MovieChat Forums > The Martian (2015) Discussion > Anyone else think this was mediocre

Anyone else think this was mediocre

posted 8 years ago by petermecom
57 replies | jump to latest

I never felt like Damon was in any kind of danger. Every time there was a problem a solution was found almost immediately. Also the humour was just cringy.

[–] DarthRoger (867) 6 years ago

From what I understand, Hollywood made some "creative" changes to the finale of the story. It was different in the book, which I've heard was more realistic. The ending of TM was overly melodramatic and silly. Jessica Chastain gushing girl power was cringe worthy, as was a good deal of the dialogue. Also Matt Damon yet again gets praise for merely playing Matt Damon. We've all seen that in nearly every role he plays.

In the end, it was an "okay" movie that deserves 3.5 stars but I would never award it 4 or even think of giving it 5.

THE MARTIAN is decent entertainment but forgettable.

MOON starring Sam Rockwell is a much, much better movie if you're looking for something that deals more in real science, with better story telling and better acting.

[–] brux (14774) 5 years ago

Ugh ... Moon is ridiculous. not to mention that silly computer they had as a character. It's watchable, but very mediocre.

[–] overseas7 (4696) 5 years ago

I do not think this was mediocre, in fact I think it is an interesting movie but I have the feeling that it could have been better with such a plot. I miss also some "passion " in Damon' s performance.

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 5 years ago

Yes, it was boring and I think not scientifically accurate.

[–] Costumer (1829) 5 years ago

And yet several astronauts and Nasa have praised it for its accuracy. As I understand it the only really inaccurate item in the book and film is the initial storm; Mars cannot produce a storm with wind speeds high enough to endanger the lander.

In the movie, the "iron man" scene is also inaccurate and inserted for dramatic effect. It doesn't happen in the book.

[–] brux (14774) 5 years ago

Want to back that up? What, that mattered to the plot, was not scientifically accurate?

[–] Joogle83 (4519) 5 years ago

I enjoyed Ridley Scott was on the comeback then lost it

[–] MovieChatUser497 (18943) 5 years ago

I didn't think it was that good either

[–] BillySlater (4246) 5 years ago

This movie was just way too cheesy, especially the ending. Also agree the humour was super cringe.

[–] brux (14774) 5 years ago

It was pretty much like the book, and maybe it had to happen so fast in a movie it seemed to lack suspense. I thought the movie was pretty good, but I read the book which I thought was good too.

[–] aavfreak (3366) 5 years ago

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. It's more a matter of pacing. I read the book first. The isolation and despair felt more real while reading the story. The movie has time constraints and rushes through a lot of the events while he's enduring his ordeal. It lacks the sense of being out there alone and left with little resources. It also lacks in conveying the actual struggles he goes through.

[–] reichen4eva (251) 4 years ago

it was slightly overrated. Deserves around a 7.0 rather than 8. Nothing groundbreaking, but its a good popcorn flick.