Master Index of Archived Threads


The Martian (2015)

*****

2 votes

****-1/2

0 votes

****

0 votes

***-1/2

2 votes

***

0 votes

**-1/2

1 votes

**

0 votes

*-1/2

0 votes

*

0 votes

Frayed Knot Jul 12 2015 11:49 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Oct 05 2015 01:16 AM

[youtube]Ue4PCI0NamI[/youtube] This one's not out yet -- sked for October release (hope the release date doesn't conflict with any NYM playoff games) -- but I've been cautiously looking forward this since I read the book a year or two ago. Trailer looks good but, let's be honest, a slick looking trailer can be made out of just about anything. I'm hoping the translation to screen doesn't lose the humor that's more present in a sci-fi rescue attempt story than one would normally suspect. Not sure if anyone has an opinion about whether this is the type of movie Ridley Scott is likely to do well with or if it's something he'll just special-effect the shit out of it (to paraphrase a line from the trailer) and forego the story entirely. Matt Damon Jessica Chastain Kristen Wiig Jeff Daniels Chiwetel Ejiofor

Edgy MD Jul 13 2015 11:40 AM Re: The Martian (2015)

>>> "We left Paul Giammatti on Mars. Alive." >>>>>> "Oh, that's so sad!" >>> "And it would take like four years and two billion dollars to get back there to rescue him. And even then, who knows." >>>>>> "It's a tragedy!" >>> "Oh, wait... I'm sorry. We left Matt Damon on Mars." >>>>>> "AND WHY ARE WE SITTING HERE TALKING ABOUT IT?!!" >>> "Well it would take like..." >>>>>> "SHUT UP!!!"

soupcan Sep 04 2015 04:03 PM Re: The Martian (2015)

Read the book, loved it. Can't wait.

Frayed Knot Sep 04 2015 04:40 PM Re: The Martian (2015)

Heard/read recently that the October release date I mentioned above and had copied off of IMDB is for some festival that going to serve as its coming out party but that the general public release date is going to be more like late November - which is both what I had originally seen listed and a time which makes more sense for Oscar hype and so on. So it looks like it'll still be another 2-1/2 months or so until this is at a theatre near you. P.S. I like how, in early July, I threw in the line about not having this conflict with NYM playoff games. Turns out I was only being prescient.

soupcan Sep 04 2015 04:45 PM Re: The Martian (2015)

Saw a poster ad just yesterday that said October 7.

Frayed Knot Sep 04 2015 05:47 PM Re: The Martian (2015)

So according to the crack research staff here at CPF Central, the movie debut will either be in October or not in October. More details on this as they become available, but only if you keep it where it is.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Sep 10 2015 02:49 AM Re: The Martian (2015)

I recently read this book too. Was fun! Looks like they're giving him a loving wife and adorable child back home; I imagined his lack of "real-life" responsibilities allowed him to imagine the things he does.

Vic Sage Sep 11 2015 03:05 PM Re: The Martian (2015) Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Sep 16 2015 03:02 PM

I did a Ridley Scott filmography in a thread about BLADERUNNER. I think i still have it somewhere. oh wait... ----------------------------------------------------------- RIDLEY SCOTT FILMOGRAPHY BLADERUNNER: The Final Cutis being released in theaters for a limited run before being made available in a deluxe DVD set for Xmas. I've been looking forward to if for some time, since its one of my favorite movies. But let's be clear... Ridley Scott has to be the most over-rated director of his generation. Over the last 30 years, he has turned out maybe 3 or 4 good to great films, and then went back and sabotaged one of them. Scott started out as a set designer, and graduated to directing commercials in the 1960s-70s, so his style is exquisite in its sense of design and photography. But with regard to real storytelling, not so much. His first feature, THE DUELLISTS (1977), was a dirge-like contemplation of honor during the Napoleonic era. Its sonorous tone overlies exquisite visuals. But his next film ALIEN (1979), is perhaps the only truly great movie on his resume [on edit: with apologies to RealityChuck]. The quintessential "monster in the haunted house" movie dressed up as SF, it was both a huge critical and commercial success. This one gave him the clout to make, and then survive, his next project. BLADE RUNNER (1982) was a bomb upon its initial release but has, over time, become a cult classic and is now considered one of the greatest and most influential films of the last 25 years. And it certainly is my personal favorite of all his movies. The Vangelis score is hauntingly beautiful. The design is as influential as any movie ever made... until MATRIX, anyway. But most importantly, the themes of the story resonate in harmony with its images. What does it mean to be human? If you lack compassion, empathy, and emotional connection to others, are you really human? And if you have those things, does it matter what the origin of your biology is? Phillip K. dick wrote DO ANDROIDS DREAM OF ELECTRIC SHEEP partly as a critique of the "I was only following orders" defense of WWII-era Germans. Dick told us that we are each responsible for our own humanity, and the day we let the least of us die out of our own disinterest or lack of courage, we have surrendered that humanity. Of course, Scott completely sabotages this theme in the "Director's Cut" (and now again in the "Final Cut") by giving more evidence that Deckard is, himself, a replicant, thereby rendering the entire point moot. Instead of a story of redemption, where a person reclaims his humanity by recognizing the humanity in others, Scott turns it into a story of a replicant who learns to feel. Well, who cares if a non-existent fantasy construct called a "replicant" learns to freakin' feel, Ridley? Why don't you say something about people, instead, you schmuck?! The DIRECTOR'S CUT is actually worse than the theatrical release in other ways, too. In addition to adding the "Deckard is a replicant" theme, he has stripped out the voice-over narration, which furthered the movie's film-noir style, and its absence resonates throughout this cut. And while the movie didn't need the "happy ending" the studio originally insisted on, the dark ending you are now left with instead is not at all satisfying, and it removes the final images of blue sky that rewarded and mirrored Deckard's emotional transformation. These changes just indicate how little Scott understood what was great about his movie in the first place. After BLADERUNNER flopped, Scott churned out 3 stylish misfires: LEGEND (1985), SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER ME (1987) and BLACK RAIN (1989). LEGEND was a total flop, but SOMEONE and, to a lesser degree, BLACK RAIN were moderate commercial successes. These lead up to his getting hired on to direct THELMA & LOUISE (1991). T&L was both a commercial and critical success, and is an excellent film, but Scott was brought into this project fairly late in its development and doesn't feel entirely like a "Ridley Scott" picture. Still, it does offer the kind of strong, violent female protagonists (as in ALIEN) that would continue to be a thematic motif of his work. He followed up T&L with 3 pieces of Scottian crap: 1492 (1992) ,WHITE SQUALL (1996) and G.I. JANE (1997). While JANE was a huge hit (echoing his themes of militaristic women from ALIEN and T&L), I found it relentlessly ridiculous and nearly unwatchable. He hit the next one out of the park, however, with GLADIATOR (2000) ... a blockbuster/Oscar winner. But, despite its unmistakable grandeur and Russell Crowe's star-making performance, the film can be read as profoundly stupid and cynical (a view i share). Still, it remains one of his best works (which says all you need to know about Scott's career output). HANNIBAL (2001) was a hit, too, based largely on its status as a long awaited sequel to the terrific SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. The critics lambasted it for the most part, and, while opulent, it is also repugnant and unengaging. BLACK HAWK DOWN (2001) was next and joined SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER ME, G.I. JANE and HANNIBAL into the group of glossy but inept hits from the witless Brit. Despite its box office performance and even a generally positive critical reaction, BHD seems to me more akin to Scott's cinematic misfires like 1492 and WHITE SQUALL. BHD is basically a Bruckheimer film, where handsome young men perform heroic deeds at great speed and high volume. I didn’t hate it, but it left me totally uninvolved, unmoved, and not particularly entertained. I was, however (like the goofy-looking soldier in the film), left deafened by the din. Perhaps it could play on a triple bill with GI JANE and THE DUELLISTS as a meditation on the nature of martial honor... as told through a series of lovely photographs, narrated by a moron. Still, BHD has been Scott's last hit to date. MATCHSTICK MEN (2003) is a poorly constructed "Sting" con-man movie with an extremely annoying performance by Nick Cage. It failed to find an audience. KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (2005), however, is pure Ridley, returning to the epic scale of GLADIATOR. Unfortunately, Orlando Bloom is no Russell Crowe, so it ends up an entertaining doughnut... yummy around the edges with a hole in the middle. Again, coherence is not Scott's strongsuit, but this is probably his best film since GLADIATOR. Yet it, too, couldn't make back its huge budget domestically (though it ultimately paid off internationally). With A GOOD YEAR (2006), Ridley tried his hand at a romantic "dramedy". Watching Ridley Scott try to pull off this type of light entertainment is like watching a hippo trying to hula, which was not a sight anyone cared to see. A big flop . Lastly, this year's AMERICAN GANGSTER (2007) has a mixed critical buzz going before its November opening. We'll see what level of audience interest is shown, especially since its starring Denzel Washington. It could be pure hack work or a return to respectability. We shall see. But at this point in his career, Ridley Scott seems to me an idiot savant... a total genius with a camera, but nearly incapable of creating anything approaching human drama, except only occasionally and only be accident. --------------------------------- As it turned out neither GANGSTER, nor the subsequent BODY OF LIES (2008) and ROBIN HOOD (2010) did much to change the trajectory of his career, though i do admit some affection for Crowe's performance as Robin Hood, despite the leaden, lumbering movie he's trapped in. But then, some years later, i added a review of PROMETHEUS: PROMETHEUS (2012) - I would appreciate it if Sir Ridley just stopped making movies. This was as big, stupid, and stupifyingly pointless as any movie i've ever seen from him, and that's saying quite a bit. The film's horrific elements are ones he's used before; nothing new or innovative there. The theological/philosophical musings are banal, half-baked inanities. The characters are largely ignored, which is ok, cuz most of the performances suck anyway. Noomi Rapace (so good as the original girl with the dragon tattoo) does the best she can as the "true believer" (believer of what? who knows), but when she starts running all over the place immediately after having emergency stomach surgery, things get just too ridiculous (didn't anybody working on this film realize that surgically severed stomach muscles tend to be a hindrance to locomotion?). Guy Pearce is wasted under a ton of LITTLE BIG MAN age makeup (they could have cast his orthopedist in the role, for all it would've mattered). Charlize Theron is doing entirely too many "evil blonde ice queen" roles. And Charlize, take a tip from Noomi... when something huge, long and relatively narrow is falling straight down on top of you in a line, don't run straight ahead; just make a left. or a right. either way. And what is the guy from the WIRE doing here, talking about Stephen Stills' accordian? And if you were a scientist who was too scared to stay in the presence of a dead alien, so much so that you and another chicken scientist decided to walk back to the ship without waiting for the others in the party, and then you and your chicken buddy get stuck in the alien underground to wait out a storm, would you really go up to an alien worm/snake/serpent thingy rising up out of alien black goo and go "cootchy coo" while trying to pet it? REALLY? Ridley, your narrative sense was always borderline non-existent, but you've gone completely round the bend, without even visual innovation to distract us. You ain't great, Scott. Go back to commercials for the BBC and leave us the hell alone. ------------------------------- I passed on the opportunity to sit through his subsequent films, The Counselor and Exodus: Gods and Kings, but they were fairly well lambasted and unsuccessful. Now he gives us THE MARTIAN and, while i like what i see in the trailer and I'm tempted to see it, I remain dubious about its prospects. I hope for it to be great, or even good, but, alas, Scott's track record makes it unlikely.

Edgy MD Sep 11 2015 03:10 PM Re: The Martian (2015)

Vic Sage wrote: Still, it does offer the kind of strong, violent female protagonists (as in ALIEN) that would continue to be a thematic motif of his work. Don't forget tall. He likes 'em tall.

Vic Sage Sep 16 2015 03:08 PM Re: The Martian (2015)

i just noticed that i use the word "lambasted" way too much in that essay. It's unavoidable when talking about Scott's films, but still.

Frayed Knot Oct 05 2015 01:33 AM Re: The Martian (2015)

So it's quite good (IMO of course) Scott does manage to retain the story and some of the humor. Quite Apollo 13-ish in that (not giving away any secrets here) it's essentially a space rescue flick flipping between outer space and Mission Control back on Earth. I don't think it matches A-13 (I've watched that thing maybe 20 times plus remember the actual event and I still get choked up every time the ship re-establishes communication following re-entry) but it's good enough on it's own. Damon as Mark Watney is required to carry the film through about 85% of it and is up to the task - not always easy to do when you've got no one to talk to but yourself much of the time. But he does and the movie follows the book for the most part. They actually clean up the language a bit in the movie (probably to make it more family friendly). Kristen Wiig's NASA pr flack for instance doesn't get to be as coarse as she was in the book and a couple of the other supporting parts aren't as fully drawn out as they could be. And some of the more science-y tricks Watney pulls are reduced for time and the final rescue mission is punched up to a more adventurous (and less believable) conclusion. And speaking of conclusions they could have done without the 10 minute or so coda at the end. But those are essentially all minor quibbles for a fun ride. Saw it in 3D - which wasn't the intention but there was a mix-up about starting times so it was either that or wait an hour. It was my first encounter with 3D which I consider to be mostly a gimmick. Kind of got used to it partway in but I still would have preferred to see it 'straight' despite a few moments where a particular scene looks kinda cool.

Edgy MD Oct 08 2015 07:20 PM Re: The Martian (2015)

I'm heading to Mars this evening. A lot has been commented on about how many films feature (in part or whole) rescuing Matt Damon. Not knowing his family status in The Martian, I'd like to note that a lot of films feature (in part or whole) a parentless Matt Damon. Has any actor ever been so consistently been portrayed for sympathy? He regularly gets orphaned and marooned. Meanwhile, An Alarming Number Of People Think “The Martian” Is A True Story.

Frayed Knot Oct 08 2015 09:05 PM Re: The Martian (2015)

"I'm heading to Mars this evening." -- Wear your seatbelt "A lot has been commented on about how many films feature (in part or whole) rescuing Matt Damon. Not knowing his family status in The Martian, I'd like to note that a lot of films feature (in part or whole) a parentless Matt Damon. Has any actor ever been so consistently been portrayed for sympathy? He regularly gets orphaned and marooned." -- The existence of still living parents are mentioned in both the book and movie although never seen or heard from in either. "Meanwhile, An Alarming Number Of People Think “The Martian” Is A True Story." -- So just so I have this straight, we DID go to Mars but the moon landings were all faked? I sometimes find it hard to believe that the majority of people in this country walk around with their shoes tied.

MFS62 Oct 09 2015 12:45 AM Re: The Martian (2015)

Loved it - story, cinematography, acting, even the disco music - everything. Don't do 3-D , but there were some scenes that might have been enhanced by it. But that wasn't necessary for the enjoyment of the movie. Later

Vic Sage Oct 13 2015 06:41 PM Re: The Martian (2015)

Excellent performance by Damon, lovely visuals (as usual for Scott), but so utterly devoid of character development, or even the development of significant themes (beyond "its better to survive than not"), that it left me cold. Matt Damon's Astronaut Watney is a very likeable figure, using humor to get him through his struggle for survival. The movie has a lighter more optimistic tone than most Crusoe-style adventures and is engaging enough, for the most part. But there is no drama in this story... "drama", in the sense of a character that starts low and ends high (comedy) or starts high and ends low (tragedy). The abandoned astronaut, with his good natured can-do spirit, "sciences the shit out of" his situation, and lives happily ever after, ultimately teaching other potential astronauts how to do likewise. Nothing happens that you couldn't guess from watching the trailer or reading a 1-line summary. Unlike Hanks in CASTAWAY or Bullock in GRAVITY, or even McConaughy in INTERSTELLAR, Damon's character has no arc and ends up no different than he started, except older and thinner, but apparently unchanged by his ordeal. Meanwhile, i guess we're supposed to care about the crew's guilt in abandoning him, but why? we don't even know their names and their characters consist of 1 idea each: the captain likes disco, there's a Russian guy, the Mara girl is cute and has a thing for one of the other scientist guys about whom virtually nothing is known. And their backstories are positively Shakespearean compared to the NASA ground crew. And when they take a vote about going back for their abandoned comrade, there really isn't any doubt what they will do. THE MARTIAN is just a plot-driven, mechanical story about what obstacle will arise next before the utterly inevitable conclusion finally shows up after 2.5 hours. Now sometimes a "procedural" can be just fine, and APOLLO-13 wasn't much more than that. But in that film, the real-time immediacy of their disastrous situation and their efforts to survive heightened the tension and, even though we already knew how it would end (it being a true story), the storytelling and pacing was such that you couldn't help but get caught up in the high stakes adventure of it. And whatever minimal character development was presented, the film takes time to establish characters on Earth before shooting them into space. THE MARTIAN, however, never establishes anybody and so becomes entirely reliant on plot (as opposed to theme and character), so it needed a high level of energy and pacing to keep our attention. Watney's rescue, however, is virtually in slow motion, playing out over 18 months, with all communication on a delay, so the story is necessarily attenuated and meanders at its own deliberate pace as we just sit and wait for the next thing to go wrong and watch how the problem is solved. The overall cheeriness and NASA-"rah rah" flag waving tone of it all tells us exactly where the story is leading long before it gets there. Everyone in this universe is noble, competent and selfless -- from the astronauts, to NASA, to the Chinese scientists -- so i guess that makes this more of a fantasy than it is science fiction. In any event, it makes it devoid of real human conflict or drama. Even the visuals, which are quite good, do not provide any breathtaking moments, which is the least I expect from a Ridley Scott film. The red buttes and valleys of Mars do recall John Ford's "monument valley" westerns, but to what purpose? THE MARTIAN is OK i guess, and champions science and all good things, but as drama it's nothing to write home about... particularly if home is 40 million miles away.

Edgy MD Oct 13 2015 07:18 PM Re: The Martian (2015)

That's pretty much where I was at, though I was more charitable in my rating than you. Where was the wrestling with the loneliness, looking up at the Martian starscape? Why no depiction of the mood on earth until the very end when you see dancing in Times Square? A man is the only living thing on a planet. That's an incredible and profound and terrifying thing. And then he makes life by growing potatoes. That's really profound. A lot of the people in this world live almost entirely on a single subsistence crop: potatoes, rice, kasava. Whatev. Science! It's cool — but not as cool as it could be — as a science adventure. It hints at offering the punch back at our culture of dysfunction and showing how we can pull together as teams and solve problems when we have to, but with none of the satisfaction — or even the roadmap — that Apollo 13 offered. The latter was used for years at business retreats. I hesitate to praise Ron Howard to the skies, but I don't see this having that sort of long tail as a team-building exercise. It even has a built-in metaphor for faith-and-science, as Watney carves up a crucifix for kindling, but it becomes a grinning, wink of a moment. That the credits roll to the tune of "I Will Survive," pretty much sums up how deep it hits or how deep it really wants to hit. Where were the minions?

Edgy MD Oct 13 2015 10:34 PM Re: The Martian (2015)

I guess what it really had a swing at speaking to is the why? When things really start to suck, and they could suck more tomorrow, and there's a good chance that nobody is aware of your existence or what you're trying to do with the days you have left to you... why go on? Ridley Scott, at 78, and living in the wake of the suicide of his younger brother and fellow filmmaker, might have been in a meaningful position to take a crack at that one, as big as it is.

Vic Sage Oct 14 2015 01:58 PM Re: The Martian (2015)

Absolutely. I didn't know about his brother's suicide (or maybe i knew and forgot), and so "why go on" would certainly seem a pertinent question for Ridley to answer, or at least to raise. But there were a million things the movie could have been about, as evidenced by the many stories about a man's survival -- with its attendant isolation, abandonment, introspection, desperation, revelation, transcendence and redemption -- that have tackled the themes that this obvious metaphor offers. And there is always some new perspective or insight to be had, or some new way to pose the fundamental questions. "Why go on?" is certainly one of them, and how do you maintain hope in the face of such a hopeless situation?, and how does such prolonged isolation impact our fundamental humanity? But this movie really offers nothing thematically; it's just a one-foot-in-front-of-another procedural. Which is a surprise to me because, whatever else one can say about Ridley's work (and i've said a lot), it has never been short on themes and big ideas...often short on story, and character too, but never themes. Here, all we get are banalities like "keep your chin up", and "a smile will see you through", and "yea, teamwork!", and "what a great species we are", and "it's better to survive than not". He toys with "science v religion" (i.e., Man vs God) with the early scene of Damon cutting up the cross to use for kindling, but it is never developed beyond that, and so is an idea that's as abandoned as our heroic astronaut. But there is more than just a lack of theme here. There is a lack of dramatic conflict. There are 3 basic forms of dramatic conflict: Man vs Man, Man vs Nature (or God), and Man vs Himself. The best stories have aspects of all of these. While MARTIAN has "Man v Nature" in abundance, there are virtually no other conflicts going on, so in order to work, such a story has to be executed perfectly, and keep us guessing, and then actually have something to say about the conflict. But this movie, while executed well for the most part, doesn't go anywhere you didn't already expect it to, and just didn't have anything whatsoever to say... which is a missed opportunity, given the subject matter, the artists involved and the budget. But according to Rotten Tomatoes, i'm in a miniscule minority with this view, so the mileage of others clearly varies.

RealityChuck Jan 02 2016 12:29 AM Re: The Martian (2015)

I find Scott to be wildly uneven, with a lot of crap and a few good movies. Thelma and Louise is his greatest film, but he did some good work on Blade Runner (though it's not as good as people think it is) and Matchstick Men deserved better. Gladiator is tedious nonsense and I'm surprised it's so well regarded. Cinema Sins covers it well: [youtube]mF61wAxlDPY[/youtube] The Martian, however, is first class, maybe the second best film he's ever done. I think it worked pretty well at all levels.