Showing posts with label Ridley Scott. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ridley Scott. Show all posts

Friday, October 23, 2015

The Martian Review

A couple of years back I heard book podcasts ranting and raving about Andy Weir's novel The Martian. I had intended to read it, but the queue of other book titles before it prevented me from getting to The Martian before the 2015 movie was released. The movie was most impressive. There were times it was downright stressful to watch, but you just couldn't take your eyes from it.
During a manned mission to Mars, Astronaut Mark Watney (Matt Damon) 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 only meager supplies, he must draw upon his ingenuity, wit and spirit to subsist and find a way to signal to Earth that he is alive. Millions of miles away, director of NASA Teddy Sanders (Jeff Daniels) and a team of international scientists work tirelessly to bring "the Martian" home, while Watney's crewmates and their Mission Commander Melissa Lewis (Jessica Chastain) concurrently plot a daring, if not impossible, rescue mission. As these stories of incredible bravery unfold, the world comes together to root for Watney's safe return.
The structure of The Martian is outstanding. Really, it could have been a cross between Cast Away and Gravity. In some regards it is; there's a lot of Watney trying to survive in an inhospitable environment all by himself, must like Tom Hanks' character did in Cast Away. It also has a great deal of peril from unfamiliar, though natural circumstances like Sandra Bullock's character had to endure and survive in Gravity. Heck, we've even got Matt Damon as an astronaut for the second time since Interstellar. Unlike Gravity, which was nearly non-stop peril, The Martian features lots of ups and downs in terms of action. There are times when Watney is on the brink of death and times when he is doing pretty well under the circumstances. But there is also a great deal of urgency on earth for NASA to develop something to get to Mars as fast as possible to rescue Watney; deadlines for designing a spacecraft that are not met means that someone literally dies while the whole world watches. Also, what Watney's crewmates are going though as they struggle over whether or not to take great risk to themselves to turn around and save Watney is also tense and interesting. The story is not about Watney poking around Mars, making video logs, and waiting to be saved. There is a lot of tension in this movie and there are times it becomes downright stressful to watch, but it's so good, well written, and exciting that you can't pull yourself away for anything!
Long ago the term "Science Fiction" meant a work of fiction that incorporated theoretical science, but that has evolved into our modern definition that is basically something akin to "a fantasy in space." The Martian despenses with so much of the standard violent-action fare we have come to expect from the Science Fiction genre and instead returns to the genre roots in the thrill of exploration and the wonders of science. I admit that I am not much of an expert when it comes to matters of physical science. However, as I understand it, Mars has too little atmosphere to create weather conditions intense enough do much damage to anything. The atmospheric pressure on the Martian surface averages 600 Pa (0.087 psi), about 0.6% of Earth's mean sea level pressure of 100 kPa (14.69 psi). It is so low that a "fierce storm", as they put it, would be something akin to a very light breeze messing up your hair. Author Andy Weir admitted this was his biggest inaccuracy in the story. But as far as I can tell, that and ignoring Mars' gravitational difference were about the only major stretches the movie takes. The story takes place in the near future and the technology used doesn't look very far off at all from what we currently have. The story and science is so well grounded that you can't help believe what you see happening on screen. I've even heard that the mission to Mars in The Martian movie emulates actual missions that NASA is planning for the future.
The Martian is an excellent film, with spectacular visual effects and is infused with Matt Damon's charm. It dares to go where only a few modern science fiction films go: optimism. The cast is spectacular, the characters are great, the story is absorbing, the visual effects are remarkable, the overall message was inspiring, and the pacing and structure are marvelously arranged in the framework of the story. I can't honestly think of a single negative thing to say about this movie. It's positively fantastic! This is a major step up from the other substandard films director Ridley Scott has done in the last few years. This is certainly worth seeing in theaters, and worth the price to own on home video.

I found this interesting bit of trivia about The Martian book: The writer of the novel, Andy Weir, first published his book for free on his own blog for fun. Then people asked him to put it in a downloadable form, then to put it on Amazon for Kindle download which he did at the then minimum price of $0.99.

What is your favorite science fiction movie or book? Not the "fantasy in space" sci-fi, but real, classic science fiction. Comment below and tell me why!

