Matinee: The Martian

Hey, it's that space movie Ridley Scott did!

No...not that one, the other space movie.

No! The one with poop science!

There we go!
The Martian is a 2015 Science-fiction film by Ridley Scott based off a book of the same name by Andy Weir. Botanist/Astronaut Mark Watney is marooned on Mars after a freak windstorm separates him from his team. He must survive for over a year on his wits, what's been left behind, and poop science. You could say it's a really shitty situation. Yes, I will be making as many poop based puns as possible.
One of the hard things with sci-fi is straddling the line between what is realistic and what is awesome. Often, realism goes out the door because like, real science is boring. fake science gives us aliens! Horrifying, human-hybrid aliens that will FOREVER scar any four-year-old unfortunate enough to watch the debacle that was Alien: Resurrection.

 

 

 

Nightmares to last a lifetime.

What is awesome about The Martian is that they err on the side of reality. This movie is one of the most scientifically accurate films I have ever seen. And that's not just because I love the shit out of The Matrix, NASA is backing me up on this one. This movie is scientifically accurate. And it was awesome. The Martian proved that you can have an entertaining film that is also true to the wonders of modern science, or at least, is not beyond the realm of imagination. Do they have to exaggerate in places? Yes. Would a dust storm actually strand you on Mars? No. But you know what? Even Andy Weir knew that. Part of the accuracy comes from the author wanting a realistic novel. The script was updated to keep up with current technologies, but the core is there. As an example, Mark uses human feces as fertilizer to grow potatoes, which contain almost all the nutrients you need to stay alive. I won't go into the science specifics, because MatPat does a great job of that in his film theory video, but, spoiler alert, it's hella accurate. Like, I shit you not, it is completely plausible. Which is great, because nothing kills a movie faster for me than scientific inaccuracy.
I actually haven't read the novel, a strange trend of mine recently. Normally, I try and get the original story before watching the movie, but apparently time is a limited commodity when you are an adult.  What I have heard is that the character of Mark is hilariously sarcastic. This carries over into the movie, and it is a huge benefit. One the one hand, survivor films can benefit from a serious narrator to convey the gravity (ehehehehe space puns) of the situation (re: The Revenant), but Mark's sarcasm and humor really helps carry the film. Because really, we don't always want to be following the lone badass, because we relate more with the smartass. It's fun, and adds much needed humor to a seriously humorless situation.
I don't have a lot of negative things to say about The Martian. It's an interesting story, it's scientifically accurate, and the main character is likeable. The most unrealistic part is the storm at the beginning, and this is a movie where they *spoiler alert* launch a man into space under a plastic tarp. Honestly Hollywood needs to take a page out of The Martian's book (haha get it? Because it's actually a novel. I am so great at this pun thing). Scientific accuracy does not have to detract from a movie, and it makes nerds happy. And since the movie industry seems to be catering SPECIFICALLY to nerds as of late (with the ten million superhero movies flooding our theaters), making more movies that appeal to detail oriented people is not a bad thing. Give me more science. Give me all the science. Give me great quotes like "I am going to science the shit out of this planet."

That's all for today, tune in next time for what will likely be an equally short entry on The Lego Movie.
~Sassa

Matinee: The Revenant

So, right before sitting down to write this blog post, I decided to get my sandwich on. While that is entirely unrelated to The Revenant, I did end up trying to slice through my finger instead of an avocado, and because in my panic I wrapped my finger in what was left of my rather full box of bandaids, typing this is sort of a monumental challenge. Kind of like the one Leo faced in winning an Oscar. Bam. Not that any of this is really relevant to you as the reader, I just wanted to let you know the struggle that went into this post. I am a martyr for my art.
But enough about me, let's talk about our king of the world and the movie that won him that title.

Honestly I think Vancouver would have rioted if Leo didn't win. We're good at that.

