The Martian

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Ridley Scott/Starring: Matt Damon, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Jessica Chastain, Jeff Daniels, Michael Pena, Sean Bean, Kate Mara, Mackenzie Davis, Kristen Wiig, Benedict Wong and Donald Glover

At last; after suffering through so many mediocre Ridley Scott movies, the director finally scores big with his latest film: The Martian. Scott, always one to confuse dazzling special effects for gripping storytelling, finds a happy medium here; making his new film his most complete cinematic effort this century. Science fiction films have experienced a resurgence in recent years with renewed storytelling vigor. Films like Interstellar and Gravity are more recent examples. Scott's film continues that trend with a smart, spellbinding drama that is both powerful and visually captivating.

Based on the novel by the same name, The Martian tells the story of an astronaut named Mark Watney (Matt Damon); a botanist who is part of an expedition exploring the surface of Mars. The NASA team, led by military-affiliated Melissa Lewis (Jessica Chastain; as wonderful as always), finds itself caught in a violent sandstorm that threatens to not only topple their capsule, but to endanger their lives as well. In the struggle to return to the capsule, Watney is blown backward when a satellite dish strikes him; leaving his whereabouts unknown in the howling tempest. Unable to perform a rescue, the team is forced to leave Watney behind as they narrowly escape in their capsule, which transports them to the safe environs of their mother ship, the Hermes.

Back at NASA, Director Teddy Sanders (a terrific Jeff Daniels), Mission Director Vincent Kapoor (an excellent Chiwetel Ejiofor) and Director of PR Annie Montrose (an exceptional Kristen Wiig) break the news of Watney's passing to the world, which causes a global outpouring of grief. Meanwhile, the Hermes crew heads for Earth with heavy hearts.

But the next Martian day, as camera tracks slowly over the red, deserty landscape, we see Watney partially buried in sand; his suit life supports systems still functional. When he awakes, he finds a small, metal rod; formerly part of the antenna, sticking out of his side. In pain and running low on oxygen, he makes his way back to the habitat. Safely inside, he immediately tends to his injury, which involves procedures that are mildly graphic.

Shortly thereafter, Watney begins a videolog of his efforts to stay alive, which also serve as a kind of narration for the movie and a way to make the science and technical aspects accessible to the audience.

What follows after demonstrates Watney's heroic resolve as he makes a vow to stay alive. We see him take stock of the finite food supply, which he determines will keep him alive for a little over 365 sols; the unit of time by which the mission measures days. Realizing NASA has a follow-up, manned mission in four years, Watney formulates a long-term survival plan which involves finding a way to grow food in unsuitable Martian soil and a water source in which to feed it. How he manages to accomplish both is a testament to Watney's mind-boggling ingenuity.

Back on Earth, NASA mission personnel discover that Watney may in fact be alive after watching time-lapse satellite photos of the habitat, which shows the rover Watney has been driving parked in different locations. The possibility that Watney might be alive sets off a firestorm within NASA, which presents Sanders, Kapoor and Montrose with the problem as how to present such a development to the world. When satellite photos also record Watney's peripatetic wanderings in the rover, they begin devising a way to communicate with him, which is mainly abetted by another clever move on Watney's part, which involves a serendipitous moment in the film I won't reveal here.

How Watney communicates with Earth--NASA specifically, is another inspired sequence, which involves the help of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, who designed most of the mission hardware. The JPL leader, Bruce Ng (Benedict Wong), becomes a key character in the film and an indispensable part of the effort to help Watney.

Aware of Watney's limited supply of food and life support, Sanders, Kapoor and Ng devise a way to resupply him before the next scheduled manned mission. Pushing ahead with a launch that circumvents testing procedures, the rocket fails but help arrives from an unlikely collaborator: the Chinese. Recognizing Watney's dire situation, the Chinese offer NASA a rocket of their own.

Not long after, the Hermes crew is finally apprised of the Watney's situation, which Sanders and Kapoor hoped to avoid. When the Hermes crew suggests a rescue, Sanders rejects the idea; citing the problem of adding an extra 580 sols to their mission. But the Hermes crew decides to forge ahead anyway, aware that their actions will be considered mutinous.

The rescue attempt in the gripping third act entails formidable maneuvering by both Watney and the Hermes crew, as well as the interplay between NASA and the JPL.

Like Interstellar, The Martian offers us a story both visionary and intelligent. Of course it helps to have an imaginative book and a brilliant adaptation from which to draw inspiration. Screenwriter Drew Goddard, who penned Cabin in the Woods and adapted World War Z, is the perfect choice to interpret Andy Weir's book. His dialogue scintillates and he sustains a refreshing level of intelligence; never dumbing the story down for a minute.

So many performances, particularly Matt Damon's, make the story seem so real and heartfelt. I especially enjoyed watching and listening to Jeff Daniels, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Kristen Wiig's verbal sparring.

I had mixed feelings about the disco soundtrack and the use of David Bowie's Starman but both give the film more human color and manage not to be too intrusive.

Polish cinematographer Dariusz Wolski gives us a very realistic-looking Martian landscape; both mysterious and beautiful. I'm guessing the Jordan desert stood in for Mars; the rocky crags can also be seen in Lawrence of Arabia .

NASA may want to thank Ridley Scott for the film. It may single-handedly rekindle interest in a Mars mission.

Aside from the great story, the stunning visuals and the superlative acting, one of the film's major strengths is its ability to stimulate one's interest in science. Botany, physics, astronomy, biology, as well as mathematics and engineering, are made exciting and sexy.

In spite of Watney's troubles, the idea of setting foot on Mars is irresistible. When he sits in the desert, contemplating the alien surroundings, it's hard not to think about how this will become reality in a decade or two.

Scott's film is some kind of marvel and easily one of the year's best. It is an exhilarating adventure and a paean to human tenacity and ingenuity. It is also one of the few films I've seen this year I would consider seeing a second time in a theater. I just may do that.

Exodus: Gods and Kings

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Ridley Scott/Starring: Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, John Turturro, Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley, Ben Mendelsohn, Aaron Paul, Maria Valverde and Hiam Abbass

Ridley Scott is a director who never met a big screen spectacle he didn't like and after watching his new Biblical opera Exodus: Gods and Kings, you might come away with the feeling that a 3D version might be redundant (2D is quite adequate, thank you very much). Scott has never kept counsel with subtlety though he's proven he can wring some entertainment from his bloated enterprises. Taking on the Biblical story of Exodus, one can be forgiven for making the story monumental but its grandiosity needs to be tamed and I'm not sure an epic-minded director like Scott is up to the challenge, though I was pleasantly surprised with his interpretation of the character of Moses.

Exodus is occasionally fun to watch but what dazzles are the expertly rendered CGI landscapes and visitations of God's wrath. It also has its intermittently clever flourishes but one will find the film's charms dissolving like Alka Seltzer before one can pull away from the theater. Too bad, because Scott has gathered considerable talent to realize his story but unfortunately, some never have an opportunity to make much of an impact. More on those unfortunates later.

I really like the casting choices for Moses and Ramses (Christian Bale and Joel Edgerton, respectively). Rather than play the Hebrew prophet as a majestic, Biblical statue, Bale brings more of an every-man dimension to his portrayal, as does Edgerton.

Scott shows some creative flourish in his characterization of Moses but isn't fussy with the narrative. He establishes Moses and Ramses relationship quickly; creating and maintaining adversarial tension. This Moses isn't the Lord's passive and peaceful shepherd; we see him join Ramses in the Egyptian army's battle against the Hittites early in the film. He and Ramses are not only sons to Pharaoh Seti (a gloriously miscast John Turturro) but his enforcers who keep enemies and the Hebrew slaves who labor to build monuments and temples in check.

I'll assume everyone is familiar with the story of Moses, either from the Biblical source or from Cecil B. DeMille's film so I won't waste time with a synopsis. The issue of Moses' Hebrew heritage seems to arrive quickly in the narrative and when Ramses catches wind of it, we know Moses will be exiled into the desert wilderness.

Scott uses CGI effectively, showing us the ancient Egyptian city of Memphis in all its glory and construction. It all looks more convincing than Sigourney Weaver in Egyptian finery, who is given little to do in the film other than plot Moses' death. The same can be said for Hiam Abbass, the excellent Syrian actress, who plays Moses' surrogate mother Bithia. The Old Testament has little use for women, as does Scott. Moses' found wife Zipporah (the hypnotically lovely Maria Valverde) has the distinction of being the female character we see most (and that isn't much, given the story is two and a half hours).

After Moses marries, we know the Burning Bush awaits, which he encounters on the rocky slopes of Mt. Horeb. Scott's conception of God is one of the more inspired moments in his film. Rather than portray the Almighty as smoldering shrubbery broadcasting a stentorian voice, God appears to Moses as a little boy. I found this unexpected, fascinating and entirely appropriate. God usually acts like a angry child in the Old Testament; stomping his feet when things don't go his way or his humans thumb their noses at him, as Ramses does often. We see God's child-like petulance as he voices his impatience with Ramses and his refusal to free the Hebrew slaves. Through it all, Moses seems a little skeptical of God and his power; he doesn't grovel before Him like a toady as we might expect.

Though Moses' staff plays an integral role in Exodus, Scott strangely denies him that which harnesses God's power. We do see Joshua (played by Breaking Bad's Aaron Paul; another peculiar casting choice) wielding Moses' wood but it never really earns its mythic reputation in the film.

After Moses follows God's mandate to return to Egypt to demand his people's freedom, the naturally recalcitrant Ramses tells Moses to take a hike. Of course we know the plagues will soon follow--and how! Again, Scott uses CGI to great effect; swarms of locusts, toads and the superbly blood-rendered Nile waters are catastrophically convincing and create a hellish nightmare for Pharaoh. All is accomplished matter-of-factly by Moses, who carries out the Almighty's wishes without succumbing to melodramatic displays of power. Ramses and his people aren't spared the uglier plagues, like the disease that disfigures faces and the choking swarms of flies.

Soon after, Pharaoh's heart softens and he agrees to free the slaves. In the Hebrew's exodus from Egypt, God's general leads the ragged masses into the wilderness and in Scott's determination to show us a more human Moses, the Prophet betrays moments of doubt and indecision; unsure where to deliver those he helped free.

Eager to avenge his son's death by the Hebrew God's plagues, and to assuage his wounded ego, Ramses and his army give chase to Moses and the refugees and in doing so, we come to the much-anticipated moment in the film when God's chosen find themselves trapped between Pharaoh and the deep blue sea--the Red Sea, that is. As in the film The Ten Commandments, we expect to see a spectacular parting of the waters but again, to Scott's credit, he shows some restraint. Instead of a massive, watery furrow being ploughed through the Red Sea, we see the waters gradually shallow then trickle away as the Hebrews make their way across the damp seabed. As Ramses and his legions edge ever closer, a towering wall of water approaches, threatening to engulf Hebrew and Egyptian alike. One would think God would ensure Moses' safety but along with Ramses and his chariots, he too suffers the force of the wave. And of course Moses survives (Scott isn't brazen enough to rewrite Biblical history--too bad) while a chastened Ramses also emerges from the sea to exit the story and history.

Finally, on the upper slopes of Mt. Sinai, as the wayward Hebrews frolic and sin and erect golden idols, Moses sits with the boy God taking dictation on stone tablets. God asks the ever-contentious Moses if he agrees with his Commandments, to which he offers his assent. It is a wonderfully mundane exchange that further humanizes the story; making a significant Biblical event seem accessible.

So let it be written--no, wait, that's the other story of Exodus. Let's deal with Scott's.
In spite of his attempt to bring the story down to Earth and to rehabilitate Moses' action figure stature, I couldn't help but ask myself; did this story really need to be told or reinterpreted? Aside from Scott's creative re-tooling of details, it is essentially The Ten Commandments sans Technicolor. Though we see a few other characters share the spotlight--Ben Mendelsohn's Viceroy Hegep and Aaron Paul's Joshua, most of the other characters make appearances as brief as the passing shots of stately Egyptian temples and pyramids.

And what is Scott trying to get at in his re-telling? If one wants to spend $140 million dollars for the express purpose of humanizing a Biblical story, then I question that person's motives. As much as I find Bale and Edgerton to be fascinating actors who do terrific work in Scott's film, they can only help make the film a fun romp, rather than something powerful. For all the hokum in DeMille's telling, I still prefer it to Scott's. All its color and pomp never seem to dull. I can't say the same for Exodus: Gods and Kings. Though I enjoyed it (in spite of itself), I can't imagine it will make me want to revisit it again the way DeMille's film does. Is it unfair to compare two films separated by almost 60 years? Probably. I'm guessing half the audience who sees Scott's film will be under 35 and will have no knowledge of the older interpretation so any comparison would be irrelevant to them but bear in mind that DeMille's film is still playing on television in the 21st century. Will Scott's enjoy the same longevity?

I respect Scott's reinterpretation much in the way I respected Darren Aronofsky for retelling the story of Noah (please let there be a moratorium on religious-themed movies in 2015!) in more humanist terms but I didn't like Noah any better for its earthiness; in spite of that quality.

So where does that leave us? I had fun watching the film; if only for the leads and to see what tricks Scott might have up his sleeve. But now that I have a few days of separation from the screening, it has already begun its own exodus from my memory. Mr. Scott, I liked your Moses but I think I'll stick to Heston and Brynner and DeMille's Barnum and Bailey Biblical imaginings.

And yes...So let it be done.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.