The Martian (Ridley Scott)

Decuc500

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, isn't she a fashion journalist? Her film 'reviews' are awful.

Chris_Heilong

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.

Mickeroo

I really enjoyed it. it was very light viewing though, never really felt like there was much threat to anyone, but that was probably part of its charm too. I would also agree with johhny's earlier point that it didn't have much sense of awe to it in the way Interstellar did, but then maybe that's not what it was going for. Scott's best film in years, loved that Starman montage

johnny_ultimate

Technocentral wrote: »

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

If 2001 was full of endless streams of exposition, cornball humour and a formulaic narrative arc...

I'd say the film overall has more in common with survival and disaster films like Cast Away, All is Lost, 127 Hours etc... than most science-fiction classics, albeit one set in space with plentiful science involved. And given the amount of cutting back and forth between different perspectives I think there's also some similarities with the likes of Taking of Pelham 123 or the types of films Airplane so deftly parodied. Certainly they'd be the cinematic touchstones I'd use over the likes of 2001.

Technocentral

Science was solid in it as far as I could tell and it was hugely entertaining that's all I care about. Interstellar and Gravity were nonsense in comparison. Most so called sci fi is aimed at kids and are really just dumb action films, recent Star Treks , Oblivion etc, so a proper sci fi film is more than welcome by me

Mickeroo

Technocentral wrote: »

Science was solid in it as far as I could tell and it was hugely entertaining that's all I care about. Interstellar and Gravity were nonsense in comparison. Most so called sci fi is aimed at kids and are really just dumb action films, recent Star Treks , Oblivion etc, so a proper sci fi film is more than welcome by me

Didn't think it was a patch on Interstellar myself, Intertellar was a lot more ambitious and much more intense and moving imo. This was a light popcorn movie where as Interstellar was a much more intense and thought provoking film and much closer to the likes of 2001 than The Martian. Martian felt more like the dumb action films you seem to be averse to more than anything.

Technocentral

Mickeroo wrote: »

Didn't think it was a patch on Interstellar myself, Intertellar was a lot more ambitious and much more intense and moving imo. This was a light popcorn movie where as Interstellar was a much more intense and thought provoking film and much closer to the likes of 2001 than The Martian. Martian felt more like the dumb action films you seem to be averse to more than anything.

I feel totally the opposite to you, Interstellar was silly hippie fluff nonsense and totally unrealistic, I absolutely hated it. Gravity was lighter than air (no pun intended) and 100% unrealistic. The Martian was mostly very plausible

apart from end bit rescue with cut suit, would be very difficult to control direction.

. The solutions were excellent and thought provoking

digging up pathfinder etc

. What you call moving I call mawkish, I found The Martian actually moving without the syrup of Interstellar needed.

johnny_ultimate

Yeah, what they've done here is taken theoretically advanced scientific execution and made it as broadly accessible as possible. And that's a valid goal in many respects, but let's be honest here: the film is not a Shane Carruth film. It requires very little thought from the viewer, and pretty much lectures you in no uncertain terms about everything there is to know (the film's central framing device is in essence a lecture). Wrapped around it is a pretty bogstandard crowdpleaser, full of the easy, predictable emotional and dramatic payoffs you'd expect. And the filmmaking lacks formal substance or visual imagination, definitely compared to Interstellar (itself weighed down by its fondness for overexplaining every damn thing and theme). Hell, even compared to something like All Is Lost, which managed to express its protagonists ingenuity and fight for survival without any dialogue whatsoever, I wouldn't necessarily say comparisons are all that favourable.

None of this is to say I didn't enjoy the film, because I did - I had an innate curiosity about the setup and situations. But really I'm not sure the film offered me anything the book wouldn't have managed - ultimately, a few fetching CG-Mars vistas aside, most of The Martian's best parts had almost nothing to do with the 'film' part of this adaptation.

Technocentral

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Yeah, what they've done here is taken theoretically advanced scientific execution and made it as broadly accessible as possible. And that's a valid goal in many respects, but let's be honest here: the film is not a Shane Carruth film. It requires very little thought from the viewer, and pretty much lectures you in no uncertain terms about everything there is to know (the film's central framing device is in essence a lecture). Wrapped around it is a pretty bogstandard crowdpleaser, full of the easy, predictable emotional and dramatic payoffs you'd expect. And the filmmaking lacks formal substance or visual imagination, definitely compared to Interstellar (itself weighed down by its fondness for overexplaining every damn thing and theme). Hell, even compared to something like All Is Lost, which managed to express its protagonists ingenuity and fight for survival without any dialogue whatsoever, I wouldn't necessarily say comparisons are all that favourable.

None of this is to say I didn't enjoy the film, because I did - I had an innate curiosity about the setup and situations. But really I'm not sure the film offered me anything the book wouldn't have managed - ultimately, a few fetching CG-Mars vistas aside, most of The Martian's best parts had almost nothing to do with the 'film' part of this adaptation.

An admirable reply, but tell me this, name 5 great recent hard (ish) big budget sci fi movies that you really liked? Impossible eh, because no one makes them anymore, thats why The Martian is to be welcomed by proper Sci Fi Cinema lovers.

Drumpot

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.

vidor

I thought I was a pwoper sci-fi cinema lover but obviously not

Technocentral

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)

Technocentral

vidor wrote: »

I thought I was a pwoper sci-fi cinema lover but obviously not

Quick, whats the end of "2001" mean?

johnny_ultimate

Technocentral wrote: »

An admirable reply, but tell me this, name 5 great recent hard (ish) big budget sci fi movies that you really liked? Impossible eh, because no one makes them anymore, thats why The Martian is to be welcomed by proper Sci Fi Cinema lovers.

Even ignoring the 'true fan' fallacy of the argument here, the lack of big budget sci-fi means absolutely nothing when it comes to responding to this film. Sure it's nice to see some 'science' on the big screen, but that doesn't earn it a free pass or immunity from criticism. It's still a piece of cinema to be judged on its own terms.

The likes of Upstream Colour, Under the Skin, Her, Hard to be a God, World of Tomorrow etc.. offer more potently cinematic and intellectually-provocative sci-fi IMO. And Gravity, for all its flaws, is a cinematic tour de force, a quite remarkable feat of pure filmmaking. 'Proper sci-fi cinema' fans would surely appreciate such a thing

LFC CONNAUGHTON

I had listened to the audio book the week before the movie, kind of wishing I hadn't as it hurt my enjoyment of the movie. Problems were given, then immediately solved and knowing the ending got rid of the tension I felt from the book, still a very good movie nonetheless. Regarding the comparisons to Interstellar, this is a lot more grounded and that is one of the main appeals of it too me. The changed part at the end with the suit (don't know how to spoiler tag) was fairly annoying because of how much i enjoyed the reality. The ending to Interstellar on the other hand, was pure batsh!t crazy.

Nervous Wreck

All these comparisons are nuts; it's very obviously and openly influenced by Apollo 13, far more than Interstellar, 2001, or any of the like.

Zubeneschamali

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

But really I'm not sure the film offered me anything the book wouldn't have managed

The list of SF movies that offer something that the book doesn't is very short.

2001 is on the list, because Clarke on his own would have written something like The Martian, but Kubrick took it to a different level.

This was a very direct adaptation, with no Kubrickness. The only thing added is seeing the panoramas of Mars instead of imagining them, but that is not a small thing in a movie.

Arghus

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.

Datallus

I thought it was a pretty good twist that

Sean Bean survived for the whole thing!

When one thinks of the confirmed classics of the celluloid canon, Under Seige, Red Rock West, The Godfather, Roadtrip, and the rest, one can feel the frisson of poetical recognition which all film-fans can agree silently, without comment: "This is why we love film"

Is "The Martian" up to snuff? One can only decidedly say "Maybe".

Maybe.

And yet, and yet.

7/10.

Mickeroo

When Troy explained his plan and they

codenamed themselves the council of Elrond I was waiting for Bean to say "One does not simply send a ship back to Mars" or something.

Missed opportunity.

Decuc500

Arghus wrote: »

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?

I enjoyed reading your thoughts on the film. Spot on with Ms Long! I like Clarke's reviews most of the time but he does have a certain snobbishness. The Martian has mostly been getting good but reserved reviews from critics. It's like they can't commit to certain crowd pleasing films no matter how well they work on that level.

Fysh

Decuc500 wrote: »

I enjoyed reading your thoughts on the film. Spot on with Ms Long! I like Clarke's reviews most of the time but he does have a certain snobbishness. The Martian has mostly been getting good but reserved reviews from critics. It's like they can't commit to certain crowd pleasing films no matter how well they work on that level.

I've found Clarke's reviews mostly pretty good for a long while, but for whatever reason he seems to be losing the run of himself as far as sci-fi goes. I can't imagine any frame of reference other than "slavish Star Trek fanboy" whereby the drek that was Star Trek Into Darkness gets five stars while The Martian gets three. I mean, not being particularly impressed by the Martian? Fair enough - it was pretty much what I hoped for, given the constraint of "massive budget vs hard scifi premise". But there is no universe in which the flaws of Into Darkness are lesser than the flaws of The Martian, IMO.

But, hey, film criticism. At least with Clarke you mostly get a sense of consistency in terms of why he appreciates a film, which is already better than many.

flazio

Mickeroo wrote: »

When Troy explained his plan and they

codenamed themselves the council of Elrond I was waiting for Bean to say "One does not simply send a ship back to Mars" or something.

Missed opportunity.

I was expecting him to say "I know, I was there. "

Hyzepher

I liked the film a lot but having the final ship already on Mars for the next expedition was a little far fetched considering the near fate of the last one. It's just suppose to sit there for years untouched when their own hardly made it a wet weekend before they had to abandon the mission?

Sad Professor

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

All these comparisons are nuts; it's very obviously and openly influenced by Apollo 13, far more than Interstellar, 2001, or any of the like.

Yeah, I think Weir cited Apollo 13 as the main influence for the book. I haven’t read the book, but the film reminded me of Apollo 13 as well, particularly the emphasis on problem solving.

Gravity and Interstellar and other recent sci-fi feel like they were influences as well, but only to the extent that Scott was responding to them. The tone of The Martian feels like it might have been a reaction to the seriousness of Cuarón and Nolan’s films, for example. Scott has done this throughout his career to films by his contemporaries that he admired. Gladiator was his response to Braveheart, Black Hawk Down to Saving Private Ryan, The Counsellor to No Country for Old Men, and so on.

Technocentral

Hyzepher wrote: »

I liked the film a lot but having the final ship already on Mars for the next expedition was a little far fetched considering the near fate of the last one. It's just suppose to sit there for years untouched when their own hardly made it a wet weekend before they had to abandon the mission?

It was heavier so it wouldn't blow over in those gales though.

quickbeam

Mickeroo wrote: »

When Troy explained his plan and they

codenamed themselves the council of Elrond I was waiting for Bean to say "One does not simply send a ship back to Mars" or something.

Missed opportunity.

Hee, hee! I love that scene. But I'm glad they left the line unsaid. That'd be ramming the point home a bit too much. They knew we, the audience, were thinking it and that was enough.

Technocentral

One thing though, Bean is an atrocious "actor", why was he giving a big role, he's useless?

Cookie_Monster

Hyzepher wrote: »

I liked the film a lot but having the final ship already on Mars for the next expedition was a little far fetched considering the near fate of the last one. It's just suppose to sit there for years untouched when their own hardly made it a wet weekend before they had to abandon the mission?

The initial storm is a plot device and not accurate, but I think it would be fair to say it would be one of those once in a thousand year super storm type events that came out of nowhere. Whereas normal mars weather would have no impact on the landers or equipment.

Technocentral wrote: »

It was heavier so it wouldn't blow over in those gales though.

why was it heavier? It was still in the process of making fuel wheres MAV3 was finished and should be heavier

eeguy

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

why was it heavier? It was still in the process of making fuel wheres MAV3 was finished and should be heavier

It's was explained that the ship as sent years in advance because it takes 18 months to pull the CO2 out of the atmosphere.

Also the second MAV was 3200km away so it wouldn't be affected by the storm, which was only a plot device.

Technocentral

Cookie_Monster wrote:

why was it heavier? It was still in the process of making fuel wheres MAV3 was finished and should be heavier

I'm joking.

Cookie_Monster

eeguy wrote: »

It's was explained that the ship as sent years in advance because it takes 18 months to pull the CO2 out of the atmosphere.

my point exactly

Technocentral wrote: »

I'm joking.

oh right

Rubber_Soul

quickbeam wrote: »

Hee, hee! I love that scene. But I'm glad they left the line unsaid. That'd be ramming the point home a bit too much. They knew we, the audience, were thinking it and that was enough.

That scene actually sailed right over my head until I read this thread. I are SMRT.

alex.middleton

great film gonna read the book now

petethedrummer

I really did not like it but I would recommend it for 8-14 year olds. It's rated 12A so it was probably right on the money.

To me it had the feel of some sort of clunky propaganda movie. As if the director had been tasked with getting the viewing public to embrace manned flight to Mars and peace with the Chinese.

As the crew were deliberating over whether to go back for Matt Damon or not, inside my head I was screaming at them to go home. An extra 539 days for them added on another 35 minutes of viewing time for me.

But mostly I'm disappointed there wasn't an actual martian in it.

Technocentral

petethedrummer wrote:

I really did not like it but I would recommend it for 8-14 year olds. It's rated 12A so it was probably right on the money.

I assume you're not a sci fi fan so, if you are what recent non fantasy sci fi films would you rate above it?

biko

In all a great film.

syklops

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yeah, I think Weir cited Apollo 13 as the main influence for the book. I haven’t read the book, but the film reminded me of Apollo 13 as well, particularly the emphasis on problem solving.

After I finished the book I recommended it to my Dad whose a chemist and amateur botanist. He said he really loved the bit in the book where:

Watney informs NASA that theres a piece of equipment he needs help fixing and they get a load of engineers together to help figure out how to fix it Apollo 13 style, with only the stuff he has, and they send a message back to him a few days later saying they had figured it out and Watney goes "Yeah nevermind, I fixed it with duck tape"

Duggy747

Thoroughly enjoyed it, a lot more than Gravity and Interstellar, and the mostly grounded science gave it a great boost in entertainment.

Both different films, Gravity had a sloppy unremarkable story but was a technical marvel to watch and Interstellar had a greater overall awe factor that was great to see on the big screen but had a terribly hokey story about "Love" amongst it's other problems that left a sour taste for me.

When it comes to a space flick, The Martian was one of best I've seen in the past few years and was lower on the cheese and syrup factor that usually comes dolloped with these kind of films. It was nice to see a big-budget sci-fi film with which space wasn't a horror show that felt the need to kill crew members off one-by-one to hammer home the point that the universe is a harsh mistress, a lot of it is played for laughs to break the tone up which benefits it rather than it being coated in constant steely seriousness.

I have to disagree that it lacked awe moments, it certainly didn't have striking visual cues or moments but instead little things like Damon talking about how he's the 1st person to do seemingly benign things on the planet like walking up a hill. THAT is a lot more awe-inspiring and thought-provoking to me than visuals of a planet that's not our own (which are still cool to see)

Would love to see a director's cut because I happily would've watched more of Damon working and narrating about his survival on Mars while he communicated with NASA where they were telling him what he should be doing.

TheDoc

Saw it Saturday. Absolutely loved it, genuinely brilliant and the GF thought it was great as well, and it's been an epic struggle trying to get her to watch Interstellar again

Knew nothing about it other then a book exists, so not sure how it fared for people who read the book, but I genuinely loved it.

Earthhorse

Saw this during the week and thought it was quite pedestrian. One for people who enjoy the science bit of sci fi films. The rest of it feels underdeveloped.

snubbleste

Overhyped.
The

Abba song threw me completely off.

Zubeneschamali

snubbleste wrote: »

Overhyped.
The

Abba song threw me completely off.

That is not a spoiler in any shape or form.

And folks annoyed by the 70s music in the soundtrack are very sensitive souls. The whole point is that it is horrible stuff.

irishfeen

Seen this last night and thought it was very good - not the greatest film ever but well worth a watch.

Thought Matt Damon was excellent and I'm not his biggest fan - graphics and landscape views were exceptional.

8/10 for me!

PS. I thought the 70s music references were absolutely hilarious at times

irishfeen

The Martian Soundtrack - some truly awful stuff ...

HAPPY DAYS THEME
TURN THE BEAT AROUND (LOVE TO HEAR PERCUSSION)
HOT STUFF
ROCK THE BOAT
DON'T LEAVE ME THIS WAY
STARMAN
WATERLOO
LOVE TRAIN
I WILL SURVIVE

FunLover18

When I heard the first notes of 'I Will Survive' over the end credits, for a fraction of a second I thought it was Monty Python's Galaxy Song.

Mickeroo

I'll not hear a bad word said about Starman, it's the only song that wasn't from the commander's collection I reckon

snubbleste

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That is not a spoiler in any shape or form.
And folks annoyed by the 70s music in the soundtrack are very sensitive souls. The whole point is that it is horrible stuff.

It threw me off. I was automatically transported to Muriel's Wedding.

Goldstein

I've purposely not read anything in this thread for months and I'm not going to start now as it undoubtedly contains moaning from sados and people that don't get real science fiction but i'll say one thing from an old cynic:

This was a f~cking triumph.

syklops

Goldstein wrote: »

I've purposely not read anything in this thread for months and I'm not going to start now as it undoubtedly contains moaning from sados and people that don't get real science fiction but i'll say one thing from an old cynic:

This was a f~cking triumph.

The thread is mostly praise with only a couple of sados moaning about it.