The Martian (Ridley Scott)

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

Good but rushed at every point.

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

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.

It was a good film, I like that it didnt waste time and the pacing was not too slow. The humor helped the story along and the music with the shots of mars space were a fantastic mix.

My 9 year old said he felt they should have shown a lot more despair and worry but I told him its not that kind of film.

Drumpot wrote: »

Asides from being set in space I don't know why people compare this to interstellar. I enjoyed interstellar for completely differant reasons to why I enjoyed the Martian.

Gravity was not really that good and nothing like this movie, certainly not remotely as entertaining.

The Martian was a very well made, enjoyable sci fi flick minus a lot of the cringey stuff you would normally get with these kind of flicks.

I only compare it to "Interstellar" because it was big budget and people said it was (complete bollocks) the new "2001" (i.e. proper sci fi)

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).

Camila Long is an absolute disgrace as a reviewer. I've read quite a few of her pieces over the years and her particular schtick seems to be to pick out one flaw that chimes with her preconceptions about whatever movie she happens to be reviewing, and then stretching out the sneering for the duration of the review. She talks from atop of a very high horse, perhaps that’s down to the publication she’s writing for- the previous critic, Cosmo Landesman, operated in a way not too dissimilar. Populist entertainment is easy to dismiss I guess. Anyway, I think she’s a joke. Worst of all, her hatchet jobs aren’t even consistent- She’ll lambast a film from pillar to post, for some trivial skin-deep aspect, and then you’ll find a three out of five rating at the bottom of the page... What... I thought you hated it Camilla?.... Good luck figuring out what she actually thinks of the film. I’m all for someone swimming against the current or going off on an impassioned rant of a review, but she’s terrible- insincere, uniformed, predictable and childish.


Now after saying all that, you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t praise The Martian to the high heavens, from whence it came. I’ll just outline the criticisms I have quick, because I really did like it quite a lot you know - It’s a wee bit over-stuffed and it huffs and puffs, by the end, to get over the finish line. There are far too many supporting characters, we didn’t need absolutely everyone who was in this - Sean Bean? Kristen Wiig? - they weren’t bad, but I think the film could have lived without them. Why did Jeff Daniels disappear for the final forty minutes? Was Jessica Chastain really the best bit of casting for her role? In terms of plotting it’s pretty conventional - one thing happens...which leads to another thing... which leads to another thing... so on and so on... The End. In that sense it reminded me a little of Red Planet. It’s far better than that, but there was a kind of similarity between the two movies plot wise- of things following things remorselessly, without much time to stop and think, until the close credits roll. I also think as well as lacking a tad in the stoppin’n thinking stakes, the film was also a bit bereft in terms of stoppin’n lookin department. The film was more than adequate visually, but I felt it lacked something to give it a true sense of grandeur or awe- some of the films most evocative imagery was concerned with literally putting crap in the ground, a bit more of some magnificent desolation, here and there, may not have been amiss.


Here’s where I’ll start to give the movie it’s due. And there’s no better place to start than the main sticking point many have with the film: it’s lack of psychological depth. To tell you the truth, I am okay with this. The way I see it is that it makes sense for the character in his situation. Yeah sure, he’s isolated and he’s a million miles from home- but he’s also a hands on, practical minded fellow, who knows ninety percent of the time what his immediate plans are for working towards eventual survival - he’s got goals and the movie foregrounds them constantly. No time for hopelessness for this Martian. So while a touch of The Loneliness of The Long Distance Space Traveller may have done the film no harm, overall, I bought that he would remain positive and focused, - a man in his situation has to really - based on what I know about going to Mars . Also loneliness is relative; he did remain in close to constant communication, of a sort, with Earth, for most of the film. Well at least communication that involved tapping on a keyboard and staring at words on a screen. Close enough for what passes for reality for most of us.... Am I right guys?


Overall I liked The Martian a lot. It’s simplistic, predictable and knowingly crowd-pleasing, but it’s also well made, very entertaining and downright open-hearted, for a Ridley Scott film. I thought the humour was well utilized - you know the jokes are coming, but they’re always underplayed in a nice and wry manner. The science and problem-solving aspects of the film are presented in a very appealing way - just hard enough to feel like you’re not being treated like a dum-dum, but just soft enough to be enjoyable for the majority of people. I started off here talking about Camilla Long - essentially about how I wouldn’t mind her being abandoned in space - and now I’ll come full circle, to finish things up, and talk about another reviewer - Donald Clarke. There’s no comparison between him and Camilla, he’s miles better, despite his faults. But you should check out his video review for The Martian - God Love him, he looks like he hasn’t smiled in at least a decade. It visibly pains him to give the film a “cautious” recommendation - despite him saying that it was engaging, entertaining and fun throughout. Jesus- what does it take sometimes? Yeah I know The Martian doesn’t reinvent the wheel and does pander to you a little of the time, but I also know that everyone I saw it with in that packed cinema screen - was totally with it, enjoying and engrossing, every step of the way. And there’s no shame in that.