Guest Review: Mission to Mars (2000) vs. Red Planet (2000)

By ScottDS
With Mars in the news once again, I thought it might be a good time to take a look back at the two Mars films that graced the silver screen in the year 2000: Brian De Palma’s Mission to Mars and Antony Hoffman’s Red Planet. Neither film is very good but Mission to Mars is the bigger disappointment, having set its sights far higher. One thing is certain: the definitive Mars movie has yet to be made. Let’s start with Mission.

In the year 2020. . . when the first manned Mars mission goes wrong, a rescue attempt is made. The rescuers include Blake (Tim Robbins), McConnell (Gary Sinise), Fisher (Connie Nielsen), and Ohlmyer (Jerry O’Connell). Unfortunately, during the rescue, the ship is damaged and the crew must abandon ship and make their way to the resupply module orbiting the planet. Blake overshoots his approach and floats away. Knowing he can't jeopardize the mission and the crew, he removes his helmet and dies instantly. The rest of the crew arrives on Mars and finds the stranded astronaut, Graham (Don Cheadle), who has been living in a makeshift greenhouse.

He explains that a weird noise his crew had heard was actually a map of human DNA using XYZ coordinates, but it’s missing a pair of chromosomes. They transmit the information at which time a mysterious opening appears in the side of a large structure. They venture inside where a Martian appears and (silently) reveals that Mars was once covered with water but was hit by an asteroid. The Martians evacuated but one craft went to Earth where it deposited a strand of DNA in the ocean. Over millions of years, the DNA evolved into fish, then land mammals, and eventually humans who one day would voyage to Mars and be recognized as its descendants. An invitation is offered to follow the Martians to their new home. McConnell volunteers and as the others return to Earth, McConnell’s spaceship sets sail for points unknown.

[sigh] Oh, this movie. . . so much potential wasted. 2001, Apollo 13, Contact. . . these are just some of the superior movies you might be thinking of as you watch Mission to Mars. I give De Palma and his crew credit for thinking big and for trying to make a serious film and not a simple shoot ’em up. But it’s an overall unsatisfying experience. But before I go into detail, let’s now look at Red Planet.

In the year 2056. . . Earth has been ravaged by eco disasters. Automated missions have been seeding Mars with algae as part of a terraforming operation, but the amount of oxygen produced by the algae has dropped so a crew is sent to investigate: mission commander Bowman (Carrie-Anne Moss), Gallagher (Val Kilmer), Burchenal (Tom Sizemore), Chantillas (Terence Stamp), Santen (Benjamin Bratt), and Pettengill (Simon Baker). Their ship is damaged on arrival by a solar flare so the crew abandons ship while Bowman stays behind. The crew is tasked with locating a habitat that had been set up earlier but their landing craft is damaged during descent. Chantillas suffers a ruptured spleen and stays behind and they’ve also lost track of AMEE, their robot assistant.

They find the habitat destroyed. Pettengill and Santen wander off where the former accidentally kills the latter during an argument. With their oxygen running out, Gallagher removes his helmet but is surprised to find the air breathable. They’re reunited with a damaged AMEE, who now perceives them as a threat. It cripples Burchenal before retreating. Bowman instructs them to use an old Russian probe to launch into orbit, except it can only hold two people. Pettengill later flees with the radio but is killed by AMEE. Gallagher and Burchenal discover a field of algae, along with indigenous insects. It’s revealed that these “nematodes” were dormant until the algae growth: they consume algae and excrete oxygen. The nematodes attack Burchenal, who promptly sets himself and the creatures on fire. Gallagher reaches the Russian probe and uses AMEE’s guts for a power source. Bowman recovers the probe and they set sail for home.

Unlike De Palma’s film, Hoffman’s film (this is his only feature credit) doesn’t set its sights so high and the crew has a more natural camaraderie, such as it is. Compare the meal scene in this film with the opening barbecue in Mission to Mars. The former comes off as natural (if somewhat stilted) while the latter reeks of artificiality: an alien’s idea of what a backyard barbecue is like. Robbins, Sinise, and Cheadle have almost no chemistry, whereas Carrie-Anne Moss – who has a wonderful air of authority and no-nonsense vibe – fits in perfectly with Kilmer and Sizemore’s shenanigans. Red Planet has characters who are actually funny and pleasant whereas Mission has one comic relief character but Jerry O’Connell comes off as an unqualified manchild. His Mission co-stars Cheadle and Nielsen are fine, Sinise is his usual likeable self, Robbins overacts (to the point where I can't even take him seriously), and Armin Mueller-Stahl plays the head of the Mars program like an old Jewish uncle! And in Red Planet, Kilmer keeps his weirdness in check, Sizemore is great as usual, Baker and Bratt don’t really register, and Stamp is entertaining as always (but terribly underused).

