"The Martian"

What? Write about a newish movie? Sure, why not?

Just got done with "The Martian." I give it a "very good." And rewatchable. You've probably heard a lot of the plot setup by now, with Matt Damon playing a botanist/astronaut, Mark Watney, stranded on Mars after a storm sends the rest of the crew launching away in the main ship after thinking Watney was dead.

A few things on my mind:

•  This is one of the few films from the last twenty years I've seen where the last half of the movie was stronger than the first half. The tension at the end was built just right.
• You can feel some....what do I want to call it?....not studio interference, necessarily, but let's call it "reasons to greenlight the project:"
• What I call the "Breaking Bad Hangover." There are many spots in the movie where "science saves the day." ("All right, Mr. White! Science, bitch!")
• Despite the science reliance (which is impressive), a shot of a crucifix in there. Damon's character is only using it for parts, but it's still in there....to show that at least one of the astronauts was religious. I find this insert interesting, and I've seen several instances of this in other recent sci-fi (e.g. Shaw's cross and unwavering "belief" in "Prometheus," otherwise-hardcore scientist Romilly's assertion that "some things we just weren't meant to know" in "Interstellar," etc.). I really wonder if these placements are there to placate the touchy religious crowd.
• "Gravity" was a big hit. Not that this film has quite the same tone as "Gravity" (I actually prefer "Gravity" a bit), but there is a definite similarity in setup.

I just mentioned "Gravity," and how I prefer it by a half-star or so to this film, and that's mainly because the one thing I think is missing from "The Martian" is the feeling of isolation that Watney had to have. A lot of the first hour feels rushed, and that's probably to avoid having a three-hour running time.....and that does make sense. But I never got the feeling that Watney was ever really "alone." That feeling is in spades in "Gravity" and "Moon," but those films also had much, much smaller casts.

One more thing: the supporting cast was pretty outstanding, and I want to give a special shout-out to Jeff Daniels as the head of NASA. Daniels has been pretty underrated for all of his career, but can you think of anyone else who's played such extremes as the head of NASA and Harry in "Dumb and Dumber?" And been completely believable?

That's it....watch this one if you get a chance. I give it four out of five.

EDIT (1/18/2016): Had a second viewing of this one, and I think I'll bump up the rating to 4 1/2 stars. Although....I have to add a couple of small negatives.....I mentioned the shot of the crucifix; there's another short conversation between two major characters of the "do you believe/are you religious?" variety. Again, these things really have no place in an otherwise completely science-based script. Product placement for appeasement? Smells like it. Also....

(SPOILER)

It took at least seven months for the Hermes to get back to Mars for the rescue. You'd think by then they would have worked out more details of the actual rescue, instead of going into "what do we do about the velocity?" mode upon approach. Granted, this adds excitement to the film, but it did seem a bit of a (insert Chumley sound) "duuuhhhhh" moment for all involved.

Still.....4 1/2 stars. And Ridley Scott and crew still think there is sound in space.