Don’t recall that anyone has talked about The Martian yet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue4PCI0NamI
Looks pretty awesome to me, especially if you are hungry for more space-based science fiction after Interstellar. (Co-incidentally it has both Matt Damon and Jessica Chastain in it.) I am looking forward to seeing this more than The Force Awakens.
I hear the book is quite good also.
I pretty much go to see all Ridley Scott’s films and the premise for this one sounds interesting.
It’s freaking Jason Bourne in space!!!
Can’t get better than that.
Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaatt Damon!
My brother has recommended “Suite Francaise” to me. Anyone got any views to share that might help me decide whether to buy it?
Clearly not!
Saw The Martian last night. Would recommend it to anyone willing to suspend disbelief and instead immerse themselves in the story unfolding on the screen.
It is science fiction after-all!
@Private:
Clearly not!
Saw The Martian last night. Would recommend it to anyone willing to suspend disbelief and instead immerse themselves in the story unfolding on the screen.
It is science fiction after-all!
I agree. Not that it was completely unbelievable… I just didn’t find it nearly as good as I thought it was going to be. Which is too bad.
I should have known that it is, after all, a Ridley Scott movie. So you know what kind of formula you are in for. I have not read the novel, but I can only imagine the film feels incredibly compressed in comparison. It seemed that way to me, even without reading. I don’t understand the rabid raving that the movie is receiving. I also did not find the humor to be very effective. It felt either poorly delivered or inappropriate given the circumstances.
Even though it takes place on another planet, the whole plot felt much more grounded and ordinary than a film like Interstellar. Where Interstallar really pushed boundaries of visual, emotional and musical beauty, the Martian felt more like a guy wandering in a desert. The plot was consistently about Watney proving how smart and resilient he was, which I though became tiresome. It was much more akin to Gravity both in subject matter and tone. Gravity was good, but I did not find it very captivating. Same with The Martian.
Loved the Martian!, Loved Interstellar, Loved Gravity, Loved Contact, love all these “space” movies….The Martian is a “feel” good movie and there is nothing wrong with that. It was fun, enjoyable, hopeful, yes sometimes a bit corny and/or far fetched but it is a movie!
I would recommend it to all!
Yes, it is a feel good movie. I just think contrasting it with Interstellar to display faults of one or the other is not appropriate; they are completely different movies thematically and artistically.
Comparisons of The Martian to Apollo 13 are also unjust. Apollo 13 is far better, IMO.
Gravity and The Martian are a better fit for each other; for what it is worth to those of you who haven’t seen it yet.
The movie is certainly worth seeing, I just wouldn’t spend full price at the movie theater to do so.
Hey Hoff - thanks for agreeing with me! But I feel more positive about the Martian than you seem to and agree with JWW. Loved all those films!
I thought The Martian was well worth seeing and enjoyed it a lot. But if you are going to let scientific quibbles interfere then you’d be better with science fact than with science fiction. The story is a compelling one and for me that is the purpose of the film, not to explore scientific theory.
@Private:
Hey Hoff - thanks for agreeing with me! But I feel more positive about the Martian than you seem to and agree with JWW. Loved all those films!
I thought The Martian was well worth seeing and enjoyed it a lot. But if you are going to let scientific quibbles interfere then you’d be better with science fact than with science fiction. The story is a compelling one and for me that is the purpose of the film, not to explore scientific theory.
No worries man. I like the scientific premise in films, but I am not a nitpicker for “scientific accuracy” that seems to be all the rage nowadays. If that is the be-all end-all of a film it would probably be boring. Science fact is what documentaries are for.
Sigh, it’s already time to hit the reset button on Bond after the Craig era limps to the finish line with SPECTRE. Plodding pace, poor chemistry and lousy Blofeld payoff.
Since all the source material of Fleming’s is gone I don’t see why the next Bond can’t start a little younger than normal to make his cavalier attitude more justified and provide more mojo with the ladies (the big age gaps were tolerable for a long time, but just don’t work now).
Right Justin Beaver should be the next bond.
@Imperious:
Right Justin Beaver should be the next bond.
Ha… Beaver, get it?.. he’s Canadian. I would love to see the Indiana Jones franchise get the revolving door treatment in lead actors the way Bond does it. Also, who will play the next Indiana Jones seems like a much more interesting conversation that who will play the next 007. BTW, I think Chris Pine would make an excellent Indiana.
@Young:
Ha… Beaver, get it?.. he’s Canadian. I would love to see the Indiana Jones franchise get the revolving door treatment in lead actors the way Bond does it. Also, who will play the next Indiana Jones seems like a much more interesting conversation that who will play the next 007. BTW, I think Chris Pine would make an excellent Indiana.
