5 ideas about a movie: Downsizing

Movie reviews

Hello!

Welcome to January – the month of great awards movies and awful mainstream ones. I don’t know how many reviews of the latter I’m going to be posting but you can be sure that the awards’ film reviews will be plentiful. For example, you are reading one now – this is Downsizing.

IMDb summary: A social satire in which a man realizes he would have a better life if he were to shrink himself to five inches tall, allowing him to live in wealth and splendor.

  1. Downsizing was written and directed by Alexander Payne (of The Descendants and Nebraska). Payne’s long-time collaborator Jim Taylor was also credited as a writer and a producer. To begin with, I thought that these two filmmakers had a genius premise for a movie. I haven’t really seen a social satire that tackled overpopulation as the main problem and definitely haven’t seen a film that had such a cheeky yet somehow believable solution to the problem. The opening sequence of the film was really good – it effectively set up the idea of downsizing as well as it global outreach – I instantly started to believe in the world of the movie. Then, the picture flashed to its main character and that’s where the problems started to arise.
  2. While I don’t necessarily think that the main character was bad, I do strongly believe that the story of the main character was too simplistic (for such an incredible premise, the narrative should have been more unique too). The wife’s decision to leave the husband was such a cliche way to create conflict. The fact that the movie started with one love story and ended with another was not the best decision either because by focusing so much on the romance, Downsizing forgot to explore a multitude of concepts that it introduced.  I wanted less predictability and more time spent on the economic, political, and social implications of downsizing; the abuse of the new technology (cause there always is a darker side behind a shiny billboard), and just the problem of overpopulation itself.
  3. Alexander Payne did a good job directing Downsizing. He realized the world of the story well and visually blended the small and the big worlds almost seamlessly (those visuals had a surrealist feeling to them which was interesting). In addition, Downsizing was billed as a comedy, and, while there were certainly some chucklesome moments, the film definitely wasn’t a laugh-out-loud type of a comedy. My favorite visual (as well as narrative) sequence was the prep for and the actual procedure of downsizing. As I’ve mentioned in the previous part, I wanted to see more of it rather than the love story.
  4. Matt Damon (The Martian, Jason Bourne, The Great Wall) played the lead and was good, but I don’t think that this role will result in any awards’ nominations let alone wins (it’s zero for two for Damon this season as Suburbicon was panned by the critics). Christoph Waltz (Tarzan, Spectre, Tulip Fever) was fun to watch as he was playing an eccentric and creepy character – one straight out of Waltz’s wheelhouse. Kristen Wiig (mother!, Ghostbusters) and Jason Sudeikis had very minor roles but they were great in those and proved to me that I definitely prefer seeing these two actors in more dramatic roles rather in their full-on comedic ones.
  5. The stand-out from the cast, who deservedly is getting all the awards’ recognition for this film was Hong Chau. While her character first appeared to be a comedic stereotype (mostly because of the broken English aspect), she was so much more than that. Chau’s performance was compelling and emotional, innocent yet sophisticated. I’d love to see her winning an Oscar as well as getting more opportunities in Hollywood (she has previously appeared on Big Little Lies and in the picture Inherent Vice).

In short, Downsizing wastes an amazingly original concept on a predictable love story. The cast is good overall but the standout is definitely Hong Chau.

Rate: 3.5/5

Trailer: Downsizing trailer

Downsizing.png

Advertisements

Movie review: mother!

Movie reviews

Hello!

While I’m definitely more of a mainstream pictures kinda cinephile, I’m not against more arty/experimental films. Darren Aronofsky represents both: while his style is very much unique, his name is well-known to even the most casual moviegoers. Let’s see what his latest movie – mother! – has to offer.

IMDb summary: A couple’s relationship is tested when uninvited guests arrive at their home, disrupting their tranquil existence.

Writing

mother! was written by Aronofsky himself. Now, going into the film, I knew what to expect and what not to expect. I didn’t think I was going to see a simple story – neither in its structure nor message. I was right: mother!’s narrative was quite complex (and looped) and it had an abundance of layers of meaning. While I think I understood some of the ideas the script was trying to portray, I’m sure a tonne of others just went completely over my head. Also, the meaning I got might not have been the meaning intended by the filmmaker or understood in the same way by the other viewers. This begs the question – if one makes a movie that is super hard to understand, isn’t he/she just being pretentious? Also, if one makes a movie that only a small percentage of audiences can understand, isn’t one damaging his/her career prospects (art films don’t pay much).

