# Mission to Mars (2000)

### reviewed by
Shane Burridge

    Mission to Mars (2000) 112m

I'm surprised at the hostile reaction that Brian De Palma's first foray into Sci-Fi has received from some critics. While purposefully avoiding all prior knowledge of the film's content I was still aware of the scathing tone of many of its reviews. Or perhaps it's just that those who would shout things down have the louder voices, relegating any more favorable comment to the sidelines.

Undeniably, MISSION TO MARS is patchy, but that's nothing new. De Palma's track record is notorious for this kind of spasmodic final product, his most unified film THE UNTOUCHABLES being an exception. At the other end of the scale, THE BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES has been his biggest flop, but even then it's still okay as a film: it's only when compared to Tom Wolfe's terrific book that it fails. It's these comparative elements that may have irked many a reviewer of MISSION TO MARS. The most obvious homage/ripoff (take your pick) is 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and De Palma's beautiful visuals (of artificial-gravity; the seemingly effortless, assured camerawork in the spacecraft; the figures in Martian orbit) evoke a sense of wonder and easily hold their own against that classic. Conceptwise, it's another matter. Science Fiction has been all but milked dry (the last new big thing was William Gibson's notions of cyberspace), and when MISSION TO MARS makes it clear that it's heading towards a revelatory punchline it can only mean trouble. There's very little left that's new, and I can see film's payoff causing SF buffs to roll their eyes and say `they did this in (insert name of book/film/TWILIGHT ZONE episode) already!'.

That leaves us with structure, and once again De Palma has shown that he is a craftsman of bravura set-pieces. It's also reminded us that a lot of the stuff between those set-pieces doesn't hold together so well, and in MISSION TO MARS you can start picking at exact moments where the seams start to show. On the negative side, the opening earthbound scenes appear to have been written from ‘The Screenwriter's Guide to Expository Dialogue' (it's a made-up title; don't look for it); the image of the alien at the end is embarrassingly twee; De Palma doesn't really know how to use music effectively in emotional/dramatic scenes – he seems to have used Ennio Morricone's score in much the same way that he overstated his Pino Donaggio scores to kitschy effect in his early thrillers; and the storyline is cut into two uneven halves, the first being realistic, the second being fantastic.

I don't necessarily regard this last criticism as a failing point; in fact I enjoy scripts that aren't straitjacketed into ‘arcs' or formulas. Also – and in spite of those weak opening scenes – the tone of this film is unlike any other De Palma has made. For once he presents his characters as if they were more than scripted pawns in a screenplay; as astronauts, Tim Robbins, Connie Nielsen, Gary Sinese, and Jerry O'Connell have an easy, natural bond. And this time, when someone dies in a De Palma film, it resonates. For my money, the pluses in MISSION TO MARS easily outweigh the minuses. It looks fabulous on a big screen, plays out some great sequences, and has a genial mix of science and fiction. Granted, there are several little stupid moments scattered throughout, but this at least may provide some post-screening entertainment if you see it with a group of friends (my vote for The Stupidest Bit is that dumb scene where the rescue team pauses to unearth the flag and replant it…personally my priority upon reaching the objective of a six-month mission would have been to get inside the damned ship first).

It comes back to what I've always advocated - that the less you know about a film beforehand the better. My guess is that the reviewers who have carped most about De Palma's film will be those who either felt he wasn't equipped to work in the genre in the first place, or those who were led to expect an entirely different experience. Another 2001? Not likely; there will hardly be another of those in our lifetime. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS? No, that was pointedly one director's personal vision. APOLLO 13? No, that was fact, and this is fiction. MISSION TO MARS is….well, it's just MISSION TO MARS and that's all there is to it. In the meantime, and until studios realize that hype is the worst enemy a movie can have, you would be best to take a leaf out of Alexander Pope's book and maintain a little ignorance before you buy your tickets. Or to put it another way: the best way to watch a film is in the dark.

Postscript: It's reassuring to know that in the year 2020 the Dr Pepper logo will still remain the same.

    sburridge@hotmail.com

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

The review above was posted to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due to ASCII to HTML conversion.

Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews