From: psperson1@ix.netcom.invalid   
      
   On Wed, 6 Oct 2021 09:01:08 -0700 (PDT), "novaste...@gmail.com"   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Friday, September 24, 2021 at 9:15:42 AM UTC-6, Paul S Person wrote:   
   >> On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 20:05:12 -0600, Joe Pfeiffer   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> >Paul S Person  writes:   
   >> >   
   >> >> I finally rented this from Amazon and saw it last night.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> It is a well-done film and would be worth four stars except for one   
   >> >> small problem: it is as dull as dishwater. Three stars, then.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> This may not be apparent unless you view it, as I did, as being in the   
   >> >> same "realistic space movie" category as /Apollo 13/. Comparing the   
   >> >> two shows the difference between a really good movie and one that is   
   >> >> well-done but ... dispensible.   
   >> >>   
   >> >> IMHO, of course.   
   >> >   
   >> >And not a HO I share in the slightest. I had the same sense of constant   
   >> >tension in the Martian as I did in Apollo 13.   
   >> There is no need for you to share my HO. You are entitled to your own.   
   >>   
   >> I had the blahs all too much of the time.   
   >>   
   >> And, the moment they skipped the pre-launch tests because "they only   
   >> catch a problem one time in twenty" I /knew/ the rocket was going to   
   >> explode. It was cinematically inevitable.   
   >>   
   >> I will concede that the climax was a bit exciting, although, again, it   
   >> was cinematically impossible for the attempt to fail. So any tension   
   >> was of the "how do they manage it" rather than "will they manage it"   
   >> variety.   
   >>   
   >> Just as, when I watched /The Bad Seed/, I shortly found I could tell   
   >> when someone would be knocking at the door: the conversation was   
   >> heading toward a point where two characters would be able to compare   
   >> notes and figure what was going on, and /that/ couldn't be allowed.   
   >> The knock at the door stopped the conversation every time -- and it   
   >> never resumed from the point of interruption.   
   >>   
   >> The climax, while quite rushed, was, however, a suprise.   
   >>   
   >> The child abuse at the end was ... well, I am old enough to recognize   
   >> that it was amusing to the audience, but I no longer find it so.   
   >> >I'll say having any tension at all in Apollo 13 is a *real* tribute to   
   >> >everyone involved in the film, since we all know how it came out decades   
   >> >before the movie was made.   
   >> Which is what makes it a /much/ better movie.   
   >>   
   >> And /2001/ did it better as well.   
      
   >This is typical of most moviegoers now.  They expect nonstop CGI action, and   
   if it's a space movie, it's gotta have alien invaders.   
   >People now don't want a movie where you have to think.   
      
   I never thought of /2001/ or /Apollo 13/ as "nonstop CGI action".   
      
   I still don't. And I've always found them worth watching.   
      
   The problem isn't the lack of "nonstop CGI action". The problem is   
   that the film is duller than dishwater, albeit better than watching   
   grass grow.   
      
   And what "thinking" do you imagine /The Martian/ inspires? Apart from   
   that required to recognize the unrealistic nature of the storm and the   
   various attempts to somehow channel /Apollo 13/, that is?   
   --   
   "I begin to envy Petronius."   
   "I have envied him long since."   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)