Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

The Martian (Ridley Scott)

245

Comments

  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 12,888 Mod ✭✭✭✭JupiterKid


    Really looking forward to this. Hopefully it will be a million miles away from Brian De Palma's atrocious Mission to Mars and the only slightly better Red Planet.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 38,888 ✭✭✭✭PTH2009


    So they found water on Mars in real life so what way does this leave the movie. How did he get water in the movie ??


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,638 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    That big announcement from NASA today...

    What a coincidence that there's a blockbuster ,that they had a hand in, due for release right about now.

    And it's set on Mars too! What are the odds!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    PTH2009 wrote: »
    So they found water on Mars in real life so what way does this leave the movie. How did he get water in the movie ??
    brought some with them and the rest was cracked from hydrazine fuel


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,431 ✭✭✭MilesMorales1


    That was a legit, 5 star sci-fi film. I loved it.

    That line from the trailer isn't in the movie. The only family even mentioned are his parents


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Agreed. It's top notch.

    Pretty sure the line was in the one I saw but it's of no matter. Speaks to his humour in dealing with the situation quite well


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,178 ✭✭✭bajer101


    Say this this evening. Fantastic movie. Great adaptation of the book and the pacing was perfect. It skimmed over some of the science, but that was necessary to keep it to 140 mins. I only saw the 2D version, but I'd be tempted to go back again to watch it in 3D. I brought my 8 year old daughter and she liked it too. There are a couple of fúcks and shíts, but the educational value and the positive portrayal of science easily outweigh that.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,431 ✭✭✭MilesMorales1


    If theres one thing they portrayed different in the trailers than how it was in the film (not complaining per se)
    the trailer made NASA seem much more like dicks than they were in the film, like they were just going to abandon him on mars, whereas in the film NASA seems to spend that entire year and 7 months odd trying to get him back safely. Not complaining about the misrepresentation though


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,503 ✭✭✭✭Also Starring LeVar Burton


    I really enjoyed seeing it come to life, but I'd actually love to see a Director's Cut (and usually I don't care about Director's Cuts) at some point in which they add back in all the science they glossed over, because in the book it was the most fascinating part. It would only take some extra scenes with more personal logs from Watney, so I hope they did film more of it than what we saw.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,427 ✭✭✭Pierce_1991


    Haven't read the book but really enjoyed the movie tonight. I would say I enjoyed it more than Interstellar or Gravity. Damon plays it well, the supporting cast are generally very solid (although I think Wiig and Bean were miscast). Also the soundtrack was really top notch. Reminded me of how I felt watching Guardians of the Galaxy. Scenes that may otherwise have been fairly unremarkable were brought to life but unexpected and clever song choices. Wouldn't be surprised if I caught this one again in the cinema. ****


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 55 ✭✭You Mirin?


    Haven't seen the movie yet but I'd still vouch for seeing it in 3D as it's one of the few genuine, filmed in 3D movies of the year. Ridley Scott always does a good job with making use of the format.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 11,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fysh


    Saw it last night in 2D, and it was everything I hoped it would be. I'm tempted to see it again at the cinema, in fact.

    I'd also love to see an extended cut if there's more material that was filmed but not included in the theatrical release. Also, if NASA don't use
    Watney's monologue to Lewis about how and why he loves what he does when he asks her to talk to his parents if he dies
    , their PR people are missing a trick :)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 418 ✭✭Confucius say


    I thought it was ok. Was hoping to be more entertained. Lots of corny lines. Sean Bean was so awful in it, how did he get that part? I can only think it's because Ridley is British too. I thought Gravity was awful too so maybe this just isn't my genre.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    I thought Gravity was awful too so maybe this just isn't my genre.

    This is my genre, and Gravity WAS awful because it looked as if it belonged in the genre but it turned out to be all flash effects and no science.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 11,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fysh


    This is my genre, and Gravity WAS awful because it looked as if it belonged in the genre but it turned out to be all flash effects and no science.

