From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Mon Mar 20 2000 - 21:51:06 MST
On Monday, March 20, 2000 2:57 PM john grigg starman125@hotmail.com wrote:
> I recently saw, _Mission to Mars_ which was good but not great. I could
not
> help but compare the ending of it with the final scenes of _2001_ which
was
> infinitely better. I noticed how in some ways they attempted to copy
> Kubrick's masterpiece but were hopelessly inadequate in doing so. The way
> Kubrick shifted the pov and used lighting and set design was sheer genius
in
> showing Bowman's lifecycle.
I saw "Mission to Mars" the day after it opened. I went in expecting it to
be bad and hoping that it would be merely mediocre. That way, I'd feel
happy for it be better than my expectations. However, it was worse than my
expectations. A drippy sentimental _ predictable_ yet preposterous plot
combined with decent special effects, a bad story idea, and melodramatic
underacting (I didn't think that was possible). It's definitely the worst
science fiction film of 2000. (I'm shocked to find myself saying
"Supernova" and "Pitch Black" were better.:) And it was way overhyped!
And the truly sad thing about it -- well, aside from the fact that I can't
get my time spent watching it back:) -- is that there were some good ideas
in the film and that any film tackling this subject now can go so many
realistic ways.
Comparing it to "2001: A Space Odyssey" is like comparing Jewel's poems to
those of Blake.:) But even if the film were good, it would not be like
"2001" simply because Kubrick was going down a different path. (If you want
a film that's similar to "2001," see Takovsky's "Solaris.")
Daniel Ust
http://mars.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:27:33 MST