Not really. Their plan to get to Mars was extremely bloated, to say the least. They assembled a huge spacecraft on-orbit, which is unneccessary if Mars Direct is used and also reduces most quality control issues to zero compared to what you can do on Earth. And yet they land in a tiny spacecraft that has few capabilities. Their "hab" is extremely large and also appears to be very delicate, as it is destroyed. In Mars Direct, two more realistic spacecraft are involved, and I would venture to say they have far more potential for doing surface science. A lot of programs use pre-landed spacecraft but Red Planet is an example of one that is not realistic. Mission to Mars, while not a great movie from a science standpoint, actually had a fairly realistic-looking Mars landing site. The transfer ship.... was something else entirely. I don't really see why so many Mars mission plans have to have huge Mars transfer craft but small landing craft- the optimum mission is to have the entire crew land there. Apollo was different as it was shorter duration and one launch. But in long term missions you have zero-G and radiation coming into play, and on the surface of Mars you don't have to worry about zero-G and the radiation influx is less.

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745