I am surprised there is no talk about this movie. I saw it Friday and thought it was a very good movie. It is basically Mission To Mars (without the aliens) from the perspective of the astronaut that was on the planet by himself with Castaway and MacGyver thrown in. There is more to it then just him unlike Castaway (probably 90% Tom Hanks alone). I'd say about 60% of just Matt Damon, which might be to much to some, but I thought he did an excellent job with the character. I'd recommend seeing it, but then I am a big fan of sci-fi type movies.
The Martian
- Thread starter KyCatFan_rivals45723
- Start date
I heard Matt Damon drank his own piss for this role.
I heard this movie was fake and was only created to beat the Russians to a movie about a cosmonaut that is stranded on Mars. Ha!...take that Putin.USA! USA! USA!
Thought it was pretty fantastic. What is so great about it is this isn't some stuff that's 100 years from now technology. This is a plausible Mars mission in the next couple of decades.
I usually don't waste my money on the 3D versions, but did this time and it is definitely worth seeing in 3D, perfect type of movie for this.
I usually don't waste my money on the 3D versions, but did this time and it is definitely worth seeing in 3D, perfect type of movie for this.
A mugshot of a very soon to be incarcerated African American who appears to be either really high on cocaine or has a slight touch of Graves disease.
Read the book this summer and really enjoyed it. The movie lived up to the book. I thought it was great, better than Interstellar and Gravity.
Ridley Scott is a mastermind with Sci Fi, and did a great adaptation to the book. But this story is different than other sci-fi in that it is optimistic and has very little cynicism. No real bad guys in this movie other than Mars itself. Well constructed, smart, humorous, and entertaining. Definitely a thumbs up from me.
A
anon_l8pbkn96tg3j6
Guest
I liked the book, but I don't think I would have liked the movie without having read the book. I don't think it stands on it's own, because they had to cut out too much to make it a movie. As an example the trips across Mars on the rover were like a trip down I-75 to the beach, in the book it was hell.
It probably wouldn't have been realistic for the movie with the technology that they had for Matt Damon's character to be able to rock climb. He didn't have a vehicle like this below.
I wonder how much research the author did on the surface of Mars? Sure there are areas like this.
Most of the pictures I came across were more like this.
Maybe the movie makers did better research and found out there would be a better chance for manned missions to be on areas of Mars that are more easily passable with the vehicles they would likely have available to NASA. I haven't read the book, but I think the movie was very good and seemed like it could be very realistic. [thumb2]
I wonder how much research the author did on the surface of Mars? Sure there are areas like this.
Most of the pictures I came across were more like this.
Maybe the movie makers did better research and found out there would be a better chance for manned missions to be on areas of Mars that are more easily passable with the vehicles they would likely have available to NASA. I haven't read the book, but I think the movie was very good and seemed like it could be very realistic. [thumb2]