Season #: 1, 2

Mixed or average reviews - based on 14 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 14
  2. Negative: 1 out of 14

Where To Watch

Buy On

Critic Reviews

  1. Reviewed by: Ben Travers
    Nov 14, 2016
    The series deserves considerable respect for deftly balancing the two seemingly contradictory storytelling devices.
  2. Reviewed by: Verne Gay
    Nov 11, 2016
    Mars is interesting, and much more: Quirky, funky, earnest, intelligent, engaging and occasionally melodramatic.
  3. Reviewed by: Gail Pennington
    Nov 10, 2016
    The format is ambitious, and if some parts don’t entirely work, there’s still a lot to like and learn in Mars.
  4. Reviewed by: Mark Dawidziak
    Nov 14, 2016
    What Mars lacks in consistency, it makes up with scope and scale.
  5. Reviewed by: Mark A. Perigard
    Nov 14, 2016
    The talking-head portion plays like a video Kickstarter pitch for Elon Musk’s SpaceX, his private rocket company determined to get man to Mars and keep him there in a sustainable community. The drama plays like a low-budget Ron Howard film, which it is, sort of.
  6. TV Guide Magazine
    Reviewed by: Matt Roush
    Nov 4, 2016
    Favoring hard science over developing characters of any depth, Mars is an intriguing experiment that only occasionally achieves liftoff dramatically, yet space geeks will likely be in heaven. [7 - 20 Nov 2016, p.13]
  7. Reviewed by: Erik Adams
    Nov 14, 2016
    As the miniseries tells it, the tools necessary for settling Mars will need to be multipurpose: rocket boosters that can be deployed for multiple launches, interchangeable circuitry for mid-mission emergencies. Unfortunately, Mars itself isn’t as versatile.
  8. Entertainment Weekly
    Reviewed by: Christian Holub
    Nov 11, 2016
    [Mars] sounds compelling, but it suffers from some of the same problems as big screen flops like John Carter and Mars Needs Moms: There's just nothing especially appealing about an endless red desert. [18 Nov 2016, p.52]
  9. Reviewed by: Robert Lloyd
    Nov 14, 2016
    Both the documentary footage and the staged footage set in 2033 smack of a generous budget; it’s easy on the eyes. But though the alternating elements get equal time, they aren’t equally interesting, and the series is engaging and frustrating by turns.
  10. Reviewed by: Dan Fienberg
    Nov 14, 2016
    The six-part event series obscures a reasonably engrossing, science-star-studded documentary about future exploration of the Red Planet with a far less interesting scripted drama about Mars travel that plays as basically The Martian without the personality or poop potatoes.
  11. Reviewed by: Neil Genzlinger
    Nov 14, 2016
    The fictional half isn’t particularly sophisticated as space odysseys go. ... Where the series gets sometimes intriguing, sometimes awkward, is in the shifts to documentary mode.
  12. Reviewed by: Rob Owen
    Nov 11, 2016
    Mars feels somewhat familiar, but combining the fiction and nonfiction elements is an interesting attempt. Give NatGeo credit for trying something different. Whether this hybrid satisfies fans of either genre remains to be seen.
  13. Reviewed by: Sonia Saraiya
    Nov 4, 2016
    Mars is a smart idea, and an educational one, too. But the factually dense production is not always able to accelerate from information to narrative.
  14. Reviewed by: Glenn Garvin
    Nov 12, 2016
    A weird attempt to blend documentary and sci-fi, Mars is an exquisite botch of both. Its only real accomplishment is to set back the reputation of executive producer Ron Howard to the days when he was murdering the mommies of adorable little baby birds on The Andy Griffith Show.
User Score

Mixed or average reviews- based on 64 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 29 out of 64
  2. Negative: 24 out of 64
  1. Nov 15, 2016
    This review contains spoilers, click full review link to view. WARNING MATH AND RANTING AHEAD: I think that it's a fairly good show but the fact that it isn't realistic is what angers me. The Circuit board that was tested hundreds of times on earth, fails just before reentry and they also didn't have a backup system for one of the most important systems on the spacecraft! Also the configuration of the seats would of killed some of the astronauts from negative G forces as they were put in a ring around the center which the ones on the side facing the heat shield would of been pulled out of there seats and slammed even harder than the guy stupid enough to go and attempt fixing a PCB during reentry. Another note is that when they land they said that they are 72 Km from the base and the Russian base which on the map didn't appear to be much closer than the Main base. And seemed to travel at a ridicules rate to get to the Daedalus with only three days of oxygen remaining. That is the next point. They sent a ship to Mars with a 3 day oxygen margin! And also your telling me that they couldn't continue to scrub the CO2 in order to get Oxygen? That doesn't make sense at all and the fact that during the early stages of reentry one of them said that they should abort. What do you mean ABORT! You didn't have enough fuel to break into orbit because you barely had enough to land a ship with that was going 1,000 KM/H and you wouldn't have had nearly enough fuel to get on a return to Earth especially when the planets are out of alignment for a return. So there was no way to abort. End of story. There ship is a piece crap and the rover which would be 2,000 Kilograms overweight is also crap. 2,000 kilograms is 4,400 pounds or 2.1 tons a six person crew would weigh together around 1,200 pounds if we go off an estimate of 200 lbs per person which probably isn't the correct weight for any of them and then maybe 400 lbs of gear that they brought down in duffel bags so that would be a total of 1600 lbs give or take a few hundred. So I don't see where they could of "OVERLOADED" the Chassis of the Rover as I can see that they would need the rover for hauling heavy materials for base building. So overall this is a horribly set up show that I could go on and on about how they did it wrong and I am amazed that they got Jim Lovell, Elon Musk and Andy Weir to interview for. When I read Andy's book the Martian it was filled with facts and the movie was pretty much up to Par with the book which is not normal for a modern movie. So why can't they get anything right?! Someone answer me and correct me on this. For god-sakes the 30 minute BEFORE MARS video was better than the actual TV Show! Full Review »
  2. Dec 21, 2016
    Unwatchable... neither fish nor fowl. Half a fluff documentary and half a fluff miniseries put together. They have no content and instead fillUnwatchable... neither fish nor fowl. Half a fluff documentary and half a fluff miniseries put together. They have no content and instead fill the time with fake grandness. Full Review »
  3. Nov 17, 2016
    I watched the first episode of Mars last night.

    I guess that since the show was appearing on the National Geographic channel, I was
    I watched the first episode of Mars last night.

    I guess that since the show was appearing on the National Geographic channel, I was expecting to see more science reality and less science fiction. But no.

    Who puts lights on the *inside* of the helmets? I mean, really. And that's just the beginning of the ridiculousness here. Scientific reality, well, for this series you can kiss it good-bye.

    For the first episode, Mars has started to look as if the plans were being laid for a science-fiction soap opera. Scenes were played for suspense, to hook the viewers.

    I cannot see myself wasting any more time watching a b-grade sci-fi show, so I removed it from my DVR's recording schedule. This series belongs on TLC as a low-grade pseudo-reality sci-fi series.

    NatGeo, c'mon, you can do better than this over-hyped mediocrity. I know you can do better.
    Full Review »