Screenpopp

Ridley Scott has a bizarre track record. Only every other, or 3rd movie he directs, is good. This one is OUTSTANDING. Let me explain why this director frustrates me. It is not because of his directing prowess, but rather, his taking on projects in which the script itself is not good. You can have the best director for a movie, but the story has to be good. Of course, The Martian falls into the later. But I’d be hard pressed to find any script writer/director combo to screw up this one. The source material, the book of the same name, was excellent. This movie is 90% from the book and 10% Hollywood. It is real viable technology that is 20-30 years a reality for NASA and has a legitimate “real feel” to it. Less Sci-Fi, more space drama. The writer did his homework on this one. It is about using real science in space to stay alive, and a cross Apollo 11 and Gravity. Everyone should love this as much as NASA themselves do. Here is NASA’s reception of the film:

“NASA has been super excited about the release of The Martian movie for the past few months. Leading up to the film’s premiere, the space agency has done numerous interviews with the cast, highlighted the real-life technologies used by Matt Damon’s character Mark Watney, and incessantly reminded everyone that NASA plans to go to Mars for real sometime in the 2030.”

But going back to my first point, either Ridley or his people cannot tell when a script is bad, or he (Ridley) just doesn’t care anymore (call it old age or money hungry)? Exodus and The Counselor were bad. Prometheus was flawed but I still liked it. Then you have his greats in Gladiator, Alien, Blade Runner, and Thelma & Louise. This movie has that honored company. It is one of his top ten. However, I am still wondering if Ridley made it great or the script was just that good? Could any director have made this a success? I’ll let you be the judge.

Reviewed by: Maurizio Marchese on October 14, 2015