    I was thinking about the comparison between Gravity and The Martian last night. Gravity had some strengths - visually it was good, at least on the big screen - but between a compressed timeframe that makes it tricky to do any characterisation, a plot that requires a lot of "oh just shut up and roll with it" (starting with "why is this character, who's not an astronaut, even up there in the first damn place?") and a third act and conclusion that was just teeth-grinding (for me at least), but The Martian really highlights the difference between "We've got science! Look, we dropped some sciencey words in the dialogue that one time! Science!" and actually committing to making the whole thing internally consistent, even if that makes it harder to craft a typical three-act structure for the story.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,988 ✭✭✭constitutionus


    i seen it yesterday and i thought it was great.

    solid 8/10 from me.

    not much actually happens in it TBH, but i think that makes what does happen all the more important. great to see bugger all in the trailers. pretty much most of that footage was done and dusted in the first 10mins of the film or so.

    so i never thought "all the best stuffs been shown"

    helps no end that damons a very likeable bloke that can carry a film like this by essentially talking to himself. dont know if its for everyone but i enjoyed it.

    :D


  • Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 16,287 Mod ✭✭✭✭quickbeam


    Haven't read the book but really enjoyed the movie tonight. I would say I enjoyed it more than Interstellar or Gravity. Damon plays it well, the supporting cast are generally very solid (although I think Wiig and Bean were miscast). Also the soundtrack was really top notch. Reminded me of how I felt watching Guardians of the Galaxy. Scenes that may otherwise have been fairly unremarkable were brought to life but unexpected and clever song choices. Wouldn't be surprised if I caught this one again in the cinema. ****

    That review sounds like you ended with a four letter expletive that was filtered out. :p

    I loved the film. I also loved Gravity. (I saw both in 2D) So there you go. Gravity might slightly have the edge but only because I'd read The Martian book, so the film didn't hold any real surprises for me. Still very enjoyable though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,736 ✭✭✭pinksoir


    quickbeam wrote: »
    That review sounds like you ended with a four letter expletive that was filtered out. :p

    I loved the film. I also loved Gravity. (I saw both in 2D) So there you go. Gravity might slightly have the edge but only because I'd read The Martian book, so the film didn't hold any real surprises for me. Still very enjoyable though.
    Ha. I thought the same!

    clay.png


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 11,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fysh


    Those ARES: Live videos on Youtube are great, I particularly liked "Our Greatest Adventure" and "Farewell".


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,568 ✭✭✭candy-gal1


    Saw this today, thought it was great, very different although the same to what i expected, and yes the soundtrack was awesome!!!
    Very well acted too, and not too emotional as I thought it would be giving the storyline, would go see it again!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    I thought it was ok. Was hoping to be more entertained. Lots of corny lines. Sean Bean was so awful in it, how did he get that part? I can only think it's because Ridley is British too. I thought Gravity was awful too so maybe this just isn't my genre.


    Personally I liked Gravity and didn't really like this, and I liked Apollo 13 more than either of them.
    One person I saw it with thought it was better than Gravity and quiet good
    One thought it was alright
    and one other didn't like it.
    So fairly mixed opinions, don't think any of us had read the book though.

    This is my genre, and Gravity WAS awful because it looked as if it belonged in the genre but it turned out to be all flash effects and no science.

    Is the "Science" in the film that accurate? I mean there seems to be a hell of a lot of wind on Mars :confused:
    And he spends ages driving around beside
    battery thats decaying-I am not a phycists though so maybe the shielding on those batteries is good?
    Then he is going to be
    glowing from Radiation from both the trip and sitting on mars
    Then when he
    makes the water, thats pretty cool but he makes massive amounts of it and it would use up all the oxygen
    Then when they
    blow out the ship they say we will just leave the bridge, I'm not sure of this but aren't they going to get bone-loss particularly since the gym is in the centrifuge bits which are now uninhabitable
    that was actually an annoyance since that bit is just glossed over.
    A really pedantic point
    but they make such a big deal about him being a botanist (ironically I studied that and now complaining about the only "sexy" botany hero in cinema history) but he doesn't seem to be growing or eating half enough spuds- it should be in the region of 2-3 kilo per day
    ^^
    I haven't checked any sites for these so they could well be wrong


    Anyway those are all small niggles that I could ignore completely if I liked the film, I think I went in with completely the wrong expectations (didn't watch the book, hadn't seen the trailer), I expected it to be tense, claustrophobic and moody, I got lots of happy cheerful with lots of flags, lots of Yay Science is cool, a cliche deux ex machina
    chinese and they're new engine thing
    , and my personal hate - lots of focus on media reaction (in a non cynical type of way, cynical works for me ) and shots of rapt crowds at world wide locations like "Trafalger Square, London, England" "Times Square New York" etc.

    Also why the hell is the guy from Community who played a cool idiot jock now
    playing a super intelligent astrophysicists
    in basically the same way :confused:

    Its a feel good film that certainly has its moments, and I would guess its trying to do the laudable Science is important thing*, I don't get why they didn't cut out a little of the language and one or two scenes and it would be perfect for that.

    ** Kids don't do Science, you'l work your ass of in college when Arts students are having fun with their 12 hours a week :mad:, you'l most likely never work in the field you study unless your fairly lucky or you emigrate, an if you do you'l see your peers that go into finance earn far more unless your really really lucky. Don't try Science it leads to poor life choices** :o


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,701 ✭✭✭bogmanfan


    I'm a huge fan of the book, so was worried the film mightn't do it justice but happy to report it was excellent. Kept the tone of the book, and I too would love to see a directors cut. My wife who hasn't read the book loved it too.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,724 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    I found it perfectly enjoyable and engaging, and in some ways a nice change of pace from standard blockbuster fare. But it lacked that genuine spark, and suffered from trying to be many things for many people.

    It sure moves along at a heady pace, which is probably the right one for a film that wants to throw lots of scientific jargon, porn and/or mumbo jumbo at you. To get into nitpicking is, as ever, an exercise in utmost futility - basically, it's as roughly realistic sci-fi (emphasis on the sci) as one could expect from a big budget effort like this. Holes and inaccuracies? Yeah, probably, but aside from the actual attention to detail the overall sense of 'w00t science!' is an encouraging and cheery one. It borders on an infomercial for NASA throughout, and the journal entries (and much of the mission control stuff) amounts to little more than glorified exposition, but again the film's enthusiasm for space travel is infectious. Where it sometimes stumbles is finding the fine line between accessibility and complexity, and the film's generally broad tone and humour at times come across as a compromise in trying to communicate complex ideas in a Hollywood blockbuster. It does try, to be fair, and if it encourages even a small percentage of audience members to explore some of the concepts introduced within than that's a job well done.

    The sheer amount of ground to cover (literally and figuratively) results in a film that is sometimes lacking. In prioritising the basic mechanics of the plot above all else, it can feel like a relentless assault of stuff happening with plenty glossed over - not just in scientific terms, but in character and narrative terms too. The whole thing feels weirdly mechanical, going through the motions towards its inevitable ending, with very little in the way of danger, uncertainty or psychological / emotional substance. It's probably Watney's own experiences that suffer most in that respect - while we spend plenty of time with him and witness his ingenuity, at times it feels like maybe a fortnight has passed for him. Now long periods of time are a very difficult thing to portray effective, especially with so much to get through. Yet the film for the most part dancing around the psychological and physical fatigue experienced by the protagonist (and having him wisecrackin' even in the most perilous of circumstances) only amplifies the sense that everything feels rather less grand and grueling than it should be.

    It doesn't help either that Scott's filmmaking is rather pedestrian. Despite an opening few minutes and titles pleasing reminiscent of Alien both in visual and musical terms, again there's a lack of cinematic grandeur and awe here (whatever about the rest of the film, it's something Interstellar ****ing nailed). That works in parts, when the focus is on a smaller scale and a more muted approach actually benefits that intimacy, but there's disappointingly little in the way of cinematic majesty to set the senses a flutter. And he also has a tendency to fall back on derivative storytelling techniques - the anxious crowds watching across the world, the soaring score whenever there's a triumph, and various other tricks that feel like they've been copied and pasted from other films without much thought.

    The more I think about it, the more I find to be frustrated with. Yet the film does overall work, if mostly down to the intrigue of the premise and our curiosity to see how it all plays out. As a piece of cinema there's not a whole lot to write home about, but as a piece of speculative fiction it's plenty intriguing. And it's not every big budget film that has exciting dramatic moments such as Donald Glover using a super computer to test some convoluted mathematical predictions, or taking the time to reflect on the potential benefits and drawback of co-operation between American and Chinese space agencies. Which, honestly, is something.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 55,534 ✭✭✭✭Mr E


    Really enjoyed it. A thriller where you don't need to switch your brain off is pretty refreshing.

    The only downside was the horrible soundtrack. 70s disco is AWFUL. The score was great though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,236 ✭✭✭Decuc500


    I thought this was great. I think it was a tough book to adapt for a number of reason. I felt the book dragged in places due to the amount of scientific problem solving. The film portrayed the science really well without feeling forced or too geeky. It also didn’t dumb down any of the science which was refreshing.

