"The Martian" Is Handsome, Hollow Sci-Fi
Based on Andy Weir’s homonymous novel, the film begins as an exercise in obviousness – the opening scene is utterly perfunctory – and hangs there for the next two hours, mistaking problem solving for plot, names for characters, and feel-goodisms for emotion. It’s a movie brimming with name actors who are barely in it and variations on the same lame joke (disco music is funny because it’s bad), all while writer Drew Goddard plainly cribs from “Apollo 13” and “Cast Away” without being half as engaging as either.
Matt Damon – never a go-to for “likable leading man” roles – stars in a part that requires him to be really likable. He’s the least of the film’s problems.
When botanist-spaceman Mark Watney is left for dead on Mars after his expedition encounters a brutal dust storm, he’s forced to rely on smarts to survive the years it’ll take for a rescue operation to reach him. The character, although one-dimensional, gives us a rooting interest even if it’s the most basic kind. Damon spends 60% of the film talking to himself and working his way through problems that aren’t nearly as mind-boggling as the screenplay seems to think they are. Grow and ration food. Re-establish communication with NASA. Don’t die. Damon is occasionally icier than what the role calls for, but he’s mostly fine.
It’s nearly every other category where the film falls on its face, giving its exceptionally gifted earthbound supporting cast (Jeff Daniels, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Kristen Wiig, Donald Glover) next to nothing to do and dealing its other astronauts (Jessica Chastain, Michael Pena, Sebastian Stan, Kate Mara) even less. Damon churning astronaut poop is more stimulating than the totality of what his co-stars get to do, which includes a few vaguely villainous (but not really) monologues from Daniels’ NASA boss and some clichéd aha moments from Glover’s excitable astronomer.
If you thought Jessica Chastain was misused in last year’s Matt Damon astronaut movie – the infinitely superior “Interstellar” – here she’s reduced even further to loyal NASA Commander with unhip taste in music. It’s a nothing part that’s beneath the performer, much like every other non-Damon character in the film.
But the most mangled element of all might be the soundtrack, which turns David Bowie’s sparkling Ziggy Stardust cut “Starman” into on-the-nose montage fodder and Gloria Gaynor’s classic “I Will Survive” into the corniest credit track this side of “My Heart Will Go On.”
“And so you’re back… from outer space!” Okay, Ridley.
The movie’s flood of “haha” funny jokes will appeal to some, as will the rah-rah climax that sees Damon and company engage in a dopey action sequence that demolishes all precepts of believability. But crowd-pleasing doesn’t mean good, or even interesting. It just speaks to audience bias, our innate ability to like something because of what it’s about instead of how it’s about it.
Since “The Martian” is so enthusiastic about space exploration and basic scientific problem solving, likeminded individuals might find it contagious. In that sense, this is Ridley Scott at his peak, making accessible, absolutely meaningless fluff that will feel good to many because it’s undemanding wish fulfillment.
But for a film that thinks itself a love note to human intelligence and emotion, it doesn’t require a single thought or elicit a single genuine feeling from its audience. We don’t know much more about Mark Watney at the end of the movie than we did at the beginning, and we inexplicably know even less about everyone else.
It’s all cinematic pandering of the highest order, complete with a bullshit group hug pre-end credit sequence scored by The O’Jays’s “Love Train” and staged with all the artistry of an insurance commercial.
Ridley Scott and company have concocted the most colossally mediocre sci-fi movie of the decade, all in pursuit of empty backslapping and a grade school level celebration of science. Not only is “The Martian” not in the same class as Scott’s two masterpieces – “Alien” and “Blade Runner” – it’s not even on the same continent.
-J. Olson
Rating: ★★ 1/2 out of ★★★★★ (Mediocre)
Release Date: October 2, 2015
Studio: 20th Century Fox
Director: Ridley Scott
Screenwriter: Drew Goddard
Starring: Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain, Kristen Wiig, Jeff Daniels, Michael Pena, Kate Mara, Sean Bean, Sebastian Stan, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Donald Glover
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (for some strong language, injury images, and brief nudity)
“Damon spends 60% of the film talking to himself and working his way through problems that aren’t nearly as mind-boggling as the screenplay seems to think they are. Grow and ration food. Re-establish communication with NASA. Don’t die.”
