Red Planet (2000)
3/10
Inaccurate annoying science, combined with predictable plot
28 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The movie has a predictable plot and ticks off all the clichés in the book. However, I want to commit on the "scientific accuracy" for a bit.

A reviewer of The Martian recommended this movie to me, because of its scientific accuracy.

The following is a small list of the accurate points: Rotating parts on the spaceship for artificial gravity // The landing probe // The space suits // The delay for communicating with Earth

The following are the cringe-worthy elements I still remember: Solar storm they had no shielding for whatsoever ? A solar storm like that would have fried _all_ of earth's satellites (Earth is closer, energy dissipation is cubic) // No satellites in orbit around Mars, so they could see what was going on? // All of our electronics are fried, let's launch NOW! (our orbit takes about 8h, so launching 2h in advance would land them about 90* or 5000 km off course) // The "reverse the rock formations from the HAB" trick // The walkie talkie they made from the mini-Rover (real rover is bigger, and where the hell did they get the soldering iron??) // AMEE gone rogue because of an EMP storm (??) // The launch from the Russian probe would have killed the guy (G-forces) // Their orbits at the end match perfectly, both in location (0.3km apart) and speed (perfect match)

And finally, the interface on the Russian probe takes the cake.

Long story short: bad science, horrible plot, but a decent delivery from the actors and nice special effects.
16 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed