 When
we picture Mars in sci-fi movies, the planet is often the birthplace of nasty
green aliens bound upon overtaking the Earth. The War of the Worlds (1953)
and Mars Attacks! (1996) are two classic examples of that fun cliché.
Red Planet chose to do just the opposite: Humans are going to invade
Mars, and they're going to face all odds to do it.
The setting for the film is the mid-21st century, when Earth's pollution and
human overpopulation are threatening almost inevitably the very survival of mankind.
Looking for a backup home world, the nations of Earth built together a daring
plan to rekindle the Martian environment for human use by nuking the planet's
poles and seeding the surface with oxygen-making algae. When, after years of successful
remotely operated terraforming, the algae start to disappear, a crew of pioneering
astronauts is sent to investigate.
 First
off, this is a great flick! Whether you love Mars or not, the adrenaline junkie
and the adventurous alike will both be pleased by this second Mars movie of 2000.
Starring The Matrix (1999)' Carrie-ann Moss and the polyvalent
Val Kilmer, Red Planet features stunning visuals as well
as a twisted plot that will keep you on the edge of your seat. Well paced, the
story is presented like a tale, with some nice although corny flashbacks explaining
the crew's relationships.
It is hard to write a review on Red Planet without giving the good
bits away. That is why this review is aimed at giving the reader a general impression
of the movie and discussing some related topics... but here is a small scoop nonetheless.
Skip the next paragraph if you like.
[MINOR SPOILER ALERT]
Things do not go all peachy on Mars. To paraphrase Jar Jar Binks, "People
are gonna die". Ok, that's no secret, many people die in sci-fi thrillers.
What is interesting is the fact that you have no clue just who will be next, when
or even how. Think of Red Planet as Pitch Black (2000) and Alien (1979)
brought together for your own personal enjoyment. Agatha Christie would be proud.
[END SPOILER ALERT]
 Perhaps
the sheer number of problems and difficulties facing the crew will raise a few
eyebrows. Just bear in mind Murphy's famous maxim "If anything can go wrong,
it will." To be fair, yes Red Planet has some flaws. While you
still get the feeling of grandeur associated with witnessing the first manned
trip to Mars, that Apollo 13 (1995) pride and bravery sensation is somewhat lacking.
Also, those who have a cell phone know that weak radio signals do not carry across
the continent very well, much less across interplanetary space. Aside from such
glitches, the picture generally holds well together.
It is unfortunate that the movie critics have been very harsh with Red Planet.
"Unbelievable", "plot too thin", "crack-pot science",
"worst than Mission to Mars (2000)" were read almost everywhere.
These same critics always seem to find every small nitpick and bring the whole
picture down in the mud because of these. Not wanting to bruise any egos, but
I bet more that 95% of these critics have a poor understanding of sciences and
struggle to sound like resident experts simply to hide their sheer ignorance.
A Bachelor of Arts will only get you so far.
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), Blade Runner (1982) and Dark City (1998) were all
booed by film critics at first. When the fans looked at them saying, "Hey,
we liked these movies, they were great!" many reviewers suddenly had revelations
and started glorifying these motion pictures. Just something to keep in mind...
 The
writer of this article feels saddened by such destructive movie reviewers. Not
only because they trashed a good movie (not a perfect one, a good one), but because
that trashed movie is about Mars. I admit, I am biased: I am an advocate of the
Mars Society. Interest in the Red Planet grew since the Pathfinder mission in
1997 and the discovery of possible Martian fossils has revived in nations everywhere
the lost passion for human exploration of our neighboring planet. While this public
interest attracted the filming of a few Mars movies presented this year and next,
a fantasy-lemon like Mission to Mars (2000) and a wrongfully-bashed Red Planet
risk cooling the general attention near absolute zero. Not a very promising political
environment to propose bold yet essential plans to invest in permanent, self-sufficient
Martian habitats. Think of Red Planet's premise; reminisce Armageddon (1998)
or Deep Impact (1998). Now who are you going to blame for destroying public
interest in having a backup plan when the Earth is endangered and mankind faces
extinction?
I like to keep my baseball bat close at hand.
So what is Red Planet really? It's 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) meets Predator (1987);
it's Armageddon (1998) with a dash of Alien (1979); it's Pitch Black (2000)
in an Apollo 13 (1995) spacesuit. Melting pot of sci-fi successes? Yes, but this
spicy mixing tastes good and the staging is fresh. Should anyone go see it? What
are you waiting for; get your ass to Mars!
Review by René-Marc Simard. |
