I'm a sucker for survival movies. They just usually seem to get me glued to my seat. Not only are the main character(s) faced with challenges testing them to their limit, but you yourself strangely are put in the wannabe survivors shoes. You yourself start thinking about what you will do in a precarious situation. Sometimes the outcome depicted in the movie is different from what you might have thought, and sometimes it's exactly the same. Whether you would've done something differently or not, it doesn't matter. In the end, you have a fair idea and blueprint planted in your head, possibly in case you would ever need to use the information yourself in a life or death situation (only I highly doubt any of us will be stranded on another planet any time soon). Some people choose romantic comedies of musicals, I choose these.
This is Ridley Scott's best film in years, and that's saying a lot. Most of his other films that weren't in the "science" realm have, for some reason, been of no particular interest to me. Science-Fiction, or Fact, just seems to be his genre of expertise. And he does it extremely well
The main fascination with this movie is the supposed realism. Every bit of science used and said, every technical feature you see on a ship or rover, it's all very believable. Everything, to a non-scientist, feels very accurate. Well (Spoiler Alert!) maybe flying in space like Iron Man is a bit of a stretch. But then again, artistic licensing has to be used for the sake of a good story and edge-of-your-seat finale. And I think it was a worthwhile addition.
Probably my main critique is this: At first, you do feel this slight sense of isolation, after Matt Damon's character has been stranded. But as the film moves on, you lose that feeling of loneliness with constant cutting back and forth from Mars, to Earth, then Mars, then back to Earth and little bit more of Earth... Then back to Mars. I'm not saying I don't appreciate the scenes on Earth, they're absolutely essential and great. I just think that more than half of the focus should have been back at the situation on Mars. Basically, like Cast Away, when you're literally on the island with Tom Hanks the entire time he's on the island. No hint of what's going on in the outside world.
When the movie almost ended, a thought came to my mind.
So the film is claimed to be mostly accurate, as far as space-travel/science is concerned. Astrodynamics, spacecraft designs and technicalities, habitations, etc. And NASA clearly must approve of most of the film's depiction(s). Why else would they allow their name and brand labeled everywhere on screen.
So if there is so much effort in developing all of this technology for a mere movie (And it's been more than 4 decades since we went to the moon), then why do we still have no human beings on Mars? Why has there not been more time spent, as far as we know now, on developing actual missions to Mars?!
So the film is claimed to be mostly accurate, as far as space-travel/science is concerned. Astrodynamics, spacecraft designs and technicalities, habitations, etc. And NASA clearly must approve of most of the film's depiction(s). Why else would they allow their name and brand labeled everywhere on screen.
So if there is so much effort in developing all of this technology for a mere movie (And it's been more than 4 decades since we went to the moon), then why do we still have no human beings on Mars? Why has there not been more time spent, as far as we know now, on developing actual missions to Mars?!
I'm sure I'm digging too deep into this, but those are my thoughts.
My rating: 3.5 / 4