Are you seriously saying you would do a better job surviving on Mars? You know how to farm food in a soil with no bacteria life and create a rudimentary method of communicating with people on another planet?
Exactly. The movie would have been cooler filmed on the backlot studios and neighborhood desert of LA and starring William Shatner in his glory days of Twilight Zone and esperanto horror flicks. Waste of yes tons of beautifully rendered and constructed production budget.
Enjoyed your review. I have to admit that I cannot understand the overwhelmingly positive reviews of this film. I was underwhelmed. I love sci fi, I love science, I love Matt Damon. But I see this film as flawed on many levels. Oh well…
I just watched The Martian last night and I thought the film never once played fair with the audience. The fact that the film is scientifically well-informed is great, but in my view there is almost no plot and virtually no story. That the science is well researched seems to be the only asset within this film. Anyone familiar with film/story will be able to foretell every event with their eyes closed. For a survivor story, there is actually no drama/anxiety in the survival. The film is full of covienience. Need to survive on Mars –> covieniently there is a readymade bio-dome with limitless energy already installed. No food –> conveniently there is hidden food to be discovered. Need a botanist –> Damon just happens to be a botanist (what are the odds?). No water –> there just happens to be an endless supply of rocket fuel to make water. Crack in the helmet –> there is a roll of duct tape sitting on Damon’s lap. Need a heater –> there happens to be one buried near the base. Need an extra rocket –> China has one they are willing to hand over. Need a mathematical genius to figure out a safe return — cool, there just happens to be one sleeping at NASA. Need an alternative alphabet –> there just happens to be one on a laptop . . . etc etc etc. What is the purpose of making a survival film wherein everything you could possibly need to survive just happens to be sitting near by. There was about as much suspense in this film as a starving man trapped in Safeway Supermarket.
The review was right on the money, the movie was not. They tried but failed to copy Apollo 13 despite stealing quotes right from the movie. And then having our semi conscious martian/astronaut copy tom hanks and try a controlled burn at the anti-climactic ending? No. Didn’t work. Their helmets should’ve cracked when they hit each other so hard. Too many tomatoes and not enough slats I think.
I, too, was amazed at all the accolades. No depth, no real suspense, and a horribly written script.
Late to the party, I watched this without knowing much about it other than remembering it was well-received when it was released. I was completely underwhelmed. It’s not a bad movie, just a fairly uninteresting one (which may be worse). I agree with your review completely regarding the absence of character or any sense of, for lack of a better word, poetry. Even worse, for a survival film (apart from an excuse to play to the science, there was no real reason for this movie to have taken place on Mars, it could just as easily have been located in any remote and dangerous location on Earth), I never had any doubt that every challenge he faced would be solved in due time. When the going seemed a little too easy, it was entirely predictable that some additional catastrophe would occur, and equally predictable that he would find a solution to it. This movie was not made for adult audiences.
This is an interesting review. I will, however, disagree on the rating. The film barely desrves half a star to be honset.
The landscape depicted was so unimaginative and mundane that I was expecting a caravan of bedouins to enter the shot at any time. Thankfully, this rendition of the Red Planet gets next to no screentime in the film.
I don’t get the science buzz either. Did someone doubt that 2H2 + O2 = 2H2O? Seems rather obvious to me. And you need shit to grow the crops. Wow, this film just keeps giving. As a matter of fact, the starting point of the whole plot is a ridiculously improbable destructive sandstorm on Mars (with atmosperic pressure on the surface of our closest neighbour being just 0.6% of that on Earth). I won’t even mention the depiction of gravity and stuff… Oh, nevermind, I did.
The problem-sloving aspect is lackluster. Watney, while describing every problem, starts with his ingenious solution, not with posing the problem itself. So, devoiding the audience of any suspense and opportunity to ponder or gauge the scale of the task.
Costume design is questionable from both scientific and artistic points of view (orange on orange?).
The plot is a mess. This film has no agon. The characters are scarecrows senselessly spinning on the wind. The humour? Didn’t notice any.
We know less about the tittle characters “home” than we know about his temporary dwelling. Planet Earth is a dire place. Why should I sympatise with someone trying to come back here?
I guess that the film crew can readress an idiotic deprecating remark from the movie about the Chinese space programm (“We don’t use this technology since Apollo-8”) to themselves. Substituting “8” for “13” of course.