In the year 2020, the first manned mission to Mars leaves Earth. Not long after the crew arrives, they find a strange formation and investigate. What happens next isn't entirely clear to those left at Earth, but what is clear is that there is at most one of the four original crew left alive. A rescue mission is mounted to try to save the remaining crew member and to discover just what happened.
When I first saw previews of this film, it looked like a reworking of the ideas in "2001: A Space Odyssey". In many ways, that is true, and the director (Brian DePalma) pays homage to that film in small ways many times through his film. But to say it is simply a reworking of old ideas would be an injustice. This is a film of ideas, unlike most films released in the past few years. One common complaint I've read from other critics is that the pacing on the film is far too slow, and the slow pacing makes the film boring.
I disagree. It is true that "Mission to Mars" isn't paced like a "Lethal Weapon" film, but then, it shouldn't be. And while its pacing isn't quick, it is certainly paced much more quickly than "2001". I didn't find events moving too slowly at any point in the film. In fact, quite the opposite at times. On more than one occasion the film jumps forward months or even years in time with no explanation of what happened in the intervening months. (Some might argue that no explanation was needed, and I'd be forced to agree in principle. Still, I found more than one of the jumps in time disconcerting.)
It's interesting to note the kind of scenes DePalma elected to leave out of the film. For example, we don't see either crew landing on Mars. There is a short statement made at one point that leads us to believe that the landing of the second crew was far from easy, yet we see them only after landing as they are leaving the site. In fact, there are few (if any) action scenes that are not directly connected to the ideas that DePalma is exploring within the film.
The film only really falters in the last few minutes. I found the science more than a bit lacking and while interesting, the problem is that things simply don't work as described. I would have would the entire concept more believable had the script left out the vocal explanation and simply used the visual.
Worse, the writers didn't seem to know how to handle a final, emotional scene, and this final, emotional scene became maudlin in execution.
And while I'm talking about faults, I have to add one more. I don't generally mention the music in my reviews, but I actually found the music in this film to be occasionally annoying. Most of the time the score is no worse -- and no better -- than most of the films of the past few years. But occasionally -- and unfortunately these occasions are usually during emotional moments -- the score goes from okay to horrid.
Should you see this film? That depends. If you enjoyed "2001", then I'd guess you would enjoy "Mission to Mars". If you hated "2001", stay away. I wouldn't take younger children to see the film -- not because there's anything in particular I'd not want them to see, but simply because I believe it would be a difficult film for a younger child to understand. "Mission to Mars" has roots in the older science fiction films from the 1950s through the mid 1960s. I believe that people used to the quick cuts of the current generation of science-fiction and pseudo science-fiction TV and movies tend to favor won't like this film, I also believe there's still a lot there to like.
(I found this a particularly difficult film to review. You'll note that I speak little about the plot of the film. I chose to leave out most of the plot because there are very few points that couldn't be called spoilers. I went into "Mission to Mars" knowing almost nothing about the film, and was glad that I knew so little. I suggest those of you who do chose to see the film do the same.)