Planeta rojo

I think it will take about as much time to see a good film about Mars as it will take mankind to land on it. Although this film is much better than the (oddly) bigger box-office hit Mission to Mars it still lacks a lot. OK Carrie Ann Moss and Tom Sizemore are good in their roles, but the plot is just too predictable at times. The biggest compliment though goes out to Val Kilmer who on his own earned one of the points I give this film.

6 out of 10

I was amazed when reading so many bad reviews . O.K. there're no spectacular Aliens and we're not blinded by non-stop special effects. The movie has more realism than the traditional Holywood science fiction stuff. Many parts of the Mars mission were based on the NASA reference Mars mission . The Mars explorer spaceship is build in Earth orbit . There're 6 crew-members . Artificial gravity to stimulate adaptation to Martian conditions . AMEE a multi-purpose robot with aerial probe . Cushioned landing . Wearable spacesuits . Other points of realism were the accurate 'fire in space' sequence, and the computer technology used by the crew. Red Planet could have been better, but it's decent compared to most Holywood products. Moreover, real science fiction is a very small niche market and will never draw nor encourage a broad audience.

If you're a fan of science fiction, looking for more realistic spaceflight stuff, watch Red Planet .

Red Planet may not be sufficient when rated as a science-fiction, but for people who watch the movie for its plot and not with expectations of very high technology and special effects, its not a disappointing one.

It starts with a slow tempo, and although the whole movie takes place far from earth, we are not blinded by non-stop special effects. Instead Anthony Hoffman gives us the story he is telling and does not care much whether he satisfies the science-fiction lovers. By staying away from the unnecessary effects, he keeps our attention on the theme.

The suspense in the movie is quite good, although not many big surprises occurs.

Biggest negative point for me (as a guy not interested in effects but in the way the director tells what he has to say) is Hoffman fails to show us the relationship between the crew and gives us his characters with simple out lines. I guess he knows his weakness here, and so he makes his captain (Carrie-Anne Moss) describe all her crew members one by one.

Finally if you are not especially looking for a science-fiction but say you can watch one, Red Planet will not be a very bad choice. I rate the film 6, but its 6,5 actually.

What a perfect rivalry this film has with Brian De Palma's Mission to Mars. Two films coming out in the same year, set on the same planet, with the same production values and featuring casts of equal talent. While both movies also feature numerous scientific inaccuracies and stupidities, each has something different to offer. If you are looking for mystique, try Mission to Mars, but if you want action or thrills, then go with Red Planet.

Set in the mid twenty first century, Earth is dying, and humanity has turned to Mars as a potential replacement. An unmanned terraforming experiment has been attempted (according to the introductory narration) Months later, it appears to have failed, so a group of astronauts are sent out to investigate. They are surprised and excited to discover not only breathable air but the existence of life on the barren cold red world. When their space craft shuts down however, not only are they stranded, but they become threatened by the malfunctioning of their navigator droid 'Amee'. These few individuals must survive to carry the news back to Earth which proves that man can live on the Red Planet.

I think the story works decently as a nifty sci-fi thriller. Mars in this film looks quite convincing, because the terrain closely resembles the photographs taken by the Pathfinder in 1997. The color scheme is made up of browns and tans, rather than the over saturated red from Mission to Mars.

Ret Planet was received better than Brian De Palma's movie, and I can see why. Although neither of them are examples of great filmaking, I would recommend them both.

Whoa there kids! Red Planet is just a movie and in my opinion a pretty good sci-fi picture. Yes, it is not 2001: A Space Odyssey or Mission to Mars (which I think was ridiculous). It is not meant to be. Maybe the characters are not fully developed but name a science fiction movie where the characters are completely developed. The movie is called "Red Planet" not "Who are the People Who are Going to Mars to Save Earth?" and we join the action "in media res" which means in the middle of things so character development is not stressed in the beginning. Good grief. People throw around scientific, cinematic, and character development flaws with the movie instead of trying to enjoy the suspense of this movie.

You are stuck on the planet Mars. No food or water. Someone on the crew is already dead and another is a little sketchy. You have a limited time to get off the planet, your friendly neighborhood military robot has decided to play "Seek and Destroy", and something mysterious is happening on the surface of Mars involving tiny, bio-luminescent aphids.

So imagine all of that and you will get an idea of what the writers and director wanted to recreate for the audience. I liked this movie. I recognize there are flaws in the movie and possibly the acting but honestly I thought it was a great premise. Reminded me of the Greek myth of Jason and Argonauts on their quest for the Golden Fleece.

I would give the movie 4 stars out of a possible 5. Before you write and tell me how inaccurate or misguided a movie-goer I am realize I have read the classic sci-fi adventures from the likes of Heinlein, Clarke, and Bradbury. They would recognize the film for what it was: a piece of escape fiction that had its moments of comedy, intelligence, and suspense.