The Martian - Scientific Accuracy is Lost in Space.

Rating: 3/10 (17 December 2019)

Ridley Scott's late career nosedive into banal mediocrity continues unchecked. Thinking back on it, the last Ridley Scott film I actually enjoyed was Black Hawk Down, which is now seventeen years old. After being disappointed with Kingdom of Heaven (I thought a movie about the Crusades might feature some actual Crusading, wanton slaughter and pillaging, but there wasn't really very much at all, the Christians and Muslims all seem to be getting along fairly well in this one. I almost expected them to all hold hands and sing "Give Peace a Chance" at the end), along with American Gangster, Prometheus, and not to mention the absolutely awful Alien: Covenant, it appears that Ridley Scott is losing it in his old age. You can't blame him for it, I mean the dude's gotta be nearly eighty years old. You have to give him some respect for the fact that he is still a prolific director at his age, even if his 21st century films can't measure up to his classics. Methinks time may be nigh for him to step away from the camera.
Henceforth let it be proclaimed that Sir Ridley of Scott shalt retire forthwith, and spare the kingdom of Hollywoodland and its subjects the tribulations and vexations thou doth suffer from the pestilential miasma of his heretical, blasphemous, and thrice damned Alien prequels, lest a plague afflicts his peasants with unsightly boils. (I knew I really shouldn't have watched the director's cut of Kingdom of Heaven).
And so, on to The Martian. It seems like Matt Damon is now Hollywood's go to guy when it comes to portraying astronauts stranded on distant planets, but at least his character in this one is a bit more heroic than the cowardly Dr. Mann from Interstellar.
Even though my expectations were quite low, I was still prepared to give The Martian a look. A realistic, near future science fiction film that was marketed as a scientifically accurate depiction of a manned mission to Mars, based on a best-selling novel. Surely Sir Ridley couldn't stuff this one up too badly could he? With a sinking feeling I realised that it sure seemed like it, when the incident that leaves Matt Damon's character stranded on Mars was based on total horse manure "Hollywood Science."
I have three questions regarding the "Scientific Accuracy" of The Martian.
Who was the scientific adviser? What were they smoking when they read the script? Where can I get some?
I am not an astrophysicist, I flunked physics in High School, yet even I could have done a better job advising the film-makers on scientific accuracy than the so-called "Scientific Adviser" they used. I wonder what this individual actually did to earn their paycheck? Nothing at all as far as I can tell. Here's the thing: Due to the low atmospheric pressure on Mars, the most powerful dust storm possible would be comparable to nothing more than a light breeze on Earth. It would barely have the power to mess up your hair, let alone topple the ascent vehicle or blow heavy equipment around like projectiles. The only danger such a storm would pose would be due to low visibility, you could potentially trip over and tear your suit, smash your visor, or fall into a deep crater. It really wouldn't have been too difficult for the author to devise a scientifically accurate reason for Watney's stranding on Mars, it's just lazy writing and a lack of research.
Suspension of Disbelief rogered senseless and thrown right out the window. There are many more plot-holes and scientific inaccuracies in The Martian, which I won't bother to list. They sure as hell didn't "Science the " out of the screenplay, that's for sure. Although to be fair I haven't read the novel, and I don't know if the reason for the astronaut's stranding was the same as the film, so it might not be Ridley Scott's fault, but then again why bother hiring a scientific adviser?
Why would a botanist even be included on a mission to Mars? There sure ain't no plant life to study, and considering they have found Martian meteorites that contain fossilised bacteria a micro-biologist would make more sense.
Oh well, at least Ridley Scott knows how to ramp up the tension and suspense I thought, and the tale of Watney's efforts to survive would at least be satisfying on that level, but it seems Scott has forgotten how to achieve this (maybe he should go back and watch Alien again to remind himself), as there was no suspense generated at all, and I found the whole thing pretty underwhelming and rather boring. And to top it all off the ending blatantly rips off Red Planet. What is it with movies about Mars? Mission to Mars, Red Planet, John Carter of Mars, all very bad films. One day someone will make a good science fiction film about Mars, but The Martian sure as hell ain't it. I must admit though that The Martian looked great, the production design and cinematography were good, and the cast weren't bad so it gets three out of ten. A Ridley Scott film is always going to be visually impressive that's a given, but his choice of mediocre scripts and screenwriters ensures that his modern films are very underwhelming dramatically and thematically