User reviews

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.

¨Red Planet¨ (2000) by Anthony Hoffman boasts a nice cast with Val Kilmer , Carrie Anne Moss , Terence Stamp , among others . Some stronauts (Val Kilmer, Tom Sizemore , Benjamin Bratt , Simon Baker , Terence Stamp) , and their robotic dog AMEE (Autonomous Mapping Evaluation and Evasion) commanded by Bowman (Carrie-Anne Moss) are sent to a dangerous mission : search for solutions to save a dying Earth by searching on Mars , only to have the mission going terribly awry. When the manned flight to Mars lands on the desert location , things go awry . As expert astronauts endure a hard assignment to Mars in hopes of finding some sign of life . As usual , during the expedition , risks and distresses happen step by step , but it eventually ends in disaster . As weird beings and unfortunate events cause wreak havoc while the equipment suffers life-threatening damage and the crew must depend on one another for survival on the hostile surface of Mars . In this alien environment they must come face to face with their most human interior . As a number of "living" astronauts decreases , a race against time unfolds for any astronaut hoping to return to earth safely . The search for life is about to end !. Not A Sound. Not A Warning. Not A Chance. Not Alone. In the near future, Earth is dying . A new colony on Mars could be humanity's only hope. The Color Of Fear . They Didn't Find Life On Mars. It Found Them.

This enjoyable picture blends Science Fiction and adventure genre , developing an intelligent script that disseminates the clues to maintain the interest and tension of the viewer and reflect on the eternal theme of the confrontation between man and nature , as well as the struggle between faith and scientific reason . Adding other philosophical themes as crew doubts , fears and questions about God and divine providence , man's destiny and the nature of the universe turn defining elements in their fates . Filmmaker Anthony Hoffman spent a long period at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston (Texas) with the goal of researching Mars and space travel and studying photography to see how light behaves in the atmosphere. The result is a feature film narrated with rhythm enough, with careful production design and a sober touch on the scenes in which the dazzling special effects created by the Cinesite Inc. Company also responsible for ¨Deep Blue Sea¨ and ¨Matrix¨stand out . It is an interesting and thought-provoking motion picture , though typical routine -at times- space odyssey that goes wrong when some astronauts find death , one by one , in diverse strange forms . On the way , they encounter problems you've seen in other , better-done sci-fi flicks . In the film there're chilling set pieces , suspense , body-count , intrigue and visual wizardy , but the very used plot and indifferent interpretations undermine whatever it was attempting to accomplish. Red Planet (2000) follows the style of other 2.000's films in which expeditions on Mars get in trouble , such as : ¨Mission to Mars¨ by Brian de Palma with Gary Sinese, Tim Robbins and the subsequent¨The Last Days on Mars (2013)¨ by Ruairi Robinson with Liev Schreiber , Elias Koteas , Romola Garai , Olivia Williams . Although the greatest rivalry and competence was ¨Brian De Palma's Mission to Mars¨, being made at the same time . The biggest claim of this space epic ¨Red Planet (2000)¨ is its cast , headed by Val Kilmer (The Saint) as a mechanical systems engineer who goes from being in the background at the beginning to gain more relevance throughout the film and Carrie-Anne Moss as valiant and risked commander Bowman at the head of the expedition , along with Tom Sizemore, Benjamin Bratt and Terence Stamp.

Highlights the mysterious and suspenseful musical score by Graeme Revell . As well as colorful , though dark at times cinematography by cameraman Peter Suschitzky , David Cronenberg's regular cinematographer . The yarn was adequate and professionally directed by Anthony Hoffman , though with no originality , because copying other films . Being Hoffman film debut , he's presently working on an ambitious feature film that he wrote and with direct for 20 Century Fox, 'Fox Hunt' that will shoot in Hong Kong and Los Angeles, in addition a ten part series 'The Keepers' set in the world of illegal animal poaching across the globe. Rating : 6.5/10 . Well worth watching . The pic will appeal to Val Kilmer and Carrie Anne Moss fans.

I avoided most of the Mars movies when they came out in the past 4 years because the reviews were mostly bad and none of the trailers inspired me. I eventually caught MISSION TO MARS on TV and I was glad I didn't see it at the movies or even rented it. But now I rented RED PLANET last night and I have to say that I liked it a lot. It's much better than the hokey De Palma movie. There are a lot of weaknesses in it but even with all it's faults, the whole package worked.

The problems with RED PLANET: Val Kilmer is miscast. He doesn't seem interested in the story and his acting is lazy. He looks like a lost surfer dude on Mars. They should have hired another actor instead of Kilmer. Some characters were weak (Stamp and Bratt). The designs of the ship's interior were a tad cheesy. The dialogue was sometimes terrible. And the story had some major holes in it, like the idea that the ship's censors didn't detect the breathable atmosphere on Mars.

But aside from those problems, the rest is fun. It's a straight forward science fiction story. If you don't like that kind of story, you'll certainly won't like this. It reminded me of ROBINSON CRUSOE ON MARS or PITCH BLACK, in the way it respected the sci-fi themes and elements without watering them down for the audience. Tom Sizemore and Carrie-Anne Moss are excellent in their roles. Some of the cinematography is excellent. And while the fx are uneven (sometimes spectacular, sometimes obvious), the overall look of the film is always credible. And the ending is thrilling.

If you like straight forward science fiction films like me, you'll enjoy this movie.

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.

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

Of Mission to Mars.

Both movies were hastily put together, not out of any creative impulse, but purely to capitalize on the spike in public interest in Mars exploration after the 1997 Pathfinder mission with its Sojourner rover. Both involve manned missions to Mars in spin ships, both expeditions encounter some sort of disaster in Mars orbit in order to kill off a few characters and inject some drama, and both involve the discovery of alien life on the surface. Both premises are highly derivative with cookie cutter dialogue and plot structure hastily adapted to a Mars theme.

Both were also staples of my childhood, but I can honestly say that I did not remember the dialogue in this film being so utterly pathetic. It's as if they didn't have time to write a proper screenplay so they just unboxed a premade 'action adventure movie script', slapped a Mars theme on it, and called it a day. This is some real straight-to-video stuff. There's very little abuse of scientific jargon because they don't even attempt to use scientific jargon. The ship gets hit by a 'solar storm' and it's just 'dead in the water'. Sure, that's sufficient information...

The CGI is somewhat worse than Mission to Mars. At least they tried to hide it tastefully in that movie, here they're trying to make it the main attraction, 10 years too early.

Mission's soundtrack is pretty pretentious but at least it's not total garbage. Red Planet gives us 90's club music. This movie would have been better with less audio in general, let us take in the few worthwhile panoramic shots in peace.

OK, OK, OK. The bit where the Russian lander has a little distressed cartoon bear cosmonaut is pretty memorable for its originality. I mean, it's sort of unintentionally hilarious, but it's memorable. The design of the killer robot is also pretty iconic, totally impractical, but iconic. And the scene where the bug creatures move in unison across the plain is pretty interesting. So this movie has its moments. But on the whole, pretty bad.

I don't know why everybody rips this movie. The special effects are very realistic, down to the pink-tinted Martian sky. The plot is plausible (for science fiction), paying attention to many small details that often make these kinds of movies farcical. Most important, it's very existential; humans simply trying to survive against almost insurmountable odds. As the struggle builds, the relationships begin to gel nicely. This IS a movie about human relationships, not Star Wars style hype. I know, there are some weak spots. The opening and closing dialog, Val Kilmer whispering all the way through, some of the dialog, etc. But overall, this movie doesn't try to do too much (unlike the abysmal Mission To Mars), and that's what makes it a success.

While there are some mistakes made in the science parts of the movie. The movie is not that bad as indicated by a large number of viewers. Having watched both Mission to Mars and Red Planet back to back thanks to the SciFi channel M2M is not as good as Red Planet. Having watched M2M 3 times now, I would recommend RP 1st. It is a nice twist of the 1950s B grade sci-fi movies.

Overall I would recommend the movie. I did enjoy Tom Sizemore and Val Kilmer. Moss's role was limited in imho and the cast was limited as it was. The movie would probably been much better if 1.) the movie had taken more time to tell the story and 2.) there had been a better job of editing.

Pros: cinema-photography, Val Kilmer, Tom Sizemore, sci-fi, Cons: Lack of character development, a few sci-fact goofs (the space fire is not a goof); film editing.

