Lost on Mars movie review.

CAST OF LOST ON MARS  2002 : DAVID LONG, MEGAN GLOSSER, GRETCHEN MAXWELL, JULIA GOMMELL, KELLI WILSON, BRITTANY WISOVATY, JUSTIN HEMMING, AMBER DISTLER, ERIC SHOOK, MICHALE DWIGGINS, JOHN T. OERTLING AND BEVERLY RANKIN.

Ziggy's Video Realm: Kelli Wilson in Eric Shook's Lost On Mars (2002) Page 1 of ZIGGY'S VIDEO REALM REVIEWS REVIEWS FETURES: Starring: David Long Megan Glosser Gretchen Maxwell Kelli Wilson Brittany Wisovaty

LOST On Mars Director: Eric Shook Screenplay: Eric Shook Year Released: 2002 Genre: Science Fiction Independent Films Runtime: Approximately 87 mins.

http://www.reelcriticism.com/ziggyrealm/reviews/lostonmars.html 6 0UT OF 10 6 OUT OF 10

"I really I hope the engineers knew what they were doing when they designed this new nuclear spacecraft, because I just don't want to end up glowing like The Strip in Las Vegas." In Short One need only watch about a minute and a half of Lost On Mars to recognize it for the low-budget, independent (and I do mean independent - this is not a flick that Lion's Gate or some other such studio picked up at a film festival and cleaned up first; this is the raw product direct from the people who made it) film that it is. Mainstream or even many B-stream (the kind who purposely pick up titles from studios like Nu Image, for example) audiences may be tempted to shut the movie off right there, but for those who truly love movies for what they are and what they represent, I urge you not to do that. No, this doesn't have the polish that one would expect from even the smallest established studio. No, it doesn't even have an experienced cast, for the most part (and here I count even commercials as experience). But what Lost On Mars does have is heart - no, not the sappy kind, but rather the kind that translates into a true devotion to the project at hand by those involved - and the demonstration of a potential that deserves to be recognized and encouraged, and, hopefully, given a better budget next time. For anyone who appreciates a good early effort with the overall feel of a Roger Corman flick, Lost On Mars is certainly worth a look.

Synopsis The timetable for a manned mission to Mars has just been bumped up. It seems that there's evidence of a strange power source on the red planet. When the three-person crew arrives, they discover a bizarre structure, within which they find a remarkable artifact. Before they can return to Earth with their find, however, they get caught up in a powerful storm, and when they come to, they find themselves on a Martian surface quite unlike the one they just left, one covered with trees and a breathable atmosphere ... one which, according to the wrecked ship's chronometers, exists three billion years in the past. Now their only hope of survival is to return to the future from which they came, if they can ...

In Detail Once upon a time, the resources required to make a feature length film were prohibitively expensive, leaving the movie industry largely to professional outfits with at least some form of substantial backing. Sure, there were cheap, low rent studios out there, but the fact of the matter was that to get anywhere in movies, one pretty much had to go the studio route. This, however, is a thing of the past. With decent quality video cameras priced so low that literally anyone can afford them, consumer level home computers with built in video editing suites, internet marketing, and a strong surge in general interest for independent filmmaking, the means and the market are there for anyone at all with the will to do so to have a crack at getting into the movie industry.

Lost On Mars can be seen as a result of this modern, independence-friendly climate. Lost On Mars is somebody's dream put to video.

Anyone who knows this site well enough will recognize the following for the compliments they are. For Lost On Mars to have been truly effective to its fullest potential (which is not to say that it isn't already effective, mind you), one of two things would have been appropriate:

1) Instead of the clean, crisp color video image, put the movie on dirty, gritty, black and white film stock with contrast that's just a bit off, add a just a bit of scratching and popping, and then run it. Just like a 1950's drive in.

2) Make this a Roger Corman production.

