The Martian

Forum » Based on the Book: Books to Movies | Refresh | Search

Sort Options 

Complete Thread
I saw this yesterday, and enjoyed it - though (as my T-shirt caption says), "The book was better" {wry grin}. The book's mostly told from Mark's point of view, via his log, so we only hear from him when he's in sufficient control of himself to communicate; the film shows events unfolding, so we see the nightmarish conditions, his physical and emotional shock, etc. before we even get to *meet* the guy. The story does work quite well - wonderful cast, too, even though I'm not crazy about Matt Damon in general - but the book's version had a lot more humor as well as many more catastrophes. (The movie had to cut quite a few of the desperate situations to keep within reasonable running time, and still had lots of harrowing events.)

I do recommend the film, but I recommend the book even more. And if you like audiobooks, the audio version of this one is truly excellent!

The IMDB link:

My comments here:


Thanks. I was trying to decide if I should see it. You convinced me.


Thanks. I was trying to decide if I should see it. You convinced me.
ditto. Thanks for the review GoryDetails.


but my 24 year old daughter proclaimed it to be the absolute best movie ever.


I liked it and even the spousal unit thought it was pretty good. Not as good as the book, of course, but when is the movie ever as good as the book. I quite liked Damon in the role but one complaint I had is that even though he was on pretty restricted rations he never seemed to have baggy clothes or EVA suits. The suits maybe I could have understood but his clothes should have hung on him.


but when is the movie ever as good as the book.

The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas. In fact better by several accounts. I have seen others too, but their names escape me at this moment.


Margaret58 2 yrs ago
me too
I've seen the movie as well- Damon's done a good work


I agree - the book was better. Fun to see the excellent Axel Hennie play in it, though, I didn't know until I saw him there. Though, it puzzles me that they casted a Norwegian for a German part (however, I have seen Americans cast a Norwegian for a Swedish part in an American TV series...)


I've had this recommended too often to not get to it one way or the other soon-ish.

In the past, I've normally watched the movie first, then got the book if at all possible, tended to have more payoff.
Exception: Forrest Gump where the movie is awesome and the book horribly dull and irritating.

But lately, a lot of book adaptations (especially mini-series, really) have become very good in their own right and there are some where first reading, then watching was a great experience (J.K. Rowling/Robert Galbraith's Strike adaptation was particularly good. Liked the first book okay and the 2nd better, but LOVED the films so far. Totally liked book 3 but that of course, will only air later. Game of Thrones was better to first read, then watch imho, same for Outlander)
So...for this one? Which one first?


In this case, both book and film are very, very good - but my prejudice would be to read the book first. In part it's because I nearly always prefer it that way, but there are also some lovely quips that didn't make the film, and I found a couple of the key surprises - and the ending itself - more effectively presented in the book.

But if you prefer to watch movies without fretting about what details got left out or rearranged, then do see the movie first. And then read the book! (Or, if you like audiobooks, listen to it; it's among the best audiobooks I've heard.)

Either way, enjoy!


Are you sure you want to delete this item? It cannot be undone.