09-07-2016, 12:09 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-07-2016, 12:10 AM by Gaith. Edited 1 time in total.)
The Martian (2015)
[Image: 960.jpg]
It's... fine, I guess. Nice to look at, and it held my interest once, but I have no desire to ever see it again. What's the point, really, of making a fictional knockoff of Apollo 13 when that movie exists, is historical, and great? (At least, I think it's great; I haven't seen it since it came out. I should fix that.)
The best bits are front-loaded, when Damon makes an improvised farm and Earth contact is sketchy. As the movie goes on, we spend more time with dull, one-dimensional Earth characters than we do with our hero, and the whole thing ends up feeling rote. (Those without a high tolerance for numerous cheering-filled, soaring score-heavy Mission Control room scenes need not apply.)
C+
[Image: val-kilmer-red-planet.jpg]
I frankly prefer 2000's under-appreciated Red Planet, which strikes a splendid balance between being just goofy enough to justify the Mars premise (whereas The Martian is blandly no-nonsense), but not so out-there that the drama deflates. And, there are zero - count 'em, zero - lame Earth cutaway scenes. (Did I mention it's a half-hour shorter?) Ebert gave it an affectionate three-star review:
"Red Planet" would have been a great 1950s science fiction film. It embodies the kind of nuts-and-bolts sci-fi championed by John W. Campbell Jr. in his Astounding magazine--right down to the notion that a space mission would be staffed by research scientists, and although there would be a woman on board, she would not be the kind of woman depicted in an aluminum brassiere on the covers of his competitors. This is a film where much of the suspense involves the disappearance of algae.
Red Planet: B+
Random fan edit idea thought: a half-dozen or so Mars movies smooshed together, cutting from one to the other on a scene-by-scene basis? United by the Martian setting a vague near-future time? (i.e., sorry, John Carter, and Mars Needs Moms.)
[Image: 960.jpg]
It's... fine, I guess. Nice to look at, and it held my interest once, but I have no desire to ever see it again. What's the point, really, of making a fictional knockoff of Apollo 13 when that movie exists, is historical, and great? (At least, I think it's great; I haven't seen it since it came out. I should fix that.)
The best bits are front-loaded, when Damon makes an improvised farm and Earth contact is sketchy. As the movie goes on, we spend more time with dull, one-dimensional Earth characters than we do with our hero, and the whole thing ends up feeling rote. (Those without a high tolerance for numerous cheering-filled, soaring score-heavy Mission Control room scenes need not apply.)
C+
[Image: val-kilmer-red-planet.jpg]
I frankly prefer 2000's under-appreciated Red Planet, which strikes a splendid balance between being just goofy enough to justify the Mars premise (whereas The Martian is blandly no-nonsense), but not so out-there that the drama deflates. And, there are zero - count 'em, zero - lame Earth cutaway scenes. (Did I mention it's a half-hour shorter?) Ebert gave it an affectionate three-star review:
"Red Planet" would have been a great 1950s science fiction film. It embodies the kind of nuts-and-bolts sci-fi championed by John W. Campbell Jr. in his Astounding magazine--right down to the notion that a space mission would be staffed by research scientists, and although there would be a woman on board, she would not be the kind of woman depicted in an aluminum brassiere on the covers of his competitors. This is a film where much of the suspense involves the disappearance of algae.
Red Planet: B+
Random fan edit idea thought: a half-dozen or so Mars movies smooshed together, cutting from one to the other on a scene-by-scene basis? United by the Martian setting a vague near-future time? (i.e., sorry, John Carter, and Mars Needs Moms.)
![[+]](https://forums.fanedit.org/images/focus/collapse_collapsed.png)