Just got back from watching it.

Loved it.

The book is the first in years that I've stayed up all night reading, accidentally.

The film didn't feel as good as it could have been, but I haven't (and don't have plans in the near future) re-read the book, so I could just be remember everything through rose tinted goggles.

But it was a great film. Phenomenal casting, too.

 

I went to see this last night with the family. There were some patently ridiculous parts, such as the premise for the story (100 mph windstorms on Mars would feel like a light breeze on Earth and are incapable of blowing over a spacecraft). Also, Glover's character's laptop having to be physically connected to a supercomputer (or, for that matter, even needing a supercomputer to compute orbit trajectories) was facepalm-worthy.

If you can look past these bits, it was an enjoyable experience. I won't rush out to see it again, but I don't regret going.

 

Pretty sure Scott said they were operating under the false premise that Mars had Earth's gravity. Something scout filming the reality (40% or something?) was too difficult?

I don't recall exactly, but wasn't the storm in the book in the high 200s?

 

They mocked up the lower gravity by slowing down the frame rate in a few places. It's a subtle thing, but it's there if you look for it.

I remember it being in the high 100s in the book (which I reread a week ago). Even the author has admitted that it was a contrived, unrealistic plot element done to set up the story. No biggee by movie physics standards, but something that jumped out at me.

 

Huh. Weird.

I'm no astrophysicist, but is there a particular reason why he didn't just bump up the number for accuracy?

Or is it just a weird oversight/ a little laziness?

 

Couldn't tell you why he didn't but I'm sure it wasn't laziness, everything I've heard about the guy says he went nuts trying to get everything else accurate.

 

I saw the movie yesterday and haven't read the book yet. I loved it and thought it was fucking amazing. It was a movie which set out to to one thing and did it pretty great.

I was pretty much convinced that Watney would survive but I did kept excepting some of the other crew probably Sebastin Stan to die especially after his scene with Mara at the end.

Chiwetel Ejiofor and Jeff Daniel were great in their role. Now on to read the book.

 

I saw it last Sunday and thought it was great. The one thing that surprised me, though, was that I was expecting to feel a real thrill when he was finally rescued (in the "stirring moments" sense) but I felt remarkably little triumph. I think this was because the rescue sequence was so extended and because they broke it up into lots of "small triumphs" (such as first voice contact) rather than one big triumph at the end.

 

Just got out of the 9:30 showing. Aside from wearing funky glasses for the first half of the movie because it was mistakenly billed as 3D, I loved it. The humor was great 90% of the time, and the fancy science fiction was easier to swallow than Interstellar by far. Best of the three modern space porn flicks.

 

Watched the movie couple of days back. It was great. I really enjoyed the lack of completely unbelievable sci-fi in the story.

That the story did not contain any serious romance plots that distracted from the story was a big plus for me.

Matt Damon's acting was great as usual. There was sufficient humor and seriousness to make it a very enjoyable film.

 

To those that have read the book: Is there a lot of detail glossed over in the movie that makes reading the book worthwhile?

Or is it more a case of it is nice to see the book immortalised in movie form?

 

His process is far more detailed in the book. They also cut out 'disasters' in the movie.

You should def read if you liked the movie.

 

There's a whole lot in the book that didn't make the movie.

I'd say the movie is the tip of the iceberg. If you enjoyed the movie, read the book. It's awesome.

 

Watched it yesterday and I love that they mostly stayed true to the book. There were some changes but nothing to drastic. Matt Damon was also a great choice for the role of Mark Watney. One of the best movies this year.

 

Saw it yesterday. It's probably not going to be winning any oscars, but yeah, I was entertained as fuck.

 

That's the thing, right? It's just a genuinely good story, both book and film ( but more so book), that leaves you feelin' good.

 

Went to see it this afternoon, thoroughly enjoyed it. Proof positive that Ridley Scott's a good director, after his last few lesser efforts - the catch being that he needs something good to work with. He's got it here. Killer story, and a great cast bringing it to life. Thoroughly recommended to all.

 

Directors do good movies and bad movies, no matter the movie, material and actors. Still, you needed The Martian to convince you of Scott's ability? After Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, Hannibal and Black Hawk Down?

 

Trig. Would you prefer it if I amend it to 'still a good director'? I thought that was implied by 'after his last few lesser efforts', but hey ho. For the record, I love Alien and Gladiator, and Blade Runner is my favourite film. But Prometheus and Robin Hood (to a lesser extent) were just awful.

 

It wasn't an attack on you, I just had to look him up myself: It's just that the sheer number of fucking incredible movies he directed is so high. A majority of his work is nowadays considered to be either a cult classic or a staple of its genre.

Anyway, on topic: I've got The Martian on my TBR pile next to my bed, it's next-up right after I finish The Scar - which is incredible, but somehow failed to grab me.