to the thing that looks like a flimsy communication satellite that somehow is big enough to hold three astronauts AND strong enough to survive entry into the martian atmosphere. Riiiight.
(insert rant about guy living on mars for a year in canvas greenhouse here)
(insert rant about not having food or supplies to get home, but yet doing it anyway here)
Oh yes, and that alien... what in the hell were they thinking when they animated that thing? Was it supposed to be a Real Live alien? Or was it supposed to look like a cheap computer animation (which it did an excellent job of)?
Who knows. Hopefully the next two or three movies that I hear are coming out involving Mars will be substantially better!
These aren't reviews... (Score:5)
Honestly, I went to this movie fully expecting the science to stink. The trailer had been edited to make it look like they exclaimed, "That's human DNA!" after seeing a tiny fragment of a computer-generated model.
I was surprised at how much they got right, not how much they got wrong. This was a science-fiction movie about science and that's an accomplishment in itself.
This movie sucked me right in, and I enjoyed it (in spite of the self-indulgent tracking shot it opens with). So shoot me.
It's discussions like this that give geeks a bad name. The idea of constructing a model of DNA in zero-gravity is much better evidence of a creative and functioning brain than these inane complaints. I admit I was put off by the fact that it was rotating, but I could do a better job a showing rotation is possible than these pseudo-physicists could at showing it couldn't be done. Most of them don't even mention Coriolis effects in their discussion of the physics of a moving model inside a rotating space ship.
This kind of review is the geek equivalent of the football star who picks on the kid with tape on his glasses. If the athlete wins, nobody's impressed. And, if the physicists find a mistake in a sci-fi movie, nobody's gonna say, "Wow, those physicists know more science than those Hollywood writers!"
But, if the dorky guy with glasses knows judo and gets more right in the fight than the football-head, it is truly embarassing. And that's what's happened this case. This movie has some errors, sure. But nothing near like the number of mistakes made in these threads.
"Mission to Mars" gets many things right which have never been done well in any movie. It has the best orrery I've ever seen. When the asteroid hits Mars I was genuinely impressed (and surprised). The zero-g pas-de-deux was brilliant, and there were a number of things I doubt any of these griping geeks could have done as well in a million years. Of all the attempts to show how first-contact communication could be accomplished quickly, this is the only one I've ever seen that rang true.
Re:These aren't reviews... (Score:5)
The other problem here is that not only does the movie fail to portray accurate science, it reinforces popular pseudoscience. Others have provided plenty of examples, I won't repeat them... Except maybe the "face" on Mars. Throwing that in was nothing but educational terrorism.
Honestly, it's because of crap like this that Americans are so ignorant about how their own world works (let alone others.) I really believe that.
Anyway, even if you don't mind the scientific innacuracies... Wasn't this movie done before, and a hell of a lot better, in 2010 [imdb.com] ?
Another Mission to Mars review... (Score:5)
Another Mission to Mars review [mindstorm.com]