TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Jemima It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Delight Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

JohnHowardReid Copyright 1 December 1969 by Frankovich Productions. Released through Columbia Pictures. U.S. release: 11 December 1969. U.K. release: 12 April 1970. 133 minutes. U.S. re-issue title: "Space Travelers".SYNOPSIS: A space ship malfunctions. The astronauts have no means of returning to earth.NOTES: Location scenes filmed at Cape Kennedy and in Houston. Nominated for three prestigious Hollywood awards: Best Cinematography (lost to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid); Best Sound (lost to Hello, Dolly!); Best Special Visual Effects (won!) — but only Robbie Robinson was nominated!COMMENT: Despite its marvelous Award-winning special effects, Marooned is a bit of a bore. Our problem ties in not only with the simple fact that all of us are now over-familiar with both the visuals and the mechanics of space launching, but that, on the human level, the script fails to whip up any interest in its characters.Alas, the script is not the only stumbling block. The acting too is deadly dull. All the characters are played as mere ciphers. Thus, much of the tension inherent in the plot fails to come across. The only touch of human interest in the film comes when Peck is waylaid by the highway patrol. We could have done with a lot more. What do we know of the character that Peck portrays with such dogged glumness? Practically nothing, despite the fact that he is on screen for at least half the film's long running-time. About his subordinates we know even less. And we are told so little about the men trapped in the space-ship, their dying seems unconscionably long-winded, instead of having us on the edge of our seats. All the same, the technical effects are mighty impressive.

Eric Stevenson I admit that reviewing this movie based solely on the short version that I saw on "Mystery Science Theater 3000" isn't being fair. The full version is over two hours long while this version was only 80 minutes long. I guess it makes sense to give a score of 5, right in the middle. It truly was interesting to see such a lesser known film that won an Oscar. It just didn't come off as that good to me. It's at least nice to see such talented actors like Gregory Peck and Gene Hackman. They're just okay.I guess everything is done in a pretty realistic way. In 2013, we saw an infinitely better Oscar winning movie about being stuck in space, "Gravity". This just had too many scenes of just talking and the atmosphere wasn't that interesting. Well, maybe it just hasn't aged well. I admit it was kind of lame when everyone survived at the end. Still, it's a lot better than most films of its kind. It just seemed mediocre to me, so I wouldn't recommend it. **

spiritof67 Gee, I'm really sorry this movie seemed "slow" to some viewers, who were probably holding a remote. This is NOT a "TV" movie; it is a theater movie, and a big screen theater at that. So all those who "commented" on it but only saw it on a TV in a pan-and-scan version, I have news for you - you didn't see the real movie. Sorry, dudes..As for MAROONED, it was a valiant and mostly factual attempt to tell the story about marooned astronauts back when they were world superstars and EVERYONE knew their names, unlike now. On top of that, there had not only been a successful moon landing just before the release of the film but after that there was an ACTUAL "Marooned" with Apollo 13 - and the studio rereleased the film to more acclaim. So not to beat up on anyone, but the second contextual point is "You had to be there." And a lot of you obviously weren't.The acting performances are uniformly excellent, from Gregory Peck giving a typically "I'm there" stint to the actresses who do more than just back up their husbands. There is even a glint of the kind of showboating we now take as normal during the event.Prescient, really. The striving for a solution to the problem is done first scientifically and then in the style of the Old America: we'll try the best way we can with the best person for the job, danger notwithstanding. And I would add that this is the very last movie I saw in a theater where when the solution to the problem was found, the audience (who had been dead silent for at least ten minutes) burst into spontaneous applause and cheering. Seen that lately in a theater or in your living room? Didn't think so.So, again, probably the finest fact-based movie on space faring in its time; unfortunately since then the notoriety of astronauts has disappeared, the romance and bravura of space travel as well, and as such a movie like this probably seems hokey to new viewers. Then again,some people think early Picassos are just scribbles..

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).