Must See Movie...

An absolute waste of money

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

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).

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.

Interesting and ambitious NASA what-if tale that builds in tension as it unfolds. I liked never-handsomer Gregory Peck as a space agency director who knows a rescue mission would be perilous and outrageously expensive, but PR and the president demand that he try.Gene Hackman, Richard Crenna, and James Franciscus do well as stranded spacemen who struggle from oxygen deprivation, temporary insanity, and the perhaps unlikely rescue tactics of a Russian cosmonaut bearing a flashlight and a US Air Force rocket ship.The film is extremely dated in its treatment of the astronauts' prim and demure wives, but it seems prescient in its handling of the ethics of space rescue. Weren't some of these questions discussed after foam falling from the Challenger caused its destruction during reentry?

Frank Capra brought great success to Columbia Pictures in the 30's with classic hits such as Colbert and Gable in It Happened One Night, Colman in Lost Horizon, Stewart and Ms. Arthur in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. Mr Capra found this story Marooned and wanted to make this film at his old studio Columbia, but the fact is that Capra was finished in Hollywood by the time this film was considered with stars such as James Stewart who were legendary due to Capra films refusing the film. Mr Capra said that Columbia cut the budget so drastically he had to ankle the project. I wish Capra had stuck it out and maybe used some of the then Columbia studio contract stars such as Michael Callan and Stefanie Powers ala Howard Hawks did with young stars for Red Line 7000 at Paramount. After all aren't Astronauts especially in training young? Capra offered the film to James Stewart who refused the film. Columbia took the film away from Frank Capra and assigned it to Mike Frankovich as Producer and John Sturges as Director and cast Gregory Peck, Gene Hackman and James Fransicsus. What resulted is a fine sci fi film. Peck and Hackman were true stars and box office giants. I always felt Jim Fransiscus should have been a a major star.John Sturges had a direct way of filming and one can only imagine how Mr. Capra would have told the story of Marooned. I liked this film, and its cast of professional's David Barra Los Angeles