The Martian (Ridley Scott)

senordingdong

.ak wrote: »

Thought it was fairly poor myself. Like, not terrible, but I wouldn't see it again. The one liners were tiresome. I would've preferred a more sombre exploration of the human mind in that sort of isolation. Like, he should've gone bat**** crazy and taken you on a journey of despair with smatterings of determination. Instead it's quite the opposite, so the end is really never in doubt.

+1.
The film was quite underwhelming and really feels like there should have been more to it.
Whatney cruised through his obstacles and any immediate threat was quickly dealt with.
I was under the impression that the film would be more about his degradation through isolation, but instead it was more of a polished, Sci fi adventure flick.

Would rewatch 'Moon' instead.

jones

Watched this last night in Vue and really enjoyed it. 4 stars for me.
I'm obsessed with all things space related though so maybe i was a little less critical of it.
There was a real interstellar buzz off it for me even down to a few of the same cast members (though as someone above said it was more science than science fiction)

Thought matt damon was great and really the whole cast was very good, Sean Bean did seem miscast and seriously is it just me or has he aged about 15 years in the last 5??

Enjoyed this movie I have to say. Good work. Obviously predictable but didn't detract from the enjoyment of it.

Thelomen Toblackai

I thought it was only ok. There was nothing particularly gripping about the story. I thought there would be some compelling look at a human being dealing with severe isolation and struggling to survive etc

But there didn't seem to be much in the way of an emotional effect on Damons character. And he seemed to quite easily figure out how to grow food, contact and communicate with earth and get to the conveniently pre set up departure site. It was all pretty uneventful to be honest.

I'm a big fan of space related stuff so it held my attention but I'm glad I didn't go see it in the cinema. It's more of a nothing else on sort of a movie.

FloatingVoter

I'm no fan of hard science based movies - too often they remind me of double physics or some other rubbish I slept through at school. This one was saved by the humour in the script. It is Robinsoe Crusoe / Castaway in Space - except this time they remembered to insert the deathly black sense of humour that you find in a lot of prison / concentration camp memoirs.
A DVD watch for me as well but i know plenty of science boffins that would watch this repeatedly.
For the uninitiated, eat your spuds before watching the film not during.

e_e

I've been thinking of that Starman sequence fondly ever since watching it opening week. Definitely one I'll be revisiting come the DVD/blu-ray release, hell I might even buy if there's a good commentary or two!

GreNoLi

Would've been a whole lot better if the Earth sub-plot was ditched and just focused on Mars and the crew dynamics while returning home and subsequent u-turn, waste of a good cast.

Least it was better than Exodus: Gods and Kings which was a horrid mess.

Kirby

Thelomen Toblackai wrote: »

I thought there would be some compelling look at a human being dealing with severe isolation and struggling to survive etc

But there didn't seem to be much in the way of an emotional effect on Damons character. And he seemed to quite easily figure out how to grow food, contact and communicate with earth and get to the conveniently pre set up departure site. It was all pretty uneventful to be honest.

I'm a big fan of space related stuff so it held my attention but I'm glad I didn't go see it in the cinema. It's more of a nothing else on sort of a movie.

Well there are things from the book that they had to drop and change. Some in the interest of time and others were clearly a creative choice. The struggles you talk about and the mental fatigue are more pronounced in the book.

For example, in the movie when Watney establishes contact with earth using pathfinder, he sheds a tear in the rover. In the book, he crawls into a ball and cries himself to sleep with a mixture of joy and relief at the fact that he finally has somebody to talk to.

The difficulty he had transforming martian soil into usable soil is also kind of glossed over too. Everything needs bacteria to grow and he has to grow his bacteria slowly and it takes a while. The movie made that seem easier than it probably should.

Thirdly, when he is drilling holes in the rover to modify it in the book, which you see a little bit of near the end of the movie, he puts down the drill on a workbench and completely fries the pathfinder probe. He loses contact with Earth permanently and this raises the stakes quite a lot.

Mentally he gives up a few times too. When the crops die from the HAB airlock explosion he thinks hes dead and stops rationing for a while. In the film, when the HAB airlock blows and his helmet is cracked, he just covers it with tape. In the book, if memory serves he pretty much gives up. He thinks its over until he manages to macgyver some glue to fix his suit.

There were things they dropped like the sandstorm on his way to the Ares 4 launch site. He had no contact with earth so they couldnt warn him. If he had gotten stuck in the storm, he would have no way to charge the rover with the solar panels and he dies. They also left out the rover tip. When he is a few kilometres away from the launch site, the rover tips and he nearly dies again.

The movie is fairly faithful but the biggest departure by far is his relationship to the rover. In the movie, he leaves a note at the end basically saying "take care of this rover, it saved my life".

In the book, he despises the rover. Because he has lived in it for so long. You really dont get that sense of how long it took to go from the HAB to pathfinder and then from the HAB to the Ares 4 launch site in the film. He lived in it for over 50 days on the final journey alone. There was nothing convenient about it. It took ages. Between the RTG, the oxygenator and the water reclaimer he has zero room. He couldnt even stand up or lay down. He ends up making a makeshift tent out the back of the rover in desperation just so he can lay down.

So some of the challenges both physical and mental werent really present on the big screen.

_Kaiser_

Just watched this tonight... essentially Castaway in space but Damon does a great job and carries the film with great likability and humor. Loved the soundtrack as well - I appreciate her taste in music even if he doesn't!
Has the right balance of realism without getting too heavy into the science and the 140 mins flies by for a film where most of the time not much is really happening.

Definitely a far superior film to Interstellar which I thought was induldgent nonsense (and hyped purely because Nolan was attached) and hours wasted, and Gravity I barely remember so that's never a good sign either

NATLOR

I thought I watched this film last night, an adventure/drama movie about the power of science and human spirit.Then i read today it won Matt Damon a Golden Globe for best comedy WTF!! Obviously I watched the wrong movie

e_e

NATLOR wrote: »

I thought I watched this film last night, an adventure/drama movie about the power of science and human spirit.Then i read today it won Matt Damon a Golden Globe for best comedy WTF!! Obviously I watched the wrong movie

Can't wait for the blu-Ray singalong version.

JP Liz V1

So is this film a musical or comedy as Golden Globes thought so

Saganist

Moon was mentioned already and I agree. This was an ok film. I enjoyed it, but I'd go back to Moon before this.

Billy86

NATLOR wrote: »

I thought I watched this film last night, an adventure/drama movie about the power of science and human spirit.Then i read today it won Matt Damon a Golden Globe for best comedy WTF!! Obviously I watched the wrong movie

Odd to put it in comedy I agree, but it was pretty light hearted - especially compared to most sci fi which these days tends to take itself ultra-mega-super-serious (and I say that as someone who loves sci fi, generally). Damon's role largely relied on levity in terms of how his character handled the situation and kept his sanity, mainly in his exchanges to Earth and so I am guessing that is where it came from.

Plus, Hollywood is snobby as f***. Not sure about the GG's, but the Oscars are largely decided on a tiny, unaccountable group of people largely out of touch whose monocles would shatter at the thought of a genuine comedy being recognised amongst the best films of the year, to the point they will label dramas as comedies to 'spread' the awards to their favourite genre. I always found that appalling, personally. People will scoff, but off the top of my (sleepy) head movies like Shaun of the Dead, The Big Lebowski and Old School for example, deserved far more awards recognition than they got.

Who is going to tell me that Shakespeare in Love (or in my opinion, Saving Private Ryan) deserved a nomination over TBL, Lenny or The Towering Inferno deserved a spot over Blazing Saddles, or Finding Neverland deserved a not ahead of Shaun of the Dead? Old School will obviously not get as much support, but I genuinely think that is a fantastic film, yet Master & Commander and Seabiscuit(!) were nominated ahead of it.

The Great Dictator got nominated for best actor, best supporting actor, best writing [screenplay] and outstanding production [best picture] way back in 1940. If a farce of that magnitude were made today, and made as well as that was, it would be lucky to get a sniff at even some of the 'lesser' awards. It's just something that really winds me up for whatever reason.

david75

Always wondered why it the oscars never take sci fi / fantasy as serious contenders.

syklops

david75 wrote: »

Always wondered why it the oscars never take sci fi / fantasy as serious contenders.

Maybe because its been a while since a sci-fi film was a serious contender.

Frank O. Pinion

syklops wrote: »

Maybe because its been a while since a sci-fi film was a serious contender.

Interstellar?

Victor

Bacchus wrote: »

I presume Sean Bean dies at some point.

Ehhh,

Brief_Lives

Saw this film last night... Brilliant stuff... Well Done Ridley Scott...

Penny Dreadful

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Interstellar?

Interstellar was absolute pants.

Frank O. Pinion

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

Interstellar was absolute pants.

While I do have a mild fear of taking on an intellectual mountain that can critique a film with phrases like "absolute pants", I must point out that I was merely reminding another forum user of Interstellar, after he suggested that "it's been a while since a sci-fi film was a serious contender". I was not entering into a debate on whether or not Interstellar is, "absolute pants".

Penny Dreadful

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

While I do have a mild fear of taking on an intellectual mountain that can critique a film with phrases like "absolute pants", I must point out that I was merely reminding another forum user of Interstellar, after he suggested that "it's been a while since a sci-fi film was a serious contender". I was not entering into a debate on whether or not Interstellar is, "absolute pants".

I think that is the first time I have ever been referred to as an "intellectual mountain". Thank you.

