2015: The Year in Film: "The Martian" Review

Remember that scene where Cersei Lanniser's body double was forced to walk the streets naked while weird pseudo-nuns whipped her and chanted "shame"? That's how I feel about posting movie reviews two months late.

So "The Martian", originally self-published by Andy Weir, was one of the more exciting and nerdtastic books I've read in recent years. Meticulously researched and nerdy to its core, the book tells the tale of a near future where NASA has begun manned missions to Mars. On one such mission, through a horrible accident, an astronaut is left behind and forced to survive on the barren surface while desperately trying to figure out how to get home. It's Apollo 13 meets Robinson Crusoe. So when it was announced that the book was going to be adapted for the screen in short order by none other than Ridley "Alien/Blade Runner" Scott, it was cause for some excitement. Throw in a tremendous cast (Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain, Kate Mara, Michael Pena, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Sean Bean and more) and all the effects and production value money can buy, and you're just about guaranteed a sure thing.

Mark Watney, a botanist, is part of an 'Ares' mission to Mars when a sandstorm results in his being stranded, alone, on the planet's surface. He's forced, through his intellect, know-how and plucky resolve, to figure out a way to stay alive on a planet that's utterly devoid of life.

The Good: The book is already written like a Hollywood blockbuster, so the main challenge here was simply not screwing up the adaptation. And if anything, the film actually improves on the book, both through the gorgeous shots of the immense Martian landscape and by streamlining the narrative. The film, despite a runtime of over 2 hours, feels taut and tense throughout, with the climatic scene especially leaving you on the edge of your seat. The film also, admirably in this day and age, doesn't shy away from the hard-science of what Watney is doing to stay alive. He's trying to make water, preserve oxygen, stay warm and grow food, and the film doesn't hold your hand about any of it, rather taking a chance and treating science as fun and exciting. (Which it is!) They hit the casting out of the park as well. If Watney isn't charming enough to be compelling while he's alone in a dome, the movie falls flat from the jump. Matt Damon is probably the most personable "big" actor working today, and he instills his character with humor, charm and a human reliability. The supporting cast is strong as well, and while this film is Damon's first and foremost, the rest of the cast proves themselves more than up to the task, with Jessica Chastain and Chiwetel Ejiofor especially standing out. The book stumbles a bit through the third act, but the film fixes many of those issues, and I much prefer the film's ending.




The Bad: by and large, the film is otherwise good enough to overcome this shortcoming, which is also present in the book, and that's that this is an engineer's drama. It contains virtually no emotional or psychological depth beneath the ever-present problem facing the characters right in the face. That's not a huge problem, but it is a potential missed opportunity that keeps the film from reaching true greatness.

In all, this flick is the best space movie since Apollo 13. Its realistic setting, likable characters, tremendous production value and science-friendly ethos make it a fun, tense, eminently watchable modern sci fi classic. Damon, Ridley Scott, and everyone involved knocks it out of the part. Check it out, you won't regret it.

8.5/10

2014: The Year in Film: "Interstellar" Review

I think it goes without saying that I'm a pretty big Chris Nolan fan, readers and followers. From Memento to Batman Begins, Inception, The Dark Knight, The Prestige and The Dark Knight Rises, literally every single one of his films has been memorable, visually stunning, and utterly singular.  He's been called the second coming of Stanley Kubrick, and while I'm not sure that's accurate, the fact that the comment isn't absurd on its face kind of says it all.  While his take on Batman has its detractors, most notably among certain members of the hipster online commentariat, there shouldn't be denial among rational, adult members of society that his Dark Knight trilogy is a watershed moment in modern culture that honestly shaped the decade. We've also seen over the last two years a renaissance of sorts, a McConaissance, even, which has seen one of the more disappointing and underachieving members of the Hollywood A-list, Matthew McConaughey, turn himself into a legitimately great actor. From Mud to True Detective, Wolf of Wall Street and Dallas Buyer's Club, McConaughey had a stretch like no one else in recent memory.

So when it was announced that Nolan and McConaughey would be teaming up for their next film, Interstellar, a film that was shrouded with the typical Nolan secrecy prior to its release, the internet could barely contain its excitement. Add in a strong cast that includes Ann Hathaway, Nolan regular Michael Caine, Matt Damon and John Lithgow with an imaginative hard sci-fi premise, and I was sold from the jump.

Interstellar introduces us to an indeterminate point in the near-future when disease, blight and environmental degradation has nearly rendered the earth uninhabitable. Repeated crop failures have made the situation on earth desperate, and what's left of NASA seeks to send a mission to the stars in a desperate attempt to ensure humanity's survival.

The Good: As should be expected from Christopher Nolan by now, the film combines stunning visuals with an ambitious and thought-provoking plot. The story, of a very real human catastrophe forcing humanity to turn to the stars, is the sort of high-minded science fiction that we don't see much of any more. As America's greatest achievement, its space program, becomes an underfunded afterthought, this film can and should serve as a reminder of the hope, wonder, and species-uniting progress that space once represented and could again. Far from a fanciful futuristic story set more in fantasy than reality, this is a space saga that's very much grounded in reality, with technology and space travel that feels all too real. The film makes significant efforts to ground its space travel and voyage of exploration in scientific reality, using relativistic time as a plot device, for example, and relishing what far off worlds may in fact look like. The combination of racing against the clock to save humanity and voyaging through the endless void of space creates an interesting blend of suspense-style pacing and an explorer's sentimentality. All of this is grounded in its characters, as the film focuses on two father-daughter pairs, Cooper (McConaughey) and his daughter Murph (played as an adult by Jessica Chastain) find their bond tested, strained, and ultimately redeemed by the endless distance between them, and the incredibly high stakes are given a human dimension through their relationship. The cast is strong, and even if character isn't always Nolan's strong suit, McConaughey and Chastain both turn in moving and powerful performances. Despite the long runtime, the pacing is strong, and if anything, the film felt TOO short.




The Bad: For all of its efforts at making an intelligent and scientifically sound version of what mankind's first voyage into interstellar space may look like, at times the film falls into sentimental nonsense. I'm not docking the film TOO much for this, because I don't believe Nolan set out to film a hyper-realistic look at space travel, but it was jarring. There are times the science and the implications therein take a backseat to the plot, and while that's not always a bad thing in and of itself, at times it felt almost lazy, which is really unfortunate. I would have liked to have seen the ending fleshed out more as well, although the film already had a 3 hour runtime. Finally, everyone has criticized it, so I must mention it, the sound mix is bizarre. There are times that it was literally impossible to hear what was going on because of the combination of score and space craft noises. I respect the desire to demonstrate the inside of a spacecraft, but maybe don't have actors trying to give dialogue overtop of a booming score AND rocket engines?

In all, this film represents, while not perfection, certainly an exceptionally ambitious vision that is to be commended. At a time when Hollywood studios take fewer and fewer chances and focus their attention on established properties, big-budget original stories are important and valuable. This film joins the pantheon of great sci-fi films, and is honestly a must-see, despite its flaws.

8.5/10.

2013: The Year in Film: "Elysium" Review

Guys, I'm officially the worst at reviewing movies now. I've officially got a four-movie backlog going on and am a solid 3 flicks behind, but I'm going to buckle down and make this happen. Bear with me here. South African writer/director Neill Blomkamp hit the scene in a huge way with his 2009 debut, the apartheid allegory and xenophobia/immigration cautionary tale District 9. The distinct look and feel of District 9 with its gritty, industrial technology, secretive and dangerous government and compelling story, along with the allegory, established Blomkamp as a name to watch, not just in sci fi, but in film. District 9 was an independent film with an indie budget that managed to achieve the feel of a much bigger studio film with a cast of unknowns. That's a testament to the talents of the people involved. (And make a healthy profit to boot) Let's see how Elysium stacks up.

It's the year 2154 and the discrepancy between "have" and "have-not" has become even more pronounced. The great mass of humanity lives on a poisoned, polluted earth, which has been destroyed by overpopulation, pollution and exploitation. The privileged few live on a space station, the titular "Elysium", where all diseases have been cured and the inhabitants accrue vast wealth while living in abject comfort. This situation obviously leads to some tension, and the powers that be on Elysium are all-consumed with keeping the mass of humanity away from their orbital paradise.

The Good: if there's an actor who's better at playing the "everyman" than Matt Damon, I don't know who it might be. He's the heart and soul of this flick, and your affection for his character will keep you interested through some of the flick's sillier and more nonsensical stretches. Much like District 9, Blomkamp's gritty, dirty, industrial view of science fiction gives the film a unique feel that's simply a lot different from most of the visions of the future we're given in contemporary sci fi. Blomkamp also shows his chops as a filmmaker and visual artist, as the action sequences and special effects are terrifically done, and really help this flick stand apart. As far as the plot goes, we're given a moderately believable dystopian view of the future, one that gibes with immigration and class divide headlines we read daily today.



The bad: other than Damon's character, no other character feels richly drawn enough to really keep your interest. In addition, there are some rather serious logical flaws and I have some issues with the vision of the future. (apparently, people will no longer have cell phones or mobile technology in 2154, but will return to pagers and still drive GM cars) The topical, allegorical plot feels much more forced this time around, and the view of geopolitical reality seems overly simplistic. Generally, the world doesn't feel all that richly drawn or believable this time around. If that seems unduly harsh, it's simply because Blomkamp's proven himself to be so good with District 9, that he deserves a higher standard than your typical sci-fi action fare.

In all, this is a watchable, and generally enjoyable flick, albeit one that fails to live up to the promise of the talent involved. There are some serious logical flaws, a world that feels underdeveloped and a general lack of interesting characters. If it wasn't for Damon's unquestioned star power, this one would have been much worse. Also, can someone tell me what accent Jodi Foster is supposed to have? It's obnoxious.

6.5/10. A great core performance and some outstanding visuals help this one rise to slightly above-average status.