Anyways, let me tell you what mother! was about as explained by people smarter than me online (I’ll tell you my personal interpretation afterward). Supposedly, mother! was a metaphor of a film about the relationship between the mother nature (Lawrence’s mother character) and Judeo-Christian god (Bardem’s Him). The crowds symbolized Christians, while Adam, Eve, Cain, and Abel also appeared. Lawrence’s and Bardem’s child was a symbolic version of the baby Jesus. When put in relatively simple terms and while looking back at the picture, I do get that general idea and how it was portrayed. However, while watching the movie, only the Jesus similarly came to my mind. I’m not a religious person (actually, an opposite of that), so I don’t actively search for sacramental imagery or metaphors in the films I watch, so that’s probably why I missed it.

I, personally thought that mother! tried exploring the topics of inspiration and creation of both life and art. I also believed that its main concern was the differences between the female and the male creation (which kinda goes in line with the female mother nature and the masculine God portrayal).

Additionally, just looking on a surface level, I was quite frustrated with the main character of mother! because I perceived her to be a very much traditional (old-school) female figure. She was depicted as needy, dependent, and solely family orientated. If not for the later realization of the mother nature connection, I would have been (still kinda am) disappointed by this portrayal that didn’t achieve much in terms of moving the female characters forward. Why couldn’t mother nature be seen as strong and powerful and completely able to discipline its children a la humans?

Lastly, the commentary that I comprehend the most and was the most intrigued by was the one about fame, cult following, and celebrity worship. These things were portrayed as addictive and damaging: a cautionary tale. However, it looks like I misinterpreted the belief in god for the obsession with celebrities (and, honestly, they aren’t that much different). Besides, if one thinks of mother! as portraying celebrity culture, it’s interesting to note than Aronofsky would then be seen as being both cautious of and partaking in it by going to the film festivals and the premieres, by signing autographs or taking pictures.

Directing

I have highly enjoyed some of the previous films by Aronofsky (The Wrestler and Black Swan, specifically), respected others (Requiem for a Dream and The Fountain) and been angered by some too (Noah). Now, mother! encompassed all of the feelings mentioned.

I really loved the way the movie was filmed – by following the titular character and keeping the focus of the camera mostly on her.The handheld style and the mobile frame are generally very much indie/small budget films’ staples but here, they seemed refined, high-end, glamorous and expensive. mother! did not have a score, only diegetic sounds were heard. This added to the overall distinct ambiance of the film. The close-ups of eyes, the heart-imagery, and the fire/life effects were all interesting and disturbing visuals too. Lastly, there were quite a few tonal shifts in the film. In a heartbeat, mother! would go from low energy creepiness but almost normalcy to complete exaggeration and total escalation.

Acting

Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem delivered stunning performances and basically carried this movie. It was so nice to see Bardem finally starring in a film worthy of his talents, instead of wasting them on Pirates 5. Lawrence was also really good. I loved her look – her grayish blonde hair both made her seem older, more sophisticated but also somewhat timeless/ageless too. I think she should just probably continue doing art/indie films (Joy) because she really doesn’t seem to enjoy the more mainstream work (The Hunger Games, X-Men, or Passengers). Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer were also really good. I’m so happy that they too finally got a chance to showcase the full extent of their acting chops. Domhnall Gleeson (The Revenant, Star Wars, Brooklyn, Anna Karenina, Unbroken, American Made), his actual brother Brian Gleeson, and Kristen Wiig (The Martian, Ghostbusters) all had cameo appearances as well.

In short, mother! was a unique film that both frustrated and intrigued me with its metaphors. Just now, while finishing this review, I came across another potential symbol in the movie and I imagine that I’ll find new ones the longer I think about it. If that’s your forte, then mother! is for you. If you want an easier but no less smart scary thriller, watch It again or for the first time.

Rate: ?/5 (I can barely put this film into words, let alone a single number)

Trailer: mother! trailer

MV5BMzc5ODExODE0MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNDkzNDUxMzI@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,674,1000_AL_

Movie review: Despicable Me 3 

Movie reviews

Hello!