Let me just say I am not generally a fan of sci fi movies and can find them quite boring. One that put me off the genre was one that involved Michael Fassbender and Charlize Theron (I think) in space suits where Fassbender was a bad guy/ alien creature of some sort. I can't even remember the name of it now but there was nothing in it to recommend the genre to me.
When MMcC was going through his period of great movies and tv (Dallas Buyers Club, True Detective, etc) Interstellar came out and I thought I'd give it a go given who was in it.
I fell asleep at one point and when I woke up again felt like I had missed absolutely nothing of relevance or interest. To me that summed it up as a very poor movie. Usually a movie that is an Oscar or GG contender doesn't do that to me. I may not like it or rate it as an award winning movie but I generally manage to stay awake.

I agreed to watch the Martian two weekends ago because my husband really loves Sci Fi and I thought a little nap before bed wouldn't be a bad move anyway and lo and behold I stayed awake and engaged for the entire duration of the movie.
I think what made the Martian workable for me is that it didn't focus on the science only. Clearly a lot of what would have taken place had this occurred in real life was glossed over and made to seem much easier than it would possibly have ever been but I liked that we got to see the character of Mark Whitney.

LionelNashe

I liked the film, but I think I preferred the audiobook. Mainly because the audiobook had more time to dwell on the danger, and more time to dwell on Watney trying to puzzle out a solution. There was a part in the book, for example, where he's injured and goes through a low mood that lasts for several days.

The movie, necessarily, jumped more quickly to Watney sciencing-the-sh*t-out-of things without dwelling on the above. However the ending to the movie packed more of a punch than the book.

Falthyron

david75 wrote: »

Always wondered why it the oscars never take sci fi / fantasy as serious contenders.

Only three films in history have ever won eleven Oscars or more. One of those films was The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King.

Myrddin

Seen this only recently, it was...ok. I'm not sure how much creative license they had over the book, but I never really got a lasting sense of isolation during the scenes on Mars, and in that sense, for me, it lost something. I felt it was too busy cutting between scenes on Mars, and scenes on Earth...and the whole thing felt like a glorified long distance phone call. Cast Away fared so much better, in conveying a sense isolation, loss, and indeed hope...and that was only an island in the Pacific!

Canadel

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Definitely a far superior film to Interstellar which I thought was induldgent nonsense (and hyped purely because Nolan was attached) and hours wasted, and Gravity I barely remember so that's never a good sign either

Have to disagree about Interstellar (and the hype part regarding Nolan as I had only seen the Batman movies and wasn't hugely impressed). I might have to go and see The Martian now though to allay any suspicions that it might be as good as Interstellar.

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Interstellar?

I used to think the Godfather was the greatest, that PTA and Sam Mendes were untouchable, and that sci fi was always just a small bit too lacking in reality to challenge me both on an emotional and intellectual level. Then I watched Interstellar. Then I watched it again. And again. And again. And again. I am constantly amazed by it. With Interstellar, Christopher Nolan has brought crashing down my entire thought process concerning cinema and movies. He has done something magical.

Eugene Norman

I think it was largely faithful, albeit in abridged form, to the book. The book was not really a psychological study on being alone but more a series of scientific thought experiments written serially to a blog to begin with. Could some one survive on Mars and on what? How could he power the rover for so long? How to communicate with earth. How to recover from disaster. How to launch a rescue mission. I'm pretty sure the physics was pretty exact. Everything except the original storm. It might be the first real science fiction movie in fact, most of the rest have some fantasy in there.

Kirby

Falthyron wrote: »

Only three films in history have ever won eleven Oscars or more. One of those films was The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King.

Return of the King got so many Oscars due to the embarrassment of ignoring Fellowship and Two Towers which were both overlooked. At that point the "establishment" had recognised they had made a huge mistake and they duly overcompensated. Many feel ROTK is actually the weakest of the three and I would be among them. Fellowship deserved those Oscars more I feel.

we'llallhavetea

the martian was grand, dragged on a tad tbh, thought it would be more engaging.

Shelga

Just watched it on a plane.

Rarely am I so perplexed at rave reviews of a movie! Really don't get the hype. At all. I'd give it 5 or 6 out of 10. Possibly because I go in to any sci-fi films assuming the science will be absolutely ridiculous, so for this one to focus on it 90% of the time was never gonna be for me, personally. I'm never going to buy it and all I can think the whole time is "that is just so stupid". The sci-fi films I enjoy are those that focus on the drama of being in space and build atmosphere, although gotta admit it's not my favourite genre in general.

The part with the Chinese was utterly moronic. The vice-president of Chinese NASA explaining to the actual president how they could save the poor American, and then they both glaze over smiling triumphantly- stupid.

Watney never seemed phased by the seeming hopelessness of the situation, and dived right into making wisecracks and magicking up potatoes out of nowhere. The only time he's even mildly upset was towards the end when

his food source blows up, or whatever it was that caused that.

Was zoning out by then and eager for the inevitable conclusion.

It was entertaining enough, good special effects, I like Jessica Chastain and think she was convincing as a leader- has that sort of calm coldness. But it was just so stupid and wasn't emotionally invested at any point. Felt like we found out nothing about Watney the entire time. I much, MUCH prefer the likes of Cast Away for focusing on the human aspect without being too mushy.