Slashdot Mirror
"Red Planet": Stay Here
I can sum the movie up in one sentence: It's worse than both Mission to Mars and Waterworld.
Skip the wrong-headed science. Forget the problems with the dialogue. Let's just concentrate on the most simple thing you expect from a movie: a coherent story.
We start the movie off with a voiceover: The earth is dying, we've trashed it, and now we can't fix it. So, we it's decided that we'll start terraforming Mars, by bombarding it with genetically tailored algae, etc. The algae start to disappear, and we have to send people to Mars now to find out why the algae have disappeared.
It's a fairly standard plot, not a bad start at all -- but at no point do we get any idea of who the characters are. For the rest of this movie, we're kept in the dark: no character is explored in any detail, characters are inexplicably offended and say weird statements which have little or no rational value to them. No scene ever gets to the meat of who these people are, why anyone might be doing what they're doing, or even some clue as to the dynamics which connect them. It's nearly a half-hour into the movie before we even start to know what kind of person Val Kilmer's character is -- and he's the star of the show! By the end, it's hard to like, dislike or even much care about these characters. No sympathy, no tension, no nothing. It's banality at its extreme.
Even the discovery by one of the characters that he's dying from the stress of the emergency evac to Mars is anti-climatic. It's definitely not interesting. Certainly not scary, frightening, or even a tear jerker.
To get some emotion into this scene, I guess the director though he'd put in some scenes in flashback shown not more than 5 minutes ago -- except the flashbacks are longer than the original. In fact, the flashbacks are actually critical to the plot -- but this jerk of a director doesn't mention these scenes until just before they're needed. No sense of poignancy, no sense of grace, no building. The director just drops this "Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention ..." scene as the guy's doing something meant to be meaningful. Truthfully, it ruins what could be an interesting point about philosophy and science at this point, by practically shoving the moment in the viewer's face and telling him what he/she should get out of it.
At this point his fellow characters leave him to die. No problem, his injury might kill them. But those rotten jerks all say, "OK," and start walking. I mean, a moment of pause or at least a few seconds of "Well, we could do this," and then a few minutes to say goodbye to this guy they've been living with for six months would be nice. But no dice, it's hi-ho, hi-ho, it's off to save our own rears we go.
The rest of the movie has similar, stilted moments when the characters just don't act ... well, like humans. People start fighting without any reason, people go insane without any reason, characters fall in love without knowing one another (oh, yeah -- the director forgot something again. Another flashback to justify that scenario). People see other people die, and no one's even slightly moved by it.
Lots more happens -- but none of it makes sense. Every bit is just a strange mess of half-created emotions, special effects that, while cool, aren't very coherent, characters flat as cardboard, situations so artificial they are still wrapped in plastic, and a really, really wasted set of decent actors.
Now for the usual bad science rant. OK, I know the actual science of physics has only been around for around 50-75 years, but it's pretty well documented; and you can get an excellent primer from many, many books, and see it used properly in a story in many science fiction novels. Gravity, mass and velocity aren't magic -- so you can't make them suddenly appear, disappear, or become less or greater then they were originally. Same goes for the biology of humans, biology of algae, and how life could and might appear in the universe. Same with pyrotechnics, meteorology, ballistics (although they didn't try the "turn left when you get to the planet" maneuver that Mission To Mars did -- Small blessings!), electronics and telecommunications. Simplify, fine. But make major mistakes, center your plot on things that couldn't possibly work, and then it's just embarrassing and sloppy.
The usual dazzling special effects and panoramic vistas -- including a well-modeled animated robot -- at least give some visual pleasure to the whole thing, and the dialogue is at least not so stiff you could use it as shingles.
But overall, if you have to miss one movie this year, make it this one.
I gotta distinctly disagree. I went, worried that the whole movie would be "Robot kills all"..
:)
It wasnt that. Sure, it wasnt a character-driven movie, but hey, this isnt Dangerous Liaisons.
This was a great vehicle to show off Carrie-Ann's GORGEOUS body (SOooo close to seeing what we want), alot of action, and a GREAT set of special effects.
As to the 'sympathy' level of the astronauts, BULL. You are being spoonfed too many movie astronauts. They have a mission to accomplish, and are generally military men. They analyze the situation, and act.
This was a pretty good movie in my opinion. It sounds like you had unrealistic expectations for an action movie to be a drama.
When is the last good action movie with a SOLID plot and character development? T2? Even that had its problems..
Maybe the Matrix, but that is the hand of god, blessing the silver screen, and truly, one of a kind.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
You are aware that Mars Attacks was a comedy, right timothy? It was supposed to be sort of hokey and rely on cliches from other sci-fi movies. It really fit the Tim Burton mold - if you like his movies, you liked Mars Attacks. OK, I wouldn't have seen it in the theater (and didn't, in fact) but it was OK on video.
I have no such excuses for Battlefield Earth, but on the other hand I could tell it was lousy from the previews and didn't go see it 'cause I don't want to encourage L. Ron Hubbard :)
...ethereal, not-so-patiently waiting for the new Dune movie on Sci-Fi in December...
