The Mist (2007) IN-DEPTH Movie Review

VIDEO VERSION CLICK HERE

“The Mist” is directed by Frank Darabont and it stars Thomas Jane, Marcia Gay Harden and Laurie Holden amongst others. This review contains spoilers. Massive spoilers.

After a powerful storm damages their Maine home, David Drayton played by Thomas Jane and his young son head into town to gather food and supplies. Soon afterward, a thick fog rolls in and engulfs the town, trapping the Draytons and others in the grocery store. Terror mounts as deadly creatures reveal themselves outside, but that may be nothing compared to the threat within, where a religious fanatic played by Marcia Gay Harden calls for a sacrifice.

“The Mist” is written by Stephen King and once again the duo Darabont/King come to play. It’s safe to say that this film is a lot more than just about deadly creatures in a mist waiting to kill you if you venture outside. The real strength of this film is in what happens inside the grocery store where everyone is trapped in. How anarchy slowly creeps in bringing the best and the worst in people. It’s like a small portrait of modern day society and all its issues compressed into a few characters. Even though these stereotypical characters exist they aren’t as 2 dimensional as one might expect. It’s quite the opposite and it’s part of the reason why “The Mist” is a great film. All the characters do a lot more than just represent a part of society or an ideology.  It’s mostly great writing, acting and directing that does the trick.

“The Mist”’s high concept is very strong. A creepy mist filled with deadly creatures engulfs a small town trapping people inside a grocery store. The face value of this storyline alone is worth watching. It’s great entertainment all the way through. But as I mentioned before the nail biting moments do not involve deadly mist creatures. The real villain in this film is portrayed by Marcia Gay Harden. The religious fanatic who is convinced that what’s happening is God’s punishment on Mankind. And it’s very clever how this character seems harmless at first but slowly manages to spread her influence as the film progresses. For me it works as a great metaphor for the relationship Man has with Faith. It’s really very simple. The fear of the unknown is what feeds religion and this film makes that quite obvious.  This fanatical character manages to convince more and more people to join her beliefs as the situation gets worse and worse. This equation is very basic and frighteningly accurate and as old as religion itself. At one point in the film, Marcia Gay Harden is ready to kill anyone who opposes her beliefs. It’s an easy parallel to what we’re witnessing almost every day with terrorism in western societies. Ignorance and fear leads to stupidity. Period.

At the other end of the spectrum is the more level headed protagonist. Thomas Jane’s David Drayton and his small group of followers, equally grounded and lucid. Well as much as you can be in a situation like that. “The Mist” does a wonderful job pacing its story and slowly speeding up the plot points and heading to a direction you might think you know but you really don’t.  David Drayton is the audience, we’re right there with him every step of the way. We share the journey with him. Like in any clever film, “The Mist” isn’t too worried with why things are happening but a lot more concerned with how the characters are reacting to this bizarre reality. You never really understand what the mist is or what the creatures in it are. You are given hints but not much more. And it’s not important. In fact it would destroy or at the very least lessen the impact of the whole religious fanatic storyline if we did have a clear explanation. Even though we the audience never really relate to the crazy woman it’s always interesting to keep open the possibility that she might be right. Knowing what was really going on with the mist would transform the script into something else it never intended to be. The depiction of anarchy taking over in a crisis situation is, for me, the core of this film. The creatures and the mist are mere catalysts of a much stronger plot. It’s the same formula I find appealing in “The Walking Dead” for instance. I don’t watch that show for the zombies. I watch it for the characters and how they react to the overwhelming circumstances. “The Mist” is exactly the same. It’s not a coincidence that Darabont is behind “The Walking Dead” as well. In fact you will find a couple of familiar faces from the show in this film. I might even go a little further and state that “The Walking Dead” is Darabont exploring this theme even further. What he couldn’t do in a 2 hour film he can in television show. The parallels seem undeniable.

