An astronaut is stranded alone on Mars with limited supplies, and it will be four years before the next mission to Mars when he might be rescued. I read the book two and half years ago and loved it. I haven’t read a better work of fiction since. To me it was a remarkable novel, and it was obvious ready-made material for a summer Hollywood blockbuster with a massive star in the lead role. So I’ve waited two and a half years for the movie version. I went in with middling expectations. It was pretty much the perfect adaptation. They added nothing new and made no stupid additions or alterations (the short opening and closing scenes might be new but they were good). They kept closely to the novel and removed the right stuff. As far as I can tell it’s the same characters, dialogue, scenes and situations from the novel. It’s an accurate, faithful adaption. I didn’t notice anything significant missing. At least I personally didn’t miss anything. If I wanted it in the movie version then it made it into the movie. The stuff they did remove was non-essential and made logical sense. The long journey at the end for example was an obvious place where it could get draggy and bogged down with stuff audiences by this point weren’t interested in. Sure enough they skipped over this with a one minute montage and a few choice lines of dialogue. Smart decisions like this are made all along the line. I missed one line about technically colonising Mars, but it turned up later in the movie (apparently it’s in the same place as it is in the book). I really have no complaints with the movie. It is the book. That is a good thing. I struggle to imagine how they could have done it better. It’s well cast, directed and written. There are no weak links. It is more or less the perfect adaption. The biggest complaint I can come up with? It wasn’t particularly funny. There was room for more humour, but that’s not to say the film didn’t have a few small laughs in it. Visually I was concerned because the publicity images didn’t match the pictures I had in my mind. Not once during the movie did I question the look of the movie. It swamped my own ideas and rendered my own pictures redundant. If you haven’t read the novel I think some people might complain the film’s a bit bland. The novel dwells more on the survival aspect of the story, but it’s perfectly fair that the film couldn’t devote as much attention to that.
10 out of 10
I really liked the casting, but I thought it all got a bit silly at times. That said, I haven’t read the book.
I was intrigued by Jeff Daniels’ part – it was as if Will McEvoy quit reading the news in “The Newsroom” and got a job at NASA.
I want to see this, although I hated the book. I think the book’s failings won’t scupper a film version. My major beef was that the book completely failed to get across the grandeur and sense of wonder of being on another planet, and if anyone can do that, it’s Ridley Scott. The main character is also a tremendous pain in the arse in the book, with his constant wacky quips. I reckon he might have been abandoned deliberately. I can only hope the screenwriters have dialled back on that.
I can confirm that they haven’t.
I haven’t read the book either (but I probably will now). I enjoyed the film a lot, although I wouldn’t call it a classic, mainly due to the plot getting a bit “clunky” at times. Visually stunning (as you would expect) with Matt Damon living up to his “Everyone’s favourite hero” tag (an honour previously held by Tom Hanks whose Castaway was the terrestrial version of The Martian). Kristen Wiig is also great as the uptight NASA PR director.
This film will make a mountain of money and deservedly so.
I’m a bit confused here – have you just given this film 10 out of 10 – I mean, are you saying that this is as good a film as you have ever watched in your life?
Apologies if I’ve missed something.
10 to me means it’s exceptional and I have no complaints worth talking about.
On Netflix there’s a 2 and half doc about the British computer games industry called Bedrooms to Billions (2014). That was a 10 out of 10 as well.
For contrast (also on Netflix):
Concussion (2013)
A bored lesbian housewife in an increasingly sexless long-term relationship becomes a prostitute. It’s an above average, well-acted and directed film. It’s hard to say more for it than that. It’s restrained, subtle and classy which means the dramatic content is muted. It’s not a film of big emotions or big performances. There’s not much of a story. It certainly doesn’t amount to much, but there is something about how quiet it is. I think you walk away from it immediately being a bit underwhelmed but it stays with you and niggles away at you if you take the time to think back over it. The subtlety allows the drama to work on an adult, grownup level that films rarely work on. In a sense it would probably make more sense as a subtle little novella than as a feature film. Ultimately the message the film has was not conducive to an exciting, cinematic climax. It’s not an especially cinematic story as it’s about compromising and looking the other way. The key word is: subtle. It’s great to see an independent film like this use tripods and conventional editing instead of bumpy handheld camerawork and arty jump cuts. This alone makes it feel less generic as so many indie films look the same. It’s a good looking film and there is no sense that it was a financially impoverished production. If I was to watch it again I think I would appreciate it more. I enjoyed the movie and I liked it.
6 out of 10 (above average)
I read the book. It was an Afterworder’s recommendation and I loved it. I’m really looking forward to the film.
There’s a video online somewhere with Adam Savage (the one without the beret out of Mythbusters. Is that shown on the telly in the UK?) interviewing Andy Weir and I found it very interesting.
I absolutely loved the book, so am really looking forward to seeing the movie, especially as I always considered Matt Damon to be perfect casting for Mark Watney ever since he was announced…
I sympathise with Kid Dynamite’s view above though – for the few people I know who didn’t get on with the book, it pretty much all came down to dislike of the character, who’s effectively on every single page… yes, he’s a glib smartarse, but I liked him
[SPOILER BELOW!!]
I’ll be interested to see if they iron out what I perceived to be the major dramatic structural flaw in the novel (not that it bothered me), which is that Watney spends 95% of the book surviving on his own for years, then is all but unconcious for his own rescue… the trailer made a big thing of the “message” being “we’re all here to help each other”, so I suspect that’s how they’ll skew it, so we’ll see…
Loved the book, loved the movie. I would recommend that people read the book first. (It’s a quick read and you don’t have to understand all the scientific stuff – just get the gist.) Surviving on Mars is quite a technical achievement and I think you understand and appreciate what’s going on in the movie more if you’re somewhat familiar with the challenges and solutions. As Watney says, if he’s going to survive he’s going to have to ‘science the shit out of it.’
I’m a nonscientist who loves science. I’ve read and studied enough to have some idea of the enormity of what I don’t know. Both the book and the movie made me think of one of my favorite lines from the latest Sherlock (you know, the Benedict version.)
Sherlock is complaining to his older and smarter brother, Mycroft, about having to deal with all the stupid people around him. Mycroft, who is some sort of kingpin of British intelligence in this version, replies ‘If that’s how you feel, then imagine what it’s like for me . I’m surrounded by goldfish!’
I imagine that must be how the scientific and technical types portrayed in The Martian must think of most of us. Goldfish.
And a word about the Watney character. In the book or movie or both, one of the characters wonders why Watney would have said or done something silly or childish. Another character responds ‘have you met Mark Watney?”
Technical and scientific types aren’t known for being cool or smooth. Their reputation for being……let’s say quirky is well-deserved. Personally, I like nerds.