The Martian (2015) Review

KEEP UP ON SOCIAL MEDIA:

[derekmcmanus]

Sean Bean doesn't even die in this movie...not even once!

[peterkershaw]

Between this film and Interstellar, I've learned an important life lesson.

Never trust Matt Damon with an airlock.

[papajohnl]

missed chance for Matt Damon to say, How do ya like them potatoes .

[steveboldt]

Honestly, The Martian is actually one of my favorite films. There are only a couple things that I would have added as a director to tie it better into the book, which is also one of my favorites. However, I do see what you mean about the writing. My biggest gripes with your review are that the storm was upgraded in scale passed their abort threshold, hence the hasty abort scene, and the scene with Michael Pena's speak English line. These guys according to the book are all scientists of different fields. Mark is a botanist and an engineer. Michael was a pilot, and Johansson was a computer programmer. for redundancy, each crewman knew two fields, not all six. One last thing is how you think the film should have been darker. I feel like that might have detracted from the lighthearted tone of the story TOO much, but perhaps seeing an edit would change my mind. That being said, I still really enjoyed your review! Thank you for checking it out. I always look forward to seeing what all you review

[portland-]

China saving the day is in the book, not just added for the movie to appeal to the Chinese cinema market. Russia's space systems not featuring is a flaw in the book. Girl Boss Chastain's rescue was added, for reasons, as the rescue goes more to plan in the book, and Beck the EVA expert does the capture.

[paulscottrobson]

The storm is the big flaw, and everyone including Andy Weir knew it. The problem was what Dave said ; they needed a reason for Watney to be stuck on Mars that made some sort of sense.
In the book, this scene is actually in the middle, and the book was written fanfiction style, so it had been half written before anyone thought to wonder why he was stuck there.

[NotYourFriendPal]

The Martian was a perfect, light-hearted Sci-fi movie. The comedic quips and banter keep it from being too dry or dark. If it there were more high-brow science jargon or grit, ppl would complain it was too dark. Critics are hated for a reason.

[fearthehoneybadger]

Was actually a decent movie. I liked it.

[paulmaddison]

For maybe the first time ever I'm not on the same page as you on this one. But that's ok.

[rhaegartargaryen]

Gotta respectfully disagree, the Martian was an excellent movie. I would hardly characterise the director as an antagonist but more realist on the unfathomable odds of survival of one guy vs safety of an entire crew.

[ukmediawarrior]

I don't often disagree with Dave, but I love The Martian, lol. I never even considered it DEI till he pointed it out because, I think, there are so many characters with the plot shared between them all that it waters that aspect down. Plus the real life NASA is very much like that. It's an agency where merit and skill win out over your skin color.

Dave got one point wrong which he mentions a couple of times, that NASA go to the Chinese and ask for help, they do not. There is a scene where the head of the Chinese space agency and his assistant watch the destruction of the NASA resupply vehicle and they discuss whether they should reach out to the Americans and offer help as they have their own vehicle that the USA doesn't know about. They decide to help, but the chief of the Chinese agency tells his assistant that it has to be done between scientists, not a political move.

As to the humor, I like it, and it was adapted from a book so maybe a little tougher to change out the humor for something darker and keep the characters true to the book. The people on the Hermes is, again, somewhere I disagree with Dave. I found them well rounded individuals, each with their own area of expertise which is exactly how it would be on a NASA mission. The pilot won't know how to do what the mission specialist does and vis versa. There is of course some degree of overlap, but not to the point of specifics. So Martinez, a USAF pilot, is believable in not understanding what Johannsson says when she explains how area of expertise, computers.

[wesandell]

Going to have to disagree with you on this one Dave. I actually liked the offbeat humor of the Matt Damon's character. That's actually why he doesn't descend into madness. First, he's not completely "alone". He can talk with NASA (though only through text and delayed). As well, he's video blogging on purpose so that he can "talk" with someone. All these are psychological attempts to stave off the madness of isolation. The whole point was that his humor and crassness is why he didn't go crazy and that someone else probably wouldn't have survived. I actually like Jeff Daniel's, no nonsense character. He was dry and strict on purpose. He was all about the mission, period. He wasn't supposed to joke around and goof off (like the other characters). His job was to get Matt Damon's character home. As he said in the movie, you figure out the science, I'll get you the money. He was a "just the facts" type character. Now, is that realistic? Sure, I've known several leaders who are like that. I absolutely hate it as a subordinate, but....in truth it's quite effective and can push you to work harder than if your boss was more laid back (though there is a limit to that). The movie did make a few changes to the book (like the Ironman flying at the end). As well, scientifically, the whole incident would never happen as the Martian atmosphere isn't thick enough to actually have a windstorm that strong (which the author of the book admitted was a big problem with the entire story, but he couldn't come up with an alternative theory to explain why they would leave behind somebody). In the end, I actually really enjoyed the movie and really disagree with the intensity of your criticisms. Are they valid? Probably, but I don't think they are that big of a deal and don't take away from how good the movie is.

[grayjedioutcast]

Not gonna lie, the diversity in this movie was never an issue for me as they never made it a thing in the movie and most of the characters are likeable, they listen and respect one another(for the most part). So imma push back a bit and say that this movie doesn't have all that modern day bs that's been beating us over the head for the past almost decade. And as far as Ted, the head of NASA, I just always saw him as corporate guy that's more about making sure that he looks good for the press and as the face of NASA and not just "evil white guy because he's a white guy". To me, it never came off like that.

[MrHwsmp]

Sorry Dave, but I have to disagree here. One of the major points of the book was to show astronauts and ex-armed forces people as they are, not as Hollywood usually imagines them to be. They're chosen for emotional stability and their ability to stoicaly keep functioning in extreme situations. Screaming and crying and breaking down are what average people do, which is why above-average people are selected as astronauts. Read or listen to some of the stories about Neil Armstrong if you don't believe me. Mark Watney reacts in exactly the way a real astronaut does: he squares his shoulders and "works the problem", with ironic gallows humour to keep himself going.

There are three techincal things wrong with the film, only one of which was in the book. That was the storm, which, due to Mars' thin atmosphere, wouldn't generate enough pressure to trouble the MAV. Andy Weir knew this, but put it in as artistic licence to get Watney stranded. The second is that Mars' soil turns out to be full of perchlorate compounds which would make Watney's agriculture fail. However, this was discovered _after_ the book was published (note that I've seen some back and forth on this point, which I'm not qualified to pass judgement on). The third was the design of the Hermes, which in the movie features nuclear power _and_ solar panels, the former making the latter unneccessary. In the book, the ship had two halves which split apart and rotated around each other to create artificial gravity, but the movie went for a more "2001" look, presumably because it was more familiar to the audience.

What you missed is Jeff Daniels is practicle, decisive, intelligent and direct.

[jonnyq]

This was a damn decent movie. The most ridiculously nitpicked review I’ve seen in some time. Too many biases going in.

[carmoon]

Didn’t really see Jessica Chastain’s character as a ‘strong female character’ trope. She wasnt flawless and belittled the male characters, didn’t really bother me tbh

[derekmcmanus]

Great movie but the book is 100% better

[scottre]

The wind velocities on Mars can sound high, but at 1% the atmospheric pressure, it exerts about the same force as a stiff breeze on earth. BTW...I read the book before and the movie is like the less intelligent Hollywood version of the story.

[e.a.herman]

Are we taking anti-woke too far? Nobody in this movie is a Mary Sue or Gary Sue. They make mistakes, fail, learn and later succeed. The minority characters and the white characters act like real people. They all work together to achieve their goals despite their differences.