What to Watch and Not

Spider Noir (Prime): I’ve had enough of the Marvel multiverse so I was worried about Spider-Noir. The writers, however, have written an excellent noir in the style of Raymond Chandler with Nicholas Cage channeling Humphrey Bogart. The Spiderman stuff is all there but it is appropriately embedded. There are some excellent lines. Most notably an inversion of the Spiderman motto that I won’t give here but you will know it when you hear it. Also many sharp one-liners:

  • Reilly: I don’t like surprises.
  • Cat: I’ll remember that when your birthday rolls around.

Nicholas Cage does some Nicholas Cagey spidery things which I enjoyed. Watch it in black and white.

Project Hail Mary (Prime): I waited until this was streaming and I’m glad I did because it was disappointing.
The core problem is Ryan Gosling. He plays Ryland Grace, the genius scientist-hero but genius is something we are told, never shown. Indeed, the character with the best ideas in the film is Carl, Grace’s bodyguard/minder (played by Lionel Boyce)—they should have sent him to save the planet. Gosling has no intensity, and every choice he makes is to lighten and humorize. It’s a small thing, but it annoyed me to watch a scientist toss his instruments disdainfully. Andy Weir is a master at showing smart people grinding through hard problems—in the novel, Grace spends months learning to communicate with an alien. In the movie, Gosling dances.

This isn’t just miscasting. The whole adaptation is built to soften the book. The film cuts the desperation of the world, undercuts the ruthlessness of Stratt and instead adds a karaoke number and a trip to Home Depot (ha, ha, duct tape can solve everything!) Every change is away from high stakes intensity and toward charm and humor, a Disneyfied version of Weir. I have nothing against Gosling but we have lots of charming movies and I would like some competence porn.

The main virtue of PHM, in the end, is that it shows what a miracle The Martian was. Matt Damon knows how to play smart and intense, and he brought both to what I called the most Ayn Rand film in decades. There’s an old story—probably apocryphal—that Chuck Yeager was once asked what he’d do if his engine flamed out and he had sixty seconds before hitting the ground. He replied, “I’d spend the first fifty-nine seconds working on the engine.” Chuck Yeager had the right stuff. Matt Damon in The Martian has the right stuff. Ryan Gosling does not have the right stuff.

The Sheep Detectives (Prime): A delightful surprise! A flock of sheep solve a murder-mystery in a quaint English town; featuring Hugh Jackman and voices from Julia-Louis Dreyfus, Bryan Cranston, Patrick Stewart and others. Babe meets Knives Out. A family film but, as the best family films are, with some deep themes.

Comments

Dear MR readers who have not seen Project Hail Mary:

Please ignore Alex’s Project Hail Mary review. It is an excellent film, reminiscent of when Blockbuster movies knew how to be funny and FUN without freeloading on well-known stories or shared ideological priors. Alex is disappointed it’s not as good as the book, fair enough, but I think you’ll enjoy it nevertheless.

Respond

It's interesting that Alex's main complaint about the movie is Ryan Gosling since, Andy Weir not only had him in mind when writing the novel (the main character's initials are not an accident) but also sent him the unpublished manuscript -- which Gosling optioned for the screen before publication.

As for Gosling's scientific seriousness, this work is partly a 'wrong man' film, with Grace press-ganged into his role only after the explosion that killed the original crew. Mark Watney was not an unwilling participant, while Ryland Grace definitely was. In fact, this is another example of the 'selfish accidental hero who ultimately embraces his role' archetype seen in so many classic films (something of a Humphrey Bogart specialty in Casablanca, To Have and Have Not, and African Queen).

Project Hail Mary is so much better than what we're generally getting out of Hollywood (and so successful for being so), that I'm just not feeling like nit-picking. More like this please.

Respond

Gosling's character is a coward who is a coward for a reason. No one on earth appears to care at all about him. People only care to the extent he is useful to their goals. He has no family or friends, and almost everyone treats him with distain. And the one person who shows him any warmth whatsoever is herself cold and calculating, and ends up handcuffing him and forcing him into a mission where she knows he will die.

Thats the planet he is supposed to save.

Alex says he's meant to be a "genius scientist", I don't get how! From the very beginning, he was portrayed as a laughing stock of the scientific community because of a theory he published, a theory that was shown to be incorrect! He's expressly not an unrecognized genius. He's a failure.

And yet, he works with Rocky to save the world and overcome his cowardace, and he risks his life to save Rocky, and the earth, despite that planet condemning him to death. Gosling makes that transition very believable and moving, and Alex appears to be complaining its not the character he wanted. The Martain and Apollo 13 were great films! But thats not everyones story.

Respond

His students appear to like him a lot. And, he is portrayed as a genius, which is why Stratt recruits him. He's outcasted from mainstream science due to an eccentric personality (which is quite unrealistic) not for lack of scientific talent.

Respond

Indeed, PHM is a buddy movie first, a sci-fi movie second. A book has time to slow-play the former to delve into the latter. A movie doesn't have that luxury.

Respond

I'd call it more of a traditional hero's journey movie i.e., contrast how Gosling's character reacts to the initial call-to-adventure to how he reacts to the final crisis ... which is probably why it feels refreshing.

Respond

PHM, the film, is probably the best you can get and still entertain today's audiences. I think the book is excellent, but it's too technical and dark for movie proles masses.

Respond

I totally agree

Respond

I don't agree with Alex about much but his review nailed it. He put into words what was nagging at me when I watched the movie. I actually fast forwarded through parts of it. Just read the book.
The Sheep Detectives was good, but the sets irked me. Occasionally a guy drove up in a pick-up truck. Other scenes were in a small English village. The actors were obviously cast based on the right ethnic mix. The accents were from everywhere. I had no idea where the movie takes place. It was distracting and made it hard to suspend disbelief.

Respond

I am glad to see that I'm not the only one who didn't care for "Project Hail Mary." I thought that it was at least 45 minutes too long. For long stretches, I didn't find it all that engaging. The climax was hard to follow. At the very least, it wasn't all it was hyped up to be. On the positive side, at least someone is trying to make non-superhero science fiction.

I thought that "The Martian" was a much better film. That might be because Ridley Scott, who with the right material is a great director, filmed it.

Respond

The Ford F-150 in that setting was odd.

Respond

Putting the odd in product placement...

Respond

I saw the movie without reading the book. While I agree it was a bit Disneyfied compared with how I imagine the book, I thought the movie was decent and I feel like I got my money's worth. I also think Gosling was well cast as playing a fish-out-of-water character, smart scientist but no hero. It's a very different character from Matt Damon's in The Martian.

Respond

I very much agree with this. Even the first line applies to me: I haven't read the book, although I've read a lot about it as well as about the movie and watched the trailers.

I didn't see the movie until last night, so it is quite a coincidence to see this post this morning. But I wasn't waiting for streaming, instead I never got around to seeing it in theaters.

But I saw it at the Kennedy School in Portland which is an excellent place to see a movie; it's owned by the McMenamin Brothers whose business model is to find an old building in OR or WA and convert it into a pub. Most often they will add other features: a live performing arts stage, a restaurant, a hotel, an outdoor performing arts space, and/or a second pub. The Kennedy School is one of their best places, an elementary school that has all of the above (except it lacks an outdoor performance space; they may have a garden you can walk around in but I haven't explored the outside) but they've kept the appearance of most of the school elements. Some classrooms have been converted into hotel rooms, as have portables if you want to stay in a "cabin". The gymnasium is a large open space that was hosting a private reception last night. The auditorium has been converted into a movie theater, but instead of bringing in seats from a cinema, they brought in dozens of couches, easy chairs, and tables. So you can lounge back and enjoy your food and drink like you're in your living room. It shows mainly second-run movies and this was my chance to see _Project Hail Mary_ on a big screen.

I also agree with EBUG that Alex raises some valid points, but not enough the seriously weaken the movie. My main critique is when Rocky was injured saving Grace's life, seemingly doomed to die in an atmosphere that was poisonous to him. But he somehow got back into his protective ball, and miraculously just came back to life in a deus ex machina. Maybe the book had chapters on Grace figuring out how to save Rocky, which would fit with Grace's astrobiology skills as well as Andy Weir's figure-out-how-to-work-the-problem ethos.

Respond

I enjoyed the Kennedy School tangent. Three cheers for using available openings to spin off on good tangents!

Respond

Strong agree, I watch Project Hail Mary and then rewatched Interstellar back to back, and found Project Hail Mary to be superior. I really enjoyed the relationship with Rocky. Very similar films in a LOT of ways, but Project Hail Mary was more fun.

Respond

That is madness!
Interstellar is an original masterwork.
Project Hail Mary is a very well executed cutesy bend over backward to be pleasing genre movie. Genre product, really.