    As is usual for a Ridley Scott film the visuals were fantastic. His films really need to be seen on a big screen. I liked the nod to Alien with the similar sounding soundtrack at the beginning.

    Overall a hugely enjoyable piece of cinema.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,346 ✭✭✭✭SteelyDanJalapeno


    My one gripe was the journey from the hab, I thought this was his hardest challenge in the book, and it wasn't really depicted in the movie


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,457 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    the_monkey wrote: »
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3659388/?ref_=nv_sr_1

    During a manned mission to Mars, Astronaut Mark Watney is presumed dead after a fierce storm and left behind by his crew. But Watney has survived and finds himself stranded and alone on the hostile planet. With only meager supplies, he must draw upon his ingenuity, wit and spirit to subsist and find a way to signal to Earth that he is alive.


    This looks like it could be good, a bit skeptical about Ridley Scott after the disaster Prometheus.

    Also looks like it could be a spin-off of Interstellar :P

    Loved the book

    Hope the movie does it justice


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,457 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Decuc500 wrote: »
    I thought this was great. I think it was a tough book to adapt for a number of reason. I felt the book dragged in places due to the amount of scientific problem solving. The film portrayed the science really well without feeling forced or too geeky. It also didn’t dumb down any of the science which was refreshing.

    As is usual for a Ridley Scott film the visuals were fantastic. His films really need to be seen on a big screen. I liked the nod to Alien with the similar sounding soundtrack at the beginning.

    Overall a hugely enjoyable piece of cinema.

    I thought the opposite about the book. Thought the author combined the science and the storytelling perfectly. I'd hate it if Scott does the same for science in this as he does for law in the Good Wife.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 11,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭Fysh


    My one gripe was the journey from the hab, I thought this was his hardest challenge in the book, and it wasn't really depicted in the movie

    I was a bit disappointed that we didn't get to see Watney
    cut off from communication with NASA, then starting to get lost in the storm. I think it would've been a great final demonstration of his tenacity to show that even when he's stuck with only his wits and no equipment or reference systems, he could come up with a solution to the problem.

    I can understand having to cut certain material just for time or pace, but I would've liked to see the above.


  • Registered Users Posts: 57 ✭✭alex.middleton


    awesome film must watch


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,009 ✭✭✭✭titan18


    Good, but not really close to the book sadly. Was a bit annoyed they cut down the journey from the Hab and the storm. Thought that was one of the better parts of the book. Would liked to have seen more logs with Watney too. Hopefully that part can be added in a directors cut.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,733 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Enjoyable. I did not read the book so had no expectations. Great sfx, humour, sound track topped by a fine performance by Damon.


  • Registered Users Posts: 677 ✭✭✭vidor


    titan18 wrote: »
    Good, but not really close to the book sadly. Was a bit annoyed they cut down the journey from the Hab and the storm. Thought that was one of the better parts of the book. Would liked to have seen more logs with Watney too. Hopefully that part can be added in a directors cut.

    And maybe he can cut out the 140 mins of exposition while he's at it.

    Surprised by the amount of positive reviews this is receiving but this is possibly down to Scott/book fans. Visually it's solid but everything else lags behind. We're constantly getting hit with explanations. You don't know what's happening? We'll tell you again. The humour doesn't work. Nor does the constant lame reminders that Chastain's character likes disco music. Can't say I'm disappointed as I had no idea what it was about prior to watching.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 252 ✭✭GuessWhoEh


    I'm just about to head in and see it now


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 252 ✭✭GuessWhoEh


    GuessWhoEh wrote: »
    I'm just about to head in and see it now

    It was brilliant! Was sceptical as its really not my type of film but I was glued from start to finish. Highly recommend it


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Is the "Science" in the film that accurate? I mean there seems to be a hell of a lot of wind on Mars :confused:
    And he spends ages driving around beside
    battery thats decaying-I am not a phycists though so maybe the shielding on those batteries is good?
    Then he is going to be
    glowing from Radiation from both the trip and sitting on mars
    Then when he
    makes the water, thats pretty cool but he makes massive amounts of it and it would use up all the oxygen
    Then when they
    blow out the ship they say we will just leave the bridge, I'm not sure of this but aren't they going to get bone-loss particularly since the gym is in the centrifuge bits which are now uninhabitable
    that was actually an annoyance since that bit is just glossed over.
    A really pedantic point
    but they make such a big deal about him being a botanist (ironically I studied that and now complaining about the only "sexy" botany hero in cinema history) but he doesn't seem to be growing or eating half enough spuds- it should be in the region of 2-3 kilo per day
    read the book :)
    storm is the only one that's scientifically incorrect but even the author admits it's a plot device
    he has plenty of surplus bottled oxygen
    they have enough gases on the ship to completely re-pressurise it twice over in case of emergency
    potato and calorific intake all specified in the book, he is aware that he barely has enough and it on 3/4 rations inc the food already there.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 617 ✭✭✭mikehn


