Discussion
I've avoided reading this thread till I'd seen it and haven't read what people have put still so I'll say this with no prior bias from others, I see a lot of films and get to see pretty much all the big films and a lot of the b list stuff that's on too...
Easily one of the best films I've seen this year, certainly the best Sci-Fi film.
There were quite a few bits obviously cut out, I don't think it ruined it though. The missed bits did make the whole ordeal seem less.... of an ordeal sure, but I think it got the story across well in the time given and it didn't drag on because of it.
Matt Damon did well, I can see why he was chosen and in reality I couldn't think of someone who could do much better in the part.
The body double scenes were genius; probably more important to the narrative and expresses the rationing and passing time well.
Vincent Kapoor? I don't know why this casting/change annoys me so much but... there are probably a glut of good, competent neigh excellent Indian/Asian actors who could have filled the roll. Nothing against the actor chosen at all, but there's a scene where he talks about his parentage and it just comes across as weird...
All the other casting was good, plus Sean Bean... he doesn't die!!!
Easily one of the best films I've seen this year, certainly the best Sci-Fi film.
There were quite a few bits obviously cut out, I don't think it ruined it though. The missed bits did make the whole ordeal seem less.... of an ordeal sure, but I think it got the story across well in the time given and it didn't drag on because of it.
Matt Damon did well, I can see why he was chosen and in reality I couldn't think of someone who could do much better in the part.
The body double scenes were genius; probably more important to the narrative and expresses the rationing and passing time well.
Vincent Kapoor? I don't know why this casting/change annoys me so much but... there are probably a glut of good, competent neigh excellent Indian/Asian actors who could have filled the roll. Nothing against the actor chosen at all, but there's a scene where he talks about his parentage and it just comes across as weird...
All the other casting was good, plus Sean Bean... he doesn't die!!!
Edited by GrumpyTwig on Wednesday 7th October 09:24
Having read the reviews of book readers and non-book readers in this thread, I think I'd recommend reading the book first.
A bit like Watchmen- reading the book means I'm having a complete nerd-out for much of the movie and part of the joy is how they interpret what you know is coming. People I know who have only seen the film often find it decidedly OK.
A bit like Watchmen- reading the book means I'm having a complete nerd-out for much of the movie and part of the joy is how they interpret what you know is coming. People I know who have only seen the film often find it decidedly OK.
GrumpyTwig said:
The body double scenes were genius; probably more important to the narrative and expresses the rationing and passing time well.
You think?? I though the use of a skinny bloke shot from behind before cutting to Matt's (still) chubby little face was done terribly. Tom Hanks and Christian Bale must have wondered what they bothered dieting for at all when you just need an 8 stone actor with his head out of shot!
Tiggsy said:
GrumpyTwig said:
The body double scenes were genius; probably more important to the narrative and expresses the rationing and passing time well.
You think?? I though the use of a skinny bloke shot from behind before cutting to Matt's (still) chubby little face was done terribly. Tom Hanks and Christian Bale must have wondered what they bothered dieting for at all when you just need an 8 stone actor with his head out of shot!
I agreeTiggsy said:
GrumpyTwig said:
The body double scenes were genius; probably more important to the narrative and expresses the rationing and passing time well.
You think?? I though the use of a skinny bloke shot from behind before cutting to Matt's (still) chubby little face was done terribly. Tom Hanks and Christian Bale must have wondered what they bothered dieting for at all when you just need an 8 stone actor with his head out of shot!GrumpyTwig said:
Tiggsy said:
GrumpyTwig said:
The body double scenes were genius; probably more important to the narrative and expresses the rationing and passing time well.
You think?? I though the use of a skinny bloke shot from behind before cutting to Matt's (still) chubby little face was done terribly. Tom Hanks and Christian Bale must have wondered what they bothered dieting for at all when you just need an 8 stone actor with his head out of shot!Jezzerh said:
Wait, what? Pizza? In the cinema?
Sofas, Pizza and Beer in Everyman Cinemas Cant ever go back.
jingars said:
If you knew how the story was going to play out, would you still have given the book a solid 10/10? If you had already seen the film then much of the unfolding of the plot would be known and the tension would be markedly less.
The book is excellent and deserves to get first place in your brain. The film is a visual treat, but as has already been written on here there is little sense of peril in film. Heck, even Sean Bean doesn't die...
Book first.
Actually yeah I agree. If it was an OK book and an OK film then I still say film first. But the book is so good, you're better off reading it without knowing the end.The book is excellent and deserves to get first place in your brain. The film is a visual treat, but as has already been written on here there is little sense of peril in film. Heck, even Sean Bean doesn't die...
Book first.
jingars said:
If you knew how the story was going to play out, would you still have given the book a solid 10/10? If you had already seen the film then much of the unfolding of the plot would be known and the tension would be markedly less.
The book is excellent and deserves to get first place in your brain. The film is a visual treat, but as has already been written on here there is little sense of peril in film. Heck, even Sean Bean doesn't die...
Book first.
Actually yeah I agree. If it was an OK book and an OK film then I still say film first. But the book is so good, you're better off reading it without knowing the end.The book is excellent and deserves to get first place in your brain. The film is a visual treat, but as has already been written on here there is little sense of peril in film. Heck, even Sean Bean doesn't die...
Book first.
GrumpyTwig said:
^I've heard tell of these Everyman places, tempting especially given it seems a prerequisite at Cineworld cinemas that you kick the back of the chair of the person in front at random intervals.
I was at my third big 'turn and stare' when I decided that, should there be a need to be a fourth, I was ready to ask the middle aged man behind me if he was genuinely mentally ill? He was booting the chairs with what felt like everything he had!
e21Mark said:
Reading some of these responses, I'm starting to think I saw a completely different film? 
I really enjoyed it. I haven't read the book but if I had, I'd (hopefully) know not to compare the two. Movies rarely compare to the source for a multitude of very valid reasons.Genuinely on the edge of my seat come the end. Great movie.
e21Mark said:
Takes all sorts I guess, but the idea that this was a 'great movie' baffles me. I was on the edge of my seat too though, but because it was so uncomfortable.
I feel exactly the same about TDK. One of the most boring movies I have ever had the displeasure of seeing - yet it gets gallons of fan w
k.Personally I liked The Martian. Had pretty good, steady pacing, some funny moments and was pretty gripping at the end. I'd give it a solid 8/10.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff