Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Justina The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

galaxywest-16400 When you compare the "special effects" of Marooned versus 2001: A Space Odyssey -- well there is just no comparison, I think. They both won Academy Awards for special effects but only 2001 deserved it. And it deserved it BIGTIME. The special effects in Marooned, to me, were on a par with Plan Nine. Just my own opinion; laughable really. The movie NEEDED the special effects right to have any credibility at all and since it didn't, there was no credibility for me. The scenes that portrayed their long 5 month stay in the space lab were, too, laughable. There's a shot of James Franciscus with a silly grin on his face as he "rides" an exercise bike. Wow ... not. And the other 2 astronauts are shown nearly as ridiculously. Wow ... not, again. This is a film by "Ed Wood" in my opinion but obviously I'm in the minority on this one.

sddavis63 This was released in 1969. So, it was the era when voyages to the moon were just beginning, and it was long before the time of the International Space Station. So it was an era when there was interest in space flight and its future. "Marooned" surely did a good job of capturing public interest in its subject matter. And it captured a sense of the future, with its multi-month mission being a bit like ISS missions. So, in 1969, this probably was seen as a pretty dramatic film. Alas, it's now 2014. I wouldn't so much say that it feels dated. Rather, it feels unnecessary.The drama of the movie is the likelihood of the crew being lost when a malfunction makes it impossible for them to get home. The astronauts are played by James Franciscus, Gene Hackman and Richard Crenna. Their performances were fine - especially Hackman's, as his Buzz Lloyd starts to come unglued. Still, in some ways everything seemed a bit too professional, as for the most part everyone does their duty and makes the decisions that need to be made. That might be a very realistic portrayal of how the situation would be handled, but it didn't make for spellbinding viewing.Watching this in 2014 though, my biggest feeling was that I didn't need to watch it. I mean, if you want a movie about stranded astronauts, watch "Apollo 13" - which, in addition to being a superb movie has the advantage of being based on a true story. "Marooned" isn't bad. In 1969 it was probably very good. It just isn't necessary viewing when compared to what's available today. (6/10)

vincentlynch-moonoi I don't like "space" movies. Almost ever. But I liked this one. I was tempted to Google the film ahead of time, but resisted the temptation...and I'm glad I did. I didn't know where this was going. Would the marooned astronauts be saved? It seemed like they must. But would that be realistic. Maybe some would survive. But who? As the film progresses, those are the questions you will find yourself asking. Suffice it to say that I found the ending to be a reasonable balance between "realistic" and "feel good".Considering that we had landed on the moon only a few months before this was released, it was an interesting risk that the filmmakers took. And for its time, the special effects here were really quite good.But the real strength of the film here is the script and the acting.Was Gregory Peck ever anything less than brilliant. In a sense, this must have been a difficult film for him. He is mostly almost a "talking head" here, with most of his dialog being between him on land and an astronaut in space; not the typical back and forth dialog. And, in parts of the film he played the bearer of bad news...but he parlayed even that into a good, solid performance.Of the 3 astronauts, James Franciscus put in the best performance, followed by David Janssen, followed by Richard Crenna. Gene Hackman was not very impressive here, although admittedly he had a relatively thankless role. The 3 wives of the astronauts -- Lee Grant, Nancy Kovack, and Mariette Hartley are all but irrelevant to the story; they're there because they needed to be there...nothing more.A very good, solid film. If I were to criticize anything it would be that the film could have been edited more tightly and not have gone over 120 minutes (it is 134 minutes).

sheepdater As a frequent user of the IMDb, I rarely write reviews but I feel compelled to put my 2 cents in on this one. I'm a science fiction fan, so I have seen and appreciated some very obscure works, yet I never heard of this movie. There is a big reason why... it's not good, it's not a classic, and that's why it's forgotten. First, I have to ask... why do people who rate movies like this a perfect 10 think anybody reads their reviews? You are stating this is the most superb piece of filmmaking art you have ever seen. Seriously? All you have proved is that whatever you have to say is totally worthless. This movie is from 1969, so it's important to look at it in context. They threw together a few big stars & capitalized on the two biggest fads of the era: space & The Cold War. This could have been a classic if it were a 30 minute Twilight Zone episode. It's over 2 hour runtime borders on painful. It represents Hollywood appealing to the nation's lowest common denominator by combining a fad with star power and little else. Obviously they are masters of exploiting public stupidity since there are still people tasteless enough to keep raving about this flick 40+ years later.Considered historically, it provides indisputable proof that the moon landing was 100% real, because not even Hollywood could fake it. It's award winning special effects make you wonder how the actors were able to keep a straight face while doing their zero G "acrobatics". Winning the Oscar has to be the Academy's version of dark humor considering the winner in its category the previous year was 2001: A Space Odyssey. The only reason this movie should be mentioned in the same breath as Kubrick's masterpiece is to point out how it's the opposite of everything that makes 2001 a work of art. I respect the fact that many reviewers have a soft spot for this movie because they still look at it with child's eyes. I'm a little younger so my child nerd affection goes to movies like Space Camp. Yet even though I thought Space Camp was "wicked awesome" as a kid, I won't waste your time telling you it was a cinematic masterpiece. In fact Marooned can't even stand up to other Sci-fi disappointments with big potentials and poor execution, such as The Black Hole or Star Trek: The Motion Picture. Those two stinkers don't exactly set the bar very high either. Just like Marooned is no perfect 10, it's not the very worst movie in the world either. It's got big stars and its about the space race & that can go along way. Just not a 2 hours and 14 minutes long of a way. It's a bit sub par of average in the history of Hollywood. Watch it if you wish to relive a piece of your childhood or get a slice of what America was crazy about at the time. Just do NOT expect a grand story or an amazing cinematic experience & you won't be disappointed.