The Revenant (2016) by Alejandro González Iñárritu is based off a book of the same name, written by Michael Punke, which tells the story of frontiersman Hugh Glass and his struggle to survive against impossible odds. Hugh Glass is working as a guide for a fur trapping party with his half native son. While scouting ahead, he is mauled by bad CGI a mama grizzly bear. Doubtful that he will survive, the captain of the party offers an extra reward to whoever stays with him until he dies. Some stuff goes down, and Hugh is left alone, 200 miles from the nearest outpost, with hostile natives in the area. This is a supposedly true story, although it has certainly been embellished since it's inception in the early 1800's (apparently the bear mauled Glass so badly that his ribs were exposed through his back, which some friendly natives fixed for him by sewing a bear hide onto his back for him. Ew).
Now, I am not a huge fan of historical fiction to begin with, never mind that I find the "frontier" part of North American history to be EXTREMELY boring. I know, I know, for shame. My dad was actually a huge history buff for this particular era, which mean getting dragged around to every fort and outpost in British Columbia. You can only see so many NW Co. outposts before they all look the same. And believe me, they all look the same. But I was curious and could put aside my dislike of that era in the name of cinema. Although it probably didn't help with my enjoyment of the movie. What also didn't help with my enjoyment of the movie is that this is definitely an artistic film, in the sense that it is less about entertainment and more about a celebration of the art of cinema itself. That's great, and critics loved the shit out of this movie, so clearly there must be something to it. But, like I said, that doesn't make it entertaining. The cinematography? Gorgeous. The characters? realistic. The story? Morbidly fascinating. But not entertaining. It was a two and a half hour movie, and you felt every minute of it. I never do this, but I actually pulled out my phone to check the time about halfway through (calm down, I was sitting in the very back row). So in the sense of capturing the layman's attention and being able to hold it, not great. Granted, this could be because I already don't like that time period, but damnit, I was willing to try.
Another flaw in the movie, if you could call it that, is that it's very repetitive. We get very used to watching Leo lie around and dying. Again, hugely realistic, and as accurate to the source material as they could be. But it gets boring after a while, you know? Okay, yes, you're dying, but do we have to linger on your face for that long? There was definitely a lingering, dragging feel to the movie, which, given the story, was likely intentional. Shots are held long enough to make people uncomfortable with them. Today's audience is used to a certain amount of speed in a movie, and a complete absence of speed is unsettling. But that's part of the movie. It's raw, it's unflinching, it's brutal, and you live every uncomfortable second of it. They don't shy away from the violence. It struck me as odd, I'm no stranger to violence, and this movie was in no way excessive, but it was unpleasant to watch.

Like honestly, I swear I'm not a pansy

It's clear everything has been carefully considered for this film, and it's authenticity is astounding. Air as an element seemed to be a recurring theme, often being associated with Glass' dead wife and Glass himself. I listened to a cbc radio broadcast of an actor from Montreal complaining about the French Canadian representation in the film, citing that they were portrayed as being unrealistically barbaric, but I honestly didn't see it. Were they uncivilized? Yes. Welcome to the frontier in the 1800's, it was a hard land and only the hard survive. Their representation was no worse than the natives, who also played an antagonistic role but, again, weren't "evil". The Revenant is likely a movie that would benefit from a second watch. Unfortunately, this probably isn't going to happen for me. It was raw, and it was real, and I can appreciate its artistic value as a film, but I can't say that I particularly enjoyed it. Maybe if I was more interested in that time period. Maybe if I was more of a cinophile. But alas, I am not but a humble barista with ordinary tastes. I can appreciate art without enjoying it, but I'm probably not going to watch The Revenant again. Even if it was what finally won Leo his long awaited oscar gold.

I realize this was briefer than previous entries, but please reference sliced finger. Cleaning blood out of my keyboard is not really how I want to spend my afternoon. Next entry will be The Revenant's competitor for best picture, The Martian. Stay tuned, it's going to be out of this world.

~Sassa

(get it?)

(Because it's about Mars.)


(It's hard being this funny.)

I am Legend

No internet, this is not that god-awful Will Smith movie. This is the (vastly superior) novella the movie is based off of.

spoilers.

But I understand how you might confuse the two, given that I talk about both books and movies here. Also my God that title is centered horribly this is why I have no future as a graphic designer. So. Let's just move on.