I've had a real dilemma since seeing Red Planet. For this year, which was the worse movie, Red Planet or Mission to Mars? It's a tough call. I gave both a 2, feeling the sometimes fun special effects saved each from being "Plan 9" level. But, these are both truly awful science-fiction films. What is so amazing is how both turned out to be just about the same film. Both are based on the "big accident when we get there" plot line. At least Red Planet avoided the "Faces on Mars" nonsense of Mission to Mars. But, the idea that we can have massive terraforming efforts going on on Mars including a built habitat without noticing lots of life forms, dramatically increased oxygen levels, and everything else this movie just pops out of the woodwork is so moronic as to be just about "Plan 9" level. As if that wasn't enough, we throw in the "killer robot"/"military hardware run amok" standard plot line #17 just for good measure.

I have long wondered at the workings of Hollywood. Two completely separate groups both decided to make a bad Mars movie in the same year? How does that happen?

Although there aren't much movies about space science yet the movies have made are nice. Red Planet is also good movie. It start is not so good but it turns good as the movie goes. It is a very little cast move. Only 9 or 10 actors are in this movie. Set in 2057, a divers team of astronauts travels to Mars to investigate human living conditions on the Mars because Earth becoming unlivable for human beings. But the conditions get bad and bad for them when they lands on Mars including a bad spacecraft's equipment, and increasing tension among the crew members. Although the script of the movie is good yet there are certain things are unexplained. But as the movies is based on just images and articles provided by NASA one should clearly understand the idea. Recommended for those who love to watch science-fic, adventure and action. I give "Red Planet" 8 out of 10.

Director Antony Hoffman's "Red Planet" is an old-fashioned sci-fi action picture with some modern twists. The gum-chewing, wise-cracking mechanic, who would have been a quickly-killed-off supporting character in a 1950s movie, is now the lead. He is solidly played by the quirky Val Kilmer. The tough-as-nails, damn-my-orders-I'll-save-my-crew captain is a woman-Carrie-Anne Moss from "The Matrix." The gray-haired old scientist-an underused Terence Stamp-has turned to philosophy and religion, where in the old days he would have been a hard-headed skeptic (that role is left to biologist Tom Sizemore). The premise is that, by the year 2057, Earth is so badly polluted that we are seeding the sands of Mars with algae to produce oxygen so that humans can colonize the red planet (don't algae need water to live?)-but the algae have suddenly vanished from our telescopes. So Commander Bowman and her crew are sent to investigate. While she orbits in a crippled spaceship, the five men (including pilot Benjamin Bratt and Simon Baker-the obligatory Guy From Brooklyn) land on Mars in a suspenseful crash scene. I won't give away what they find, but I will say the solution to the mystery is more like something out of a good science fiction novel than a Hollywood sci-fi movie. There is life on Mars, but it's not a typical movie monster. But there is the expedition's robot, AMEE, which is damaged in the crash landing, reverts to its original military programming, and starts stalking the men like a rogue lion. This leads to scenes reminiscent of another Val Kilmer film, the underrated "The Ghost and the Darkness." The premise may be far-fetched, but I thought the execution and resolution of "Red Planet" were exciting and satisfying. (And yes, guys, Carrie-Anne does get one brief, gratuitous shower scene.) I haven't seen "Mission to Mars," so I can honestly say that this is the best Mars movie I've seen this year.

The population of Earth has spent its life taking from it's mother without regards to consequences. The farther man goes into his future, the more aware of his mistakes he becomes. This film is one of a dozen which depicts what will eventually happen to the inhabitants when those mistakes catch up with apathy. The year is 2025 AD and Earth has sent it's first planetary probe to the "Red Planet." It's mission; to discover why it has refused to sustain an artificial atmosphere. A team of six, including a multi-functional, multi-purpose, mechanical robot named 'Amee' is selected and sent. However as the ship approaches its destination, an unexpected solar flare, disrupts the carefully planned mission, forcing the five man crew to eject prematurely to the hostile, lifeless, planet. Now begins an immediate and desperate objective; to stay alive. Val Kilmer is Robby Gallagher, the Machnical Systems Engineer who proves that when machines go bad, it's important to have someone who knows how to fix or combat them. Benjamin Bratt is Lt. Ted Santen, an ego driven pilot who finds it's hard to be humble. Tom Sizemore plays Dr. Quinn Burchenal, who searches for a reason to questions he knows have an answer. Terence Stamp plays Dr. Bud Chantilas, an engrossing astronaut who expects more out of the mission than mere science. Carrie Moss is Kate Bowman and Simon Baker is Chip Pettengill. The film is believable enough and the space crew's enemies are not confided to those expected. One, they brought with them. The further one proceeds into the story the more harrowing the dangers become. ***

Entertaining, but the politics of Earth's "sky is falling trope" began even in 2000. Why is it that Global Alarmist types logic religiously would believe that going to some other inhospitable planet like Mars would be easier to establish life by terraforming or industrializing (thereby polluting again like Earth's industrial revolution), when it would be beginning at zero, when it would simply make more sense to clean up the Earth, which is our perfect planet already where we evolved? Space exploration makes sense, but the ideas of the resources it would take to better a cleaned Earth makes no sense.

Earth is suffering from environmental damage. Mars has been slowly terra-formed as an alternative home. However it is somehow losing oxygen. A space mission is sent to discover the cause. The spacecraft is damaged by massive gamma radiation burst and the crew crash land to investigate Mars.

It takes too long to get the movie going. There is too much tech talk without any magic. They don't even get to Mars until after 30 minutes. They spent too much time talking on the spaceship. I think we're suppose to be awed by all the spaceship special effects. It's not that special. Most of the start could easily be thrown out.

The action is confused and rather uncompelling. It doesn't get any better on the ground. It's a slow moving grind. The orange look, the helmets, and the buzzy voices all make for a tiring watch. Watching people slowly suffocate is really boring. Having Carrie-Anne separated from everybody doesn't help. The climax (if you could call it that) has no suspense. It is completely uninteresting.

Movies like "Red Planet" remind me why I enjoy science fiction so much. Most sci-fi films today put the special effects first before characterizations. While that's not a bad idea (I have enjoyed several films in that vein such as "Independence Day"), films can become too dependent on that and that's when the fun drains away.

"Red Planet" is a film that has solid special effects, but also a strong story and good characterizations. It was the second film released in 2000 to have Mars as its backdrop, the first being "Mission to Mars". "Mission to Mars", despite having top stars,master craftsman Brian DePalma directing and phenomenal special effects, was a little too pat and resorted to cliches (Not that I blame DePalma; he did the best he could with the script he had and the film wasn't bad at all)

I didn't know anything about the plot and I think that helps with a film like "Red Planet". It allows suspense to be created from the series of crises that spring up on the astronauts and that's a benefit. But I will say this: the marketing campaign for "Red Planet" advertises this as your typical good guys versus evil aliens action fest. It is not. This is a more intelligent and stylish film than given credit for. It owes more to "2001" and "The Black Hole" or even the classic Republic serial "Radar Men from the Moon" than "Alien". It is about ideas, not effects and I LOVE films like that.

I know a great many people will hate this film. That is because popular culture has brainwashed people into thinking mass entertainment revolves around effects only. There are some flaws (mostly in technological probability and pacing in the first 20 minutes)but writer Chuck Pfarrer and director Antony Hoffman remember that great sci-fi is also about the story and characters and the result is the best sci-fi film in recent years.

***1/2 out of 4 stars

There are worse ways to spend 100 minutes. Val Kilmer was lots of fun, Carrie-Ann Moss actually CAN act, and the screen-writers actually had HALF a brain. Okay, so they ignored the whole gravity thing, but at least that had a reason why the characters didn't run out of air. It wasn't a great reason, but at least it was a reason.

It plays like some mediocre sci-fi story that might have been written in the 1950's. And next to the indescribably awful "Mission to Mars," this movie is Citizen Kane. Screenwriter Chuck Pfarrer isn't too incredibly original, but director Antony Hoffman put it together pretty decently. An A for effort, but the movie is only a 6 or 7 out of 10, depending on how YOU feel about the actors.

Unlike, say, "Mission to Mars," which had a great cast working from a script written by drunken chimapanzees.

Meh. Cardboard characters, without depth, jokes and basic teenager semi-sexual atmosphere. It looks a bit like a western movie.