Personally I disagree. I know it is inevitable at this point, but I would love to leave Indiana Jones where it should have ended: Riding into the sunset in The Last Crusade.
That ship has certainly sailed and a reboot is a foregone conclusion after probably one more Harrison Ford movie.
I think Chris Pratt has the best shot at being the next Indy, he had a liiiiiiiiiiiiittle bit of that Harrison Ford swagger and detachment in Jurassic World (haven’t seen Guardians of the Galaxy) that could translate well.
For Bond I’d have no qualms with Idris Elba. If they ever wanted to be sacrilegious and cast an American Chris Pine would actually be a decent choice, especially since he has some spy movie experience as Jack Ryan.
I think Chris Pratt has the best shot at being the next Indy, he had a liiiiiiiiiiiiittle bit of that Harrison Ford swagger and detachment in Jurassic World (haven’t seen Guardians of the Galaxy) that could translate well.
In GG he was more of the goofy, wise-cracker who was simultaneously very adept. In terms of the scruffy yet charming adventurer type, like in Jurassic World, I think he could fit the Indy role well.
For Bond I’d have no qualms with Idris Elba. If they ever wanted to be sacrilegious and cast an American Chris Pine would actually be a decent choice, especially since he has some spy movie experience as Jack Ryan.
Idris Elba would be an excellent Bond. I am not a legacy Bond film guy, nor would I at all consider myself invested in the franchise, so I don’t know all the taboos that prevent directors/writers from changing the formula. I have seen the first three Daniel Craig Bond films, but even with such a limited sampling the overuse of the formula just smacks you in the face. IMO they could do with something a little different that will really grow the franchise. Idris Elba would be one step in that direction. Heck, I read that people were upset because Daniel Craig was not traditional enough when he was first cast (didn’t have the tall, dark haired, refined manner of previous Bonds). How many times do Bond fans want to watch the exact same movie???
I didn’t bother with Bond until Daniel Craig came along. But I have watched all of his - albeit not yet Spectre. For me he has made the concept more believable because of the ruggedness he brings to the role, plus his ability to actually act.
So, if he is to be replaced, my willingness to see more would depend on retaining those qualities. Tried to think of someone better for the role than Idris Elba and couldn’t - so a great suggestion!
Disagree with Hoff that the 3 Craig Bonds I have seen have been “samey”, or at least no more so than other franchises (such as Bourne and I’m warm to seeing Matt Damon in the role again). Two of the three had strong stories, relegating the usual Bond elements to part of that story, rather than an end in themselves. That was not true in the past. Perhaps I will feel differently about Spectre?
@Private:
Disagree with Hoff that the 3 Craig Bonds I have seen have been “samey”, or at least no more so than other franchises (such as Bourne and I’m warm to seeing Matt Damon in the role again). Two of the three had strong stories, relegating the usual Bond elements to part of that story, rather than an end in themselves. That was not true in the past. Perhaps I will feel differently about Spectre?
I haven’t seen any other than Craig Bond films, so I can only make that statement based on my general understanding of the franchise. They are formulaic in the sense that they contain mostly the same elements (shared with many, if not all) previous Bond films: Aston Martin, gadgets, car chase, girl, evil individual, gun barrel and other stylistic imagery, famous musician writing the theme song for the film… It’s all there, pretty much all the time.
Even so, I found the Craig films to be enjoyable and interesting for the most part. I thought Skyfall was particularly good bordering on excellent. I think it rises to that level because it delves into the character of James Bond more; why he is who he is. The characters were a little more complex and Craig really filled out his role.
Bourne is a good comparison to Craig’s Bond films, as I think they took a cue from the Bourne movies, particularly on action. I much prefer Jason Bourne to James Bond, but that is just me. The Bourne films had similarly common or repetitive elements, but they never grew stale or over-utilized. One thing that the Bourne movies did was offer creative riffs on the standard elements of the series. I think they were more able to do so because the writers didn’t have to deal with 40+ years of cultural expectation of who the character was and how the films were structured. I also prefer an extended story line between films. Bourne did this, but it isn’t really in the nature of James Bond, which to me seems predominantly episodic.
To my point above: http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/spectre-how-the-multiverse-era-killed-james-bond-20151109?page=3
I think this is a pretty good analysis of the Craig series. The author takes the opposite position from mine, that Bond films shouldn’t be serialized into a continuing narrative. However, it seems that he comes to this conclusion only because the Craig series tried to do so in the middle (or at the very end) of four films and because it is the current trend in cinema. He implies that Bond should stick to being a bunch of one-off movies that aren’t interrelated, but I question if that is because Bond films fundamentally shouldn’t be or because this attempt at it has been less-than-successful.
