Review- The Martian (2015)

Directed by: Ridley Scott

Written by: Drew Goddard

Starring: Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain, Jeff Daniels, Chiwetel Ejiofor

Synopsis: When astronauts blast off from the planet Mars, they leave behind Mark Watney (Matt Damon), presumed dead after a fierce storm. With only a meager amount of supplies, the stranded visitor must utilize his wits and spirit to find a way to survive the hostile planet. Meanwhile, back on Earth, members of NASA and a team of international scientists work tirelessly to bring him home, while his crew hatch their own plan for a daring rescue mission.

People have said that director Ridley Scott has gone crazy or senile and because he's surrounded by yes men, he's making terrible movies and that The Martian is his 'comeback'. To be honest, I never believed Ridley Scott went anywhere. I didn't like The Counselor but thought Exodus and Robin Hood were fine movies. I find Prometheus incredibly underrated and all around great. Here's the thing about Ridley Scott; he makes a ton of movies, go look at his filmography. It's incredibly varied and sometimes it feels like he makes movies yearly. So when you make that many movies you're bound to have some misses along with the hits. Apparently to everyone else, Scott's recent films have been misses, but I think we'll all agree The Martian is a hit.

This film is in stark contrast with his other recent films because of its vibrant and hopeful nature, as well as a script that wasn't messy. Yet, it shares a lot of similarities with his Prometheus and therefore Alien. It has several open desert shots which are similar to shots found in Prometheus, and even the title of the movie is presented like the beginning of Alien but in reverse (instead of the letters appearing from basic lines, the letters disappear into them). The night sandstorm scenes look nearly identical to ones in both Prometheus and Alien. It makes me question if Ridley Scott hid some references to the Alien films. He's said before that Blade Runner takes place in the same universe (although Warner Bros. own the rights to that film, while Fox owns the rights to the Alien franchise), Scott Free Productions being a link between the two may make it plausible), so why not this one? It feels like a time before the cynical evil futuristic universe Alien and Prometheus take place in, and thinking that way makes the setting very interesting.

Other times, the movie doesn't feel like a Ridley Scott movie at all. It feels like something Tony Scott would have directed, and I'm curious if Ridley did that one purpose. The fact that it has that classic American feel and follows certain cliche tropes, has the overall joyfulness it has, even just the color grading, reminds me of his films.

But how does this movie compare to the other two 'yearly oscarbait sci-fi movies'? Well, I don't believe it's as thrilling as Gravity or emotionally captivating as Interstellar, and I thought it was less cinematic than either. It's much more general audience-friendly. It simply doesn't take enough risks to be on the same level. It's a very safe film. So, I think Gravity and Interstellar are better movies (Interstellar being the best, in case you're asking).

I think most of the humor worked and were much needed, but I would have liked it to be toned down just a bit more. There were moments where the humor broke the tension in times that I wanted tension. Surviving on Mars doesn't sound like an easy thing to accomplish, so having some dead-serious suspenseful moments would have been a massive improvement. Cast Away, for example, managed  to have humorous moments while also being incredibly captivating because you felt that the character's peril was eminent. That's lacking for the most part, despite still being overall thrilling.

The starving Matt Damon double was also painfully obvious and a few of the visuals were off putting, but nothing unforgivable. It's mainly one scene in the climax that shows Jessica Chastain in space, with a space shuttle and Mars in the background, and it looked obviously green screened. But again, nothing unforgivable. The performances all sort of felt phoned-in except for Matt Damon. The score was good overall, but the disco music running joke felt like it was trying to cut in on the success of Guardians of the Galaxy (although I really like the songs used in the film, but Matt Damon's character would disagree).

The parts I liked the most about the movie were it's clever moments. Watching Matt Damon's character and the NASA employees figure out how to solve incredibly sticky situations using ingenuity and science was highly entertaining. The surprising thing was that it never feels ridiculous, even moreso than Gravity and Interstellar. Proof you don't a have to make something dumb like Armageddon to be enjoyable for all audiences.

These yearly oscarbait sci-fis have really impressed me and I'm glad it's a thing. I've always been a huge fan of hard science fiction novels, and before Gravity, the last movie of its kind was Sunshine, which was awhile ago. So I'd rather have this then monthly superhero movies, that's for sure. I believe 2016's sci-fi will be Passengers, which will be directed by Morten Tyldem and star Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence. Count me in.

7.5/10