Mission to Mars also has some horrible exposition. It’s never a good sign when one of your lead actors has an entire paragraph of dialogue laced with “Remember when. . .” and “If X hadn’t happened. . .” etc. At least Moss’ opening voice-over in Red Planet is quick and painless. Mission comes off as much smaller than it should, but maybe that was the idea: for the first manned mission to Mars, there’s absolutely no fanfare, no sense that this is a momentous event, no reaction from the world. We’re on Earth, then we’re on Mars. Done deal. Red Planet doesn’t have that “small” vibe. In Mission, they make a big deal about training and simulations and we briefly see the astronauts’ families but it’s all so self-contained. Red Planet is nothing but self-contained. There are no other characters you wish you could see since they’re never introduced in the first place. It’s all business. Mission also has an abundance of obvious clichés and when Tim Robbins says, “Let’s work the problem!”, you think to yourself, Did he just say that with a straight face?

The story of Mission has been done before and I’m not a fan of the Chariots of the Gods? concept that early human civilization was influenced by extraterrestrial beings. Personally, I think it’s pseudo-scientific crap and I feel it does a disservice to our accomplishments as a species. To quote Gene Roddenberry: “. . .ancient astronauts did not build the pyramids – human beings built them because they're clever and they work hard.” Regarding Red Planet, I used to think the inclusion of AMEE was gratuitous. A mission to another planet wasn’t dramatic enough so they had to throw in a killer robot, too? But it works. There are also a couple of interesting discussions about faith but they don’t amount to much. Terence Stamp has a nice scene with Kilmer where he says, “Who knows, I may pick up a rock and it'll say underneath, ‘Made by God.’ The universe is full of surprises.” I’m not a religious man but I really wish the film had dealt with more of this. It’s referenced a couple of times but never pays off in any meaningful way. We also don’t get to explore Pettengill’s guilt as much as I would’ve liked. It’s hinted that the others are suspicious of him but I was waiting for a big showdown that never happened.

Graeme Revell’s score to Red Planet barely registered with me, except when it was bad. I’m not an expert on the famous film composer Ennio Morricone but his score for Mission to Mars doesn’t quite work, to the point where I’m taken out of the film because I’m actually noticing the music, and that I don’t like what I’m noticing. I’m not saying he should’ve taken the Williams/Goldsmith/Horner route and maybe I should applaud him for doing something different. But different doesn’t always = good. And this leads to what I think are some of the biggest arguments among film music fans: Should film scores be noticeable? Should they blend in? Should they only serve the story? Should they also work as a standalone experience? I can't answer these questions.

The art direction and costume design in Mission are top-notch. The spacecraft and spacesuits all look like believable extrapolations of what we have today. The visual effects (by ILM and the late Dream Quest Images) still hold up, but the CGI Martian looks like a videogame character. Per usual for a De Palma film, the cinematography is excellent and, not surprisingly, there are some visual nods to Kubrick but I’ll let it slide! As for Red Planet, the production design is also top-notch but some of the effects don’t hold up. Ironically, the CGI AMEE animation is perfect but simpler things like the Martian surface haven’t aged well. I could be wrong but, watching Red Planet, one gets the impression that there was a lot of footage left on the cutting-room floor. The crew’s introduction is rather rushed and a couple of times during the film, we flashback to earlier conversations (along with snippets we missed the first time around). I wonder if this was intentional, or if the filmmakers were trying to save their own asses.

Like I said above, I believe the definitive Mars movie has yet to be made. But it will be made one day, by a filmmaker with a singular vision. (If it’s James Cameron, I hope he brings in a co-writer!) And hopefully, unlike Mission to Mars, it will give humans a little more credit and, unlike Red Planet, more humans will actually survive the trip!

“F--- this planet!”

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Bob Roberts (1992)

In the spirit of the upcoming election, I thought I’d do something you never thought I would. . . I’m going to recommend a movie written by, staring, and directed by Tim Robbins. This is another one of those richly ironic films where an über-leftist tries to expose the “evil right wing” and ends up exposing his own side. It’s also a very entertaining film.

** spoiler alert **

Bob Roberts is the fictional story of Bob Roberts, a candidate for the United States Senate in Pennsylvania. It’s told in a documentary style, but remains very film-quality. Roberts (Tim Robbins) and his mysterious campaign manager (Alan Rickman) manipulate the press, slander their opponent, enter into shady deals, encourage cult-like followers, and dodge an obsessed “journalist” (Giancarlo Esposito) who investigates the truth about Roberts’ mysterious dealings. That truth appears to be that Roberts is a Manchurian candidate of military contractors and the C.I.A., who are secretly funding his campaign. No dirty trick is too low for this campaign.

So why in the world would I recommend this film? Well, for one thing, it really is quite a good film. It’s well shot, well paced, and all around entertaining. For another, the film boomerangs on its leftist intent. Here are some examples:

First, while Roberts is the evil right winger cliché that haunts the dreams of leftists like Robbins, Roberts actually comes across as one of those likeable villains you find yourself cheering on -- just like the generation of kids who wanted to be Gordon Gekko after Wall Street. It's hard not to like Roberts because he's friendly, witty, and is unfairly put upon by the other side. For example, Roberts keeps saying things like: “stay off crack. . . it’s a ghetto drug.” If you understand the anguish the left has regarding the disparity between how cocaine and crack are sentenced, and how they blame that disparity on racism, then you’re supposed to see this statement as evidence of racism and you’re supposed to be appalled. But that's too deep in the pond of leftist paranoia for most people and anyone not steeped in hard-left victimology will simply see this line as funny and/or absurd.

Secondly, the folk music is great. Roberts is a folk singer and he uses his music as part of his campaign. The music is intended to be pure satire, as Roberts sings lines like “be a clean living man with a rope in your hand” (implying you should act like a vigilante). But most people will find themselves having a high degree of sympathy with the lyrics of his songs. In fact, Robbins became so concerned about this that he refused to release the soundtrack for fear that Republican candidates would start using his songs -- just as Ronald Reagan turned Bruce Springsteen’s anti-American rant “Born in the USA” into a pro-American anthem.

Third, this film highlights the nastiest side of liberalism in the most unflattering ways. For example, in one scene, it shows the intolerance of liberals when Roberts appears on a fake Saturday Night Live show (the parody of SNL is actually spot on, with poorly-written unfunny scripts, bad acting, and mindless characters). The actors (including John Cusack) throw tantrums about Roberts showing up, treat him rudely, and finally try to sabotage the show to deny him any publicity. While Robbins no doubt thought the audience would see these characters as noble for standing up to power, they actually come across as mean, petty, and intolerant. . . exactly the kind of vile, intolerant, hateful types we've seen parading through Hollywood for years now. Moreover, their hate is made impotent in the film because nothing they try seems to be able to stop Bob.

Fourth, this film is rich in irony. While Robbins means this film as an indictment of the American right, the things he accuses the right of doing are all out of the playbook of the left. For example, it is hilarious to see Robbins complain about secret military funding of right-wing Bob, when the past 20 years have shown that liberals are the creatures of big business, the military industrial complex, and foreign money. He accuses right-wing Bob of planting a fake sex scandal to embarrass his opponent, something Democrats specialize in (like all the October surprises, e.g. the fake Bush Sr. affair, CBS making up Bush Jr.'s military record, etc.). It’s also hilarious to see a brainwashed cult-like group of followers (including a young Jack Black) begin following Bob around, when the only thing approaching this in real politics has been the legion of Kool-Aid drunk liberals that wept whenever Obama spoke.

In some ways, this film is also quite prescient. For example, it foretells the much nastier style of campaigning that has become a Democratic specialty -- secret dirty money, image over substance, a hard-left flank that tries to suppress its opponents by any means including violence, faked scandals, loads of hate, etc. It also foretells the shift from a mainstream media to a more fringe media. In fact, Bugs Raplin (Esposito), the crazed journalist, is a lot like the paranoid weirdoes who would soon begin to inhabit places like Huffington Post, where they too complain that the MSM won’t cover the "real" truth because they’re beholden to secret corporate interests.

At first blush, this film sounds like something you wouldn’t want to see if you’re not a flaming leftist, but it really is worth watching. Robbins’ attempt to slander the right backfires in almost every scene and his story telling ability is undeniable. The story has clever twists and turns, the acting is perfect, and the characters are likeable. Moreover, unlike most leftist films, this one doesn’t preach because it assumes that you will pick up the meaning from the words and deeds and motivations of the characters, and that you will naturally agree with Robbins. . . hence, no need to preach.

Sadly for Robbins, he never realized that the window he thought was letting him peer down into the dark side of conservatives was actually a mirror. Good for us though.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...