WARNING: The following review contains plot spoilers.
Dud Planet
Red Planet is freshman director Antony Hoffman's
entry into the most recent spate of films that have
turned our attentions to the cosmos. The film's major
disappointment is that it lacks any sense of urgency.
Its formulaic premise a small, intrepid crew is
mankind's last, best hope to save its own collective
ass comes to maddening end. Of course, Hoffman
isn't helped any by Chuck Pfarrer's glacially paced
script (his previous work includes such gems as Barb Wire and Hard Target): while self-indulgent in
pondering the interconnected minutiae of philosophy,
science, and faith, the screenplay is nevertheless
entirely solipsistic. On the (relatively) bright side,
no one does the solipsist better than Val Kilmer (see:
Top Gun and The Doors), and the film offers a few
moments of pleasure or frustration, depending on
how you feel about Val derived from his trademark
narcissism.
Alas, even though Kilmer's Robby Gallagher might be
able to save mankind, Val himself can't save Red Planet. Robby's dilemma is this: by 2050,
spoiled-rotten humans have so depleted the earth's
ozone and so poisoned its environment that soon it
will be unable to support life. And so, the United
States and NASA (and of course, it's always the
Americans who must save the planet) are trying to
"terraform" Mars, to make it suitable for human
habitation by introducing various algae that will
produce oxygen aplenty. But, following some initial
success, suddenly the algae have disappeared and
oxygen levels have dropped off the scales. Such a
predicament.
In order to solve this mystery, NASA dispatches a
rag-tag team of astronauts and scientists, led by
Commander Kate Bowman (The Matrix's Carrie-Anne
Moss), a no-nonsense type who seems to have a fire in
her, um, heart for both Ted Santen (Benjamin Bratt),
her brass-balls, macho military second-in-command, and
Robby Gallagher, the ship's engineer. Inexplicably,
also along for the ride are civilian Chip Pettengill
(Simon Baker) whose central function appears to be
to whine about how unlucky he is to be stuck on this
adventure (was there some sort of national lottery?)
and two scientists, Dr. Quinn Burchenal (Tom
Sizemore) and Dr. Bud Chantilas (Terence Stamp). Dr.
Bud? Tom Sizemore as a doctor by any name? We are
never told precisely what kinds of scientists these
men are, although Burchenal might be some sort of
evolutionary biologist, as he repeatedly brings us
back to the story's central mystery, the case of the
missing algae. What they represent are the opposite
poles of science and faith. Burchenal scoffs at
questions of belief and the spiritual life, avowing he
will only "trust [his] PhDs" to explain the "truth" of
life and existence. Chantilas, on the other hand, has
long since decided that science can't answer the
"really interesting" questions and has been "searching
for God ever since." So what is he doing on this outer
space mission? Mostly, waxing poetic on "the mysteries
of life."
Existential questions of science versus faith are
peppered throughout Red Planet, and are its most
underdeveloped and inconsistent element. Really, there
are holes in this plotline that you could fly a space
shuttle through. On a planet that has no oxygen and no
water, how is it that the astronauts must brave an ice
storm once they reach the surface? Or, how was NASA
producing the water necessary for the algae's survival
in the first place? And since it appears Mars is
definitively not uninhabited, what are those
voracious little beastly bugs living off the algae,
and where did they come from? Did God create them in
order to maintain the newly formed Martian lawn? Or
did they burst forth through spontaneous generation,
such that Martian nature produced them to control its
creeping algae problem? Finally, how could these bugs
possibly be the answer to all of earth's problems, as
Dr. Burchenal declares at some point? Sure, they
appear to produce copious amounts of oxygen and so
might replenish earth's atmosphere, but they are
voracious plant eaters, so wouldn't they decimate what
little is left of the earth's green environment? So
many questions, so little coherence.
Some of these questions have to do with Red Planet's
only charismatic, vaguely interesting characters:
there are two. First is "Lucille," the space ship's
central computer, who speaks in that digitized
telephone operator's voice that is de rigeur for
computers in movies. Second is AMEE, the robot
assigned to scout out the Martian terrain upon their
arrival. The special effects that produce AMEE are
pretty cool, and the film spends plenty of time
demonstrating its technical wizardry via this robot.
But as soon as we meet AMEE and learn she has two
modes, "scientific" and "military," we if not the
crew know she will be nothing but trouble. And she
is. After the crew's crash landing on Mars, her wiring
is frazzled, so she is stuck in "military" mode,
essentially reduced to a "search and destroy" mission,
during which she picks off the crew members one by one
to ensure her own survival (shades of HAL in Kubrick's
2001: A Space Odyssey).
This man-against-machine subplot is one place the film
could have furthered its own commentary on scientific
hubris, because science doesn't serve to make human
life any better or easier, but destroys it. But Red Planet can't even see that far, and offers AMEE only
as a red herring to keep us off the trail of the
"real" mystery of Mars, even though the film makes the
answer to that riddle repeatedly plain to see. In the
end, if "humanity" is as stupid as Red Planet
presumes (could the filmmakers possibly believe
audiences wouldn't pick up on the boring cliches and
narrative inconsistencies?) and demonstrates in its
hapless crew, then perhaps it's not worth saving after
all.