Why? Because watching Lost On Mars, the overall look and feel of the film brings exactly those two things to mind: the classics of the 1950s like It! The Terror From Beyond Space and especially Queen Of Outer Space (though the latter was in quite garish color and not nearly as thoughtful, the period comparison still stands), and later science fiction productions by B move demigod Roger Corman. Some different film stock, a bigger budget, and maybe a cast change or two, and we're right there for either one. As a fan of both of the above mentioned subgenres, I can only look upon this as a positive thing that is in fact a credit to the film as it stands.

For certainly, as mentioned above, there are those who would instantly and without hesitation damn this picture solely for its budget, and that would be a criminal shame. It's easy to look at the obvious home video picture quality.(an interesting paradox, that is, to note that extreme crystal clarity and sharp picture quality are an indication of lower budget and lower end productions) and homespun sets (local backwoods, barren rooms, dark curtains used to create enclosed set spaces, etc.) and stop right there, but to do so is shortsighted and indeed goes against the very essence of what independent film is and what it represents, and serves as an acknowledgement that talent only comes with cash, a theory which is by its very nature preposterous. What one needs to do with a picture like Lost On Mars is to look beyond the budget and at the raw material behind it, judging the merits of the picture on those qualities and elements that lie beneath the surface of camcorders and curtain walls.

With this is mind, at least in its present state, Lost On Mars is not for a mainstream audience. However, for those with open minds who have an interest in talent at its most raw - and dare I specifically suggest, talent scouts for production companies - this flick is certainly worth a look. Ziggy's Video Realm: Kelli Wilson in Eric Shook's Lost On Mars (2002) 

The one factor that stands out most as soon as the viewer decides to look beyond the budget is the quality of the direction, which is very good, especially for an early effort. Unlike many inaugural or early-career independent films, Lost On Mars is not a study in static shots or simple panning and scanning, something that is apparent from the very beginning. Director Eric Shook (who also wrote the screenplay and has a major supporting role in the cast, among other background duties - and one can't help but note that his character is the one who gets not one but two different women in bed) makes good use of inserts and close ups where appropriate; enough to break scene monotony, bring attention to details, and prevent getting caught in "the static trap" (the close up of the spinning tire on the car in the beginning is a very nice touch), while at the same time never going overboard with the trick (as happens with the loudspeaker in the classic Mars Needs Women). He knows how to set up a shot and gets what he needs to from his cast and from the scene as a whole; the fact that he also wrote the screenplay only serves as an advantage to him, and that added bonus of being comfortable with the nature of his own work truly shows. As a director, overall, Shook does a very fine job indeed.

With regard to the script, while it is not without flaw, for its type and genre, it has its share of surprises, most of which are pleasant. Indeed, "as is", this meets or exceeds the standards of many recent Corman or Cormanesque productions, though how well this works for the audience will most likely depend on a particular viewer's set preferences. To some, this reviewer included, the major twist in plot taken by the script is a refreshing stroke of true creativity: the story the audience starts with is not the story they finish with (but - and this is the key - the way that this comes about allows the entire plot to come full circle in a manner that makes sense, making this one of the few screenplays that intelligently deals with the paradox of time travel), and in the process, certain taboos are broken to striking effect (taboos on the order of those broken by Hitchcock in Psycho). The premise, which is 50s sci fi / current Corman fare in its foundations, is handled very nicely, and overall, plays out very well. Again, this is not to say that the script is without flaw; while the dialogue may work well in general, some does need a bit of polish ("When will we get a visual picture back to Earth?" - uh, what other kind of picture is there?), and there are some scenes that as they stand play off as filler, and need a bit more "beef" to feel like a true part of the story (the entire "this is nasty" sequence in the prison cell, and the undeveloped subplot about the deaths of Fox's family), the fact of the matter is that this is a perfectly serviceable and indeed quite good screenplay for its genre. (One can even let pass the Celtic/medieval look of th advanced spacefaring empire that is supposed to have superior technology but neve outwardly displays it; this has been done often enough in genre films to be taken as acceptable.)

