If anybody finds Brian De Palma, please report his whereabouts to the proper authorities. That is the inescapable conclusion after viewing his latest studio offering, "Mission to Mars." Because, if De Palma isn't missing then the question becomes: who the hell directed "The Untouchables?" In that film, he showed he could adapt his usual thriller methods to a stock studio genre piece to give filmgoers a summer movie with pizazz. Continuing the slide he started with first "Mission Impossible" and then "Snake Eyes," De Palma seems to be deteriorating each year since his champion Pauline Kael retired. Given the storyline of astronauts in peril on human's first foray to another planet, De Palma would have seemed the perfect choice to helm this throw back to 50's era space travel films that were more science fact than fiction.
It is in the sequences that show off the marvelous production design of Ed Verreaux that "Mission" is at its most realized. Using a mix of existing technology and stuff just around the techno corner, the sets will leave most audience members with a sense of "why haven't we gone to Mars yet?" Or, at least have a cooler looking international space station. There's a sequence involving an EVA - extra-vehicular activity for those who don't speak techno-weenie - that has gotten much pre-release press as a brilliant De Palma-signature set-piece (but is nowhere near the level of his "Untouchables"/"Battleship Potemkin" baby carriage sequence). What does make this part work is how well the design, acting and direction mesh together to give us a moment that holds the audience's attention without ever jarring it with false moments.
This one is followed by another that is almost its equal. Had the film benefited from a few more of these thriller plot constructions that De Palma can really sink his teeth into, "Mission" might have turned out a good or even great film. In this aspect, it seems to be following the already failed path of another film, "The Abyss." While many will point to the specifics of the design (there are only so many ways a spacecraft can look based on current technology and the physics of artificial gravity) and the events of the last reel as tip-offs that "2001: A Space Odyssey" is the inspiration, I found myself reminded of Cameron's inner-space epic. That film too had a great near-future technology setting that should have been sufficient to drive a thriller plot and was saddled with (for those who are too dumb to get it from the trailers, what follows is a SPOILER) an unconvincing aliens-are-real "surprise" in the last act. If the crowned prince of whiz-bang special effects driven action films Cameron couldn't pull it off, what made the roster of writers here and De Palma think they could? At least "Abyss" had characters you came to care about.
Which is "Mission to Mars"' weakest asset. There's a moment in "Abyss" that is one of the most poignant ever put on film and is a harbinger of what Cameron would be capable of in "Titanic." Ed Harris and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio are trapped in a crippled, flooding sub and only have one dive suit. She decides to drown herself and after dragging her body back to the main base, Harris can then resuscitate her. But, it doesn't work. I found myself literally blinking back tears as he slapped her and screamed, "Fight, you bitch, FIGHT!" There's an echo of this in "Mission" but since you see it coming a mile off, there's none of the same emotional impact. There's a weepy bit about Gary Sinise's dead wife, but it plays like the standard movie boiler-plate that it's supposed to be.
In fact, the movie seems like boiler-plate from the opening moment. In what is becoming a laughable trademark, just as he did in "Snake Eyes" De Palma opens the film with a continuous shot around a backyard barbecue that's meant to both announce "This IS a Brian De Palma" and "These are people you should care about." Yet, both play flat. The most lively cast member, Jerry O'Connell, isn't even there (for those who must, regardless of this warning, see "Mission" now in theaters, all of O'Connell's best lines are now in the tv spots). There was one shot, of four spacepersons in tandem as they jet to another craft with the Red Planet magnificently spread out below, that succeeds so well it shows how far off the rest of this film is from being good. Wait for video.
It is in the sequences that show off the marvelous production design of Ed Verreaux that "Mission" is at its most realized. Using a mix of existing technology and stuff just around the techno corner, the sets will leave most audience members with a sense of "why haven't we gone to Mars yet?" Or, at least have a cooler looking international space station. There's a sequence involving an EVA - extra-vehicular activity for those who don't speak techno-weenie - that has gotten much pre-release press as a brilliant De Palma-signature set-piece (but is nowhere near the level of his "Untouchables"/"Battleship Potemkin" baby carriage sequence). What does make this part work is how well the design, acting and direction mesh together to give us a moment that holds the audience's attention without ever jarring it with false moments.
This one is followed by another that is almost its equal. Had the film benefited from a few more of these thriller plot constructions that De Palma can really sink his teeth into, "Mission" might have turned out a good or even great film. In this aspect, it seems to be following the already failed path of another film, "The Abyss." While many will point to the specifics of the design (there are only so many ways a spacecraft can look based on current technology and the physics of artificial gravity) and the events of the last reel as tip-offs that "2001: A Space Odyssey" is the inspiration, I found myself reminded of Cameron's inner-space epic. That film too had a great near-future technology setting that should have been sufficient to drive a thriller plot and was saddled with (for those who are too dumb to get it from the trailers, what follows is a SPOILER) an unconvincing aliens-are-real "surprise" in the last act. If the crowned prince of whiz-bang special effects driven action films Cameron couldn't pull it off, what made the roster of writers here and De Palma think they could? At least "Abyss" had characters you came to care about.
Which is "Mission to Mars"' weakest asset. There's a moment in "Abyss" that is one of the most poignant ever put on film and is a harbinger of what Cameron would be capable of in "Titanic." Ed Harris and Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio are trapped in a crippled, flooding sub and only have one dive suit. She decides to drown herself and after dragging her body back to the main base, Harris can then resuscitate her. But, it doesn't work. I found myself literally blinking back tears as he slapped her and screamed, "Fight, you bitch, FIGHT!" There's an echo of this in "Mission" but since you see it coming a mile off, there's none of the same emotional impact. There's a weepy bit about Gary Sinise's dead wife, but it plays like the standard movie boiler-plate that it's supposed to be.
In fact, the movie seems like boiler-plate from the opening moment. In what is becoming a laughable trademark, just as he did in "Snake Eyes" De Palma opens the film with a continuous shot around a backyard barbecue that's meant to both announce "This IS a Brian De Palma" and "These are people you should care about." Yet, both play flat. The most lively cast member, Jerry O'Connell, isn't even there (for those who must, regardless of this warning, see "Mission" now in theaters, all of O'Connell's best lines are now in the tv spots). There was one shot, of four spacepersons in tandem as they jet to another craft with the Red Planet magnificently spread out below, that succeeds so well it shows how far off the rest of this film is from being good. Wait for video.