Friday, December 26, 2014

Exodus: Gods and Kings Review

In 2014 we had not one, but two Bible epics hit theaters. I never did get around to seeing Noah. I was interested in seen an updated version of the Moses story in Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014) because the movie technology is such that elaborate, complex depictions of the ancient world can be shown to audiences in a way that couldn't have been done years ago. In the hands of director Ridley Scott, it has great potential. This movie does have the epic quality of old Bible epics back in the day, but it seemed to be lacking something to make a lasting effect on you.
Raised as brothers by Pharaoh Seti (John Tutrurro), Moses (Christian Bale) and Ramesses (Joel Edgerton) have a mutual respect and love for one another and have fought side by side defending their home country of Egypt. After Ramesses succeeds his father as Pharaoh, rumor of Moses being of Hebrew parents comes to Ramesses. Rather than give into the demands of Queen Tuya (Sigourney Weaver) to kill Moses, Ramesses exiles Moses from Egypt. Moses creates a new life in Midian where he meets Zipporah and eventually marries Zipporah (María Valverde). Years later Moses comes face to face with a burning bush and a boy called Malak (Issac Andrews), who tells Moses that he must free the Hebrews from slavery in Egypt. Reluctantly, Moses returns to Egypt and uses his military skills to try to free his people. But when Ramesses refuses to comply, God sends deadly plagues to the people of Egypt. Moses tries to keep the Hebrews out of the crossfire, but the conflict escalates pitting the two brothers against each other.
Now, the story of Moses has been around since roughly 1300 BCE. Even if you aren't affiliated with a Muslim or Judeo-Christian religion, you've had plenty of time to have heard this story before and I'm not going to avoid spoilers in a story that is well over three thousand years old.
It truly should go without saying that when a movie based on religious texts is made, creative liberties are taken. Were creative liberties not taken, there would be nearly no character development, no meaningful dialogue other than the most basic and direct communications, and likely no defining theme drawing the story together coherently. In Exodus: Gods and Kings some characters aren't what I have been told they are. Ramesses not so much a stubborn and prideful ruler who thought himself superior to God, he was more of a spoiled privileged brat who lacked the competence and foresight to lead a country. Moses wasn't a mighty man of faith but a military general who may be somewhat off his rocker, we see him grow in faith but it's not really there when he starts out. I was disappointed that we didn't see the two characters butting heads more often. Moses didn't go talk to Ramesses between each plague saying, "Let my people go!" They were at odds with one another, but we didn't see enough of them opposing each other specifically to get a feel for what becomes their broken relationship as brothers.
The way that God was depicted was particularly interesting. It was a small kid whom only Moses could see after sustaining a head injury. I don't think this was supposed to literally be God, but rather a abstract messenger through which God communicated to Moses. The kid's name is "Malak" which is the Semitic word for "angel." God in the Old Testament is often depicted as a god of vengeance and punishment; taking that into consideration, I could see why this messenger speaking for God would be depicted as a willful, angry, and petulant child. This may be a deal breaker for some viewers of faith; Christians, Jews, and Muslims alike see this story as foundational and might find this portrayal of God to be incompatible with scripture and deeply held beliefs. I didn't find it offensive. I thought it was an odd way to depict deity, but it was unique and creative and still kind of fits with this interpretation of the story. Yet there is a scene when Malak and Moses are talking and the things the boy says, though powerful and exquisitely delivered by the child actor, made me think, "Yeah, that's not the same God from The Bible. We went overboard here, Ridley."
While I often hear the way some of the plagues were depicted was inaccurate, I thought it was fascinating. The first plague was water turning to blood. This was illustrated not by Moses striking the river with his staff causing the water to turn into blood, but rather having crocodiles in the Nile go on a killing spree, killing nearly anything that moved in the water, causing the water to turn red from all the blood. This caused the plague of frogs which were escaping from the bloody water, which in turn let the insects multiply unhindered by their natural predators. It goes on like this, and I thought it was neat. It removes the divine intervention which is what was supposed to have caused the plagues. Even the parting of the Red Sea seemed to be caused by some kind of tsunami sea withdrawal that coincided with the escaping Hebrews with impeccable timing. It's another discrepancy that I appreciated the creativity of, but didn't see as something that would challenge someone's faith outright.
This was visually an incredible movie to watch. Egypt was as elaborate and detailed as I had hoped; it was shown to be a vast country with many inhabitants of all walks of life. The costumes of the Egyptians as well as the Hebrew slaves looked fantastic. The plagues were really interesting to see and the meticulous details that went into them made me grateful I wasn't watching the swarming locusts in 3-D. The free-flowing visual splendor is so gorgeous to behold that you feel transported into these ancient days watching this movie.
Exodus: Gods and Kings isn't one of Ridley Scott's greatest movies. It has its ups and downs, but lacks something to give it enough oomph to make it a truly memorable movie. It will likely fade from our collective consciousness before too long, much like Ridley Scott's Robin Hood did. The visuals were simply incredible and really sold the historical setting. The plagues and such were also amazing. Given how many faith-based movies are content to tell their audiences what to think or feel, it's satisfying to see one whose images alone are enough to compel an awestruck belief. The story is spiritually watered down. It doesn't preach to the audience, it doesn't tell us how to interpret things, and it even removes some of the divine influence these events are said to have. However, all the characters and symbols are present; we are left to interpret the story as a faith building story about God's influence, or simply as a tale that we have passed down for thousands of years. Overall I liked Exodus: Gods and Kings. It may not settle so well with some viewers, but it didn't go as far out in left field as I understand Noah did. I say this is worth watching even if you are not religiously inclined. Even if you are religiously inclined, I still say watch it but take it with a grain of salt. Understand that this is not scripture, but a film director's take on a very old story.

Are there other Bible stories or ancient texts you think would make a good movie? Comment below and let me know!