One other point that is mentioned here mainly because it is something that I usually do make note of: the screenplay and the natural progression of the visual narrative do present at least two opportunities for gratuitous nudity and/or sexual content - always a helpful distraction in this genre - and in fact, Shook the director uses trick cuts and the old "sheet up to the armpits" gag to bypass this. Were this an actual Roger Corman flick, points would be deducted for that ("that" being setting up such a situation and not delivering, which is a cruel tease); however, one has to recognize again the kind of production and budget that is truly being dealt with here, and quite frankly, no one can realistically expect nudity or sexual content on this kind of budget or from a non-professional (no degradation intended) cast, so, in the case of Lost On Mars, the film gets a "bye" on that score.

Speaking of the cast, it is made up by and large of non-professionals with minimal to no acting backgrounds (with the few exceptions being persons whose background is theatrical in nature and who are thus out of their element on film). Being honest, in many instances, this shows quite clearly; but again, to harp on this too much would be to damn the movie for its budget, and so I will not make comment on any displayed acting deficiencies amongst the cast. What is worth noting, however, are some very good performances from within this largely inexperienced cast, especially that of Kelli Wilson as Giza. Wilson makes for an effective femme fatale villainess of the conniving variety, and carries off her character quite well. There's far more to her performance than just reading lines; she also acts behind her eyes and beneath the expressions on her face. David Long also does a decent job as the astronaut, Alex, slipping very comfortably into his role.

Looking at the post-production for Lost On Mars, it is here where the small budget of the feature really takes its toll.The visual effects are kept to a minimum, which all things considered, is likely best, given that their overall quality in terms of how they translate onto the screen is roughly equivalent to 1950s science fiction (though the sand effect when landing comes across nicely; the storm effect on takeoff doesn't) in all cases but one involving Imperial ships, which looks like modern video game cutscene quality (which is to say, the kind of effect that UFO Films and similar studios live by). Also, as mentioned above, the crystal clear video image only serves to magnify those areas of the project where the budget takes its toll during the production stage. Both of these issues could be minimized by filtering the image to look like it had been filmed on grainier motion picture stock, the older, the better (with black and white being a viable option, provided the clarity could be taken down). The sound quality also suffers from inconsistencies, with levels rising and dropping throughout the movie and even during the course of single sequences (sounding very much like all sound is being taken in through a single source microphone with minimal if any post production editing). Again, though, all of the above can be directly attributed to the constraints of budget. One post-production problem that is not reliant on budget, however, is in the selection of transitions between scenes. It seems obvious that as he stepped into the directors' chair, though he spliced his inserts and close ups very well, Eric Shook became a bit too enamored with the different transitions allowed by his video editing suite, resulting in an inconsistent and sometimes jarring feel during the course of the picture, as some scenes transition nicely with fades, while others do so through a mosaic type thing that is just plain distracting, and others just end abruptly ... and so on. All things taken into account, however, this is really the only rea where Shook betrays a lack of seasoning behind the scenes.

All in all, Lost On Mars proves to be a very interesting effort for a low budget (very) low budget - even "low budget" movies can spend more than whole thing this cost to make on craft service alone), independent (truly independent) genre flick, and a good beginning for filmmaker Eric Shook, who displays true talent and potential here. For those who like to see talent where it starts and who can appreciate filmmaking for the love of it, and for those who enjoy sci fi with a twist on the order of Roger Corman and the 50s drive ins of old, Lost On Mars is definitely worth the look. If Joe Carnahan can get enough recognition from a soulless pile like Blood, Guts, Bullets, & Octane to get his next feature produced by Tom Cruise with a cast headed up by Ray Liotta, then surely, if there is any justice, someone will see Lost On Mars and give Eric Shook his due. (And maybe make Kelli Wilson an offer, while they're at it.)

m/ziggyrealm/reviews/lostonmars.html 11/6/2002