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.

galaxywest-16400 When you compare the "special effects" of Marooned versus 2001: A Space Odyssey -- well there is just no comparison, I think. They both won Academy Awards for special effects but only 2001 deserved it. And it deserved it BIGTIME. The special effects in Marooned, to me, were on a par with Plan Nine. Just my own opinion; laughable really. The movie NEEDED the special effects right to have any credibility at all and since it didn't, there was no credibility for me. The scenes that portrayed their long 5 month stay in the space lab were, too, laughable. There's a shot of James Franciscus with a silly grin on his face as he "rides" an exercise bike. Wow ... not. And the other 2 astronauts are shown nearly as ridiculously. Wow ... not, again. This is a film by "Ed Wood" in my opinion but obviously I'm in the minority on this one.

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. **

DKosty123 This movie is based on the novel written by Martin Caidin who also wrote Cyborg, the basis of the 6 Million Dollar Man. It did receive an Oscar for special effects and the John Sturges film does have great special effects. At 2 hour and 15 minutes it does drag a bit.When you rate the cast, this was an A-List with Gregory Peck, David Janssen, Richard Crenna, James Franciscus, & Gene Hackman heading up the list. Even the limited role of weeping/tense wives is headed up by Lee Grant, Mariette Hartley,and Nancy Kovack. Grant now over 90, won an Oscar but not for this one.So with a cast like this and a decent sci-fi novel to base it on, why isn't this 2001? For some reason, it just does not come off too well as it did not capture the audience the way 2001 did a year prior. It is not that shabby a movie.The plot is a 5 month mission to the US space station ends and when the crew of 3 unhooks from the station their retro rocket burn to come back does not fire. David Janssen becomes the first to pilot a space shuttle, 12 years before the first US Shuttle actually launched in 1981.What seems flawed in this is instead of a lot of dead space, more attention should have been paid to the preparing of a rescue launch in 40 hours. A hurricane comes in to screw up the launch of the rescue as well. Still there is a nice gesture of détente here with the USSR getting a rescue vehicle there just before the US Shuttle flying without computers according to the script.While the film creates urgency, it fail to pull in the audience though the visual work is splendid. The film really makes the astronauts wives one dimensional which is a lost opportunity of such talented women.One thing that breaks out of the mold is one of the three dies just before any rescue folks show up. The lack of any home feeling and fleshing out of some of the men as well is why it does not pull anything in. Even a guest cameo by Hal the Computer could have helped. While it could have been better, at least the ending of the film is quick with just barely enough information to know who was rescued and the inside of Janssen's Space Shuttle is only an image of the pilots area. Think the budget must have been a little short there.