A few reviews

[bionicbob]

The Martian (2015)


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.)

C+

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+

My family loves The Martian!  Have watched it multiple times and it continues to entertain.  Though I agree, Apollo 13 is superior and it still holds up wonderfully after all these years.

The Red Planet on the other hand I find completely unwatchable.  I agree it has a neat retro-throw back quality, but I think it was very poorly executed and I just had trouble believing any of these guys would be selected to go to Mars....lol.   No wonder NASA withdrew all support during the early production phase.

I have a real soft spot for Brian DePalma's MISSION TO MARS... it too is a bit goofy, but I have a fascination with the whole Face On Mars concept and weirdly I found Mission to Mars more believable than Red Planet.