The most memorable moment of the film is the ending. It’s the film’s biggest water-cooler moment and the scene every single person will remember the film for. The difference that 5 minutes can make in your life can’t be better shown than in this final scene. With four remaining characters in a car, including David and his son, all venturing in the mist to seek help and understand what’s happening, you have the setting for the finale. They all decide to commit suicide believing it’s the only way out. All hope is lost. The mist seems to have taken over civilization and they seem to be surrounded by creatures. They have a gun with only 3 bullets in it so David shoots the other three including his son and then walks out of the car to be devoured by the creatures. To his surprise, moments later we see the military showing up, dead creatures and the mist disappearing. It obviously becomes the most frustrating moment anyone can experience. If only they had waited a few more minutes all would be ok. It’s one of the best and most shocking endings I can recall in a film and it’s emotionally shattering to watch. Thomas Jane delivers a groundbreaking performance in that scene but I’ll get to that a bit later.  I recently read a title for one of those top 10 things you see all over the place. And this one was called “Top Ten Movies Where the Bad Guys Win” or something along those lines. “The Mist” was on this list. I don’t agree. I don’t think the bad guys won. In fact, the film clearly shows the opposite. You see many people have survived. The suicide was a choice they all made. It’s not the same as having them all killed by the mist. Again, the mist is not important. The characters and their choices is what matters and is the recipe for the film’s finale. If only…. If only they had waited 5… 10 more minutes. But how could they have known? The only reason David walked out of the car was to die which in turn lead to the discovery that the situation was under control. It’s a tragedy beyond measure. It’s a scene that will remain with us and in film history for a long time.

This is what makes “The Mist” unforgettable for anyone who watches it. The ending. Not because it’s a an elaborate twist like say “The Sixth Sense” but because it’s truly shocking and you can’t help but immediately relate to David and imagine how horrible it must be to be in his shoes in that situation. It’s truly a killer ending.

Much like most things Frank Darabont has done, “The Mist” is an extremely solid film. Darabont is a remarkable director and his wonderful work with actors is very apparent. His style of directing is one I very much relate to. His storytelling is very classic and refined.  He’s always more concerned with telling a good story and getting a powerful performance than with overly elaborate shots. I like directors who trust the material they have and don’t feel the need to compensate anything with over the top cinematography or with elaborate sound design or “creative” editing unless the story asks for it. With that said I don’t mean Darabont’s staging of scenes and shot compositions are basic. Quite the opposite. It’s just that it’s all very subtle and effective and that, for me, beats a super elaborate Michael Bayish flying tracking shot any day of the week. It’s discrete but highly effective work. “The Mist” is very straight forward and unpretentious at every level. Keeping it simple and to the point is what this film does best.

I really just want to talk about two actors in this film. Not that the remaining cast isn’t good it’s just that these two actors clearly steal the show.

The first one is obvious and it’s Thomas Jane with the leading role. Much like Darabont, Thomas Jane cruises through this film effortlessly delivering a very solid performance which peaks when it has to. At the end of the film. But even before that as I mentioned before, Thomas Jane’s David represents the audience so, while obviously active throughout the film, he’s also very observant and like the audience he’s witnessing things slowly falling apart. Thomas Janes does a wonderful job with this role and the final scene is the cherry on top. It’s a truly remarkable moment and without his priceless contribution you would not have such a powerful ending. Believe me, Thomas Jane does half the work in making that scene work as well as it does.

My second mention is fairly obvious as well I think. Marcia Gay Harden. I think this is one the films I most enjoy watching her. She is absolutely brilliant as the religious nutcase. A role that could have easily been overacted but isn’t because it’s in the hands of a very gifted and competent actress. She’s so good in it that I truly hate her and want to punch her face in while watching the movie. That’s how good she is. It’s really not Marcia Gay Harden at any point. It’s someone you want to see shot dead and it’s so good when it finally happens. I don’t think there is a better way of complementing her work than saying what I just said. It’s a very demanding role and it’s demanding because of what I said before. It can easily be overplayed and finding the sweet spot isn’t an easy task. Of course credit is due to Darabont as well but what is a director without a fantastic actor or actress to play out his fantasies right? Even if you hate everything else about this film it’s always worth watching  Marcia Gay Harden drive everyone insane inside that grocery store.

