GamerTab That was an excellent one.

Spidersecu Don't Believe the Hype

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Edwin The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

nhboehm-789-645688 Initially I was extremely put off by the fiction portion, because it was so extremely unrealistic and unbelievable. Especially since they put it side by side with real actual facts.90% of those supposed astronauts would not have made it past day one of selection.But the the later portions changed it up a bit, and made it somewhat more realistic.I am extremely curious how a second season (if it happens) turns out.

honest_reviews17 This documentary is basically SpaceX propaganda in a dramatized form. Their over-use of the word "humankind" rather than "mankind" feels like PC talk being shoved down your throat.

jaredpahl My expectations were sky high for Mars, a national geographic mini-series produced by Ron Howard that promised to be the definitive word on Man's first mission to the Red Planet. The subject has fascinated me since I was a kid, watching the Spirit and Opportunity rovers land on the surface of Mars in 2004. As someone interested in the material, I saw this new Mars documentary as an opportunity to catch up on the most current thoughts about a manned mission to Mars. However, this National Geographic mini-series squanders the opportunity, providing precious little in the way of concrete information about a mission to Mars, and providing far too much in the way of ponderous melodrama.The series is split between a documentary-style exploration of the newest technologies and theories regarding a Mars mission, and a fictional story of what a Mars mission might look like (Titles cards "2016" and "2033" note the changes). In the right hands, this structure might work, but even with a big name like Ron Howard attached, Mars is a thorough failure in both ways.To begin with, it should be noted that while the series is split between two stories, the attention given is not 50/50. The 2033 story takes up about 75% of the series, and that is a two-folded problem. One, the 2033 story is totally uninteresting, and two, it limits what the 2016 story can tell. The result is a documentary that has nothing to teach. The entire 2016 portion of the series is made up of nebulous pontificating about the importance of a manned mission to Mars. We get a non-stop barrage of lines like, "We look to the stars" "It is our destiny as human beings", "A paradigm shift for humanity", and so on, without a single word about the science or engineering challenges of such a mission. Even the scenes such as the SpaceX launch or the spotlight on astronaut Mark Kelly, where the series should be able to provide some facts, Mars uses as an opportunity for more pretentious melodrama. I want to know how a SpaceX rocket would land on Mars, I don't care about what Elon Musk felt like when he launched a prototype. I want to know what an astronaut would do during a flight to Mars, I don't care what his daughter thinks about him while he's up there.Nowhere is the melodrama more apparent than in the fictional 2033 section of the series. It is apparent from the first 10 minutes of the first episode, that Mars' fictional section has no interest in realism. The "diverse" cast is made up of walking cartoons (How many tough foreign women and Africans are we sending to Mars?), and they apparently spend the entirety of their trip in cartoon action scenes. The way this series handles deaths on Mars is somehow both outlandishly juvenile and stupefyingly pretentious (The scene where the plant guy goes crazy and kills a bunch of people is one of the stupidest things I'll ever see). What makes matters worse is the look of the 2033 sections. Mars has never looked uglier. Barren as it is, the real Mars has a kind of untouched beauty. With director Everardo Gout, Mars has the oppressive gray sheen of the worst that digital videography has to offer. Even with a noticeably expensive production, Mars is a horrible visual experience where it should be great.National Geographic's Mars is a monumental disappointment for me. I was ready for a big-budget update on the continuing struggle to put a man on Mars. Unfortunately, this series is all melodrama. Mars is not interested in educating anyone about the Red Planet or how we might get there. What we get is a self-important mess, a lecture about nothing, a terrible documentary and an embarrassing drama. If you are looking for a series with actual information about a manned mission to Mars as well as a fictionalized account of such a mission, check out Mars Rising and Race To Mars. Neither are perfect, but they are a world more substantial than this National Geographic series.23/100

JRmf Part dramatic miniseries, part historical documentary, this is not for everyone. As a confirmed science nut I found it enlightening but flawed. It will be good for humanity to settle Mars, but it may just come down to money, as usual, rather than just as a backup against extinction or to push the bounds of human experience, as the documentary parts emphasized. The series placed a good deal of emphasis on the political background and backing to the mission, and often seemed on shaky ground with its backers.The comparison with Antarctic research bases, which exist for pure science, is well made, however. Mars might ultimately be a base from which the asteroid belt could be mined. Unless humanity has a change of heart and becomes truly altruistic a la Star Trek :) CGI does not a good miniseries make but clearly the budget was a bit thin. I would have loved to see from the ground, Daedalus or one of the other ships land on Mars (from the ground, looking up), rather than just views of rocket exhaust (presuming it was even possible - see following). To see Olympus Town dome from the inside and the outside, looking up, would have been a great sight, but all one saw was tiny distant, model-like views.While they had drones, could they not have had some sort of flying vehicles? Zubrin's Mars Direct showed how fuel could be made from simple raw materials (for powering flying vehicles, for example), but there was no mention of this in the series. All power was from solar panels or nuclear fission.Some technical flaws: * Why do the EVA suits not have a large backpack (rather than the tiny "bump") supplying oxygen and environmental control? The reason seems clearly to be it would not look very cool if they did.* Daedalus weighs about 40 tons, might not it have been safer to leave it in orbit and use a series of shuttles to transfer to the ground? Not to mention if landing a rocket that size rear-vertically would be even feasible. I know the ship was supposed to be their home for two years while they located a suitable lava tube, but maybe other arrangements for radiation protection could have been made.* When Richardson opens the "airlock" door and evacuates and destroys a large part of the base, why does the door open directly to the outside? Why is it not a true airlock with two doors straddling a small room which can be pressure equilibrated with whichever way someone is going, and where at least one door is always be locked?* Mars atmosphere is thin, about the same as Earth's at 35 km, so drones would need very large blades or rotate extremely fast in order to fly, but the drones in the series seems like terrestrial onesAt times, the pace dragged and things became somewhat introspective, I felt. The point about billion dollar missions hanging on people's psychological stability is well made however. The crises which arose at regular intervals to pique viewer interest seemed somewhat predictable and contrived. Of course the 215 m cable lowering the explorer into the lava tube almost bottoms out with just a few meters to spare. When Robert is seeking the cable to repair it, the rover can't advance because of the (what looks like flat) terrain, so he must unclip his tether and potentially get lost in the dust storm. I have already commented at length on the "airlock".Anyway for all that it is certainly worth seeing and one I will be adding to my collection. 7/10.