The Bombs: Red Planet (2000)
I've been planning to write some reviews for Listology for some time. I'd always assumed my first review would be of a movie I like. But I just saw a really truly awful movie, so my first review will be a pan instead. Oh well, savaging a movie is more fun anyway . . .
Even with low expectations Red Planet was awful. But not even awful in a manner that invites MST3K-style commentary or makes you laugh along with its cheesiness. It had no redeeming qualities except that the robot was kinda neat. Having seen it on DVD, I found myself wishing I'd watched the French language track instead, as it would have at least been enjoyable to try to figure out what was going on from images only. And I would have been spared understanding the painfully bad philosphising. The final advantage of watching it in a langauage I don't speak would have been that I could have made up stuff to cover the huge logical holes. How's this for a litany of despair:
>>> The robot runs amok - it has our three surviving heroes at its mercy. Here is it, this finely-tuned armored killing machine vs. these three unarmed bags of blood. What does it do? It wounds one of them and runs off. Our explanation - "it's taking a page out of the guerilla handbook - wound one so they others have to care for him. It will pick us off one by one." Now I've never been in the military, but I'm betting the previous page of said handbook notes, "if you can easily wipe out the entire enemy force, go for it!"
>>> Our heroes are stranded on Mars with no air, water, or shelter. Let's take these one-by-one:
Air: There's really air. It turns out these nematodes (bugs) have been eating the algae we've been shipping to Mars as a terraforming effort and making oxygen. It is unclear if the bugs are Martian in origin or if they somehow mutated with the genetically altered algae. I think the implication is that they are Martian. So what did they eat before we shipped up the algae?
Water: Our heroes have no water. But over the course of their at least 2-day stay on Mars they have long conversations, some fights, and walk more than 100 kilometers. To add insult to injury, we're treated to a widescreen shot of the three of them taking a lengthy piss and marvelling at what a "high arc" can be achieved in low gravity.
Shelter: Never really an issue. Our heros burn their decimated shelter one night for heat, and spend another few hours in a cave during a ice storm (a scene that exists solely so Kilmer can tell the other two that there's only room for two in the escape pod they are trudging toward). All in all, the lack of shelter was a minor inconvenience at best.
>>> Terrible characters. Not even cardboard cutouts (I'm not sure which way to take the cardboard metaphor here . . . I could either say that they were something less that cardboard (tissue paper, perhaps?) or that cardboard doesn't adequately evoke the stiffness of some of the performances). Everybody, with the possible exception of Val Kilmer, seemed to be reading their lines off cue cards. I have to believe Terence Stamp was blackmailed into taking this role.
>>> The only chance to get off the planet by fixing and jump-starting an old Russian probe that failed to launch years ago. The interface to this probe? Point-and-click with cutesy icons. Why would an unmanned probe have a monitor on it?
>>> Why does there have to be a romance? Thank goodness for Alien. Not only is the romance here superfluous, but it's built on less-than-the-minimum groundwork.
In short, it was easily the worst science fiction movie I've seen since Johnny Mnemonic. And wouldn't you know it? Just after finishing a discussion in which I was looking for a perfect example of Roger Ebert's unreliablity, I find one.
Well that was cathartic. If not the worst movie I've ever seen, it's certainly the worst I can remember at the moment.
Jim, I think what I've said about Roger Ebert has been taken to literally. I don't agree with his reviews all the time. I am an individual with my own perceptions of what makes a film good or bad. I find Roger to be a good guideline to go by when determining how I should spend my money at the theatre or video store. He didnt like Usual Suspects, Brazil, Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas, Full Metal Jacket or The Professional. These are movies I admire highly. I'd rather hear what Ebert has to say about a film than Maltin anyday. By the way I've yet to see Red Planet, but the way you make it sound, I dont think I will anytime soon brother. Much love.
Oops. I never took you literally, and I'm sorry if it came across that way! You invoked Ebert in defense of Titus (when you said "best movie critic in the world" I did take that as hyperbole, but also took it to mean that you do like him), and I replied (more or less) that he's too hit-or-miss for me to regard his approval (independent of his particular points) as a credible point in defense of a movie (although I have been known myself to link to his reviews when I think he's making sense).
I hope I didn't give you the impression I was criticizing your judgement by linking back to our original discussion (note that I highlighted one of my own quotes, not one of yours :-). I just thought it was an interesting coincidence that I barely finished that conversation with you, and the next day I end up picking up the quitessential example of "rented some real dogs on his [Ebert's] endorsement."
For what it's worth, my favorite non-Listologist reviewer posts his stuff here. Unfortunately, he hasn't posted much new since 8/10/2000, and the stuff that has been posted since then isn't all written by him. Alas. So it goes.
Last thing . . . I hope you know I hold your opinion in high regard. That's why I linked to your review for Almost Famous rather than writing up my own. I thought you nailed it.
Jim, I didnt think you were ripping me. I just thought maybe my ebert comment maybe stirred up a little more controversy than it was worth. Thats cool though, we need a little pot stirring now and then, don't we?
Sure do! And hey, I didn't realize Ebert didn't like Brazil! The wretch. :-)
Jim, I just posted my Mini-Review of Red Planet with some of my lowlights of the project. Even though you don't consider it MST3K material I found myself doing exactly that (providing ongoing commentary) towards the end of the movie.
So my review wasn't worded strongly enough to scare you off entirely? :-)
Jim, I just new you didn't like it. Of course I had to see for myself. I'm that way about Sci-Fi films. I'll see any piece of dreck most of the time just to see the state of the art in computer effects. Bad sci-fi movies are many times proof of concept for me in the rendering of other much better stories.
Pathetic. Me too. :-)
I kinda liked Red Planet. Sure it was extremely dumb, pathetically predictable and basically devoid of any originality. But once you get past that, Red Planet's a real rip-snorter.
I can groove on bad SF in a heckling kind of way, but this one just didn't do it for me, even as an object of ridicule. It can be bad, but it can't be boring too, and this one left me yawning. Ah well, there's nothing more personally particular than guilty pleasures.
That is the truth, indeed. Actually I like boring sci-fi, the must appeal to my inner-sloth or something.
I really agree with your review, Jim. What disappointed me about the movie more than anything was that, despite some good actors, the film was so damn boring. And the robot waiting to kill them bothered me as well.
However, about it being the worst movie you've ever seen, I'd say just in the sci-fi genre, both Battlefield Earth and Godzilla are much, much worse...
Johnny Waco
Oh yes, I have seen MANY movies since I wrote this review (although thankfully Battlefield Earth is not one of them) so I'm sure it's been trumped. But re-reading my own review, it's hard to imagine by what.
So how much less of me would you think (is that even remotely grammatically acceptable?) if I told you I liked Godzilla? My tastes have changed quite a bit in the intervening seven years, but I still remember Jean Reno's Elvis impersonation fondly...
Well, considering I have a thing for Brando and his inspired lunacy in The Island of Dr. Moreau, I can't really mock you for your Godzilla enjoyment. However, I just remember how sterile Matthew Broderick seemed in the movie, even though he's usually such a charming actor, and also rolling my eyes when it's uncovered that, yes, Godzilla is female and has layed eggs. Can we continue the movie another thirty minutes?
Johnny Waco