So to sum it up, “The Mist” is a great film, unmissable even. If only for that ending alone. Although I understand why it’s classified as a horror film I don’t think it’s really a horror film. It’s more of a drama to me and a great one too. One thing I did notice while watching it recently was the dated CGI it has. It’s really the only thing the film suffers a bit from. But even then it’s only apparent in a few shots. The rest still works very well. It’s just a bit frustrating that such a great film has one or two shots that just don’t work technically and you clearly notice the dodgy CGI breaking the mood a bit.

If you are watching this spoiler filled review of “The Mist” I can only assume you have seen it. I hope this encourages you to watch it again because it definitely deserves more attention. It’s a great film and it’s one of those movies I’ll always watch from time to time even if just to study and learn more and more about the craft of filmmaking.

Have a wonderful day!

The Revenant (2015) IN-DEPTH Movie Review

VIDEO VERSION CLICK HERE

“The Revenant” is directed by Alejandro Iñárritu and it stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy, Will Poulter and Domhnall Gleeson. This review contains spoilers.

During a hunting expedition for animal pelts, Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio) sustains injuries from a brutal bear attack. When his hunting team leaves him for dead, Glass must utilize his survival skills to find a way back home. Grief-stricken and fueled by vengeance, Glass treks through the wintry terrain to track down John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), the former confidant who betrayed and abandoned him.

Iñarritu delivers a very unique film to say the least. “The Revenant” is a film not so much about the destination but more about the journey. The will to overcome any obstacle and reach your goal.  While watching this film I almost felt like it should have been called “The Resilient”. DiCaprio’s Glass surpasses unimaginable situations fueled by anger and vengeance. From what I know, by definition, the word Revenant roughly means a person who has returned somehow. Especially from the dead. So while I teased about calling the film “The Resilient”, “The Revenant” is in fact a very suitable title considering how often you feel Leonardo DiCaprio does returns from the dead. 

The most important plot point of the story is when Tom Hardy’s character, John Fitzgerald kills Glass’s son Hawk, right after trying to kill Glass himself. Fitzgerald accepted a deal on which he would get paid to take care of Glass for as long as he survived and then give him a proper burial if and when he died. Glass is extremely wounded by the bear attack and Fitzgerald just wants to collect the money and leave Glass behind as soon as possible. Glass seems to be as good as dead and Fitzgerald just wants to get it over with. Fitzgerald is accompanied by Will Poulter, played by Jim Bridger, who in turn does not associate himself with Fitzgerald’s selfishness and greed. He finds himself forced to leave Glass behind when Fitzgerald cleverly fools him convincing him they are under attack and must escape quickly. So, very reluctantly, he agrees to leave Glass half buried also convinced Hawk, Glass’s son, is missing and not in fact murdered by Fitzgerald. And so begins Glass’s long journey back from the “dead” and in pursuit of Fitzgerald for revenge.

The storyline of this film is extremely simple and it doesn’t need to be any more complicated than it is.  While engaging because of its universal themes, like revenge, loss and survival. “The Revenant”’s biggest strength is its execution by far. Iñarritu’s relationship with the camera and its subject is remarkable. Very often you will see a wide shot with an extreme close up of a character in the foreground. Always maintaining one of the film’s most important characters in focus in the background, the wilderness itself. The whole setting of this film is a character on its own and very much part of the story. Another remarkable thing I loved about this film is the complex set-pieces and the way Iñarritu does the coverage of the action taking place. You feel every single shot was extremely well planned and staged. His camera pans are masterful and always serve a very specific purpose moving the scene in question along from point A to B. All executed very seamlessly and absolutely wonderful to watch. I feel Iñarritu avoids as much as possible to stage scenes in a manner that would have required more coverage and thus more editing.  He is able to cover a lot of action and dialogue in a single shot changing the scale with a traveling shot or a pan, but always giving us the impression that there are multiple shots going by. A technique I also find in Steven Spielberg’s work very often. But Iñarritu goes a little further. Almost every scene seems to be one long take. There are cuts here and there of course. It depends heavily on the type of scene in my opinion. It’s masterful cinematography and staging to say the least.

Another aspect of “The Revenant” I loved was the sound. The soundtrack alone is very good but Iñarritu doesn’t solely rely on music. He uses the sound of nature constantly to emphasize certain emotions and tension. The sounds of the wilderness are very much a part of the film’s soundtrack so to speak. He frequently pushes the levels of a specific sound from the wilderness and then abruptly cuts to the next scene to absolute silence or almost absolute silence. This is a known technique but knowing how and when to use it requires a lot of sensibility and craft. One of the great examples I always mention when I speak about this is “The Exorcist”. In that film you often see moments where the sound of shouting and screaming is peaking and suddenly you cut to a dialogue scene where the actors are whispering. This creates a very interesting contrast from scene to scene and also builds up tension. “The Revenant” resorts to this very often. And I love it. It’s very interesting to see Iñarritu use the sound of the wilderness as part of the soundtrack. And not gratuitously, it’s very much related to what is happening on screen.

It’s time for me to talk about the elephant in the room. Leonardo DiCaprio. Once again he delivers a mind-blowing performance and the screen doesn’t lie. He went trough hell with this role and every inch and hair of his body is immersed in the Glass’s shoes.  It’s absolutely wonderful to see an actor work at this level and in such a harsh environment. I’m sure the environment only helped and I’m glad it did. The very last shot of the film on which Glass slowly turns to the camera and at the audience breaking the fourth wall is the peak of Leo’s performance and also the film. So much is being said in that moment. And it’s all thanks to DiCaprio’s outstanding performance. I would stand up and clap in tears right now if I could. I’m sure this is one of the roles he will be most remembered by in years to come. It’s one more step up in his already vast contribution to film history as an actor. What a wonderful actor he is.

Tom Hardy doesn’t fall short in this equation. In fact he’s right up there with DiCaprio. Tom Hardy is a heavy-weight actor to say the least. His John Fitzgerald is delicious to watch. I don’t want to classify him as the villain of the film because in my mind, the term villain belittles a film like “The Revenant”. This film is far beyond good guys and bad guys. It’s about people. Tom Hardy is brilliant all the way through. Just brilliant. I often found myself smiling and almost laughing because of how brilliant this actor is in this film. The amount of work you see on screen is absolutely amazing so I’ll say what I thought while watching the film Fuck you Tom Hardy, you are fucking brilliant! Pardon my French but some things are better expressed that way. At least for me.

Will Poulter and Domhnall Gleeson also deliver great performances and are blessed with extremely powerful characters. It was a joy to watch these actors on screen and witness how well they serve the story with their contributions.

All in all, “The Revenant” is obviously extremely well acted by everyone involved in the project.

To wrap it up I can only stand up and clap and firmly state that this film is a masterpiece that will be part of film history. A brilliant director with a stellar cast manages to tell such a simple story in the most creative and thought provoking manner possible. It’s a film with so many layers and density, so well executed and acted that you can’t feel anything else but awe when the credits roll. I say again. A true modern masterpiece before our eyes. 

The Big Short (2015) IN-DEPTH Movie Review

VIDEO VERSION CLICK HERE

“The Big Short” is directed by Adam McKay and it stars Steve Carell, Christian Bale, Ryan Gosling and Brad Pitt amongst others.  This review contains spoilers.

In 2008, Wall Street guru Michael Burry realizes that a number of subprime home loans are in danger of defaulting. Burry bets against the housing market by throwing more than $1 billion of his investors' money into credit default swaps. His actions attract the attention of banker Jared Vennett played by Ryan Gosling, hedge-fund specialist Mark Baum played by Steve Carell and other greedy opportunists. Together, these men make a fortune by taking full advantage of the impending economic collapse in America.

First and foremost, this film is extremely well acted and if only for that, you should watch the film if you haven’t done so already. But I’ll get to that a bit later.

Adam McKay resorts to a documentary type of filmmaking, breaking the fourth wall having characters talk directly to the camera and using it as means to explain the sometimes complicated terms and plot points a film like “The Big Short” inevitably has. Not only does he do that but he goes a step further by having popular celebrities (promptly introduced by the characters) explain these complicated terms. This happens two or three times in the film if I recall correctly.

