None of which isn't to say that The Martian isn't a perfectly charming, entertaining brainy-adjacent popcorn movie for grown-ups in its own right. It's a lark, far more than any description of the plot or a glance through the career of director Ridley Scott (who hasn't made a film this top-to-bottom satisfying since at least American Gangster in 2007. At least) would suggest, and I don't know that it's really to its benefit. Certainly, Gravity was a pretty no-holds-barred bit of spectacular fluff in its own right, but that film had already clarified by the end of its bravura opening shot that terrifying, unpredictable death was a real possibility for its characters, and that gave it dramatic stakes worth paying attention to. It is really, really, really hard to imagine at any point in The Martian that something honestly bad might happen to anybody onscreen, so it's never particularly tense or consequential - not a good look for a 144-minute adventure movie. You might say that there is no weight in this space movie, yes? Aha.*
Based on Andrew Weir's self-published hit novel, The Martian describes a manned mission to Mars gone all wrong: six local days into a scheduled 31-day trip, the crew of NASA's Ares III mission are beset by an unexpected storm and obliged to take off in a hurry and ahead of schedule. In the chaos, botanist Mark Watney (Matt Damon) is presumed dead after he goes missing and his bio-monitor is damaged; it's only through sheer chance that he's not dead, but with only the disordered scraps of a mission scattered around the Hab - the presumably temporary habitation set up on then planet - and no means of communicating with Earth or the Ares III crew, he might as well be. Still, indefatigable human spirit and all that. Watney flings himself with intentional good cheer into the task of figuring out how to stretch his current base of resources as long as possible, while figuring out a way to grow food long enough that he'll still be around when the next Mars voyage lands. Better yet, he can try to jerry-rig some means of communication from the broken piles of electronics all around, and perhaps get NASA to launch a rescue mission early.
It would not be unfair, maybe not even snippy, to suggest that The Martian is basically a series of hard sci-fi puzzles strung together. This is an ancient and honorable tendency in genre fiction, and not worth dismissing, though 144 minutes is a hell of a long time to devote to it (okay, so that's the thing The Martian does that Gravity doesn't: extend a slip of a concept to an indefensibly bloated running time). Plus, The Martian games things to make sure that its series of puzzles are as fun to watch as possible. Drew Goddard's script is full of self-conscious peppy one-liners and crowing masculinity (thus does he perfectly marry the styles of his two main collaborators, Joss Whedon and J.J. Abrams), and Damon has a transparently large amount of fun playing his character as, basically, a charismatic frat bro in space, eager to trumpet his successes and amiably dismissive of his failures. And yes, he does spend an awful lot of time talking to himself; the film gives him a video diary to justify that, though it comes off much more as a contrivance to fill a one-man show with dialogue, and not so much a Cast Away-esque study of how a man uses prattle to stave off loneliness. Since that would be yet another way that The Martian would have to be more somber than anybody involved cares for.
Scott has never done a real true comedy before (unless you count A Good Year, which is about as funny as a child's funeral), and The Martian isn't where he starts, but it is predominately funny, somewhere at the same level of breeziness as the director's 2003 caper film Matchstick Men. Which turns out to be a pretty good point of comparison for just how a glossy visualist and gifted portrayer of intermittent violence like Scott manages when he's making an ambling, lanky diversion like this one. The odd thing about The Martian as a cinematic object is that it has certainly no lack of visual style - the use of direct address and the hard lighting and blunt colors of the Martian landscape in Dariusz Wolski's camera make this one of the year's most distinctive-looking blockbusters - and yet style is the last thing the movie tries to sell us on. This is first and above all about the cheeky, ingenious Watney, played with maxed-out boyishness by Damon and framed by Scott primarily in medium and close-up shots that invite us to think of the whole movie as a shaggy dog story being told to us by our good buddy Mark. Not the extraordinary utilitarian production design by Arthur Max nor the excellent visual effects, among the busiest and most totally effective of any big-budget film in 2015, are able to pull focus from Watney's bullish personality, and uncharacteristically, Scott appears to have had no interest in it being any other way.
This is pleasing, as far as it goes - I confess that the self-satisfied snarkiness of
And this brings me back to the lack of stakes, the lack of danger. It's such an agreeable piece that it forgets the reason that it's meant to be a rousing tribute to human resilience: space is a nasty, deadly sonofabitch. Watney is constantly fighting for his life. Take away the constant crushing awareness of that, and what's left? Damon being beguiling, and a film made out of a creative series of problems and solutions solved with enough brio that it never feels mechanical. By all means, The Martian is enjoyable to watch, and we'd be better off if a popcorn movies this interested in tickling our sense of logic as well as our pleasure centers was simply average instead of an exciting, one-of-a-kind standout. Nothing about that enjoyment is particularly lingering, though: it's a movie to watch, attend to, and laugh with, and a movie to forget about thereafter, and no life-and-death struggle should be so glancing in its effect.
7/10
I'm glad I'm not the only one to find the movie a good deal shallower and more inconsequential than its stablemates, although I did at least thing Bean and Ejiofor, if no-one else, managed to etch out distinct characters for themselves.
ReplyDeleteA note on the dialogue: I'd be prepared to lay my biggest problems with it at Goddard's feet too (he's not a writer I much care for), but I happen to know that nearly all of the most egregious lines are taken verbatim from Weir's book, which, without the actors and Ridley Scott there to modulate it, is basically insufferable.
Mainly in agreement with your review, a really nice popcorn film with a lot of highly competent people putting in a lot of highly competent work, without ever being the cinematic tour-de-force of Gravity or grappling with any big themes like Interstellar.
ReplyDeleteBut its just so damn likable! I think about all the usually annoying things this type of movie usually have. The penny-pinching guy in a suit who thinks in terms of money instead of empathy(think Paul Reiser's Burke from Aliens). The crew member who hates Mark Watney/argues to not go along with the mission/a general pain in the ass who's only goal in the story is to be asshole(like that one human in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes). There are still problems and setbacks, disagreements and disappointments for the drama...but there's a refreshing bout of generosity in everybody to save a life. Jeff Daniels character is really a minor source of conflict than an antagonist, with understandable motivations as the CEO who has to mindful of everything. I feared when China got involved, it was gonna be "oh God now we gotta work with China, their our competitors, they're too different from us, ugh conflict" but no. They have that language barrier and Sean Bean growls a bit about how they operate, but there's no ego, no national pride. There was a problem, they had the technology, and everyone came together to solve it.
A charming, humanist film from Ridley Scott of all people. I appreciate that greatly.
I did like this movie, but there was some irritating, pander-y stuff that really rubbed me the wrong way. All the disco jokes were beyond lame, for instance. I mean seriously? When was DISCO SUX last a thing? 1985? And how about when he notes that one of the other astronaut's computers has Zork II and Leather Goddess of Phobos on it? GAH. The former is so people with vague memories of Zork can go "lol nerd," and the latter is so that people with no idea whatsoever what Leather Goddesses of Phobos is can go "lol pervy nerd." And really? He could only fit TWO Infocom games (which together would take up something like two hundred fifty kilobytes, note), on his future space computer? He wouldn't have the entire library? NO, because then we can't make our dumb joke.
ReplyDeleteI mean, maybe I'm making too much of things like this, but for a movie that so intently wants to be SMART, it sure is lazy and dumb in places.
We just saw it tonight, as it happened, and had a good time. Agreed on the surprisingly low stakes and over length. And am I the only one who found it...not that visually exciting? I wanted a few more dazzling space vistas and Martian landscapes for my $8.50, but there were...a lot of interiors.
ReplyDeleteHmm, I don't think I agree. But then, I'm a huge Whedon tv fan and Goddard's dialog, to me, was like a series of brain orgasms.
ReplyDeleteSure, it was breezy, but it was honest about it. Not like Gravity's cheap Clooney fake out that lessens Bullock's innate survivability (had to imagine Clooney's ghost in order to make it. Not a good look for a strong female heroine).
Martian didn't need stakes, just to entertain, which it did. Beautifully shot (those aerial Mars dunes shots took my breath away), well acted by everyone, and above all else- it was optimistic. China letting go of classified tech to save Damon, scientists working together a-la Apollo 13 to figure out comms, weight, etc., Damon's crew deciding to go rogue and save Damon, I thought all that was very well done.
What I liked most, however, was how unsentimental the film was. Damon has no family waiting and panicking on Earth, there's no lovey dovey bullshit anywhere, its strictly professionalism. Yo, science, we figure that shit out and go home, because science is fucking awesome! The end. I could really use more movies like that.
Best time I had in the theatre since, and I'm showing my biases very strongly here, Goddard and Whedon's Cabin in the Woods. I give Martian a 9.2/10. Nearly flawless.
I'm with the Watcher here. I really liked the breezy approach, and found the focus on teamwork and problem-solving hella refreshing. I thought the film did a great job of setting up its own rules: Watney stuck in space, dialogue is going to be snappy, he will address audience as to what's going on via v-log conceit, scientific approaches , Fuck, it was thrilling NOT to watch another American man in a pressure-cooker sci-fi situation overcoming both increasingly life-threatening scenarios and his fucking demons from the past. I love that his problems were how do I grow potatoes, how do I travel this much distance? Well, let's see if science has the answer. I just felt like, holy shit, this is a Hollywood film set in space and we are devoting major screen time to the problem of how to get food (answer: grow with poo). I found it cool that we just breezed through those tough "will he or won't he???" moments, because we know it's going to work out anyway, and sometimes it's just annoying to find our hero in mortal panic just to have conflict and drama. When he lost his potatoes I was like DUUUUUUUDE NOOOOOOOOOOOOO. NOOOOOOOOO.
ReplyDeleteAm I reading too much into this to think there was an element of subverting audience expectation, and then thinking that was brilliant?
I really for the life of me, cannot figure out what everyone sees in "Gravity." Wonderful visual achievement, but OMG that whole rebirth-themed sentimental schmaltzy crap just drained the life out of me. Which was so strange because Cuaron's amazing "Children of Men" was relatively so very unsentimental.
I already said it but I wanna say it again. The fact that it was so "low-stakes" (maybe I'd prefer to say that "the necessities of survival were so significantly banal")
kinda made me love it more. And I'm a latter-day-Scott-doubter, so colour me surprised.
I would really love to see big budget sci-fi films with more banal stakes. A Star Wars film that's all about getting a new part for the Millenium Falcon. Jim Jarmusch should do that.
I wonder if the Academy is going to give An Oscar to Ridley Scott... Probably not because the film was very similar to gravity and apollo 13,Two Oscar movies. Or probably yes,but it would be because he deserves one since 1979,not FOR directing The Martian.
ReplyDelete" there's a refreshing bout of generosity in everybody "
ReplyDeleteThis was actually the thing that most disappointed me about this film. Every last character is nobly sacrificing everything for everyone else. Nearly every scene felt like a slight variation on the "I can't make it. Go on without me." "No, I won't leave you." cliche. Call me a cynic, that that doesn't ring true.