Respond

One throwaway line caught my attention, which might be of interest to this blog. When Stratt is trying to convince Grace to accept the mission, she says at least quarter of the population will die, even more if govts don't cooperate by imposing food rationing, which she expects will be the case. I suspect that she got the economics wrong and certainly the political economy wrong. Politically, govts are far more likely to overreact than to underreact, imposing all sorts of policies that make things worse: price controls and food export bans chief among them. I suspect rationing would also make things worse, given that the catastrophe is expected to occur over decades. Over that time scale, I suspect that rationing would have similar effects to price controls, decreasing the overall food supply, leading to black markets, and generally hampering the world's abilities to adapt. But, I would like to hear Alex's and/or Tyler's take.

I don't downgrade the movie for this because it's so common for Hollywood to get the economics wrong and to believe that govts underreact rather than overreact unwisely. Also, it's just one throwaway line.

Respond

PHM is not supposed to be The Martian 2. If you read or watched PHM, you would see that Gosling's character is supposed to be exactly what he portrays. He is a goofy elementary school teacher who just happened to be in the right place at the right time, and he knows through-and-through that he does not have what it takes to go on this mission. The story is not about competence. It is about collaboration and friendship.

Respond

Yes! Plus the character finds himself becoming not only brave but heroic. A literal hero's journey. Mark Watney in _The Martian_ made a remarkable physical journey, but was pretty much the same guy at the end of the journey.

Respond

1. Spider Noir was good, but most of it (including the main conflict!) was basically ripped from Chinatown. Which is fine, I had no problems sitting through it, but like you cross a line at some point from a clever homage to retreading something someone else did better.

2. I have no idea what Alex is talking about. Its not meant to be a serious movie. Maybe wrong expectations going in? The Martain had much more sci-fi elements, engineers talking about problem solving, and so on, but this isn't the Martain and it doesn't have to be that! This film had leaned on emotional, artistic, and mystical elements, combined with comedy, and thats great! It worked really well. Alex's comments remind me of people who complain about plot holes. Thats not the point!

If you think about Intersteller too much as a science fiction movie with the main characters solving technical problems it also falls apart. The 5d room to communicate to Murphys bedroom makes no sense as a science matter. Interstellar works because its themes are *religious*, only in a science fiction wrapper.

So too with Project Hail Mary. The challenges of learning to communicate with the alien are not technical challenges, they aren't about understanding sentence structure, syllables, and grammar. Its about learning to understand the alien at a deeper level, forming a bond that makes the alien and Ryan Gosling friends. Gosling does that *extremely* well, and if you focus on the technical aspects of language and the months spent in the book you're missing the point entirely. Its about understanding the alien has a different concept of sleep because they are vulnerable when they sleep, Grace wanting to see the beach and the waves and the sun in his concept of earth, and to teach those words to Rocky, in contrast with the cold cloudy place the earth is becoming. Its about the word "brave" and whether Grace is brave even though he was forced into it.

And yes, its about dancing.

So yeah, the movie does gloss over the technical aspects of trying to learn an aliens language. I think that was a good decision! I don't want to see retreads of The Martain over and over, even though I liked the Martain. It had a deeper point about how to learn a language is to learn someones culture and how to relate to people with completely different backgrounds, and i think that is a far more interesting and moving message.

Respond

Its good that Spider-Noir and Sheep Detectives are good. For the last few decades, there have been too many “good concept, bad execution” failures in the film industry and when they fail it makes the studios less likely to greenlight risky or innovative ideas.

I haven’t seen Project Hail Mary but it seems universally beloved and also the kind of movie that Hollywood used to be really good at making but no longer makes. And yet it is original IP rather than an attempt to cash in on 80’s nostalgia. Perhaps we can excuse Ryan Gosling’s enthusiasm.

Respond

I’m not sure Grace is supposed to be a genius. I do think he is supposed to be smart. But mostly lucky. Supposedly in the book one of the reasons he is sent up is because he happens to be compatible with hibernation procedure. Apparently most people aren’t. If someone wants to clarify that, I’m all ears.

And God forbid I, Screwtape, make a theological point, but I do think it is all in the name, isn’t it? I, however, get the sentiment. Some Flannery O’Connor short stories are simply intolerable.

Respond

I liked PHM because it was positive and uplifting without being preachy. It didn't bash me over the head with virtue signals. Like most sci-fi movies it falls apart if you think about it too hard, but so what? Make some popcorn and have fun for a couple of hours.