    I really liked this tweet :D

    (Rachel Appel @RachelAppel

    From Saving Private Ryan to Interstellar to The Martian, America has spent a ridiculous amount of money to retrieve Matt Damon.
    4:55 AM - 3 Oct 2015)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,004 ✭✭✭minktrapper


    I actually did enjoy it. Now don't get me wrong, it wasn't brilliant, but it certainly isn't tripe either.

    Prometheus.Excellent movie. One of the best sci Fi movies I have ever seen. Really looking forward to the sequel.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,516 ✭✭✭Outkast_IRE


    Went to the late show to this last night and it was nearly sold out (rare occurance in my parts) such a great atmosphere in the cinema, everybody there wanted to see the movie, nobody messing on the phone or chatting.

    It really made it a special experience, utter silence from the audience in the shots in space, gasps in other scenes, and lots of laughs and giiggles.

    Great movie, great acting, a return to form for Ridley Scott


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 15,237 Mod ✭✭✭✭FutureGuy


    Loved every minute. Memorable cast and great timing.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,283 ✭✭✭MayoForSam


    Went to see this earlier with the wife and kids, we all loved it - fantastic movie.

    I read the book a while back and the movie plot remains true to the spirit of the original. Good performance from Damon, he managed to mix humour with the despair of being abandoned beyond all hope.
    The disco music did tend to grate after a while :P.

    I would recommend that this movie should be promoted to the younger generation as it gives a really good impression of what science and engineering is all about, i.e. ingenuity, problem solving and using what you have to improvise sometimes (
    basically lots of duct tape ;)
    ).

    Funny how the best two movies I have seen in the last few months have been this one and Mad Max, both set in a barren, red desert environment. Ridley Scott is definitely back on form, loved the cinematography and special effects, better than Gravity and Interstellar if you ask me.

    Small enough attendance at this afternoon's matinee (rugby might have something to do with that), hopefully word-of-mouth will mean this one will be a box office success.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,389 ✭✭✭NachoBusiness


    Can't understand why this is getting such good reviews.

    Maybe because there is such an appetite for anything to do with science these days, that people just get giddy about any film which has it at it's core, regardless of quality. There was even an needless atheistic sneer thrown in. Oh it knows it's audience, I'll give it that.

    It also borrows so heavily from recent Sci-fi flicks, that surely it bordered on plagiarism. Lots of cringeworthy dialogue, pompous gags, and many lines you could see coming from a mile off. It just all made for a very annoying, unlikable, irritating watch.

    I hated it tbh and I love Sci-Fi films.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,478 ✭✭✭eeguy


    Great film.

    Not a patch on the book, but that was expected.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭Technocentral


    Proper Sci Fi, brilliant film, 9.5 out of 10.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Nervous Wreck


    Best RS film since Alien imo.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,724 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Which wasn't a Ridley Scott film ;)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,115 ✭✭✭✭Nervous Wreck


    Which wasn't a Ridley Scott film ;)

    Haha, whoops! Alien. Fixed!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,522 ✭✭✭✭Cookie_Monster


    Good but rushed at every point.

    There's just too much in the book to fit into a quality film


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,076 ✭✭✭lukin


    Camila Long gave this a good kicking in her review for the Sunday Times yesterday. You have to be a paid subscriber to read the full review here but suffice to say she didn't like it. She also slagged off MacBeth. I've only ever seen her give good reviews to arty-farty films that were made for two cents. She seems to hate blockbusters (she slagged Mission Impossible 5 also).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭Technocentral


    lukin wrote: »
    Camila Long gave this a good kicking in her review for the Sunday Times yesterday. You have to be a paid subscriber to read the full review here but suffice to say she didn't like it. She also slagged off MacBeth. I've only ever seen her give good reviews to arty-farty films that were made for two cents. She seems to hate blockbusters (she slagged Mission Impossible 5 also).

    Except its not what I'd call a blockbuster, its intelligent sci fi like 2001 and Contact.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement