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?
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?