The Martian

I guess it was filmed in the Jordanian desert. It's Mars-like enough, I guess. I thought the worst model was the ship in the opening sequence. The whole "problem' with the ship in the wind made it look like a 1950 sci-fi film. That whole sequence was just rushed and sloppy IMO. I know they wanted to get the story set up, but it felt slapdash. I'll be quiet now. Who knows, I probably like it later at home on Blu Ray. I did buy my ticket five days in advance through Fandango and reserve the best seat in the house, though! Hey, where's that limited edition Mars mission patch I got for going! I hope I didn't lose it.

 

.....where's the best seat ..front/back/middle ?)

You've put me off it now chadbang'(just about).. sure the trailer looked meh' and Matt Damon looks a tad old. But' yeah' when I watched Intersteller again on the small screen it did look a bit better.So maybe The Martian will be better armchair theater instead.

 

It's one of those movies, I guess. I have two friends heavily into the cinema. I respect both their opinions. A text from each of them:

"I loved it"

"A stupid movie."

Go figure.

 

Is it better than the trailer?

 

I thought it was worse than the trailer. I didn't know I would be spending half my time with Jeff Daniels and Kirsten Wig as the people running NASA. Huh!

You have to remember where I'm coming from. Some people go to the movie hoping they'll have a good time, be made to laug laugh, and that there will be some exciting action. I go to the movies pitting these films against every accomplished film in the history of the cinema in the same genre. There's a saying about writers on writers "If you don't think you can do better than Faulkner, we don't need you." That's the way I feel about films. If you're not out to dazzle me with the best you have, don't bother to apply. Like Robert Altman used to tell his actors "Show me something I've never seen before." That's what I want at the movies.

 

File under : bad then' I guess.
Saves me going to the cinema.
Oh ' was it in 3D?

 

Ok, so I saw the Martian. First of all, I always try to do my best to avoid trailers because most of the time they reveal you too much of the plot, so I only knew that Ridley Scott had a new film out starring Matt Damon plus a bunch of other people (I checked imdb avoiding the plot and storyline), and the film was called The Martian.

I was expecting a pure sci-fi movie with extraterrestrial creatures (it's gotta be called "The Martian" for a reason, after all), so at the theater I saw the giant poster just to notice that in my country the movie is released as "Sopravissuto-The Martian" (sopravissuto is the translation for "Survivor"). That was annoying already since since I presumed that somebody (Damon?) would survive the aliens on Mars.
Wrong! Some minutes into the movie I thought it was going to be friggin "Cast Away" on Mars instead! So, for a while, I was totally pi$$ed off because I'm not really a fan of "only actor on screen all the time" films. And on imdb they showed Jessica Chastain, who in the end the end gets limited screen time anyway in this film. Too bad, hopefully the inevitable Director's Cut features more Jessica!

As the movie progresses, I was relieved to see that "The Martian" was not a one-man-show; unfortunately (for me, at least) I was expecting a more serious and thrilling ride so when the first happy scene surfaced (Matts's huge smile: "hey, I'm a botanist") I thought "ah, that's the obligatory moment for a wise director to lighten up an otherwise too serious movie, but....why so early?"
Well, turns out this movie is, I'd say, 40-45% comedy, jokes and funny moments: Iron Man, ABBA, Disco music, Happy Days, The Fonz (heck at some point I thought Damon would be able to fix all the NASA stuff just knocking it like a juke box at Al's).
And the "Lord of the rings" quote in a scene with Sean Bean in it was the icing on the cake.

As I said, not the film I was expecting (or hoped) to see but to be honest it was really good and definitely a crowd pleaser. That's a good thing because, let's admit it, Scott (one of my all time fave directors) hasn't had a big hit in years. So, I hope The Martian can make a lot of money allowing him to pursue more projects.
Regarding the actors, Matt Damon carries the film brilliantly, the rest of the cast is great as well. You wouldn't expect Jeff Daniels to portray a cynical NASA head, but he is surprisngly good in that role.

I don't know if my local multi is to blame (this was not shown on the usual main screen reserved to the newly released movies. The Minions are still there!), but some scenes looked rather grainy, as if they were upscaled from a DVD (I'm not talking about the journal footage or the cameras on the spacesuits) and the sound was...flat...not exciting. Furthermore, I can tell you that "Starman" was from the 1999 Virgin remaster

In the end, the only thing I really disliked about this movie is yet another subtle attempt at "globalization is good" message, especially since the plot warrants the "good guys, saviours" award to those who produce a notable amount of cheap electronic junk. I'll stop here.

 

Ha ha... No need to worry about judging me, I'm English, we're used to it!

It was the Kindle app on my tablet that swayed me. Bad eyesight means the text size on the Kindle is a godsend.

I've read Ian Poulter's book since then and now I'm on the Lewisohn Beatles epic, which I think will take me a little longer.

I shall certainly investigate some other fiction when I'm done with The Beatles.

 

This made me laugh!

Once a music geek, always a music geek.

I shall turn up the Morse code section in my head when watching the film...

 

This is one reason why I always wait for a film to be released on DVD to see it. Usually when the fools at Rotten Tomatoes pan a film, I love it so I always put that in my DVD "Q". Plus, the exorbitant prices to see a movie nowadays are ridiculous.

 

Saw it, enjoyed it, but didn't love it. Since the movie is based on a very popular book, it starts out with a strike or two against it in that people will be checking for changes from the original. I read the book and certainly noted the deletions/additions in the movie, but that didn't bother me so much except in a couple of cases where explanations were left out and if you hadn't read the book you'd have no idea why something happened. Also, the balance of scenes with Damon vs. scenes on Earth seemed fine to me. What most bothered me was that for a movie touting its technical basis it was very slapdash or just plain lazy in some instances.

Spoiler

For example, the idea of showing Damon as very thin after his months on the the planet was clever, but the effect was laughable: always hiding the double's head, and when Damon was in his exposure suit it was clear he was still the same old beefy guy. Zero G effects: In shots on the bridge of the Hermes sometimes the tab on the seat belt webbing is "floating", other times not, particularly in a scene where they have a character floating between the seats but the belt tabs appear to be governed by good ol' gravity. The effects of characters maneuvering in zero G areas were not at all convincing. And the lift-off shots from Mars with the rocket coming at the camera and exiting the frame right side--I've seen that in just about every movie/miniseries about space travel since CGI became a thing. You'd think a director like Scott could come up with something a bit more inventive.

John K.

 

Just as I thought I would after reading chadbang's review, I loved the movie. And since I'm not a big Ridley fan, it didn't bother me that his trademark style was MIA. Terrific entertainment.

 

Thoroughly enjoyed it. Solid film.

 

Your spoilers are right on. Here's what really bugged me:

Spoiler

What was this baloney about the cold-coffee-swilling genius coming it with this unexpectedly brilliant plan to use Hermes to rescue Damon? Any nitwit at NASA should have figured out a ship already in space would be the best option -- and the concept of using the Earth's gravity to slingshot the ship back to Mars is a concept about as old as the Mercury Program! They treated it like it was some radical plan! I sat there thinking: This is the ground-breaking plan that he struggled to come up with? Using a planet's gravity for slingshot acceleration? What a radical concept! I think anyone on the Mission Control desk would have come up with this plan and could made the calculations with a slide rule the minute they learned Damon was still alive! The screenplay tried to cover up for this glaring improbability with some horse manure excuse about not wanting to upset the crew. Right. Didn't buy that excuse for one minute. The device of this save-the-day plan was nothing more than badly cliched dramatic device (the cute young genius who knows better than everyone else!) to propel the screenplay into the third act. Bull manure!

I won't mention that they added like two years to the mission, too. What space mission has EVER packed that much extra? They figure supplies down to the ounce most of the time.

Also could someone tell me what the ship was that Damon traveled 2300 miles to blast off with? I was a little confused about that. I though the plan was to travel that distance to meet the next expedition to Mars? Where did that ship come from?

 

I read the book two and half years ago and loved it. I haven't read a better work of fiction since. To me it was a remarkable novel, and it was obvious ready-made material for a summer Hollywood blockbuster with a massive star in the lead role. So I've waited two and a half years for the movie version. I went in with middling expectations. It was pretty much the perfect adaptation. They added nothing new and made no stupid additions or alterations (the short opening and closing scenes might be new but they were good). They kept closely to the novel and removed the right stuff. As far as I can tell it’s the same characters, dialogue, scenes and situations from the novel. It's an accurate, faithful adaption. I didn't notice anything significant missing. At least I personally didn't miss anything. If I wanted it in the movie version then it made it into the movie. The stuff they did remove was non-essential and made logical sense. The long journey at the end for example was an obvious place where it could get draggy and bogged down with stuff audiences by this point weren't interested in. Sure enough they skipped over this with a one minute montage and a few choice lines of dialogue. Smart decisions like this are made all along the line. I missed one line about technically colonising Mars, but it turned up later in the movie (apparently it's in the same place as it is in the book). I really have no complaints with the movie. It is the book. That is a good thing. I struggle to imagine how they could have done it better. It's well cast, directed and written. There are no weak links. It is more or less the perfect adaption. The biggest complaint I can come up with? It wasn't particularly funny. There was room for more humour, but that's not to say the film didn't have a few small laughs in it. Visually I was concerned because the publicity images didn't match the pictures I had in my mind. Not once during the movie did I question the look of the movie. It swamped my own ideas and rendered my own pictures redundant. If you haven't read the novel I think some people might complain the film's a bit bland. The novel dwells more on the survival aspect of the story, but it's perfectly fair that the film couldn't devote as much attention to that.


10 out of 10

 

Nice review, Somewhat Damaged. I wouldn't want the film to be any funnier than it was, though. That was another thing they got right, IMO. (Save the really big yucks for Guardians of the Galaxy II, I say. )

 

I liked it. But I missed plenty of good stuff from the book

 

This movie was a mess.

Mind you, it is an enjoyable mess, and I recommend it, but still, a mess (with an awful denouement).

Nice to see a decent Ridley Scott film again. It's been a spell (American Gangster, by my count).

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

 

Spoiler: Spoiler Response

I'm going to respond to two points here.

1. They didn't originally plan for that much extra time for the mission. When they figured out that the spacecraft was slingshotting around Earth and going to head back to Mars, they sent the Chinese craft up with additional food and supplies for the extra time. Originally the Chinese were going to offer their craft to send supplies directly to Mars for Watney, but it's mission changed to merely send supplies to the Hermes instead.

2. The ship that Damon left Mars on was from the Ares IV mission (i.e. the NEXT mission after his, which was Ares III). They mentioned that they send advance unmanned ships with supplies and materials for that mission prior to sending the astronauts, so they have things to get started with, instead of having to wait for additional spacecraft after the astronauts are already on the planet.

 

Ah thanks for clearing up what that extra ship was there for.

 

This article sheds a lot more light on the MAV (Mars Ascent Vehicle) in case you want to know how they get off the planet and why it has to be done this way.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151002-mars-mission-nasa-return-space/

 

Good movie not great.

Kind of reminded me of Cast Away on Mars.

Best part I thought was making the signs up to talk with Earth.

 

Is it more entertaining than"Intersteller"?

 

yes and it's a lot more logical/realistic, I didn't feel like throwing anything at the screen in the last hour of it

 

minor spoiler ahead proceed with caution

I will beg to differ with you. Do you really think it was realistic for only one person at NASA to think of using Earth's gravity as a slingshot? Come on, since, like, the Mercury Program! Duh!


Where "Interstellar" trumps "The Martian" is in sheer audacity and risk. It dares to visualize the unknowable like falling into a black hole and hanging in a time vortex. It's visionary -- that, of course, opens it to skepticism and laughter."The Martian" is solid Hollywood filmmaking. It's very American. Rock 'n' roll and 'cussing! That punky spunky American vibe. It's fun. I felt like slapping the screen. Far from visionary and as far as adhering to fact, ho hum, this titlecard should have been the preface to its trailer.