“The Big Short” is almost inevitably an original film when we talk about its execution. It’s not a type of film you’ll see very often. It doesn’t seem to follow the usual structure you usually find in most scripts. It seems to dive right into the story proving exposition and setup in a very unusual way.  It seems chaotic, especially in the first 10 to 20 minutes while we, the audience, are still adjusting to the film’s language.  It’s almost impossible for me not to think about films like “The Wolf of Wall Street” or “Goodfellas”. It’s extremely fast paced and like the previous examples, characters break the fourth wall frequently. It feels like a Scorcese film on steroids. But, unlike Scorcese, McKay isn’t going for a classic structure in his storytelling. It’s hard to find a true story arch in “The Big Short” and maybe it’s not even necessary. The choice of shooting this film almost like a documentary by resorting to a shaky camera, actors out of focus and so on, allows McKay to consciously break a lot of rules. Things like continuity are never an issue in a film like this. When I say this, I don’t mean, in any way, that this is way to cheat or avoid a theoretically more difficult form of filmmaking. To break the rules you first need to master them. And “The Big Short” is a fine example of that. While it might seem chaotic at first glance, the film is extremely well organized and structured.

I didn’t particularly like having popular celebrities explain complex terms to the audience. The first time it happens, it’s Margot Robbie in a bathtub having some champagne. While I must admit it’s always a pleasure seeing Margot Robbie do anything it bothered me a little bit because in that case in particular it seemed like Robbie was playing a character and not being her actual self. That didn’t happen in the scenes with other celebrities. At least I didn’t feel that. I would have preferred to have Ryan Gosling do it.  He is the character that most often breaks the fourth wall and moves the plot along delivering exposition very effectively. So, in my mind, it would have made more sense that he explained whatever needed explaining at point A or B. It might have been a good idea on paper but the end result didn’t work for me. Despite this being a historical piece in the sense that it’s depicting actual events at a very specific time in our history these cutaways to the celebrities will inevitably date the film in years to come.

Although “The Big Short” is dealing with very serious matters the film can easily  be classified as a black comedy. It’s extremely funny and entertaining all the way through. Approaching this material as a full-blown drama might have resulted in a less original film and probably a lot harder to grab the masses. Plus, it would have been very difficult to relate to these protagonists when they are betting on the rest of the world’s downfall. But even with that in mind, McKay doesn’t ignore the facts. At least two of the characters seem bothered by the events and their actions. Steve Carell’s Mark Baum might just be the best example of this. It’s the character that most frequently mirrors the true nature of what they’re trying to achieve. We see his concern and remorse slowly build up as the story unfolds. If there is a protagonist in this film it’s Mark Baum. Another example is the secondary character played by Brad Pitt. In one particular scene he delivers a speech on how truly horrible it is what they are all doing. What it actually means betting on the downfall of the economy. A scene that could have easily failed for being so obviously moral and cheesy in its nature. But it doesn’t.  It’s very well written and extremely well executed by Brad Pitt. It doesn’t insist too much on itself and delivers just the right amount of consciousness the film and characters need at that point. And it also prevents the film from completely ignoring the implications of the horrible story being told.

With that said I have to turn my attention to the two strongest aspects of “The Big Short”. The editing and the acting. Let’s start with the editing.

The editing of this film is masterful. Not even 10 minutes into the film and I was already wondering if it was nominated for an Oscar. Sure enough, when the movie was over I quickly grabbed my phone and confirmed my suspicion. It’s the type of editing that can easily be confused as flashy and pretentious but it’s really not. As I mentioned before, McKay delivers a film that only seems chaotic. It’s very well organized and structured and the editing only adds to that vision. I say again, to break the rules you must first master them. The editing of this film, much like its cinematography breaks a lot of rules but it does it brilliantly. Anyone who edits can pick this up very quickly and recognize the amount of craft needed to pull it off so effectively. Cutting away mid sentence, jump-cutting during dialogues and actions. It’s marvelous to watch and learn. It’s not something we haven’t seen in other films. We have. But at this level only a few films can compete. Soderbergh’s “Traffic” is one example I can recall right now.

Now the acting. At the top of my list is Steve Carell who once again proves he is at the top of his game and probably one of the best actors working today. His interpretation of Mark Baum is fantastic. Whenever he was in a scene I was smiling. He was stealing the show every time. His acting range and the level of performance he commits to any role he plays is sometimes underestimated. I’m glad he took a step back from his earlier roles and is now venturing into more demanding material and blowing our minds in the process. An Oscar will come soon enough.

Christian Bale is Christian Bale. Absolutely brilliant in everything he does. His Michael Burry is extremely well interpreted. Once again Bale gives his body and soul to the character and you don’t even need 5 seconds to forget it’s Christian Bale. He is the character instantly. The physicality, the voice, everything falls into place seamlessly. Enough said.

Ryan Gosling works wonderfully. He’s extremely funny and fills in the shoes of the narrator, if we can call him that, perfectly. I don’t want to write another 10 pages on Gosling but I do think he reveals some problems as an actor although in this film he works extremely well. What I mean is, looking at his past films I do feel he lacks a bit of range or is maybe reluctant to venture into stranger waters. This character reminded me, sometimes, of his character in “Crazy, Stupid, Love”. Of course they are different and Gosling is at the very least always competent. But I still think he could do more and probably can do more.

Brad Pitt is a joy to watch. I’ve always admired his work and in “The Big Short” he leaves his mark. With a minor role and only appearing from time to time he still manages to be brilliant. His character is very interesting and his almost absence of emotion is perfect. He conveys so much doing so very little. It’s not for everyone. I loved every second of him in this film.

My honorable mentions, if you will, go to Finn Wittrock and John Magaro. They form a great duo mirroring the innocence of age oblivious to the lager picture of what is going on. They deliver solid performances and fit in perfectly with the rest of the cast.

It’s sad to see Marisa Tomei with so little to do but what she does works very well. It’s very obvious that there wasn’t a lot of character development for her to work with but even so, she does her job competently.

So I think I’ve rambled on long enough about this film. I thoroughly enjoyed it. It’s a great film from start to finish even with some reservations I have here and there. It’s very original and it manages to depict truly dramatic events camouflaged in an extremely funny black comedy. Great directing, mind blowing editing, outstanding performances, fantastic writing. All the right ingredients for a very polished and sophisticated film. “The Big Short” should stand the test of time with its excellent craft even if some elements do date it.

I hope you enjoyed this review and I wish you a wonderful day.

The Martian (2015) IN-DEPTH Movie Review

VIDEO VERSION HERE

“The Martian” is directed by Ridley Scott and it stars Matt Damon. This review contains spoilers so if you haven’t seen the film, go watch it before watching this review.

During a manned mission to Mars, Astronaut Mark Watney is presumed dead after a fierce storm and left behind by his crew. But Watney has survived and finds himself stranded and alone on the hostile planet. With few supplies but a lot of wit he must find a way to contact Earth and survive.

The film starts off very impressively. The opening sequence is very good and gets you right into the action without wasting time with pointless exposition or setup. Watney’s crew assumes he’s dead after he’s hit by debris in the violent storm and take off without him. Not even 10mns into the film and Matt Damon’s Watney is already alone in Mars. So begins this character’s long journey to survival. The following scenes work very well. We see Watney mending his wound, a great scene by the way. He then comes to the obvious conclusion that he needs to figure out a way to get more food or he will die before anyone can come rescue. As Watney says himself, luckily he’s a botanist so he figures out a way to farm potatoes using… well, his own shit basically. He also devises a way to get water, which actually results in a funny scene on which he blows himself up.

This is roughly the first half hour of “The Martian”. Matt Damon delivering exposition via video logs and moving the plot along and I quote “sciencing the shit out things”. When he eventually manages to contact earth by finding the old Mars Rover from the 90s we now start having the parallel of Earth and Mars more frequently. NASA trying to figure out ways to help and Watney back on Mars also solving problem after problem. So with a few setbacks here and there the rescue obviously succeeds and Mark Watney is safe.

The best thing, by far, about “The Martian” is Matt Damon. He carries the film on his back with a fantastic performance which otherwise would have resulted in a terrible film. Watney is likable from the second we meet him and the video logs he keeps making to deliver exposition work very well. Matt Damon does wonders with what he has to work with. But I have to be honest. I love Matt Damon’s work in pretty much everything he’s ever been in.

The rest of the cast is luxurious to say the least. Jessica Chastain, Jeff Daniels, Sean Bean. The list goes on. “The Martian” has a great supporting cast.

Ridley Scott delivers once again a beautiful film. As he always does. His movies are always so beautifully photographed and with great compositions. His relationship with his actors seems to be in great form as well. As I mentioned the performances are extremely solid. It’s easily one of Ridley Scott’s best films in recent years. “The Counselor” and “Exodus” weren’t exactly great achievements.

With all that said I find myself in disagreement with many people when they put this film on a pedestal. I think “The Martian” is a very problematic film. Both times I watched it I thought the same thing. So much science but so little emotion. Many reviews I read and heard praised the scientific accuracy of the film and the genius of Watney’s endeavors. I question the whole entire final set piece when Watney “ironmans’ his way to safety while orbiting Mars but hey I could be wrong. It could be extremely accurate and possible for all I know. But that’s besides the point. No matter how accurate the film is or not isn’t really the issue for me. The problem is that it only seems to care about that. Scientific accuracy. Math problems, calculations and estimates. The film is constantly solving problems both on Earth and Mars. So much so that it forgets everything else. All the characters are a bit two dimensional with the exception of Mark Watney. The film never truly connects emotionally even when it’s supposed to like at the end. And I don’t think the problem is predictability or execution.

The problem is a huge elephant in the room. This character’s emotional and psychological journey isn’t really believable for me. That’s why I said before. So much science but so little emotion. I was always waiting for a true dark moment in Watney’s journey. And not the result of a practical problem. There is plenty of that in the film already. But dealing with all the loneliness for instance. The very real possibility of facing death. An extremely long period of time deprived of numerous basic human necessities as the social animal we are. Logical psychological issues that would naturally surface in a situation like this. The film only scratches the surface of these issues and prefers to focus on its geekier side. At one point there is a 7 month ellipsis in the film and sure enough we see a skinnier Matt Damon but not much more. And for me that is the biggest problem I have with “The Martian”.  That and seeing part of the Martin habitat blow up seconds after Jeff Daniel’s character says something like: “Let’s hope nothing goes wrong”.

Similar films balance the science and, let’s call it, emotion very well. “Apollo 13”, “Gravity” and I’m sure a few more I cannot remember right now. These films focus heavily on their protagonists’ inner journey without alienating the scientific and interesting means that lead the hero or heroes to a happy ending. “The Martian” insists so much on its science that it becomes boring at times. Not because the science isn’t it interesting but because I’m note watching a documentary about Mars, I’m watching a film about an astronaut struggling to survive millions of miles away from home and all of what that entails. For instance, one of the biggest strengths a film like “Cast Away” has is the credibility of the journey that the character goes through. When the ellipsis occurs in that film and Tom Hanks is skinny as hell, after 4 years alone in an island, you feel the impact time has had on that character. Both physically and mentally. “The Martian” crashes and burns in that department. I struggle to relate with Watney beyond the face value of the scenes and the charisma Matt Damon brings to the table. Actually I can say that about the entire film. It seems emotionally shallow too often for my own liking.

I salute its scientific accuracy and the wonderful achievement it is in that department. All the things Watney does are truly impressive. A good guy to have around in a situation like that for sure.

“The Martian” is still a film I recommend watching even with all the issues I have with it. Matt Damon is a delight to watch and Ridley Scott is a great director even when he butchers scripts. Something he tends to do sometimes. The film is visually breathtaking and you truly believe you are in Mars. It’s very immersive. If you ignore the 2 dimensional crap back on earth you’ll have an even better time with “The Martian”.

To sum it up the film is a missed opportunity and it could have been something a lot better and deeper than what we ended up with. I haven’t read the book the film was based on, but those who have, say the film is very true to the book. It’s safe to say that staying true to the source material may not always be the best option considering books and movies are two very different mediums. In this case and I say again, too much science and so little emotion.