The Martian (Ridley Scott)

Goldstein

syklops wrote: »

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

There's hope yet so :pac:

The Black Oil

I had heard reports the humour was working well, but I have to say, it didn't seem to translate in my screening much at all.

This is going to get a kicking from me. Let's start with the good stuff.

Matt Damon
Watney
Problem solving - nice little moments like the first green shoot
Mars and its landscape and the ambition to explore
NASA's PR anxiety
The loneliness
Mackenzie Davis
The first third. There's a bit of character/exposition dump in those early video logs, but I thought they worked well and the music is fun.

Onto the bad

Too many supporting characters, I don't mind some NASA heads, but it had too many, including the more junior monkeys.

Now, that middle third is where this lost me. It is incredibly mainstream fare to the point it reminded me of Independence Day - yes, really. I don't mind people cheering in the control room, etc, but this was built on ticking boxes and the execution annoyed me. I'm going to fault the script here.

Ridley and his late brother set up the label Scott Free Productions. I'm being harsh, but based on this, it should be called Risk Free Productions.

pinksoir

Watched it tonight and I thought for mainstream sci-fi fare it was excellent. Long enough at 140 mins but moves at a brisk enough pace that the time seemed to fly by. Jessica Chastain impressed with what little screen time she had and Matt Damon was the perfect choice for the lead. Nice to see Troy make an appearance too. Not without its faults but there's no doubt in my mind that it's the best Mars movie there is, movies which I have a weird attraction to.

OldRio

Popcorn movie. Enjoyable and easily forgotten.

lukin

Finally got around to watching this last night and while I wasn't disappointed, it wasn't nearly as good as I thought it would be. There was a lot of science and chemistry stuff in it that was interesting to know but not really that entertaining. I do admire the film-makers attention to scientific accuracy as that aspect is often left wanting in these kind of films.
I thought Watney's mood was far too good-humoured for a guy trapped on a planet 50 million miles from earth with no apparent means of escape
A few parts were cliched; the jingoistic flag-waving of the folks back home gathered in Times Square.

The nerdy guy who isn't part of the team that comes up with the solution nobody else has thought of.
The crew who go against authority to rescue the main protaganist

. It reminded me a lot of The Core (2003) in that sense.
The best part was at the end

when as his launch vehicle took off Matt Damon brilliantly showed how utterly terrified his character should be by openly weeping as the engines roared

. Brilliant acting by him.
They over-egged it with

Jessica Chastain's space walk to grab Watney. I understand they had to make the final rescue as nail-biting as possible though. It wouldn't have had the same effect if they had just landed on Mars and Watney jumped onboard like getting the number 46 from Stephen's Green.

Looper007

Like a few have said it was good but not as great as the critic's have you believe. First of Matt Damon was excellent and anytime he wasn't on screen I felt the film suffered, I wished the whole film was based around him. Out of the support cast only Chiwetel Ejiofor really stood out, sad to see Jessica Chastin, Michael Pena, and Jeff Daniels sadly underused. I thought anytime it stuck with Damon, it was fun and touching. It probably spent far too much time with Ejiofor and his crew trying to get Damon back. Don't get me started on that cheesy ending and credit sequence.

It sounds like I'm knocking it but it is Scott's best film in a good few years, but it's not in the same ballpark as Interstellar for me. The Martian just didn't take any risks like that film and played it far too safe. But well worth watching for Damon's great performance and some stunning camera work.

One thing shocked me though, I couldn't believe how much weight Benedict Wong gained. Damn he used to be so skinny.

m1ck007

Read the book last year. Impressed with the films interpretation.

eeguy

Looper007 wrote: »

One thing shocked me though, I couldn't believe how much weight Benedict Wong gained. Damn he used to be so skinny.

Did he put on weight to play Kublai Kahn?

Skerries

this time he was trying to solve a space problem and not cause one like in Sunshine

Agricola

Technocentral wrote: »

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

He's far from atrocious to be fair, but he definitely stood out in this as horribly miscast. I couldnt believe that this fidgety British guy was a NASA big shot. The part seemed to call for a similar big ego to counter Jeff Daniel's character, it came across as contrived.

And yeah,

at the Project Elrond bit, they really should have done more with it, would have been great!

I really enjoyed it anyway. Thankfully it didnt start as it meant to go on....

The all action, massively contrived storm sequence in order to get Damon abandoned on Mars made me groan, I thought here we go again, another Armageddon. But it ended up being a smart film which was just as many reviewers described.... the problem solving bit from Apollo 13 stretched out to 2 hours.

pixelburp

I only finished the book relatively recently, so it was still pretty fresh in my mind when I saw the film; as adaptations go it was remarkably faithful both in tone and execution. That said, I felt like a lot of translation from the printed-word to the screen, the nuance and voice from the page, was lost. Much of my own personal enjoyment was through Wattney's sarcastic narration (though I can understand how his delivery might have equally turn readers off) and near-constant state of crisis. Yet the film didn't seem to belong to Wattney to the same degree the novel did; equally we spent more time with NASA than in the novel which robbed some of the immediacy of Wattney's situation. My biggest complaint about the adaptation was that it jettisoned much of the peril from his

trip to the Schiaparelli crater, making the journey seem fairly tame

. Basically, the film made life on Mars seem a little easier than it managed in the book

Still though, as mainstream, big-ticket Sci-Fi films go, it was a gripping, intelligent human survival story and certainly didn't come saddled with the saccharine philosophical twaddle Interstellar had. No, it doesn't ask any big questions, but that wasn't the point of the exercise. It was also fairly optimistic and positive in its portrayal of human endeavour, space exploration and science in general, which was refreshing; we live in a time when the apocalypse is fashionable in our narratives, or where science is seen as an amoral creature constantly overstepping its bounds. In The Martian, science saves the day.

Boskowski

Watched it last night and really enjoyed it. Wouldn't give it a five star rating but definitely a very good one.
I thought they walked the fine line between science oriented and being widely accessible quite well. You can only put so much science in a blockbuster that's supposed to generate serious revenue. It would be very easy to bore the hell out of the not so appreciative viewers.
Having read the book I also thought they got the pace right. I was worried about that as the book is as much about the long lasting drudgery of the tasks he has to carry out as it is about the dangers that await at every corner. Even not having to wait for Ares IV its still over a year and a half he spends on Mars after all.
If you're into sic-fi its a must see.

cowboyBuilder

So I got to see this last night, It was very enjoyable, a solid film, a lot better then Ridley Scotts last Sci Fiction attempt.
I thought some of the music in it didn't suit (the disco stuff), I know it was trying to add comedy and sometimes it worked, but overall
it lacked punch and emotion like Interstellar had.

In fact it made me realise what a great film Interstellar was.

This American style "crowds gather to watch the rescue" and everyone cheering as he is just rescued at the nick of time, doesn't really work these days ..
I mean, how many people are dying on Earth, you think people would get that worked up about one guy on Mars ?

But still, the scenes on Mars were great (apart from some music) and they picked a good location in Jordan for filming, so very good film overall: 7/10 Solid!

Interstellar far better though.

Kirby

I really enjoyed Interstellar but frankly this was better. Interstellar was science fiction....this was science. It was grounded in reality and with the exception of a few parts for the audience, it was very realistic.

Best movie I've seen this year.

Mickeroo

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

So I got to see this last night, It was very enjoyable, a solid film, a lot better then Ridley Scotts last Sci Fiction attempt.
I thought some of the music in it didn't suit (the disco stuff), I know it was trying to add comedy and sometimes it worked, but overall
it lacked punch and emotion like Interstellar had.

In fact it made me realise what a great film Interstellar was.

This American style "crowds gather to watch the rescue" and everyone cheering as he is just rescued at the nick of time, doesn't really work theHse days ..
I mean, how many people are dying on Earth, you think people would get that worked up about one guy on Mars ?

But still, the scenes on Mars were great (apart from some music) and they picked a good location in Jordan for filming, so very good film overall: 7/10 Solid!

Interstellar far better though.

In fairness, a person left for dead on mars who turns out to be alive and manages to survive would be pretty big news regardless of how many people are dying on earth., didn't find that aspect hard to buy at all.

cowboyBuilder

Mickeroo wrote: »

In fairness, a person left for dead on mars who turns out to be alive and manages to survive would be pretty big news regardless of how many people are dying on earth., didn't find that aspect hard to buy at all.

Sure, I get that, it's bigger then one person, but I didn't think it was executed particularly well in this film.

Worked in Apollo 13 - maybe cos this was a true story.

Hrududu

Good fun but was about 20 minutes too long.

I laughed out loud at the council of Elrond scene. Like guys, he's right there.

My one issue, and its not with the film, its with the trailer is that

you always knew the crew would go back for him, so there was no tension around that. And watching NASA trying to get the supplies to him always felt like it would fail so the crew would have a reason to go back. I don't know why they feel the need to put such big plot points in a trailer. You can make people want to see the film without giving the whole game away.

Another bit I laughed at was the body double standing in for Matt Damon to make him look skinny. Very next scene had Damon in his suit looking the same size he had been for the whole film.

I haven't read the book but I'm tempted to now.

Goldstein

Anyone who saw this in the "maxx" screen in Mahon Point might be able to answer this one:

Did you notice that the picture was significantly down on brightness resulting in a very dim picture? I'm not being pedantic as it was very obvious and actively annoying at times. Almost exactly like the loss of brightness that happens in a 3D showing - if anything the loss was more pronounced.

I thought I noticed it in Interstellar 2D too (the last time I was in that particular screen) but thought it was a one-off. I think I even brought it up at the time and Sad Prof mentioned something about only one of the 2x 3D channels being used as it takes some effort to change it from 3D to 2D properly and they either can't be arsed or possibly they're not allowed near the expensive gear or it's too expensive to change back and forth. There mustn't have been too many complaints about it as Interstellar was ages ago. Bad form though especially considering the added cost in a screen that is otherwise a privilege to watch a film in.

Mickeroo

I didn't see it there but thought the same, particularly noticeable on the wide landscape shots of mars I thought.

Cookie_Monster

Mars is further away from the sun...

Goldstein

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Mars is further away from the sun...

I thought it was the whole film, even on Earth but I'm doubting myself now and that would be a very satisfying explanation for it. I'd be impressed if they'd purposely done that to mimic the ambient lux level on Mars. Let's just pretend that's it and hey presto, not annoying anymore! :pac:

Sad Professor

Goldstein wrote: »

Anyone who saw this in the "maxx" screen in Mahon Point might be able to answer this one:

Did you notice that the picture was significantly down on brightness resulting in a very dim picture? I'm not being pedantic as it was very obvious and actively annoying at times. Almost exactly like the loss of brightness that happens in a 3D showing - if anything the loss was more pronounced.

I thought I noticed it in Interstellar 2D too (the last time I was in that particular screen) but thought it was a one-off. I think I even brought it up at the time and Mad Prof mentioned something about only one of the 2x 3D channels being used as it takes some effort to change it from 3D to 2D properly and they either can't be arsed or possibly they're not allowed near the expensive gear or it's too expensive to change back and forth. There mustn't have been too many complaints about it as Interstellar was ages ago. Bad form though especially considering the added cost in a screen that is otherwise a privilege to watch a film in.

I’ve never been to OmniplexMAXX, but yeah, this sounds like a case of the 3D filter not being removed for 2D screenings. It’s fairly common and results in the reduction of brightness you describe. Most people just don’t notice it.

Brief_Lives

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Mars is further away from the sun...

brilliant.....

suicide_circus

Like the planet on which it is set, this movie is very dry. And not in the witty way. Too long and ultimately completely forgettable. Waste of a cinema ticket.

syklops

Goldstein wrote: »

I thought it was the whole film, even on Earth but I'm doubting myself now and that would be a very satisfying explanation for it. I'd be impressed if they'd purposely done that to mimic the ambient lux level on Mars. Let's just pretend that's it and hey presto, not annoying anymore! :pac:

It doesnt really look dim in the trailer...

Billy86

suicide_circus wrote: »

Like the planet on which it is set, this movie is very dry. And not in the witty way. Too long and ultimately completely forgettable. Waste of a cinema ticket.

Could've used more explosions, car chases and training montages to be sure. I mean yeah, there were some montages involved, but not one of them was set in a gym or training ground. Poor show.

run_Forrest_run

Saw this in Mahon Point on the MAXX screen last night and I didn't notice any brightness issues.
I enjoyed the film but the old cliché rings true, the book is better

LordSutch

If they had thrown in an Alien or two I might have gone to see it.

or even if Matt had found tantalising traces of a long extinct race of...

_Eddie_

Went to watch this last night at my local - IMC Ballina. The place was packed because of opening night for Spectre. We queued for quite a while and missed the first few minutes of the film, but you could fill in the missing pieces. The visuals were stunning, however, early on I noticed the aspect ratio was off. The film was being shown on screen 6 which seemed quite small and I'm not sure if it's capable of showing a film with an aspect ratio like the one the martian was filmed in. I've attached a screengrab from the IMDB trailer so you guys can see what it was like. I wish I would've said something on the way out, but oh well. I wish these big name theatre chains would get the projectionists to properly setup the equipment !!

OK - it says I'm a new user and can't post attachments or links. So you'll have to do it manually. Here it is - Http://i.imgur.com/BzAH4hz.jpg

.ak

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.

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.