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
In fact, I think that if the old Star Wars movies were first released today, we'd trash them, too. Even worse, look at how far Star Trek has drifted from the real of reality. Babylon 5's attempts to maintain at least a little realism wouldn't make it through here, either.
Instead, we're so imbued with certain stereotypes that we even let The Phantom Menace's "midiclorians" - the "tiny organism that inhabit every cell in your body and channel the Force" - slip by with little complaint.
So here we are, trying to get people to try and accept a new operating system - even thought it isn't perfect - but meanwhile, we can't accept a few flaws in our movies. I'm not really trying to defend movies abusing the laws of physics, I'm just trying to point out some more of our trademark Slashdot hypocrisy that turns up every few weeks.
-- Imagine how much more advanced our technology would be if we had eight fingers per hand.
Unfortunately, real zero-g fire pretty much goes out right away as, in general, there is no draft to bring fresh reaction products in. The only unintentional fire in a spaceship was the one on Mir, a few years ago, discussed in Linenger's book -- what was burning there was an 'oxygen candle', which of course could supply its own oxygen to the flame.
Of course, the studio just wanted something that looked cool, so we made some assumptions that made reasonable scientific sense and still looked cool -- the fire was usually a surface the moved through the atmosphere, the idea being that the fire would oxidize the fuel as it went; but it didn't just sit in one place and burn.
For the (other) nerds out there, the animation was all done with my own Z animation system and rendered with Pixar's Renderman on our Linux render garden (5 machines doesn't count as a render farm.)
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Is the idea that the bacteria produced enough oxygen to envelope Mars entirely. OK - let's pretend that it is possible. Still these bunch of scientists approaching the planet to find the cause of the supposed oxygen depletion never bother to do basic simple spectroscopy to discover this, until they had to take off their helmets to breathe to discover it!
Whoever wrote the script had no idea about how science is done. Scientists are not technical workers who go to Mars to fix an oxygen problem like plumbers turning up in your home to fix a leaky pipe. They are curious people who will go to great lengths to VERIFY that Mars does indeed have no oxygen before embarking on such a trip. And you think they would do something so simple as to point a spectrometer or send probe to get close to it first!
The scriptwriter is an absolute moron.
Does anyone really expect much going into these movies? You know what? 9/10 people find "realistic" space action scenes boring. Just ask Johnny Sixpack what he thought about 2001.
You will never go broke underestimating the intelligence of your audience. Most people go to films like this for the same reason I'm about to spend all day watching football, for action and maybe if I'm lucky, some drama. Not a coherent story. Not for scientific accuracy. And they certainly don't want to think. "Who Wants To Be A Millionare" is popular for the same reason. Zero substance and questions that would make a 3rd grader feel smart.
end communication
I think you meant Mission to Mars. M2M was that other atrocious sci-fi movie that came out recently. Mars Attacks! was a clever comedy by Tim Burton which, although not universally liked, certainly doesn't deserve to be tossed in the "atrociously bad" movie heap.
Are you sure that that article was by Bertrand Russell, rather than Eugene Wigner? (I'd like to know. It didn't seem to have the clarity of expression typical of BR.)
In any event, the author of The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences doesn't seem to have gone to Philosophy of Science 101. He writes:
The argument could be of such abstract nature that it might not be possible to resolve the conflict, in favor of one or of the other theory, by an experiment. Such a situation would put a heavy strain on our faith in our theories and on our belief in the reality of the concepts which we form. It would give us a deep sense of frustration in our search for what I called "the ultimate truth."
Any half-decent introduction to Science would have told him that Science is not a search for "the ultimate truth" -- that dodo is in the realm of philosophy. Furthermore, scientists seek agreement between their models and the behaviour of reality only because that makes their theories useful as opposed to being merely mathematically interesting. The inability to distinguish between two theories is nothing to shed tears about, since scientists know that their models and reality herself are two different things entirely, so there might well be multiple equally effective theoretical representations. One can only approximate to how reality behaves with the models of Science, and they never pretend to represent The Truth. They'll always be subject to revision and replacement by tomorrow's improved versions, and you certainly couldn't throw away The Truth with such impunity if you had it in your hands.
The relationship between theory and reality is very carefully crafted coincidence, nothing more. And that's a very powerful observation, because it means that reality will continue to surprise us forever, so mankind's future is potentially unbounded.
In writing about the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics", the author was merely being mystical. It was a good read, but the sense of wonder doesn't really add anything useful to the discussion, even if he hadn't fallen into the trap of thinking of theory as (tentative) reality.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
- OK, I know the actual science of physics has only been around for around 50-75 years, but it's pretty well documented;
Wow, you're off by almost an order of magnitude on the age of the science of physics -- and that's if you ignore Plato and Aristotle's efforts.I know that the people who read /. are among the most sceptical people on Earth, and rightly, but if you let that get in the way of watching some cheap film you're just an idiot.
Imagine if the original Star Wars was released today. Lots of people here on /. would doubtless flame it because of it's pathetic interpretation of physics and it's architypal characters.
But so what? doesn't anybody remember what it was to be a child and take these things at face value, for 90 minutes at least? If you let your intellect get in the way of enjoying a simple, unpretentious film & you don't enjoy it then I have no sympathy, I'm afraid. Criticising these things is just oh-so-smart intellectual masturbation.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.