Illumination Entertainment has replaced DreamWorks as the other ‘it’ animation studio in Hollywood (first being the Disney/Pixar conglomerate). Let’s see whether their latest offering – Despicable Me 3 – is worthy of praise.

IMDb summary: Gru meets his long-lost charming, cheerful, and more successful twin brother Dru who wants to team up with him for one last criminal heist.

I, personally, really enjoyed the first two Despicable Me films (and other recent Illumination movies, like Sing and The Secret Life of Pets) but I vastly despised the Minions spinoff. I hoped that the minions’ meme would have died down by now but is still as strong as ever. Thus, the interest in this movie is, most likely, big. Minions have been definitely used more in the marketing than when advertising the previous pictures of the main series. While their role in the movie is smaller than I expected (thankfully), two of them actually appear on the screen first, a few seconds before Gru – the supposed star of the franchise.

Writing

The writing duo Cinco Paul and Ken Daurio wrote the third film in the Despicable Me series (they also penned the original and the first sequel). Overall, the script was a mixed bag of stuff. Story-wise, a lot of things were happening and multiple plotlines were being developed (with varying amounts of attention and screentime). The biggest ones were Gru’s and his brother’s story, the Mother-Daughter bonding idea, the new villain’s Baltazar’s plotline, and the Minion shenanigans (that had little to do with anything else in the movie). The daughter characters also had their small side quests (unicorn and engagement). While I don’t really think that all these lines necessarily worked together, I would at least like to compliment the scriptwriters for trying to do something with the story and the characters.

Speaking of the characters – I loved the new villain Baltazar. I loved his 80s look (shoulder pads!) and affinity for music and dance. He really reminded me of Baby from Baby Driver – stealing into the beat of the music similarly to driving into the beat of the music. I also loved his Guardians of the Galaxy-like dance-off idea. Agnes character – the most adorable of the daughters – was also delightful to watch and I very much enjoyed her ‘hunt’ for the unicorn (definitely more than everything related to the Minions).

Thematically, Despicable Me 3 tackled adult themes and paired them with childish humor. The grown-up characters were dealing with being fired and finding a new life path, while also coming to terms with failed dreams of their youth; they were attempting to reconnect with long lost siblings and were worrying about being good parents. Things, like gambling online, sexual innuendos, and baldness were also mentioned. On the completely opposite end of the spectrum was the film’s humor – it was mostly childish. The Minions comic relief side quest could have been cut out of the movie and nothing would have changed. The Minions were actually sort of replaced by pigs. The new brother character, who failed at being a villain, got annoying really quick too.

Lastly, one meta idea that I immensely enjoyed about Despicable Me 3 was the fact that the movie’s villain was attempting to take down Hollywood, while the film itself was very much a product of Hollywood. Oh, the sweet irony.

Directing

Pierre Coffin and Kyle Balda, who directed all the previous pictures of the series, helmed Despicable Me 3 and did an okay job. The animation was good, as it always is. The pacing was also fine and I liked the fact that the movie was quite short and not too overindulgent in itself. The score (by Heitor Pereira and Pharrell Williams) was catchy too. While the film was surely my least favorite in the franchise (it went downhill as so many series do), I think that the kids would definitely enjoy it. I wonder if they will attempt to continue the franchise – is the final scene of Dru teaming up with the Minions an indication that the next film might be Dru vs. Gru. And we all know that ‘versus’ stories are popular now.

Voice work

Steve Carell performed a double duty and voiced both Gru and Dru. I liked his work here as much as in the previous films and appreciated the subtle differences in the voices of the two brothers. Kristen Wiig was also good, while the co-creator of South-Park Trey Parker was a neat choice for a villain.

In short, Despicable Me 3 is a perfectly servicable kids’ movie that doesn’t offer anything too special but is, overall, entertaining, if one can stomach the Minions.

Rate: 3.5/5

Trailer: Despicable Me 3 trailer

download

5 ideas about a movie: Sausage Party

Movie reviews

Hello!

Before I start reviewing films that belong to the fall movie season, allow me to catch up on the only summer flick that I couldn’t see when it was still summer – Sausage Party. My university put on a free screening of it during Freshers’ Week, so, now I can review it!

