Whenever a high-profile blockbuster bombs, there’s always one or two reasons singled out above all else for why the project in question has crashed and burned so spectacularly. However, in the case of 2000’s infamous Red Planet, it’s more a case of choosing your favorite and simply running with it.
Handing a first-time feature director $80 million for their debut is always a decent place to start, with Antony Hoffman proving horrendously ill-equipped for such a large-scale production packed with both visual and practical effects, never mind one that shot largely on location to add authenticity to its depiction of Mars.
Then there’s the notable lack of star named among the cast, which segues nicely into another explanation for Red Planet‘s dismal 14 percent Rotten Tomatoes score. Val Kilmer and Tom Sizemore were both known to be volatile at the best of times, and putting them together on the same set for so long proved to be a recipe for unmitigated disaster.
Equally difficult on their own, combining them inevitably led to full-blown fistfights, and even reached a stage where neither would show up to shoot scenes if the other was in the vicinity, leading to the body doubles doing a lot more work than anticipated. Red Planet was also just one of the year’s Martian escapades, so John Carpenter’s Ghosts of Mars may have also played a part in its poor performance.
Most pertinently of all, though, the film sucked. Trashed by critics and shunned by audiences, it couldn’t even recoup half of its production costs and ended up losing a fortune for Warner Bros. Looking back, it was pretty much doomed from the start, but everyone has their own personal preference as to why.
Published: May 11, 2023 11:03 am