Spoiler warning: So, in order to talk about books, I kind of have to talk about the plot, and in this case, the ending, given that it's really crucial to the novel. Buyer Beware.

Okay, so when I first saw the movie, I was disappointed in how badly it sucked. I think I knew it was based off a novel, but didn't pursue it, until much later in my life (actually my boyfriend has the novel and the re-awakened my interest). The obvious convention among book movies is that they are never as good as the source material. There are a myriad of reasons for this, and I try and not judge adaptations too harshly, with the exception of Eragon. That movie can rot in the fiery inferno of bad CGI.

who puts feathers ON A DRAGON SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED AS NOT HAVING FEATHERS ASL;DFJK DID YOU EVEN LOOK AT THE BOOK LIKE EVEN ONCE

Moving on. Reading I am Legend reaffirmed for me what I already knew; the movie sucked. The book, by contrast, was excellent. Robert Neville is your typical Joe Average trying to survive a global pandemic that has turned the world's population into "vampires" (I put it in quotations because they aren't technically vampires...it's addressed in the novel). He spends his days fortifying his house and hunting the creatures, and his nights tormented by both the vampires outside his house and his own past. During his quest for survival, he encounters depression, alcoholism, a dog, and another survivor. The novel ends with Robert being captured by the vampires, who have formed their own society, and our intrepid hero realizing that, in this new world, he is the monster, the terrifying legend.

I am Legend is a dark, horrifying look at what it means to be human. This novel is actually credited with popularizing the zombie pandemic genre, and was an inspiration behind Night of the Living Dead. Huge cultural impact. The novel itself is a lesson in loneliness, and gives us a humanistic twist on the 'Last Man Alive' trope. Basically everything the movie failed to do. That being said, it had its sins. Namely, not a lot happens. In that sense, the book is almost too realistic. Robert becomes depressed and falls into an alcoholic funk often, to the point where it feels like him lying on his floor drunk dominates the novel. He is frustrated in his attempts to find answers, This makes sense, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't necessarily make for good fiction. Granted, it can be easy to point fingers when this "sole survivor" genre has been around for so long, forgetting that this was an originator of that genre. It isn't going to be perfect. Also the dog dies and that is sad because dogs shouldn't ever die ever.

seriously I don't care how bad the movie is if the dog dies I am a puddle of tears

The movie completely misses the point of the novel. For starters, Robert is not a hero, nor is he a brilliant blahblahologist. Robert's heroic Hollywood sacrifice at the end of the movie literally COMPLETELY CONTRADICTS WHAT THE BOOK WAS TRYING TO SET UP. Robert is not the hero. What is exceptionally frustrating about this is that they set the movie up like the book, even hinting that the vampires have their own society. And then they take this set up and SHIT ALL OVER IT. YOU ARE NOT LEGEND, WILL SMITH. I MEAN YOU ARE, BUT NO.
Matheson himself is a master of horror. In addition to the novella I am Legend, the book I have also includes a myriad of short stories that have a very Twilight Zone feel to them (the internet has reliably informed me that Matheson used to be a writer for the Twilight Zone). With little to no world building, he establishes complex and frightening stories where our reality and fantasy combine in plausibly but scary ways. All of his stories are surreal and terrifying. This does not mean that he is a one trick pony. While some of the short stories echo each other in terms of tone and style, for the most part he is able to switch up narrative styles to enhance the horror and give each story its own distinct flavor.
Overall, I really enjoyed the novel, and the accompanying short stories. My critique lies largely around the pacing, and to some degree the ending as well. Don't get me wrong. I love the twist at the end, that Robert isn't actually the hero he thought he was. What I didn't like was that this realization and acceptance takes him a grand total of 2 pages to achieve. Given how slowly paced the rest of the novel was, the conclusion seemed rushed. Robert has lived for four years in this hellish apocalypse, this plague has taken away everything he has ever loved, and at the end he just accepts that he was in the wrong. Just like that. For me, that was a little unrealistic, given the fighting spirit Robert displays throughout the novel. But again, I really enjoyed the novel, it was well written and, despite little happening, it keeps you reading and wanting to know more.

Next up, the movie that popped Leo's Oscar cherry.
~Sassa