--- title: "Mission to Mars: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/mission-to-mars/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/mission-to-mars" critics_score: 38 critics_reviews: 16 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Mission to Mars (2000): what the critics said Critics' score 38 from 16 reviews: 2 positive, 4 mixed, 10 negative. Most critics find Mission to Mars a failure, and a cold one. The reviews are largely negative, and the few compliments cluster in one place: the look of the thing. The space walks, the long takes in zero gravity and the planetary sequences earn respect even from critics who dislike everything around them, and several concede that De Palma’s technical command is intact. Sinise draws the odd kind word for holding the emotional centre together. The complaints are about words rather than images. Critics fault clunky, expository dialogue, characters who barely register, a slow opening and a finale most find silly, with 2001 named repeatedly as the film it borrows from without matching. The spread is wide. Contemporary reviews are almost uniformly hostile; the dissent comes later, with Slant Magazine and Collider arguing years afterwards that this is an underrated, ambitious De Palma work whose calm and optimism were misread as dullness. ## Slant Magazine — Eric Henderson Fi1m's normalised score 70/100 (inferred from the text). 27 August 2006. The critic defends the film as an underrated De Palma work with formalist elegance and a bold take on evolution, praising its becalmed direction and poetic blood effects in zero gravity. It marks the start of the director's 'old man cinema' phase despite studio intentions for a more conventional space adventure. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/mission-to-mars/) ## Sight and Sound — Philip Strick Fi1m's normalised score 50/100 (inferred from the text). The review finds the film a visually pleasing display of space exploration and heroism that disguises its string of disasters and offstage storytelling. It singles out the grandeur of the space walks and planetary sequences for praise while noting De Palma's work here is largely on autopilot. [Read the review](http://old.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/review/446) ## Los Angeles Times — Kenneth Turan Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 10 March 2000. The review finds the film notably lifeless and cold, with clunky, unconvincing dialogue that overwhelms its beautifully composed visuals, resulting in a pro forma plotting that feels deadly despite the director's focus on technical challenges and luminous images. It highlights the gap between stunning space shots and what is said on screen. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2000-mar-10-ca-7234-story.html) ## RogerEbert.com — Roger Ebert Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 10 March 2000. The critic finds the film uneven, praising three sequences of real vision and wonder while criticizing the screenplay for long stretches of boilerplate dialogue, perfunctory characters, and illogical actions that drag the story down. It has intriguing ideas and a spirit reminiscent of 2001 but ultimately misses too many marks to recommend. [Read the review](https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/mission-to-mars-2000) ## The AV Club — Keith Phipps Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 10 March 2000. The critic finds the film dull and derivative despite strong effects and production design, criticizing underdeveloped characters, excessive exposition, and a kitschy finale that fails to deliver emotional impact. It borrows too heavily from classics like 2001 without matching their awe. [Read the review](https://www.avclub.com/mission-to-mars-1798192313) ## The Guardian — Peter Bradshaw Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 14 April 2000. The critic finds Brian De Palma's film a mish-mash of familiar sci-fi elements from Kubrick's 2001 and other movies, with an outrageously silly ending and an unbelievably slow first 20 minutes. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2000/apr/14/culture.reviews4) ## The New Yorker — Anthony Lane Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 13 March 2000. The critic calls the film technically competent but lacking coherent thought or wit, with dialogue that feels hasty and effects that sometimes misfire, ultimately depressing in its reminder of all that can go wrong in early-year blockbusters. It faults the tone and the director's diminished ambition in this anonymous picture. [Read the review](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2000/03/20/spaced-out) ## The New York Times — Elvis Mitchell Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 10 March 2000. The review describes the film as a New Age paperweight that is emotionally lost in the stars, with nondescript nice-guy characters and noble profiles that feel like commemorative coins. It notes De Palma's visual flair but faults the inability to mix tones effectively in this plea for understanding and brotherhood. [Read the review](https://www.nytimes.com/2000/03/10/movies/film-review-small-step-for-man-but-a-big-whoop-for-martians.html) ## Evening Standard Fi1m's normalised score 20/100 (inferred from the text). 10 April 2012. The review deems the film a derivative, sentimental mess that loots from better sci-fi. It begins with some promise in the barbecue scenes and early action but quickly stalls with effects-heavy sequences, philosophical twaddle, and unoriginal plotting. [Read the review](https://www.standard.co.uk/culture/film/mission-to-mars-7433834.html) ## Empire — Adam Smith Fi1m's normalised score 15/100 (inferred from the text). 1 January 2000. The critic calls it the worst film of the year so far. It starts promisingly like a fictionalised Apollo 13 but descends into hokey alien encounters, awful dialogue, and a weak plot that wastes its cast and De Palma's direction. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/mission-mars-review/) ## Total Film Fi1m's normalised score 15/100 (inferred from the text). 14 April 2000. The critic finds the film a corny, intrusive mess dominated by silly Morricone music and a collage of borrowed sci-fi tropes. It wastes a strong cast, NASA-backed realism, and De Palma's technical skills on half-baked popcorn that fails to deliver adventure or depth. [Read the review](https://www.gamesradar.com/mission-to-mars-review/) ## Collider — Liam Gaughan Fi1m's normalised score 80/100 (inferred from the text). 11 July 2025. The critic argues the film deserves reconsideration as an underrated, ambitious De Palma work that was ahead of its time. They single out its optimistic spirit, imaginative spectacle, and thoughtful blend of character drama with speculative ideas. [Read the review](https://collider.com/brian-de-palma-mission-to-mars-streaming-hulu/) ## Eye for Film — Angus Wolfe Murray Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 19 January 2001. The critic praises De Palma for respecting the heavens and allowing strong visual effects and long takes with a capable ensemble, treating the script intelligently in a Kubrickian manner. The ending ultimately fails to crack the mystery of the inexplicable, requiring faith that humans struggle to muster. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/mission-to-mars-film-review-by-angus-wolfe-murray) ## Polygon — Jesse Hassenger Fi1m's normalised score 55/100 (inferred from the text). 11 November 2025. The piece compares the two 2000 Mars films and notes De Palma's strong extended sequence with smooth camerawork, while criticizing the later collapse into implausible, woo-woo revelations about life's origins. It frames both as flops that highlight why Mars movies struggled afterward. [Read the review](https://www.polygon.com/red-planet-mission-to-mars-at-25/) ## Film Stories — A J Black Fi1m's normalised score 45/100 (inferred from the text). 7 April 2025. The critic finds the film an underwhelming, mournful and frequently corny experience that feels like an aberration for De Palma, more factory-line product than auteur work. Sinise's performance stands out as the strongest, selling the emotional core and the film's sense of wonder in its final stretch. [Read the review](https://filmstories.co.uk/features/mission-to-mars-revisiting-brian-de-palmas-sedate-space-odyssey) ## The Playlist Fi1m's normalised score 40/100 (inferred from the text). 28 August 2013. The piece describes the film as a disappointingly conventional space adventure that is too dopey to rank among De Palma's best, undone by studio compromise and bad decisions, though it notes fun gonzo moments and the director stretching under constraints. It calls the results middle-of-the-road De Palma at his most frustrating. [Read the review](https://theplaylist.net/retrospective-the-films-of-brian-de-palma-20130828/7/) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/mission-to-mars.md