The Martian (3 paragraphs)

[August1991]

I now generally avoid Matt Damon movies.

Ridley Scott? Another CG HD illustration of (fake) cutting humans and blood?

So, is it worth paying 30 bucks (me and s.o.) and seeing it on the big screen? Or should I wait and watch it on the big home screen in a few years, when I can put it on pause.

Edited October 14, 2015 by August1991

[bush_cheney2004]

Haven't seen it, but my twenty-something son and his posse did and they thoroughly enjoyed it. But they only paid Saturday matinee ticket prices!

93% rating on the Tomatometer. http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_martian/#contentReviews

[Boges]

Well if you don't like Matt Damon. . .

The movie is Matt Damon heavy, and he's very funny in it.

Lots of good actors in the movie both other Astronauts and people on Earth trying to save MD.

If you're into nerdy Space stuff, it's totally a worthwhile watch.

Now this could be a SPOILER!!!!!! but.

The ending turns into Gravity.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Boges

[sharkman]

I don't know, Damon has turned into quite the activist with movies like Elysium, The Green Zone, and Promised Land. Instead of entertaining us he's turned to preaching his world view through movies. It's hurt his career, but I don't think he cares. He could take a lesson or two from Daniel Craig.

[overthere]

t Damon has a flourishing, robust career and his activism is about 2 decades old. Nothing has 'turned'.

See the movieTeam America for a hilarious mocking of Damon and others like Alec Baldwin.

What would Daniel Craig teach Matt Damon?

OP, if you'd like a bit more challenging movie, try Sicario.

[sharkman]

I think that's the first time I've heard an acting career described as "flourishing". He's had a growing amount of stinkers in the last 5 years as his activism clouds his career decisions and acting.

[Smallc]

I thought it was a masterpiece.

[BubberMiley]

After reading the book, I was looking forward to seeing it, and it wasn't a let-down at all. Best picture of 2015 that I've seen so far.

[cybercoma]

Best picture of 2015 that I've seen so far.

You must have missed Fury Road.

[overthere]

I think that's the first time I've heard an acting career described as "flourishing". He's had a growing amount of stinkers in the last 5 years as his activism clouds his career decisions and acting.

Flourishing in this context means his clout in Hollywood. In 20 years he has gone from playing Edward Pudwhacker to doing whatever he wants whenever he wants. A female sort-of parallel is Jessica Chastain, though she likely makes half what Damon does.

He is very close to the top of A list Hollywood actors.

"A" list actors are the ones that get paid the most.

His activism is hardly new of hardly unique in Hollywood- it is expected there. ETA: De Caprio and Sean Penn are another pair much like him and their extremism has not hurt them in the least.

He was openly mocked for his lefty sympathies in Team America- and that was made 11 years ago.

Edited October 15, 2015 by overthere

[sharkman]

That may be what meaning you were trying to convey, but that's not what flourishing means. I'm not referring to his clout in Hollywood. I'm referring to his movies with some kind of activist role. They typically lose money, or hardly get back their budget in domestic box office take. Here's a short list:

Elysium lost money. Promised Land lost money. The Adjustment Bureau made 12 million. The Green Zone lost 65 million. Invictus lost money. Of course he's loved in Hollywood, that's like saying the sky is blue. You like him. I get that. He still picks losers, the above facts don't lie.

Edited October 15, 2015 by sharkman

[Big Guy]

Where can I gat a pirated DVD?

[BubberMiley]

the above facts don't lie.

It's true that facts don't lie, but Internet posters often do.

According to Box Office Mojo:

Elysium cost $115 million and made $286,140,700

Adjustment Bureau cost $50.2 million and made $127,869,379.

Promised Land only made $8,138,788, but it was a low-budget Gus Van Sant film and its cost was not disclosed, so who knows?.

I’ll give you the Green Zone, though it was close to breaking even, costing about $100 million and making $94,882,549.

And The Martian is doing very, very well.

So there goes that theory.

Edited October 15, 2015 by BubberMiley

[cybercoma]

I wouldn't trust box office figures anyway. Hollywood studios are known for their "creative" accounting.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that either of you are wrong, just that I wouldn't trust any numbers about movies.

Edited October 15, 2015 by cybercoma

[The_Squid]

I particularly enjoy movie reviews by people who haven't seen the movie....

[sharkman]

I wouldn't trust box office figures anyway. Hollywood studios are known for their "creative" accounting.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying that either of you are wrong, just that I wouldn't trust any numbers about movies.

