Subject: Review: Mission to Mars (2000)

From: [email-masked] (Mark R Leeper)
Date: 17 Mar 2000 03:00:24 GMT

MISSION TO MARS
                    A film review by Mark R. Leeper

               Capsule: Two missions to Mars highlight Brian
          De Palma's first foray into science fiction.  The
          film borrows heavily from older space exploration
          films but still manages to stroke our sense of
          wonder with strange structures which have stranger
          behaviors.  The film falters a little in the final
          reel, but generally is entertaining and even
          exciting.  Rating: 7 (0 to 10), low +2 (-4 to +4)
          HEAVY SPOILERS discussing the ideas follow the main
          review.

     In 1950 ROCKETSHIP XM went to Mars and brought back to Earth a
secret that might determine the future of the human race.  It was the
first major film of the 1950s science fiction cycle.  ROCKETSHIP XM was
early in a sub-genre of space exploration that included FRAU IM MOND,
DESTINATION MOON, PROJECT MOONBASE, THE CONQUEST OF SPACE, 12 TO THE
MOON, COUNTDOWN, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and possibly CONTACT.  These
are films that have piqued our sense of wonder.  Sadly, we have not
seen many of them of late.  Science fiction films have gone in other
directions with monster films, psychotic killers in space, martial
arts, and chases.  While MISSION TO MARS makes a few false moves in the
final reel, in particular some errors in science, it is a great ride
and it brings back the sense of wonder of some of the 1950s space
explorations films, back when the sky and the future were limitless.

     This film begins in the year 2020 with the first mission to Mars.
Four people are sent to the planet Mars.  The expedition seems to be
going well until an unusual formation is noted on a nearby hill.  Going
to investigate, things go mysteriously and spectacularly wrong.  Now
there is at most one Mars astronaut alive, Luke Graham (played by Don
Cheadle).  A second mission is sent to rescue Luke and continue the
mission.  On this expedition are Jim McConnell (Gary Sinise) and Woody
Blake (Tim Robbins wearing the most uncomfortable-looking piece of
jewelry I have seen in a long time).  Along the way they face some of
the problems and dangers we have seen dramatized previously in films,
but have not seen since visual effects in films have become so agile.
Some of the effects work, particularly motorized vehicles on Mars, do
not look well rendered, but elsewhere some of the effects work is quite
good.  The destruction of the first mission is deliciously eerie.
Another novel scene involves an explosion that could only happen in the
conditions of space and the special effects to portray the scene are
fascinating.  What we get is a film with a sort of nostalgic feel but
which also has a timely sense as consideration is given to staging a
manned mission to Mars.

     This is Brian De Palma's first science fiction film and he has a
healthy respect for the older films.  This is a science fiction film
without guns and chases.  (It is a pity it did not leave out the
product placements also.)  Gary Sinise is a good actor, but his
performance seems a little stilted here.  He is playing a man who keeps
his emotions bottled up, as does Robbins so we have to infer emotions
from the situations.  Sinise deserves good roles, but we see little of
his talent here.  Robbins we do not expect an evocative performance; we
expect his style of under-acting.  Also present are Don Cheadle and
Jerry O'Connell of "Sliders," and both are fine.  There is a fair-sized
role that goes to a mysteriously uncredited Armin Mueller-Stahl.

     The critics are not being very kind to MISSION TO MARS, but I
strongly suspect there will be a contingent of older science fiction
fans who were brought up on 1950s space exploration films and who will
enjoy this film as much as I did.  I rate it a 7 on the 1 to 10 scale
and a low +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.

     Spoiler...Spoiler...Spoiler...Spoiler...

     I do not know if sending married couples into space has been
considered.  But it would be a questionable NASA policy for precisely
the reasons that this film makes clear.

     Some readers will know why I was a little disappointed that when
they found Luke he did not ask his rescuers for a piece of cheese.

     Evolutionary biologist Stephen J. Gould would have a fit if he saw
this film.  The implication of what is learned in the final reel is
that the human stands at the top of the evolutionary tree and that all
evolution is aimed at creating a humanoid creature with our DNA and
even our facial expressions.  That is not the way it works.  We were
formed by our environment in a random walk of adapting to the natural
world.  Plant the same protozoa DNA on two different planets with
different conditions and the resulting species would rapidly diverge.
It is highly unlikely that the most intelligent species on each of two
planets would so resemble each other.  And even if there was a guiding
force they would not end up so different looking.  The error in this
film is closely related to that in THE BOYS FROM BRAZIL, but the
probabilities are far lower here.

     A much better thought out film on Martian survival strategies is
Nigel Kneale's QUATERMASS AND THE PIT (FIVE MILLION YEARS TO EARTH),
which I have long considered the best science fiction film I have ever
seen.  Previously hard to find, it currently seems to run monthly on
the American Movie Classics cable channel.

     It seems unlikely that with two missions to Cydonia there would be
no mention of the famous Cydonia Face on Mars, and in fact they seem
unaware of it.  It is like being in Roswell, New Mexico, and not
knowing about the supposed crashed flying saucer.

					Mark R. Leeper
					[email-masked]
					Copyright 2000 Mark R. Leeper