Skip to main content

We’re eating dinner on Mars.

Red Planet 

(SPOILERS) At the time, out of 2000’s pair of unloved, duelling Martian meanders, Red Planet found my greater favour, striving less for unreachable philosophical weight and focussing its attention more on the nuts and bolts of action/survival dramatics. Revisiting both successively, while there still isn’t a great deal between them – I don’t think either is remotely a disaster, but neither is much of what you’d call a great success either – it’s Mission to Mars that inches ahead, with ad man turned first time feature director Antony Hoffman unable to elevate the rather functional screenplay from Chuck Pfarrer (Navy SEALs, The Jackal, Virus) and Jonathan Lemkin (The Devil’s Advocate).

Like Mission to Mars, Red Planet plays the game of dulling you into treating NASA’s Mars gospel credulously, by virtue of the supporting science-fiction elements being so slapdash and mix-and-match. In markedly less creative fashion than De Palma’s movie, Red Planet opts for the Star Trek: The Motion Picture approach of plundering the official science narrative as a key reference point for its plotting. There, it was the Voyager probe. Here, it’s the 1997 Mars mission and rover (naturally, NASA’s “genuine” footage is a ringer for Red Planet’s, give or take a Jordan substituted for a Devon Island).

Part and parcel of this is underpinning the universe with standard tropes. So like Mission to Mars, things go wrong with the plan, reflecting that this is a flawed universe. Like Mission to Mars, there is life on Mars, albeit in the form of David Bellamy’s nematodes, rather than a super-advanced race. Engineering goes wrong. AIs go wrong (2001: A Space Odyssey).

There is explicit undermining of the value of science in its joust with philosophy (courtesy of Terence Stamp), and the best scientific minds have been brought to the surface to work out why the algae introduced to terraform Mars has begun disappearing. Although, only two of the crew seem sufficiently qualified for this task; Tom Sizemore as the highly unlikely geneticist Burchenal and Simon Baker’s terraforming specialist Pettengill. Stamp is science officer Chantilas, but he’s hardly cutting edge if the extent of his philosophical enquiry is anything to go by.

In other words, science is a bit useless. Nuts and bolts – tangible, practical problem solving –engineering “underdog” Gallagher (Kilmer) is the one we’re supposed to identify with. But as noted before, you can diminish science all you like, just as long as you don’t question the fact of the universal order – and with it, Mars – as the same science presents it. And, of course, you do not.

Bowman: By 2025, we knew we were in trouble, and began to desperately search for a new home.

In amongst the unquestionables is that we’re ruining the world. This isn’t a Mission to Mars riff (although, disasters do happen there), but humanity is explicitly attempting to transform Mars as a consequence of “Pollution, poison, overpopulation”. This seems to be remarkably easy, utilising algae for the purposes of terraforming (until oxygen levels began to drop). Such capacity for self-destruction (of the environment and ourselves) is, of course, one of the major SF tropes, remembered and regurgitated wholesale.

Hoffman has assembled a decent cast, but the elements are against him, and he also shows a tendency to get in the way of himself. Stamp is the old wise guy, set up as a mentor for Gallagher in about one scene, one scene that is then used as a flashback only – it seems like – fifteen minutes later. There’s similar clumsiness with Bowman (Carrie-Anne Moss) introducing the team via a voiceover and flashbacks to her flashing Val when she gets out of the shower; it’s inevitably revealed that she has a thing for the janitor, despite having inevitably expressed doubts about him (whereas her squeeze, Benjamin Bratt’s pilot, turns out to be a bit of a prat.

Val and Tom may have fallen out making the movie, but they muster a decent rapport. Generally, however, there’s very little to empathise with in these characters or make them even vaguely believable. Doubtless you could say the same about Ridders’ Alien prequels, but the playing here is too big for a “realistic” take and the characterisation too underserved for anything approaching The Andromeda Strain’s applied science (I’m not sure Baker does anything worthwhile, aside from pushing Bratt off a cliff).

Where Hoffman does earn a few points is in keeping Red Planet moving along. Bowman must repair the ship topside while those on the surface attempt to find a means back to her, also whilst encountering hostile indigenous life and hostile AI AMEE. The FX are noticeably less proficient than those of Mission to Mars, but they’re generally quite serviceable. But then, if you treat Red Planet as little more than a B-movie, they’re entirely in keeping. The whittle-them-down, planeteers-in-peril structure bears some similarities to genuine cult fave Pitch Black, released earlier the same year; perhaps, if it had been less slavish to “realism”, Val et al could have been menaced by a Predator on Mars. That would have been more fun.

No one came out of this smelling of roses. Stamp maybe, but not really. Moss was looking to consolidate her Matrix success but had to make do with Chocolat and Memento; she wouldn’t manage to etch herself out a significant big screen presence (and The Matrix Resurrections doesn’t count). Big success still awaited Baker (but on the small screen). Big(ger) trouble awaited Sizemore, who is to some degree cast against type here, but that doesn’t mean the decision works. Val, besides allegedly bragging he netted $10m for the movie, was pretty much over as a leading man from this point, and you’d only find him in supporting roles in big movies.

Hoffman retreated from whence he came and hasn’t made a feature since. On this evidence, it’s impossible to say whether he’d have established himself, but the way ad men tend to, I wouldn’t have rule it out. I wouldn’t be surprised if some injudicious editing were involved post-the-fact that he didn’t wholly get on board with, but Red Planet isn’t a picture anyone is rediscovering, less still writing making-of retrospectives on. I’ll say this for, it, I’d much rather sit through Red Planet any day of the week than insufferably can-do Matt Damon in The Martian. If only the nematodes had got him on Day One.

Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.