The Martian- Movie Review(s)


On Friday, both Joshua (JA Prentice) and I went to see Ridley Scott’s The Martian in theatres. I had read the book, (and wrote a review about it!) he had not. We do, however, both love science-fiction and critiquing things. After a brief odyssey involving the world’s most specifically placed and inconveniently timed traffic-jam which forced us to watch a slightly later, slightly more expensive viewing, we settled in and watched the movie that’s taking the world by storm.

Afterwords, we wrote up our thoughts on the movie based on five components: The writing, the characters, the directing, the acting, and finally we compared it to the other movie where Matt Damon is stranded on an alien planet: Interstellar. A comparison picked because it seems inevitable that The Martian and Interstellar will become film rivals in the future, with cinephiles forced to take a side just as they have with Tangled vs Frozen, Forrest Gump vs Pulp Fiction, and Saving Private Ryan vs Shakespeare in Love.

For those who have not yet seen the movie (or Interstellar), there are SPOILERS ahead.

Our thoughts on the writing:

Joshua:  I have mixed feelings on the script. I liked the way Whatney’s problem-solving was portrayed, presenting the issues and then explaining the solutions. It was just technical enough to make sense without being boring. A lot of the scenes felt really suspensful, which is partly down to the writing and partly down to the directing. The humorous stuff fell flat for me. A couple of the lines were good, but none of them were laugh-out-loud funny. For the most part this wasn’t a huge issue. However, it really ruined the big finale for me. In the middle of this high-tension scene, Whatney decides to poke a hole in his suit and “fly around like Iron Man.” It looked exactly as absurd as it sounds and almost ruined the climax of the film. So I definitely have a mixed reaction.

Jaden: I’ll start by saying the screenwriters were working with a source material I previously described as needing “an inkling of emotion or psychological punch” and “more like a math problem than a story.” So the writers were obviously stuck in the situation where they had to either make the story their own, or stick to what they knew was popular and make a faithful adaptation. In the end they decided to be faithful, and so the writing has some of the same issues as the book. I did find some of the humor didn’t translate quite as well on screen, but the math and numbers stuff came across better and less tedious. Basically though, it’s not exactly a strong point or weak point in the movie. It won’t really be looked at for its writing either way down the road. I will say that the ending was the only scene rewritten from the book, and while I think I liked it better than the book, it still wasn’t quite right. Come to think of it, “better than the book but still not quite right” sums up my thoughts on the whole.

Joshua: I would second all that except I didn’t read the book.


Joshua: This is the weakest area of the film for me. All the characters are pretty flat. Even Whatney has little depth. We know little about him except that he has a sense of humor and can do science. There was one scene where he talks about his parents, which was good, but we needed a little more of that. The other characters were even less developed. I could tell you very little about any of them. Most of their strength came from the actors playing them, who did their best to elevate the material. None of them were downright irritating, but I couldn’t really connect with them. I didn’t have a sense of who they were as people and what it was that drove them.

Jaden: God damn it we have to stop agreeing. Yes, the characters are the weakest part of both the film and book. They even took the one character on earth (literally) that had a personality in the book and made her a non character. (Annie.) While they weren’t stock characters, they were more like character outlines, incomplete manifestations to be fixed at a later date. Again, I want to fault the author here, but the guys at Cinemasins would tell me “the book doesn’t matter.” And yes, the screenwriters definitely didn’t expand the characters very much.

Joshua: I think the fault does still lie with the screenwriters ultimately as they could have chosen to fix the characters, but they didn’t. It’s the cinematic equivalent of a sin of omission.

Jaden: I think that’s the best way to approach it, yeah.



Joshua: And this is where my thoughts take a much more positive turn. Ridley Scott is an amazing director. Alien alone puts him in my upper tier of filmmakers. He definitely delivers some stunning visuals here. Every shot of Mars is breathtaking. He makes this alien world seem both real and fantastical at the same time. I don’t doubt for a second that I’m really seeing Mars. I forget that it’s all special effects. The action was really tense, which definitely came at least in part from Scott’s directing. The storm and the final rescue were particular standouts. The former was chaotic and disorienting, really showing the fear and confusion the astronauts experienced. The latter managed to work despite having one of the stupidest ideas I’ve seen in action film (Wow. That’s really saying a lot.) I can only chalk that up to Scott’s skill as a director. Basically, I want Ridley Scott to make films of my books. How much more do you think I need to praise him before he’ll consider it?

Jaden: First off, I’M the one who’s redrafting a sci-fi novel so Ridley Scott directs MY movie, damn it! And second off, while you’re definitely more knowledgeable in the directing department I still know enough to comment on it. I agree that I liked the directing, lots of shots I liked, and the visuals alone elevate the movie above the book because there’s no freaking visuals in the novel… I also didn’t totally *notice* his direction if that makes any sense. Sometimes a movie’s director shoots the movie in a way that goes “look at me! look at my directing skillz!” and this one didn’t. Scott simply gave us some bomb ass shots of space and mars.

Joshua: I like the technical terminology there.

Jaden: I believe it was Kubrick who invented the “bomb ass shots of space” technique.

Joshua: I felt that a lot of the shots of the Hermes were very “Kubrick.” Of course, every space movie since 2001 has been influenced by Kubrick. (editor’s note: Including Interstellar, which will be discussed later, and feature some actual disagreement!)

Joshua: Here’s another area where I have very positive things to say. While the actors were limited by their characters, they all did an excellent job with what they were given. I’d like to give a special mention to Sean Bean as Mitch Henderson, who took a character who didn’t have much of a role and invested him with a lot of personality and life. Chiwetel Ejiofor as Vincent Kapoor was so different from what I’d seen from him previously (his stunning performance in Serenity), that I didn’t recognize him at first. I suspect it was the combination of aging, the beard, and the accent. Jessica Chastain also did a very good job putting a lot of personality into Commander Lewis. Lewis didn’t have much going for her on the page, but Chastain made the character a strong, believable leader. She took something that could have been generic and elevated it. As for the main star, I found Matt Damon’s acting… all right. He was good, but he didn’t bring anything really great to the character. I’m not saying he’s bad by any means. I just think he could have fleshed out Watney a little more.
Jaden: I’ll mainly agree with you, but had different people in mind to single out. I think the cast mostly managed to make their characters better by injecting a little bit of life and personality where the script didn’t provide it. I liked Damon, mainly because he managed to pretty effortlessly recreate the Watney I read. He also was able to rattle off all the numbers and science whatever in an entertaining way. But the supporting characters I’m going to single out are Kate Mara as Johanssson, turning in a good performance despite her character taking a less active role than in the book, Mackenzie Davis for bringing some levity to Mindy Park, and Donald “Not Danny’s son” Glover for a memorable Rich Purnell. I want to give a dishonorable mention to Kristen Wiig, but her character was all but written out of the movie. Can’t really fault her when she had like ten lines. As for your list, I actually didn’t recognize Sean Bean… but for some reason I never recognize him. No idea why that is.
 Joshua: He’s usually dead.
Jaden: So I hear. Kate Mara also dies in almost everything I see her in, actually.
Joshua: And yet they both lived. Actually, everyone lived.
Jaden: I feel like they couldn’t have had anyone die otherwise the whole point of the movie changes drastically.
Joshua: We’re getting a little sidetracked, but this is interesting, so I’ll reply anyway. I think if anyone had died on the mission to save Watney, it would have made the mission seem like a stupid decision. They’d have traded one life for another.
Jaden: Yeah exactly. Suddenly the naysayers the movie’s supposed to be showing as the people without “faith in human ingenuity” or something along those lines were actually right. Turns the whole thing around from being fairly optimistic to super cynical. So, for once, I’m glad they decided not to kill anyone. Would’ve totally screwed with the tone/message they wanted.
Joshua: The message would have become that we should probably stop trying to save Matt Damon from being stranded on planets.
Speaking of…
The Martian vs Interstellar
Joshua: This movie is definitely my second favorite movie where Matt Damon plays an astronaut stranded alone on a desolate planet. Interstellar may have received a mixed reception, but it’s one of my favorite films. Every moment of it is just stunning. This is my way of saying that I’m horribly biased here. When I first saw the trailer for The Martian, I immediately made the connection between the two. There was a similar visual style and, of course, the shared actors (Damon and Chastain.)
     However, they’re actually very different movies. Interstellar is a grand sci-fi epic about the survival of the human race that goes into some crazy and interesting ideas. By comparison, The Martian is very grounded. The mission seems like a plausible representation of the near future and nothing Watney encounters defies our present understanding of science or physics. I think Interstellar does a much better job with its characters. Cooper, Murphy, and Doctor Brand are far more fleshed out than any of the characters in The Martian. Admittedly, some of the minor supporting characters in Interstellar are pretty bland, but I don’t consider that such a big deal. It’s far better to have a well-developed main cast and underdeveloped supporting cast than to have an entire underdeveloped cast. I also actually found the dialogue in Interstellar a lot funnier, as bizarre as that may seem to some people. I suppose it’s just differences in taste.
     So, Interstellar’s a lot better, but I like them both and they’re actually quite different movies. But Matt Damon needs to stay away from airlocks. He tends to make them suddenly explode.

Jaden: I, conversely, am not a fan of Interstellar. Though I don’t strictly dislike it, I definitely don’t like it either. Both films feature great shots and visuals, and that coupled with the cast is why they’re inevitably going to be compared. I will give Interstellar credit for having the two best acting performances (McCoughnahey and Foy) and the best emotional scene between the two. However, Nolan’s rambling, saccharine script and use of what I see as stock characters predictably getting killed off one by one irritate me. I also feel like my favorite character, Young Murph, becomes just as vanilla as the other backing characters after the time jump. Nolan clearly bit off more than he could chew, though the ambition in Interstellar is admirable. The Martian’s adherence to real life science may even cause it to be rendered obsolete sometime soon, in the way Jules Verne is.

And you’re right, Interstellar is an epic, it’s trying to be strange and out-there in the way 2001 was. The Martian is more like Apollo 13. All that said, I give The Martian the edge, the difference being how much I disliked Interstellar’s script. I think we can agree though: Keep Matt Damon the hell away from space.

Jaden: Ok, numerical score. My scores for movies are a bit wonky and hard to explain how I come to them. I rate them 0-100, with 100 being the theoretical perfect, flawless movie. Tangled currently has the highest score, with 99. The X-files: I want to Believe currently sets the standard for a 0. I weigh technical execution equally with entertainment. (For example, Lincoln was really well made, but still a bit boring. So it only gets a score in the low 70s.) I rated The Martian at 76%, 2 points below Jurassic World, good for 7th best film I’ve seen this year.
Joshua: Hmm. I was all set to use the nice, simple scoring we were doing for Doctor Who episodes and then you have to do something more complicated. I would actually put it at around the same level, since on that scale I was going to put it at a 7. So for me, it’s probably around a 75%. We need to stop agreeing. It’s beginning to get annoying.
Jaden: Someone make them re-release Stardust, so we have an excuse to discuss it and prove we do have actual differing opinions on things sometimes. (editor’s note: Jaden HATES Stardust, giving it an 18%, good for the third worst movie he’s written down a score for.)

Joshua: Clearly once we formed a blog, we became part of a hive mind. Dissent is no longer tolerated.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: