"Apollo 13" Meets "Interstellar"But Not Quite As Good As Either

Rating: 7/10 (26 February 2017)

"The Martian" is a solid movie. It has an interesting plot, some good character development, and (in a complete departure from most Ridley Scott films) contains a very hopeful, at times even light-hearted tone. Most people viewing this will find it a very enjoyable experience all-around.
Here is the problem, though: About a year ago, "Interstellar" was made by Christopher Nolan. It shares many similar character types and themes with "The Martian"but manages to beat it in nearly every single area. So, I have to say that it was a little weird seeing this movie and thinking that not only it wasn't as good as "Interstellar", but now it is chronologically second-fiddle too.
For a basic plot summary, "The Martian" primarily tells the story of a member of the Aries III crew exploring Mars sometime in Earth's future. A violent windstorm picks up and astronaut Mark Watney (Matt Damon) is flung off into the eye of the storm and presumed dead, his fellow crewmates having to make a tough decision and a quick getaway. Due to some incredible luck, however, Watney is most certainly not deadjust stranded on Mars with few supplies and not enough food to last until any sort of retrieval mission can be furnished. The catch? Watney is a scientist (a botanist, to be exact), and must tap into all of his ingenuity and wits in order to survive until NASA can pick him up again.
Like I said, "The Martian" is a pretty good movie when looked at with tunnel-vision. It has all the right ingredients for a great sci-fi drama, and those ingredients do indeed gel together to form an entertaining final product. It has some high-concept themes, impressive visuals, and that sense of gravitas befitting films like "Apollo 13". Damon turns in a great performance, and his scenes are the highlight of the entire experience (had the movie focused on him even more exclusively, I probably would have liked it even better!).
There are indeed two major problems that keep this film from being a classic sci-fi adventure, though:
1. The casting besides Damon is very poor. Jeff Daniels is terrible as the head of NASA, as is Kristen Wiig in a similar corporate role, and Jessica Chastain's character is inexplicably under- utilized. As such, the scenes where Damon isn't front-and-center really drag the fun to a halt.
2. Maybe this isn't 100% fair, but it still stands that this movie can't really hold a candle to Nolan's masterful "Interstellar", and that turned into kind of a problem during the viewing experience. I mean, think of it this way: A film featuring Chastain, Damon, space travel, space anomalies, and all set in a very hopeful tone. Where have you seen that movie before? I know that "The Martian" is based on a book and thus it is difficult to scream "plagiarism" too loud, but having not read the book I really don't know how closely it was followed. To me, then, this sure seemed like an opportunity to capitalize on the success by using the same general themes of the previous "Interstellar".
Bottom line: Had I seen this movie a year or so ago, I may have liked it considerably more. However, once one has seen movies like "Interstellar" before it, it kind of feels old-hat. Not a bad movie by any means (and hence the four-star rating), but also not all that close to being one that will be remembered for years, either.