Mission Mars

If it weren't for the music (such as the "No More Tears" song - which has NOTHING to do with what happens!), you would swear this movie was made in the 1950s, with the dated clothing, attitudes, clunky props and special effects (with a spaceship that looks like a Campbell's soup can!) But the biggest problem is that movie is just boring. How boring is it? Well, it takes HALF the movie before they finally land on Mars! There is occasionally an interesting visual, though you'll most likely be asleep before you get to see even half of them.

Greetings And Salutations, and welcome to my review of Mission Mars; here's the breakdown of my ratings:

Story: 1.25 Direction: 1.00 Pace: 0.75 Acting: 1.25 Enjoyment: 1.25

TOTAL: 5.50 out of 10.00

Mission Mars is your atypical B-Movie on a budget: And a severe one at that. There is much to dislike, especially if you're looking for flawlessness. But should you be like me and a tad more forgiving and understanding, then some of the film's downfalls may find a warm place in your heart and memory. For me, it was the rocket ships. I'll get into that in more detail later.

The plot is your basic race-to-the-stars storyline. Man still had yet to land on the moon when this picture came out. But here, we find the race between the Russian Cosmonauts and the American Astronauts is to get from the Earth and to Mars first. What usually drives a story such as this is characterisation. Since we are to spend a lot of time with these space explorers, it's the ideal way to get to know them. And once we relate to them and their situations, when the action and mysterious events begin, we find ourselves in their corner and cheering them on. And the screenwriter Michael St Clair does an admirable job of this. We get to know the crew, Col. Blaiswick - an easy leader of men - a thoughtful problem solver, Nick Grant - a geologist who is unafraid to put himself above the mission and his colleagues, and Doug Duncan - Second in command and as logical and practical as his commander. Luckily, these three have a good relationship, which makes the long journey to the red planet an easy star trek. Their conversations are credible and believable. Most hold a hint of humour and warmheartedness, which propels a positive feeling toward the audience. In this day and age of bleakness, it was nice to feel upbeat watching a movie, and it's the main reason I'm reviewing older films - they're not as dire as today's box office. Sadly, due to the low budget and monetary hindrances in filmmaking, it would have been advisable to make the story as strong as possible. Had St. Clair carried his individual characteristics into the unknown and possibly deadly alien orb, it would have added more power to the Sci-Fi tale. Sadly he doesn't, and the story begins to falter when it should become intriguing.

It doesn't help that the special effects are shoddy due to the lack of budget. As I said above, the spaceships are fantastic, but for the wrong reasons. As a kid, I watched Blue Peter, and I remember a section where they put together a couple of Space Rockets. These were cobbled together from washing-up bottles and the ubiquitous sticky-backed plastic. And the ships in Mission Mars look precisely like Blue Peter's creations. So I had a tinge of nostalgia every time I saw them. But better yet, was the Mars landing vehicle, which appeared to be a Campbell's soup can - enter remembrances of Andy Warhol. However, I cannot reminisce about the alien orb. The first time I saw it, it didn't look too awful. I even liked the abstract shape of the orb's security monitor - at least the special effects team was getting inventive. However, later in the movie, when we watch Grant walk into the sphere, it's less impressive - The special effects crew swapped the crystalline orb for a fluffy white ball with a painted black oval, representing an open doorway. And worse comes when Grant reaches the alien object, for we realise the sphere isn't as large and ominous as previously thought. No! It's not much taller than Grant as he needs to duck down to enter. And let's not get started on our astronaut's spaceship's controls or fittings. Nevertheless, even with the poor special effects, the director, Nicholas Webster, does the best with what he's given. His strongest scenes are the ones containing the performers. He knows how to frame them for the best results and appears to know how to get the most from them.

The cast is the best thing about this movie. Darren McGavin, who went on to portray Kolchak, gives a strong performance as Col. Blaiswick. He adds power, drive, and conviction to the role. And the rest of the cast is just as believable and credible in their performances.

I wouldn't highly recommend Mission Mars to anyone. At best, it's a Lazy Sunday Afternoon flick - a movie you can doze off while watching and not regret missing anything. And if you stay awake, you should enjoy it enough to realise it was worth your while. But it is only for the Sci-Fi fans that like and prefer Ye Olde Space Travel Movies. And should anyone out there remember the Blue Peter washing up bottle spaceships, give Mission Mars a look-see and let the nostalgia wash over you.

Now, fire up those boosters, and let's get off this damned red planet because you have to check out my The Final Frontier list to see where I ranked Mission Mars.

Take Care & Stay Well.

The year: 1968. The movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" sets new technological and intellectual standards in the SF genre. Likewise 1968: The movie "Mission Mars" sets new standards of daftness and technological incompetence in the SF genre. The unsuitable, excruciating title song "No More Tears", sung by Sturg Pardalis (sic!) and played by "The Forum Quorum", already makes you fear the worst. The film introduces us then to the personal and family problems of three astronauts who are chosen to fly to Mars. After this long (very long) intro and lots of Nasa stock footage the movie really gets nonsensical. The "spaceship" is nothing more than a slightly altered tin-can, the helmets of the space suits are open beneath the chin, and the scenes on "Mars" were shot on a very small sound stage without the illusion of a horizon. While Darren McGavin carries this whole nonsense with remarkable seriousness, Nick Adams seems not to be very happy with his part in this trash. "Mission Mars" is a low budget movie better suited for the 50s, but without the charm of most of the SF movies of this period. It's theatrical, third-rate and was already very dated when it was produced.

I was there. Here's the true story about the open space helmets on Mars. When Darren McGavin first donned his helmet, it was a bad fit and mashed his nose, his most prominent facial feature. He angrily ripped it off, threw it against the sound stage wall (it shattered), and stomped off the Mars set, vowing not to return until the problem was rectified. With time being money and money scarce on this ultra low budget film, the films designer -- possibly hung over -- rushed out and bought and painted some motorcycle helmets. I, as a gopher and the only person on the crew who could type, was ordered to quickly write a few lines of dialogue indicating that the mission crew back on earth had just discovered that there was sufficient oxygen in the Mars atmosphere to permit simplified helmets that only needed to augment the oxygen supply. (That information was revealed in a brief en route scene on the space ship....which may have been edited out...not sure.)(As another reviewer has noted, I discovered through quick research, that this was considered a possibility.) Thus, Darren was back on the set later the same day. There's also the story of the dump truck which, when backing into the set with a load of "Martian sand," fell through a temporarily constructed plywood covering into a giant pit in the center of the sound stage. It took a day to get it pulled up out of the pit. Why, you ask, was Mars being recreated indoors? Because the day before a local Florida mini-tornado roared through destroying the outdoor Martian landscape it had taken days to construct. Let's face it....it was probably a mistake to film a sci-fi special effects film anywhere in the USA outside of Hollywood. - Lance Webster (the director's son, the 24 and just out of college. Now 68.)

Like other reviewers on this page, I have a special place in my heart for this cheesy movie. I just re-watched the DVD, and I have to agree that it's best to just skip forward to the post-launch space adventures, and get on with it.

What I like best is the weird design of the Polarite. Yes, the effect itself is low-tech, but the basic design is really cool... it's like a Wally Wood creation right off the pages of a 1950's EC comic such as Weird Science.

The most frustrating element for me was the constant distraction of the hokey, form-fitting "long john" space suits worn by the astronauts, when they are out and about on the Martian surface. Do we really need to see the bulge of their private parts, along with the tell-tale outlines of their jockey underwear? Good grief...