IMDb summary:  A sausage strives to discover the truth about his existence.

  1. Before going to see Sausage Party, I really didn’t know what to expect. I have never been a fan of really raunchy comedies and I have also had mixed feelings about Seth Rogen’s previous projects. I did enjoy both Neighbors films but wasn’t a fan of The Interview at all. His voice work in Kung Fu Panda has been great, though, so I was sure that he can nail the voice of a sausage. The jokes were my main concern and I’m so happy that Sausage Party completely wiped my worries away. Yes, the jokes were extremely raunchy and offensive but they somehow actually worked in an animated form.
  2. A whole bunch of people worked on the film’s story and script, including Kyle Hunter, Ariel Shaffir, Seth Rogen, Evan Goldberg and Jonah Hill. The whole premise for the movie was both absurd and genius, smart and stupid. In short, Sausage Party was basically a Toy Story with food for adults. A lot of the jokes were based on stereotypes and were used for social commentary Zootopia style, only in way raunchier way. Lastly,  something that I’d never thought I’d said – I actually enjoyed the fact that Sausage Party was unapologetically offensive – it had a tonne of jokes based on race, sex, sexuality, ethnicity and religion and could literally offend everyone and anyone. In a time, when the slightest critique or a darker humour is taken as an attack, Sausage Party went all the way and did not even think about saying sorry and I applaud it for that.
  3. Conrad Vernon and Greg Tiernan directed the film and did a good job. For the most part, the pace of the film was quite good – quick and snappy, although, the movie did slow down in the middle to develop its characters a bit. The 3D animation looked good – a great mix of realism and cartoon. The 2d flashback was also not bad. Lastly, the usage of music in Sausage Party was hilarious: the opening number was a perfect sequence to start the film and the meat loaf’s song was funny too.
  4. Sausage Party had 2 end-scenes that I liked to touch upon. The first one was that long hmm…orgy sequence. It started as funny but turned into gross really fast and then it just kept on going. I don’t know if it was necessary – Sausage Party had already proved that it was a raunchy and offensive comedy so I don’t know if they should have gone all the way into the gross territory too. The second end-scene was that meta-sequence were a few actors got name-dropped and a possible sequel was set up – I found that second ending to be way more funny that that first sequence.
  5. The food was voiced by a plethora of great comedians. Seth Rogen, Kristen Wiig (Ghostbusters), Jonah Hill (War Dogs, 21 Jump Street), Bill Hader, Michael Cera, Nick Kroll, David Krumholtz, Edward Norton and Salma Hayek were all amazing at bringing various items of produce to life. Paul Rudd (Ant-Man) and James Franco had funny cameos as two of the few human characters.

In short, Sausage Party is the raunchiest comedy I’ve seen in a while but it does work because of its unique format for this particular genre – animation. The jokes are hilarious, the voice work – amazing and the 3D animation of food – quite tasty-looking as well.

Rate: 4.5/5

Trailer: Sausage Party review

sausage_party_ver2

Movie review: Ghostbusters

Movie reviews

Hello!

Sometimes, there comes a movie that ignites and divides the Internet and the latest film to do so is the new Ghostbusters all-female remake. The last 3 words of the previous sentence tell you everything you need to know about the big fight. Some individuals are angry because it is a female Ghostbusters picture, other are enraged because it is simply a remake of a classical film. The third party consists of trolls, who like to see the world burn.

My personal stance on this film is/was kinda neutral, calm and open. I liked the idea of a female group in a lead since I’m a female cinephilé. The fact that it is a remake and not an original female sci-fi comedy is not great, but it doesn’t infuriate me to the point that I would attack somebody online. I did not grow up with the original films of the 80s or the cartoons of the 80s and 90s – I have seen them and enjoyed the viewing experience but never thought about them as something really special – so maybe my lack of personal emotional ties to the property allowed me to be more distant and level-headed. The critics gave the new film an okay score and, so far, all of the reviews I watched or read deemed the movie fine or okay. So, let’s see what I thought.

IMDb summary: Following a ghost invasion of Manhattan, paranormal enthusiasts Erin Gilbert and Abby Yates, nuclear engineer Jillian Holtzmann, and subway worker Patty Tolan band together to stop the otherworldly threat.

Writing

Ghostbusters’s script was written by Katie Dippold and the director Paul Feig. This duo has previously worked on the comedy The Heat, which I loved. Ghostbusters’s story, on the other hand, was only okay. I liked the moments when the characters were going crazy about science and were just unleashing their inner nerds – if this makes more girls try out S.T.E.M. studies, I will count the film as, at least, partially successful. I also liked the inclusion of the online commentators in the movie – that moment felt really meta, knowing the backlash that the feature’s trailer sparked online. I also liked all the movie references: Patrick Swayze shout-out was fun, the Jaws’s reference involving the mayor was spot on and the Clark Kent joke was quite nice, although they could have made some kind of Thor joke, given that that’s the role that Chris Hemsworth actually plays. I also liked the inside references – I liked that they included both Slimer and Stay Puft Marshmallow Man into the picture. I also liked the underlying message of the film that all people seek approval, one way or the other.

On the other hand, some narrative ideas and concepts infuriated me. For one, all of the jokes at the expense of male characters were pushed too far and the whole writing for male characters was just terrible. I know that male dominated films have used female characters as sexualised objects or eye candy, but I don’t want female-driven films repeating the same mistakes. In a world, where universal acclaim is the goal, any kind of vengeful ideas or supposed payback both have no place. The second thing that angered me was the fact that Ghostbusters were too afraid to go all the way – yes, they broke the gender norms and I applaud them for that, but they left all the racial stereotypes for no goddam reason. Moreover, some of the plotlines and plot-twist were way too cliche: what was that Ghostjumpers’s reference? Was that supposed to be a nod to the original Ghostbusters? The whole mayor sideline, while it allowed for some good jokes, did not need to be in the film AGAIN. Lastly, why the big villain of the story could take any shape again? That has been done already (although, I liked that the villain took the shape of their logo). In addition, why did the thing that will destroy the city had to be a huge cloud/vortex/beam? Aren’t there any other ways to destroy the world on screen?

Directing

Paul Feig, who has previously directed Bridesmaids, The Heat, and Spy – all movies that I actually enjoyed despite not being the biggest fan of comedies – did an okay job with the direction of the Ghostbusters. The CGI looked much better that it did in the 80s, as it should have. The pace of the film was also fine and there were some nice action moments dispersed throughout the runtime of the picture. The scenes during the end credits were also neat and it was also great to hear the original Ghostbusters theme by Ray Parker Jr in a theater once again. In general, the film was kinda cliche but still kinda fun. The main problem I had with the directing of the film was that the Ghostbusters remake didn’t know what it wanted to be. At times, it strived for the action-sci-fi-comedy genre, but it also had numerous moments that belonged to a cartoon parody of a film.

Acting

Melissa McCarthy starred as Dr. Abby Yates, while Kristen Wiig played Dr. Erin Gilbert. They seem to be playing the characters that they always portray – the crazy one and the serious one. Although, to be truthful, McCarthy probably played the least crazy character of her career and I actually really liked her character and the performance. Generally, I do like McCarthy’s characters when she is working with Feig, I just wish she stopped working with her husband Ben Falcone because Tammy and The Boss weren’t great. Wiig’s performance was fine as well, but nothing too special. I like her much more in dramatic rather than comedic roles – she was really good in The Martian.

Kate McKinnon portrayed Dr. Jillian Holtzmann and I had mixed feelings about her character and the portrayal. I liked her look the most out of the 4 leads and she did seem the most interesting and unique. However, at times, her character acted just too weirdly, so that the whole performance turned into a parody and the character into a caricature. McKinnon is mostly known for her sketch comedy work and some of her scenes did feel like over-acted SNL skits. I wish her performance would have been elevated to the big screen level, but I’m still excited to give her another chance, starting with the upcoming Christmas comedy – Office Christmas Party.

While the main pair of the film was supposed to be Wiig’s and McCarthy’s characters, I actually like the chemistry between McCarthy’s and McKinnon’s characters much more and would have loved to see even more of them together.

Leslie Jones portrayed Patty Tolan and was also one of my favorites. Her character was a bit stereotypical but that’s the problem with the writing, not acting, so I’m absolutely disgusted by the hate she received on Twiter. I really liked how Jones delivered her one-liners and snarky reaction remarks and I also appreciated the fact that, through her character, the audiences could at least try to understand the science mumbo-jumbo. Moving forward, Jones will voice a character in SING.

Chris Hemsworth as Kevin Beckman. I hated the writing for Hemsworth’s character and I have no idea why he even chose to play this role, since he has some better things coming up. He still has a few Marvel movies to do, he will be in Star Trek 4 and he just had another mildly but still successful live-action fairytale – The Huntsman. The only saving grace for his character were those few scenes in the end, when he became the main antagonists but even that development didn’t go anywhere interesting.

The cameos: some of the cameos were nice, I especially liked Sigourney Weaver’s and Ernie Hudson’s appearances. Bill Murray’s cameo was a hit and miss for me, it didn’t even seem like he wanted to be there.

All in all, Ghostbusters remake was a mixed bag of a film. It had some nice moments as well as some terrible ones. I don’t think that it deserved so much hate that it received, but I also cannot say that I understand why it had to be made.

Rate: 3/5

Trailer: Ghostbusters trailer

ghostbusters_ver6_xlg-1

Movie review: The Martian

Movie reviews

Hello, my dear readers!!

I have missed you so much!! I haven’t written in a while because I was buried underneath piles of work. Living on my own while studying is way harder than I expected it to be. I already cannot even look at pasta and I still have 4 more years to go eating it. Anyway, we are not here to talk about my mundane problems. We are here to review the latest space opera – The Martian. I have actually seen it during the opening weekend but only managed to review it a week later…Sorry…

Also, I would like to give a spoiler warning for The Martian if you have not seen it yet.

BTW, it’s been a month since I started taking Introduction to Film course, so tell me in the comments if my reviewing style has changed somehow (maybe it improved, hopefully?).

Comparison

It is not a secret that in the last few years, we had a few high production astronomical blockbusters – 2013’s Warner Bros’s Gravity and 2014’s Legendary’s Interstellar. Now, 20th Century Fox takes its shot and creates a mixture of those two films (even borrows some actors): The Martian has a plot-line of a ‘lonely astronomer lost in space’ from Gravity and ‘his team trying to save him’ from Interstellar. While I have enjoyed both of these films, The Martian might be my favorite out of all 3. I have also seen this film described as Castaway meets Apollo 11, which, I agree, is an accurate representation.

Advertisement

The tagline for this film was Bring Him Home and it was definitely true to the film because Mark Watney’s attempt to go home was the scientific and emotional core of the film. Also, for me as a newly created emigrant, it’s a theme near and-and dear to my heart. Yes, I’m not stranded on another planet, but being away from home is hard no matter the distance.

Water on Mars!

This movie had perfect time!! Just before its release, scientists actually found flowing water on Mars. Now, we are one step closer to turning The Martian from Science Fiction to Science Reality. If you like to learn more about this exciting development, I suggest you watch this Sci Show explanatory video.

Story & Writing

The Martian’s screenplay was written by Drew Goddard who has written mainly for TV before this. His credits include Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Lost, and Daredevil, which he also helped to produce. His last film script was for World War Z, which I, personally, really enjoyed but sadly been in a minority of moviegoers. Going back to The Martian, I really liked his treatment of this story. Although the movie has no real action, for the most part, a lot of crucial things still happen during the middle of the film and keep the viewer engaged and interested. Nothing happens and a lot of things happen at the same time (we actually just studied films like this in my film class last week). Moreover, it needs to be mentioned that this is not an original story but an adaptation of Andy Weir’s book with the same name. I added it to my reading list and you should too.  I have seen it in bookstores, re-released with the cover that looks like the movie’s poster, so it should be quite easy to get your hands on a copy of it.

the-martian.36133

Realism

This movie has been praised for its scientific accuracy and it’s probably the most accurate of the 3 recent astronomical blockbusters. I am not expert on astronomy, physics, botany or any science but I am interested in these fields (that’s one of the reasons why I like sci-fi so much). Anyway, I found this Screen Junkies video on The Martian to be really interesting and helpful in thinking about Movie Science. I love all of their stuff on YouTube , but Movie Science videos are at the top of the list.

Directing and Visuals

The Martian is directed by the fan favorite Ridley Scott. His filmography includes Allien, Blade Runner (got its DVD from the library today), Gladiator, Prometheus and last year’s Exodus. Lots of people had problems with his last film and the whitewashing issue while I loved it. The interpretation of a biblical story was done in much better way than in Noah and the visuals were just stunning. Scott didn’t disappoint with The Martian as well. The Mise-en-Scene (I’ve learned a few fancy words in film class) was just stunning and really realistic while the futuristic technology was realized in a believable fashion as well. The action both on Mars and in the outer space looked amazing too. The NASA base was also a cool set, whose backgrounds could be analyzed separately from the narrative/on their own.

Acting

The titular character of the film and the main start, of course, is Matt Damon. It’s not the first time that Damon is playing a lost astronaut – he had a similar role in Interstellar. However, while he was an extreme douche-bag in that film, here he is a loveable, funny, witty, intelligent and self-efficient character who carries the whole film. Damon’s performance blew me away and definitely turned me into a fan of his. I’ve seen a few of his films and was always on a fence about him, but his role as Mark Watney changed my perspective. I also loved that he was a botanist – you never really see movies that focus on plant biology scientists, films usually tend to pick physics or chemistry scholars, so this was a nice and refreshing change.

While Matt Damon as Mark Watney is the central character of the film, he gets great support from a very diverse, established, and extensive supporting cast. I’m going to divide these characters into Space team and Earth team.

Space team includes:

  • Jessica Chastain as Melissa Lewis, Ares III commander – another Interstellar alumni. Loved her in that film as much as this one.
  • Michael Peña as Rick Martinez, astronaut – the scene-stealer of Ant-Man shined in this film too. Can’t wait to see more of his work.
  • Kate Mara as Beth Johanssen, astronaut – played a similar role to the one she did in Fantastic Four. While they definitely messed up Sue Storm in that film, her character was a great addition to this motion picture’s cast.
  • Sebastian Stan as Chris Beck, astronaut – the Winter Soldier can be more than Marvel’s next Captain America. I am a fan of Stan, so loved seeing him popping up in this film.
  • Aksel Hennie as Alex Vogel, astronaut – rounded up the space part of the cast. Sadly, I’m not familiar with his work, so cannot really comment much, except to say that he was great in this film.

We didn’t get to spend much time with these characters and they didn’t get a lot of development. However, I believe that they served their purpose for this specific film perfectly by providing Matt Damon’s character with great support.

Earth team includes:

We did get to spend more time with the Earth-based part of the cast which had a few surprising performances.

  • Kristen Wiig as Annie Montrose, NASA spokesperson – was the biggest surprise. I have never imagined Wiig in not a comedic role but she blew me away. I wish she would do more action/drama films, but sadly her next movie is Ghostbusters remake, which I have mixed feelings about. Furthermore, I loved her character because she brought the public into the film. I haven’t seen the theme of public’s affect of NASA and NASA’s manipulation of public explored before.
  • Jeff Daniels as Teddy Sanders, head of NASA, Chiwetel Ejiofor as Vincent Kapoor, a NASA mission director, and Sean Bean as Mitch Henderson, a NASA mission director were the powerful trio of NASA and for me, they worked best in their scenes together, because they played off of each others energy. Surprisingly, Sean Bean did not die. Also, seeing him make Lords of the Rings references was amazing!!
  • Donald Glover as Rich Purnell, a NASA astronomer and Mackenzie Davis as Mindy Park, a satellite planner in Mission Control were the 2 younger actors in the Earth team. I liked the nerdy-ness that Glover’s character brought to the film and I appreciated the introduction to Davis as an actress.

Lastly, this film had a few international actors from China: Eddy Ko and Chen Shu. While I don’t know if this side-plot was the part of the original story of the book, but I guess we all know why it was included in the film. Get that Chinese Box Office, Fox!

All in all, this fall is proving to be one of the greatest movie seasons ever! I haven’t seen a film which I didn’t enjoy so far. The Martian is a great adaptation of (I’m sure) an amazing book with wonderful acting from the whole ensemble cast, especially the leading man – Matt Damon. In addition, it has stunning visuals and a strong emotional appeal as well as is scientifically accurate as much as sci-fi film can be accurate.

Rate: 5/5

Trailer: The Martian trailer

The Martian movie poster