Entertaining but very silly old-fashioned sci-fi
Released in the year before the setting of Kubrick's incomparable
eponymous masterpiece "2001", this flick makes an interesting point of contrast. There is a similar attempt to create a sense of realism in space technology which even includes 2001 style rotating toroid centrifuges. A contribution to which being 2001 style inclusion of corporate logos ( e.g. Toshiba ). There is a referential "HAL moment" when the robot AMEE watches the crew discussing "her" destruction and decides not to cooperate. There are attempts at a spiritual profoundity in the "philosophising" of the character played by Terence Stamp ( who I invariably confuse with Jeremy Irons ). However, there is a fundamental polar opposition between the two movies. Kubrick declared that he wanted to make the "proverbial good science fiction movie". In other words, something fundamentally distinct from the regular "B"-movie efforts of the fifties and early sixties, such as "The Conquest of Space" or "Forbidden Planet". A work that would be thoroughly researched and designed from the facts up, rather than starting with an adventure scenario and then hanging picturesque design around it. In that ambition, Kubrick undoubtedly succeeded. there is nothing in "2001" that does not make scientific or technological sense. On the other hand, "Red Planet" represents the modern equivalent of exactly the kind of movie that Kubrick was seeking to render history. From the very beginning, as it sets out in the use of an intrusive narration which Kubrick specifically denounced as un-cinematic. A narration which outlines a completely ridiculous scenario: that the mission to Mars was part of a plan to find a new home for Earth's "12 billion" people. So, are they going to ferry 12 billion people to Mars? The use of an airbag lander, whilst topically derived from that seen on the Pathfinder Mars probe landed at the time of the movie is technically inconceivable for a manned vehicle. In fact, NASA has already abandoned the device, planning in the next round of missions to break the vehicle's descent and hover it at 10 metres altitude. By contrast, the landing in Red Planet is mind-bogglingly crude. Admittedly, this was portrayed as an emergency measure. But who designs an emergency measure that we know 80 years beforehand will not work? Then there is that emergency. An emergency, OK, in any plot that can be thrown in. But here we have in fact SEVEN unexpected emergencies all occurring in the space of a few minutes: The solar flare radiation burst, the fire resulting, the loss of orbital stability due to atmospheric venting, the fire in the descender requiring jettison of the undercarriage, the bad landing on the back up system, the fact that it's miles from target and that that base in itself has been unexpectedly shredded. On the other hand, we also have a string of ridiculously implausible strokes of good fortune. For a start, that the crew just happen to be within walking distance of an ancient radio. Then that they are ALSO within walking distance of a Russian vehicle. Then the weird fact that the ascender on the Russian vehicle had not been used. Even though it turns out to have been entirely usable! So we have three landing points within walking distance of each other on an entire planet. Added to which we must wonder why an unmanned sample vehicle would have aboard it an operating console with a VDU and Windows-like user-friendly operating system complete with decorative GIF's? Then we have the fundamental premise: that environmental calamity spells doom for humanity. Many thing's pose a hazard to our future. Many reasons exist to explore space. But atmospheric pollution and global warming are not one connecting to the other. On the other hand, the idea that the Terraforming of Mars could produce a breathable atmosphere in less than a few centuries of activity, Nematodes or no Nematodes, is daft beyond measure. And what about the atmospheric pressure? Where did all the extra atmosphere come from? These things aside, the movie is very nicely designed. The space suits are great. They remind me of the designs for "Zero X" in "Century 21" comic, circa 1967. The sound of conversations within the helmet is very atmospheric.Best of all is the robot, superbly threatening and vividly realised. I would expect that in the distant time that this movie is set this might be the only feature of it that doesn't appear ludicrously old-fashioned. Regard this movie as our present-day equivalent of an old sci-fi "B"-movie and just enjoy the fun. Otherwise, reflect on how little progress there has been in cinema since 1968 ( when 2001 was released ), if any. Above all, Red Planet is much better than the risible "Mission to Mars" that came out at about the same time.. 
What did they expect?
I thought it was a good film, though you can recognize every great sci-fi
film made before. A little bit too much subjects involved (crime, love, environmental pollution, action, science). But the only thing that puzzles me REALLY: Why the **** do they take a deadly military fighting robot up there? I almost expected Sojurner to rise as a mutant monster! BTW, this would not be the first time: "Star Trek - The Movie".... |
Trailers: |
