 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saw this one in the best possible technical circumstances, and it still fell flat for me.
The truly skilled actors in this movie either didn't have much to do or had roles too small to stand out; though it doesn't matter because the characterization and dialogue is so flat.
The origin of the novel, as I understand it, is a self-published internet serial that got picked up by a publishing house, and I believe it. This may be the first studio-financed, auteur-directed piece of fan fiction in Hollywood history.
I hope everyone learns a big lesson from watching it run in continuous two-month loops on HBO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was better as ROBINSON CRUSOE ON MARS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was better as ROBINSON CRUSOE ON MARS.
Right on!!!!
The book sucked and the film is 2 hours and 15 minutes.
Pass.
brm
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saw this one in the best possible technical circumstances,....
JIm Phelps' basement screening room?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Marshall--you are hopeless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 6, 2015 - 3:43 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Amer Zahid
(Member)
|
As I said in the other thread about THE MARTIAN, I loved the film, and it easily went straight into my 5th place of 2015 films I've seen so far (about 120). The combination of science fiction, isolation drama and Ridley Scott is simply something that I cannot resist. That being said, I had actually expected it to go straight to the top, but I was taken aback by the amount of comedy, the predictable Hollywood ending and the lack of more serious existentialism. They didn't ruin the film for me, but they made it something less than it could have been, IMO. So I can understand where some of the 'contrary' opinions stem from.
Same here, but keeping today's audience in mind and most of the folks who didn't get INTERSTELLAR in the first place. They had to make a film that was easily accessible to the average Joe. The premise of the film, the mix of comedy, fun and juxtaposition of science made it work out just right for the audience to buy in. The studios are now raking at the revenues. So its all cleverly made up that way but at the expense of the books own sense of verisimilitude.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They had to make a film that was easily accessible to the average Joe. The premise of the film, the mix of comedy, fun and juxtaposition of science made it work out just right for the audience to buy in. The studios are now raking at the revenues. So its all cleverly made up that way but at the expense of the books own sense of verisimilitude.
And that's my problem in a nutshell. Yes, 20th Century-Fox and the associated production companies and investors took a chance on legitimately hard sci-fi, and then watered it down vis-à-vis too many characters and way too little focus on the survival element.
For this movie to have worked for me would have taken at least two sequences where you don't see any other character but Watney for a good thirty minutes, to give "verisimilitude" to his utter isolation.
This narrative basic was neglected, due to the need for a more traditional, and "demographically inclusive" crowd-pleaser, which I'm all for, believe me. But the diminishment of Watney's isolation, cinematically, ultimately diminishes the narrative potential of the setup, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why do you think so many of your "issues" with the movie are on the studio's end? It's a pretty faithful adaptation of the book.
That's why I call The Martian the most spectacular piece of Hollywood-realized fan fiction ever. A scientifically competent, even compelling premise, is outfitted with cardboard characters and trite dialogue; just what Hollywood, in its current iteration can't help but give us over, and over, and over, and over.
Despite the compelling premise, this is blandished, neutered dramatics of the contemporary Mega-Media school. I'm wasn't offended; just hoping for more from what was billed in media accounts as "part of a return to mature spectacle" in popular cinema.
We got spectacle, yes; maturity, only in abridged form. The absence of any extended "alone" sequences with Watney suggests that the novelist didn't have the chops to make spending thirty minutes (or a few chapters. Novel readers enlighten me.) compelling because of the scant character development.
It's like a character from The Big Bang Theory got stranded on Mars. Not someone I'd want to spend thirty straight minutes of screen time alone with, thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was better as ROBINSON CRUSOE ON MARS.
THEY ALSO borrowed the "abandoned astronaut who the crew thought was dead" plot from the awful
MISSION TO MARS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Marshall--you are hopeless.
I WOULD HOPE SO!
(is there anything better than slamming a film you have not even seen? I ask you)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'M kinda sick of Matt Damon - he seems to be in every other film!*
brm
*including that OTHER intergalactic FLIC
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 6, 2015 - 10:13 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Khan
(Member)
|
Why do you think so many of your "issues" with the movie are on the studio's end? It's a pretty faithful adaptation of the book.
That's why I call The Martian the most spectacular piece of Hollywood-realized fan fiction ever. A scientifically competent, even compelling premise, is outfitted with cardboard characters and trite dialogue; just what Hollywood, in its current iteration can't help but give us over, and over, and over, and over.
Despite the compelling premise, this is blandished, neutered dramatics of the contemporary Mega-Media school. I'm wasn't offended; just hoping for more from what was billed in media accounts as "part of a return to mature spectacle" in popular cinema.
We got spectacle, yes; maturity, only in abridged form. The absence of any extended "alone" sequences with Watney suggests that the novelist didn't have the chops to make spending thirty minutes (or a few chapters. Novel readers enlighten me.) compelling because of the scant character development.
It's like a character from The Big Bang Theory got stranded on Mars. Not someone I'd want to spend thirty straight minutes of screen time alone with, thank you.
Maybe you should actually read the book and realize how off base your issues with the movie are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 6, 2015 - 10:14 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Khan
(Member)
|
As I said in the other thread about THE MARTIAN, I loved the film, and it easily went straight into my 5th place of 2015 films I've seen so far (about 120). The combination of science fiction, isolation drama and Ridley Scott is simply something that I cannot resist. That being said, I had actually expected it to go straight to the top, but I was taken aback by the amount of comedy, the predictable Hollywood ending and the lack of more serious existentialism. They didn't ruin the film for me, but they made it something less than it could have been, IMO. So I can understand where some of the 'contrary' opinions stem from.
The book doesn't dive into existentialism, so why should the movie?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