Respond

I have not yet seen the movie, but I criticize the book Project Hail Mary for much the same reason that Alex criticizes the movie. I didn't find it to be "competence porn" but instead a vehicle for the author's humor. Additionally, there is a clear reason that Weir writes books with only one character in them - he is incapable of creating distinct characters. The alien and the astronaut have the same personality. I found the book entertaining, but so many aspects of it annoyed me that I cannot understand why other people have such a high opinion of it.

Respond

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, as it fleshed out many of the visuals from the book so well. My watching companions who had not read the book thought it was meh and I understand why. My memory was filling in all of the important gaps in the narrative that had to be cut due Hollywood’s time constraints. I think similarly of The Martian which was spectacular, and a perfect visualization of the book.

The best science fiction is great because of how deeply it scratches on philosophical themes, and also most of the fun of great sci fi is in the figuring out.

Good and great sci fi are far too dense to fit in a Hollywood movie format and should almost always be a series. Otherwise, they become a buddy movie or love story, with a richly told story shrink wrapped into a simple plot device.

The alternative take, is that if you have already read the book, a well done Hollywood production of great sci fi can be the icing on the cake of a great story.

Respond

I don’t think Alex is saying “ignore the movie because the book was better.” He’s saying the movie seems to have sanded off the thing that made the book work.

Project Hail Mary is not just a fun sci-fi premise. It is competence porn: smart people under terrifying constraints slowly grinding through impossible problems. Months of learning to communicate with Rocky is not filler… it is the heart of the story. That process is what makes the absurd premise believable.

So yes, maybe the film is charming and fun. But charm is exactly the problem if it replaces pressure, patience, desperation, and earned competence. Turning Weir into “Ryan Gosling has vibes in space” may make for an enjoyable blockbuster, but it is a different and much softer thing.

So the question is not whether the movie is fun. Maybe it is. The question is… do we really need another charming buddy sci-fi movie, or did we need the thing that made The Martian different…. the rare blockbuster pleasure of watching competence, intelligence, and stubborn problem solving take reality seriously?

Respond

The movie was extremely fun. We need to stop expecting film adaptations to perfectly replicate books (oftentimes the most faithful adaptations are the most boring films)

PHM did a great job capturing my attention for it's long runtime and exploring a lot of the same themes as the book. Yes, it is sillier and can't fully flesh out many elements of the book. Still a great film, in my estimation Lord and Miller will be remembered as top notch directors.

Respond

I read the book and saw the movie, and I agree with Alex 100%. I was so disappointed with the movie in the theater that I was almost in disbelief that it had gotten good reviews. What we got at the theater was childish ET. The Martian, which I had also read before the movie, was so much better!

Respond

In fairness, the reviews are normally "...significant better than the typical Hollywood offering this decade..." vs. "instant classic."

Respond

Sheep Detectives : "in a quaint English town" - a very weird, quaint English town, the set dressing is all over the bloody place.

Respond

I loved the first 4/5 of PHM, but Weir tried to cram in one more scientific jump scare at the end that completely broke my suspension of disbelief.

(Mild spoilers)

The idea that the results of evolution can be unpredictable was great, but the actual mechanism Weir proposed was so outlandish that it was impossible to take seriously. Developed over billions of years in an alien environment, that's great sci-fi. Developed over a few months of directed evolution, that's "Superman is exactly as strong as necessary to develop dramatic tension in this scene."

I like a good comic book, but I hate it when comic book logic invades hard sci-fi.

Respond

Intentional artificial selection can absolutely have intense, rapid effects. Look at the Lenski E. coli experiment, or the Domesticated Silver Fox experiment.

Respond

(Serious spoilers)

The direct evolution worked: they made a microbe that could survive in Venus's atmosphere.

The unbelievable part is that the microbe also evolved to be able to pass through the material of the tank, which has no plausible mechanism and no fitness benefits for a partial solution. If an allele makes the microbe 2% hardier to Venus's atmosphere, it will increase in frequency with every generation, but if it allows a 2% increase in ability to pass through the tank wall (not enough to actually pass), then it's frequency would remain unchanged.

I can accept evolutionarily developed mass to energy transformation if it happened over billions of years. I can't accept evolutionarily developed barrier penetration in a free months.

Respond

Stalin asked how many divisions the pope had. Hollywood asks how many dollars a movie makes. PHM made a ton.

Crass, but sidesteps all riff-raff quibbles and cuts to the heart of what matters to the actual players.