There is no
...and go support your local reperatory (sp?) theatre. If you don't have one, start one.
Up here in Canada, the Famous Players chain of big-box cinemas has become a member of an independent releases self-help group. So FP is willing (nay, eager!) to work with community groups to bring single-showing foreign and independent films to the theatre.
It's worth noting that over the past six months, the *only* screens that are jam-packed with viewers have been these indie films. The other week I was in the lineup for twenty minutes to get in -- and saw *not one person* walk in the door to see any other film.
My town has a population of about 40K. Another nearby town (~45m drive away) has a pop. ~20K. Both towns have a film society... so *your* hometown can have one, too, if you get off your duff and organize it!
Recent films:
"East is East" (UK) -- Very funny story of an East Indian immigrant who is trying to raise his family as Pakistani in England... in particular, in marrying off his sons traditionally. They want none of it! A touch dark, a touch funny, a touch painful.
"New Waterford Girl" (Cda) -- Hilarious. Poor Moonie Potter lives at the edge of the earth, somewhere on Cape Breton, in a cramped, bleak little Catholic community. She's a renegade artiste-type, unappreciated and misunderstood. Things turn around when a new neighbour -- refugees from the Bronx, hiding out from the law -- shows up at about the same time she gets a scholarship to an Fine Arts school -- a scholarship her parents won't let her take. Moonie and her new girlfriend hatch a plot to get her out of Cape Breton...
"The Colour of Paradise" (Iran) -- Poignant, tragic story of Mohammed, a blind eight-year old (the actor really is blind), his bitter, widowed father, and his loving grandmother and sisters. Fascinating look into a small Iranian town, and utterly heart-wrenching.
"Felicia's Journey" (UK) -- Bob Hoskins is a meek and mild child-killer. A psychological thriller, and the *only* film I've ever seen that has caused me to curl up in the theatre seat, hands to face and horrified. Hoskins is a brilliant actor. Felicia is an Irish lassy who comes to Britain to find her run-away boyfriend, and hitches a lift from Bob. He insinuates himself into her life, and it's not going to go well for her. Mortifying, absolutely mortifying.
Anyway, point is, every one of the Film Society films I've seen over the past two years has been an order of magnitude better than the shit that is being pumped out of Hollywood.
You owe it to yourself to at least search for or create alternatives.
www.vernonfilmsociety.bc.ca, if you want to poke 'round my local viewing. Do a search for "Princess Theatre Edmonton Alberta Whyte Avenue" or somesuch, and I'm sure you'll come up with a treasure trove of info ('cause Princess Theatre rocks the film world, IMO).
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
I mean, at least they tried. The zero-G fire was handled well, and aside from a number of misstatements and silly oversights, everything seemed like it had been done by someone who had passed high school, unlike the vast majority of Hollywood 'science' fiction movies.
What other movie can you think of where the director actually bothered to demonstrate a gravity differential by having the intrepid heroes take a piss? The director got his reaction mass principles basically right, and best of all, the characters actually seemed to think in scientific terms. Having the characters understand that the circumstances they find on Mars are wrong and need serious explaining, and showing them determined to find it out through investigative means is worth a hundred factual errors that might go over the heads of 95% of the American audience.
Nonetheless, a selection of my favorite misstatements and science goof-ups, forthwith:
As I said, though, that's a pretty small list compared to such rancid pieces of science-hating crap as Armaggeddon.
The character development was some what weak, but Carrie Ann Moss did a good job of showing us that she can be a bit more feminine than Trinity, and the shower scene was, as mentioned earlier, pretty much worth the price of admission.
The whole thing felt like a throwback to 1950's science fiction.. some nice morality plays in a setting where the characters have to use science and engineering to solve their problems, and feelings are sublimated under the stress of a high IQ. All of which dooms it to a lousy box office, but I liked it.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
But, but, but .... I already missed Battlefield Earth .... does this mean I have to go see it now? (shudder) .... you're evil ...
I can sum the movie up in one sentence: It's worse than both Mission to Mars and Waterworld.
:-)], but it's a rare film that doesn't have some good qualities and some very committed fans.
I can sum the review up in one sentence: it suffers from the usual problem with critics, subjective myopia. Belief in the universality of values seems to be mandatatory for film reviewers, presumably because otherwise it would admit the possibility that their critical judgements are irrelevant to anyone except themselves. Sigh.
The fact of the matter is, watching a movie is a different experience for different people, and no single value judgement applies. One man's charisma is another man's overacting, and one man's scientific accuracy is another man's lack of imagination.
And it gets even worse when the critic somehow manages to synthesize a number of failings into an overall recommendation to avoid the show at all costs. Among other things, that's scientifically inaccurate, because a movie is definitely more than the sum of its parts.
I liked Mission to Mars, Mars Attacks! and Waterworld, all for different reasons (haven't seen B.E. yet) which may or may not match the experience of others. The perfect movie doesn't exist [well, apart from possibly The Matrix
And hey, some people don't like The Matrix. Would we listen to them if their profession happened to be film critic?
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra