I watched Mission to Mars on my second screen as I update my blog tonight. What a pleasant surprise! I really enjoyed this film, despite the low expectation I had from its IMDB rating: a brutal 4.8! I generally agree with IMDB because of the law of averages. Given enough people, the ratings usually even out to a fairly good representation of a film’s entertainment value. From that, I usually get a good enough idea to make a decision on whether or not to spend 2 hours watching a film. One IMDB user wrote that it was a very under-rated film, and I like sci-fi a lot, so I put it on. After watching it, I think the rating is unfair. Red Planet, which came out the same year (2000) and was also about Mars, scored a 5.5. That is about how I’d rate it also… I remember renting it once and thinking it was pretty awful. But I’d give M2M at least a 7 or a 7.5. It definitely deserves more than a 4.8.
I think if it hadn’t been for Gary Sinise in the lead role, this film would’ve really sucked. He’s a really under-appreciated actor, IMO (he has won several awards though). In this role, he seemed a lot like the Lt. Dan character (Forrest Gump), but maybe only because he’s in a position of authority… or the fact that Sinise has that ageless face and silent confidence that pervades his roles.
All in all, it’s a pretty interesting story… but maybe that’s because I wasn’t paying that close attention to it. Usually when I watch a movie, it’s an instant love or hate reaction after the first 15-20 minutes. I get turned off really easily if the story is poorly written, formulaic, and just phoney.. I’m usually a very harsh critic of movies, but if the story is at least decent and competently written and directed, I’ll overlook some of the smaller flaws. I don’t know how to explain it, but I can spot a bad movie right away (the god-awful Lost in Space comes to mind). This movie didn’t do that, and in fact, I quite enjoyed it.
M2M is pretty slow at the beginning, with a lot of setup, and doesn’t really pick up until about halfway in, where the story’s pace really changes. I won’t spoil it for you, but I think director Brian de Palma rushed the ending a bit. The ending of this film remind me a lot of Contact (Jodie Foster) and AI, with the art direction looking a lot like Kubrick’s 2001.
..and yes, in the future, computers still speak in crappy monotone voices. They didn’t try to go all futuristic (movie takes place in 2020), which was a good call on the part of the production designers. Movies about the future that try to look like the future usually age very badly (Back to the Future II, Bill & Ted’s).