The Martian (Ridley Scott)

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.