Respond

Good grief.

"Every change is away from high stakes intensity and toward charm and humor, a Disneyfied version of Weir."

If this were Disneyfied, Carl would not only have made a comment that Grace runs with, Carl would have been the main character, outsmarted the PhDs, bred the astrophage himself, taught Stratt to rap, built the spin drives at an auto body shop in Harlem using a C-major scale and family history, taken command of the aircraft carrier after everyone asked him to, taught Rocky to rap, harvested the taumoebas himself, taught Rocky relativity both special and general to the tune of A Modern Major General, said that Stratt was the real powerful and important one and married her after returning through a wormhole between classrooms.

As the top comment said, ignore this review. Sounds like Alex wanted the movie to focus on the lifestyle of a heroic researcher, but that isn't what PHM is about. It also sounds like Alex overrates the scientific accuracy of The Martian.

Respond

This is exactly what I told my kids in the theater. They made him a moron instead of the guy who literally saved the world with his intellect.

It was a fun movie if you've never read the book. My kids loved and I'm glad it exists.

Respond

I'm not into movies. When I read these reviews, both the positive and negatives, I'm mre convinced than ever that most movies suck.

Respond

I'll put 'Widow's Bay' on the list. It's from Hiro Murai , who previously directed Atlanta.
It's a nice mix of supernatural thriller and comedy. Reminded me somewhat of 'Midnight Mass' which is also set on an isolated coastal island, but the horror is more reminiscent of old sailors legends and there's way more levity. Very very funny at times, but still give you plenty of creeps.

Respond

Alex is 100% correct. I just got to the part where Rocky is 'humorously" rolling around his ship. I don't think I'll even finish it...

Respond

1) Well, that is certainly an example of the Marvel dialogue. For all its well-liked liveliness and unpredictability compared to earlier action films, and the eventual criticism that it merely apes quippy screwball dialogue but is nothing lasting, meaningless and hollow when you reflect on it. ("I’ll remember that when your birthday rolls around"?)

2) Not seen it, but sounds like based on the book, Alex wanted something from the PHM that was less of a good natured throwback themed around friendship, and more of a rallying totem for morale for the present-day ascendant elites? (I'll not say propaganda as I think he has a bit integrity than that). On the Weir movie I have seen, "The Martian" may have been the most Rand-ian but it is a low bar if so. Rand's writing was (although, second-hand again) supposedly about all these fantasies that super-competent people could thrive and build things if only left alone by society, which is totally unnecessary for them except to act as their willing tools (and they'll be sorry I'm gone, and they'll begging, begging, me to come back I tells ya!). Weir's "The Martian" says that there's a chance that if you are skilful, you may not (definitely with absolute certainty) die immediately before you can be rescued by the selfless and risky sacrifice of your comrades (and then the movie and book got a bit criticised for its unrealistic science fiction handwaves in the survival bit anyway, as much as no science fiction ever stands up to such scrutiny).

Respond

Regarding the film "Project Hail Mary", how much would its box office have suffered if it had been much more true to the book? I say at minimum 50%.

Let's face it. There's little mass market appeal for hard and deep Sci-Fi storytelling. There's only so many geeks looking to see the book made into a true (ish) 3 hour film. The industry does not have 5 more Christopher Nolan talents.

I recall the film "The Return of the King" being disappointing. Especially the shortcuts taken with the Pelennor Fields battle scenes. Yet my non-literary friends thought it was great.

Maybe with CGI costs dropping, a future director can make a "Battle of the Pelennor Fields" film that's true to the book's vision and appeals to a wide audience. Of course, making such a film is a minor challenge compared to prying the LOTR IP rights from Amazon & Hollywood's Dark Lords of WokeDor.

Respond

"The Martian ... what I called the most Ayn Rand film in decades."

And that was one of Alex's dumbest essays in about a decade. Ayn Rand liked the Apollo program, and might've liked _The Martian_.

But there's nothing Objectivist or Randian about that. Most Americans, of whatever ideology, liked the fact that humans landed on the Moon, and tens of millions of moviegoers liked _The Martian_. To connect that to Rand is laughable.

Moreover Rand as usual is self-servingly incoherent in her beliefs and claims. She was impressed with the Apollo program. Which would be fine for most people, it was one of the signature achievements of the 20th century. It was also the ultimate in Big Government collective projects, as was Project Ares in _The Martian_. Randian my *ss.

Respond
Respond

Add Comment