Home Literature Stories Movies Games Comics Blogs News Discussion Forum Art Gallery
  Science Fiction and Fantasy News
The Conduit (06-22)
Richard Knaak's Legends of Dragonrealm Release (06-16)
U.S. Broadcast Networks' Sci-Fi Shows for ’09-’10 (06-04)
Obituary: David Eddings, 1931-2009 (06-03)

Official sffworld Reviews
Madness of Angels, A by Kate Griffin (06-29 - Book)
The Two Pearls of Wisdom by Alison Goodman (06-29 - Book)
Retribution Falls by Chris Wooding (06-29 - Book)
Prophets by S. Andrew Swann (06-22 - Book)

Site Index

Movie Info 

Mission to Mars  (9 ratings)

A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M - N - O - P - Q - R - S - T - U - V - W - X - Y - Z

Rating  (9 ratings)
Rate this movie
(5 best - 1 worst)
 
Movie Information
TitleMission to Mars
Director
YearUnknown
Production Company
GenreScience Fiction
 
Movie Reviews
 
Submitted by Raven@n2jazz.com 
(Dec 12, 2000)

I heard that this movie wasn't so great, but then I watched it. This movie was so unlike any other Alien movie I had ever seen. In most alien movies, e.t.'s are considered as these evil creatures trying to take over the world and destroy us all. BORING. That's what I like so much about this movie. It gives a totally different view of aliens, humane. When I first started watching it, I was expecting just another Independence Day/Men In Black/Mars Attacks type plot, who wasn't. But, as I continued watching it, I realized just how different this movie was. All in all, I'd say that this was a great movie.


Submitted by Margaret Kosakiewicz 
(Mar 15, 2000)

"Mission to Mars" is an unsuccessful marriage of psychological drama and science fiction. When one goes to see a "SF" one expects action, excitement and a touch of something new and unexpected. What one gets is long, long scenes of characters looking at each other meaningfully, long, long scenes of useless dialogue, and a climax that, although interesting, not very original.

The beginning promises the viewer excitement. A strange artifact discovered on Mars causes the death of 3 of the 4 astronauts. Yet, it almost doesn't deliver. As I was watching, between yawns and sighs of boredom, I became sure that if the movie were 10 min shorter, the rescue mission would never get to Mars.

They eventually did but, wait, even though they haven't had any communication with one surviving member of the original expedition in over six months, instead of running to check if the guy is still alive, all 3 of the rescuers must first take time to dig up, clean up and replace the American flag in its rightful place.

Here is another example: The ship the rescuers are traveling in has been hit by a micro meteor, which caused a hull breech. The atmosphere is leaking at about 0.5% per second but the guy that has to go outside to fix the hole takes two minutes (that's 120 seconds and 60% of atmosphere) to smooch and whisper tender good byes with his wife while another "astronaut" refuses to put his helmet on and almost suffocates because "it takes too much time". Give me a break. If this is the sort of astronauts NASA will be sending out into space in the future, God help us all.

I think the most irritating thing in SF movies are writers who take "creative license" with the laws of physics. In the process of initiating the descent protocol the ship blows up. The astronauts must abandon ship and go on a space walk to catch a ride on an escape pod orbiting the planet. The above mentioned affectionate husband launches himself to attach a tether to the pod but, even though he accomplishes his mission, ends up catapulted into space with no fuel left in his personal jet outfit. His wife, battling many different emotions and wasting valuable time as her husband is speeding toward the planet, finally decides to risk her life and rescue him. She fuels up and gets the jets going, but as she burns half of the fuel and reaches the "point of no return", she turns off the jets and stops dead. Whatever happened to "body in motion will remain in motion until acted by another force"?

Oh well, overall it was a disappointing and boring movie. I recommend waiting for a VHS version.


 

Latest

Madness of Angels, A by Kate Griffin
06-29 - Book Review
The Two Pearls of Wisdom by Alison Goodman
06-29 - Book Review
Retribution Falls by Chris Wooding
06-29 - Book Review
Prophets by S. Andrew Swann
06-22 - Book Review
The Conduit
06-22 - News
The Better Mousetrap by Tom Holt
06-15 - Book Review
Keeper of Light and Dust by Natasha Mostert
06-15 - Book Review
City Without End by Kay Kenyon
06-08 - Book Review
Other Earths by Jay Lake
06-05 - Book Review
U.S. Broadcast Networks' Sci-Fi Shows for ’09-’10
06-04 - News
Obituary: David Eddings, 1931-2009
06-03 - News
Warbreaker by Brandon Sanderson
06-01 - Book Review
Best Served Cold by Joe Abercrombie
06-01 - Book Review
Nights of Villjamur by Mark Charan Newton
05-29 - Book Review
The Painted Man by Peter V. Brett
05-25 - Book Review
End of the Century by Chris Roberson
05-18 - Book Review
The City and the City by China Mieville
05-18 - Book Review
Tim Lebbon's Blog Tour
05-11 - News
Beyond the Shadows by Brent Weeks
05-11 - Book Review
Empress of Mars by Kage Baker
05-11 - Book Review
Temporal Void, The by Peter F. Hamilton
05-04 - Book Review
Chaos Space by Marianne de Pierres
04-27 - Book Review
Starfinder by John Marco
04-27 - Book Review
French Sci-Fi Thriller on DVD
04-22 - News
The Third Sign by Gregory Wilson
04-22 - Book Review
Consider Phlebas by Iain M. Banks
04-20 - Book Review
Competition
04-17 - News
New Harry Potter trailer
04-17 - News
Redheaded Stepchild by Jaye Wells
04-14 - Book Review
Shadow of the Scorpion by Neal Asher
04-14 - Book Review

New Forum Posts


About - Advertising - Contact us - RSS - For Authors & Publishers - Contribute / Submit - Privacy Policy - Community Login
Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use. The contents of this webpage are copyright © 1997-2009 sffworld.com. All Rights Reserved.