Fair enough, I just looked up domestic box office revenues against each movies budget as listed on box office mojo. The domestic take is the usual standard for deciding that movies like The Lone Ranger to Ishtar were dogs. And by all accounts, the Martian is a decent movie, so good for him.

Edited October 15, 2015 by sharkman

[BubberMiley]

It may be the standard for what are "dogs", but it is obviously not the standard for what "lost money", as you put it. Once again, facts don't lie.

[Smallc]

Best picture of 2015 that I've seen so far.

I would go further than that and say it's one of the best movies I've ever watched.

[overthere]

That may be what meaning you were trying to convey, but that's not what flourishing means. I'm not referring to his clout in Hollywood. I'm referring to his movies with some kind of activist role. They typically lose money, or hardly get back their budget in domestic box office take. Here's a short list:

Elysium lost money. Promised Land lost money. The Adjustment Bureau made 12 million. The Green Zone lost 65 million. Invictus lost money. Of course he's loved in Hollywood, that's like saying the sky is blue. You like him. I get that. He still picks losers, the above facts don't lie.

No, I don't love him. I'd rate him as perhaps slightly above average.

But his career is hardly waning.

Like many if not all actors, he has had some fine roles and some turds. Nothing new or unique there. Nor is there anything new or distinctive about his activism, he was being openly mocked about it 12 years ago. "Loved" in Hollywood does not mean he gives me or anybody a boner. Loved in Hollywood means he is an influence on money without having to spend any. That is power, and at this time he is near the top of a select few with it.

If you don't like 'flourishing' in the context of a an active, well paid and never-out-of work except by choice career(in an industry filled with one and done careers), then pick whatever adjective suits you to describe reality.

[overthere]

I particularly enjoy movie reviews by people who haven't seen the movie....

I have seen it, and it was a perhaps a 6.5 out of 10 which is moderate on my scale. It is at the same time a movie that is best on the big screen, but the 3D did not add much. It will lose much when some of our members view it on their Apple watches.

Another one I've seen lately that would rate perhaps a 9 is Sicario. For all you patriots out there, it is directed by Canadian Denis Villenueve. If you give a shit about Canadian movies, you will remeber Villeneuve from the wonderful Incendies a few years ago. Sicario is dark, morally ambiguous, beautifully shot and has a soundtrack as stark and glorious as the visuals. It does not give you any easy answers. And Benenicio Del Toro is as great as he almost always is in a movie. It is like No Country For Old Men in many ways. <<<<< this is a test. If you liked NCFOM, go to Sicario. If you did not like NCFOM, stay home.

[The_Squid]

I have seen it, and it was a perhaps a 6.5 out of 10 which is moderate on my scale. It is at the same time a movie that is best on the big screen, but the 3D did not add much. It will lose much when some of our members view it on their Apple watches.

Another one I've seen lately that would rate perhaps a 9 is Sicario. For all you patriots out there, it is directed by Canadian Denis Villenueve. If you give a shit about Canadian movies, you will remeber Villeneuve from the wonderful Incendies a few years ago. Sicario is dark, morally ambiguous, beautifully shot and has a soundtrack as stark and glorious as the visuals. It does not give you any easy answers. And Benenicio Del Toro is as great as he almost always is in a movie. It is like No Country For Old Men in many ways. <<<<< this is a test. If you liked NCFOM, go to Sicario. If you did not like NCFOM, stay home.

Thanks for the reviews... I've been looking forward to the Martian, and I will certainly check out your other recommendation.

Edited October 20, 2015 by The_Squid

[August1991]

...

...you will remeber Villeeuve from the wonderful Incendies a few years ago.

Incendies was a crappy, stupid movie, based on a crappy, stupid play. Villeneuve had no claim in the play but he brought the movie under budget.

There you go...

I haven't seen Sicario but it's on my list if only because I have a hank for popcorn...

Edited November 7, 2015 by August1991

[overthere]

Incendies is brilliant.

[Guest]

Incendies is brilliant.

It certainly got some decent reviews.

8.2/10·IMDb

92%·Rotten Tomatoes

3.5/4·Roger Ebert

4.4/5·AlloCiné

I had never heard of it, but obviously it's worth keeping an eye out for.

[August1991]

Incendies is brilliant.

No, it's not. IMHO.

My review here.

Edited November 15, 2015 by August1991