Mission to Mars

Name: Mission to Mars
Genre: Adventure, Sci-Fi, Drama, Thriller
Released: March 10, 2000
Duration: 114 min
Rating: 34
Cast: Gary Sinise, Tim Robbins

2000

METASCORE

Generally unfavorable reviews based on 36 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 77 Ratings

See All

6.4

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6.4	Your Score
6.4	User Score Generally favorable reviews based on 77 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Movie Details & Credits

Buena Vista Pictures Distribution | Release Date: March 10, 2000 | PG

Starring: Gary Sinise, Tim Robbins

Summary: The extraordinary story of the astronauts of the Mars Recovery Mission, the nearly insurmountable dangers that confront the heroic crew on their journey through space, and the amazing discovery they make when they finally reach Mars. (Touchstone Pictures)

Director: Brian De Palma

Genre(s): Adventure, Sci-Fi, Drama, Thriller

Rating: PG

Runtime: 114 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

Michael Wilmington

One of the most gorgeous science-fiction movies ever - and probably also one of the most realistic in detail and scientific extrapolation Read full review

Roger Ebert

I can't recommend Mission to Mars. Read full review

Lawrence Toppman

Trying to make sense of this shaggy dog story is like climbing a mountain with glass-smooth sides and quarter-inch toeholds. Read full review

David Ansen

It's a gorgeous bad movie, the folly of a great visual stylist. Read full review

Rene Rodriguez

A $100 million production of a 10-cent script, is so clunkily written, so bereft of any engaging ideas or emotions, you'd think De Palma would have sneered at it on first reading and passed Read full review

Jonathan Foreman

It features well-below-par writing, acting, direction, special effects and music, while oozing a nauseating New Age sentimentality that undermines any tension in the underlying story. Read full review

Wesley Morris

It's an experience as frustrating as watching Jeff Gordon drive a stock car through a bowl of oatmeal. Read full review

SEE ALL 36 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

Atrium89

May 25, 2021

jgbjbjjbbnjbjbldkdkdkdosoqwetovkkdkxkalldkjhggsnxnxmxm,zmcnvkrodkdodkkdmksmdkxmskmdkdmskskksoskdkdkdkkdkdkdemeom

0 of 5 users found this helpful05

shoggg

Mar 25, 2014

A space movie that is about hope, awe, and wonder rather than the anti-human-aliens and space-horror fest that has been the norm in this genre for the last 35 years. A rare gem in science fiction cinema.

0 of 8 users found this helpful08

BeauFuller

Aug 18, 2016

Gotta say that I have fond memories of this movie. With that said, I would have to say that it's quite a different take on a Mars movie and a departure from the usual "Aliens are always the bad guys" type of space movie.

Anyways, got to rate this much higher than the other ppl on hereGotta say that I have fond memories of this movie. With that said, I would have to say that it's quite a different take on a Mars movie and a departure from the usual "Aliens are always the bad guys" type of space movie.

Anyways, got to rate this much higher than the other ppl on here cause it's dang good.… Expand

0 of 6 users found this helpful06

DerekS.

Oct 6, 2008

I felt the movie was underplayed because of the ending. Overall the movie was good, though the acting in some parts was a little wooden. Special effects were top notch and I liked the premise.

0 of 2 users found this helpful

MichMart

Mar 3, 2014

I enjoyed Red Planet a bit more, because Mission to Mars is a bit less interesting and has sometimes strange background sounds. The ending is also strange. But it has no stereotype characters and a good plot.

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

Broyax

May 22, 2023

Brian De Palma livre une sorte de chronique martienne naïve et au début un peu lent mais excellemment réalisée : effets spéciaux convaincants, fluidité de la caméra, rigueur du cadrage… c’est le style De Palma, sa patte reconnaissable entre toutes ! et cela joue beaucoup sur l’ambianceBrian De Palma livre une sorte de chronique martienne naïve et au début un peu lent mais excellemment réalisée : effets spéciaux convaincants, fluidité de la caméra, rigueur du cadrage… c’est le style De Palma, sa patte reconnaissable entre toutes ! et cela joue beaucoup sur l’ambiance générale élégante et soignée.

La musique de Morricone y participe aussi, grandiloquente et digne. Les acteurs appréciables sont à l’avenant, donnant le meilleur d’eux-mêmes. Dommage cependant, cette naïveté générale du propos qui entache l’ensemble et sa crédibilité… on attendait, on espérait mieux tout de même…

Plus on avance en effet, plus le scénar ressemble à celui d’un vieux nanar plutôt ballot, sans égaler, sans tomber aussi bas, bien entendu, qu’une spielbergerie du troisième type ! Mais c’est un peu trop neuneu pour convaincre, c’est peu de le dire ! ce bon vieux Brian est certainement fleur bleue à ses heures perdues ou naïvement naïf.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

Spangle

Sep 10, 2016

Mission to Mars is an abject disaster. I know Brian De Palma is an incredibly talented director, but this film is wholly derivative of better films dealing with alien encounters (2001: A Space Odyssey, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Alien, E.T., and Contact, are ones that come to mindMission to Mars is an abject disaster. I know Brian De Palma is an incredibly talented director, but this film is wholly derivative of better films dealing with alien encounters (2001: A Space Odyssey, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Alien, E.T., and Contact, are ones that come to mind immediately) while being nowhere near as good as any of those films. It is clear that De Palma watched these movies, but it is equally clear that he had no sense as to how they turned out well. What is missing from Mission to Mars is the same sense of wonder and child-like awe at these discoveries, mainly due to the horrific writing.

The film is blessed with good special effects (even if the animals towards the end look as if they are straight out of Zoo Tycoon), mainly the effect of the tornado. That scene is a true wonder, as are most scenes in space from an effects standpoint. The camera work in the film really makes the most of this with big, sweeping shots throughout the space shuttles that are so good, it makes me sit back and wonder, "Was this movie really as bad as I am saying it is?" Unfortunately, these good effects and shots do not make up for the rest of the film.

What is not bad, however, is the general plot outline and De Palma's ambition. Using this film as a footing to try and find where we come from, Mission to Mars is a truly optimistic film about discovery, love, and loss. In these areas, De Palma hits consistently. The plot is compelling and interesting, as well highly inventive. Yes, it is derivative, but the plot pulls all the best parts of previous science fiction films and puts it into one film, which hey, I am not going to argue against it too much.

However, the sentimentality of the film is ultimately too much, namely because it feels as if the film is highly manipulative and lacks any heart of its own. This manipulation of emotions largely derives from the horrific writing. The first half hour is not that poorly written. However, afterwards, the film is a slog to get through because of the horrible dialogue. Around every corner is a terrible line from Phil (Jerry O'Connell) that is only matched by his horrible acting. The rest of the cast also suffers from being given terrible lines, but their performances often slip in and out from being solid to atrocious. Don Cheadle is particular has a scene in which he is supposed to cry, but it physically made me ill to watch him try. Gary Sinise is hard to judge since he is so television nowadays. All I see is the guy from CSI: NY, but even then, his performance is so underwhelming, it hurts.

This bad dialogue is so bad, it makes the rest of the proceedings feel incredibly nonsensical and causes them to fall flat. Now, this is also due to the bad storytelling. I like the plot, but it feels as if the film was chopped up in the editing room or just suffered from horrific editing. Either way. As it stands, Mission to Mars practically skimmed through the story and then looked at you at the end of the film and screamed, "CRY AND FEEL AWE". Sadly, it does not work. The ending is so hokey and so half-baked, it ruins any good will the film had stored up from the very beginning. De Palma's attempt at being an explanatory journey of self-discovery feels like an idea that a stoner come up with while, well, baked.

The final sin committed by Brian De Palma's failed Mission to Mars is the pacing. The pacing is dreadful. Towards the end of the movie, I looked at the progress bar and discovered I was merely an hour in. The pacing is simply that bad. This film feels like it ate up my whole evening, yet it took just under two hours.

Mission to Mars is a film that if it were caught up in a tornado and left to die on Mars, nobody should make an attempt to rescue it. Though it has a truly terrific premise, the film is undone by being a highlight reel of better science fiction films, except if those films had no idea how to tell a story, write dialogue, edit a film, or create any emotion, awe, or wonder. As it stands, Mission to Mars is pretty, but simply does not work on really any level.… Expand

1 of 6 users found this helpful15

SEE ALL 14 REVIEWS

59	#59 Most Discussed Movie of 2000
39	#39 Most Shared Movie of 2000