I lost interest somewhat. I liked the more emotional approach, but thought it attempted to inject meaning rather than reveal it. The Gemini 8 liftoff was claustrophobic and hellish, top marks. Claire Foy was good, and the movie felt authentically of the time. But for an interesting perspective on the whole spaceflight experience, gimme a biopic of Edgar Mitchell!
I just watched this movie on video and was so bored I kept fast forwarding to quickly get at the end. P S I saw the landing on tv in 1969. That was real, not this unreal depiction.
I found it to be strangely unsatisfying, especially compared with the Nova show Apollo's Daring Mission about Apollo 8. Also, American Experience has a series about Apollo coming up. Watch PBS.
2
"...strangely underwhelming"? Are you kidding me??? Hey, anyone out there who appreciates great storytelling - disregard the lukewarm review and all the naysayers here, with their petty complaints (Claire Foy says a four-letter word???). My husband & I were riveted by this stellar (no pun intended) production. Chazelle's and Gosling's best work - and that's saying a lot for Gosling. A terrific actor. Plainly outrageous that this didn't receive Oscar nominations in all the major categories.
9
Here are THREE serious complaints that I have about this movie: 1) Many, many scenes are so dimly lit as to be nearly unwatchable. This trend in movies and TV is turning me away from movies and TV. 2) In real life, every piece of hardware inside the capsules was BRAND NEW, UNUSED, PRISTINE. Why did the producers make it look paint-peeled, old, sometimes even rusted? 3) The bouncing and shaking in every flight scene from the X-15, to the Gemini emergency, and the Atlas and Saturn launches, and elsewhere, was very, very excessive and unrealistic. Such violent bouncing and shaking would have killed the astronauts. STUPID decisions.
3
Agree with the broad strokes of Mr Scott's review - the movie is well-done, even awe-inspiring at times, but fails to plumb the metaphysical depths. I think the fundamental problem for Chazelle is that Neil Armstrong was by no means a likable fellow - in fact, he was far more taciturn and emotionally vacant than depicted in the film. Had Chazelle been faithful to Armstrong the man, viewers would have been repulsed, or at least disappointed by all that was left unsaid.
On the political side of things, the right has predictably ginned up a controversy ex nihilo. Don't worry: there's plenty of flag-waving, flag shots on the moon, foreigners gushing about the USA, etc. Though Chazelle, to his credit, does try to capture the social milieu of the late '60s, including counterarguments to NASA missions. In any case, at root, the film betrays a deep nostalgia for certain of bygone America's selling points: a robust middle class, well-funded federal programs, free-range children, a competent bureaucrat class.
Frankly, there's a great deal about the moon missions that Americans should rightfully be proud of. Mild Hollywood revisionism notwithstanding, it's delightful to at long last have a film about one of our finest technical and human triumphs.
2
I eagerly anticipated "First Man" but ended up disappointed in the end result. Expecting the scenes of launch and spaceflight to be somewhat authentic I was surprised by how violently liftoff and flight were depicted in the movie. Buzz Aldrin stated that the actual Apollo 11 liftoff was so gentle that they had to observe the instruments in the spacecraft to know that they were even in motion. The movie depicts this same time as a violent, retching, cataclysm that just didn't exist in the actual flight. At the films end Armstrong is shown throwing a small doll that belonged to his deceased daughter into a crater on the moon. That event never occurred in real life. As is often the case "First Man" takes departures from events as they actually happened and embellishes the end result with Hollywood fluster.
1
The last paragraph of this review doesn't follow at all. Having lost a child last year, I can attest to the achievement of Chazelle, Gosling and Foy in terms of "meaning, history, metaphysics," or whatever label A.O. Scott wants to put on humanity, which is the point. The closing ruins an otherwise astute review. Ignore it. See this film. A.O. Scott needs a long vacation.
7
@Del P
I agree, that last paragraph seemed to contradict the overall review of the film. I saw this two days ago, and that pivotal, emotional moment on the moon left me breathless. It gave the film a poetry. I'm not sure of the accuracy of that particular aspect of the film, but it made the film something of a love story.
5
@Yvette Orozco
Totally agree with last two comments- the final scene on the moon redeemed the movie for me, gave it deeper meaning. Anyone who has lost a child (or a loved one) can relate to the pain and weight of that loss; how much it affects you. That scene moved me, touched my heart.
4
Seemed that Chazelle wanted to stress to the viewing public the claustrophobic nature of spaceflight, then extrapolated that to 95% of the film -- with the camera 2 inches away from any character's face -- whether at home, at the office, anywhere... with the focus puller having a nightmare trying to keep up.
I was literally pleading and begging on my knees for some breathing room (crying eerily like Armstrong in the film). I wonder if this film set the world record for least amount of wide shots?
IMO -- the cinematography plan may have been good in theory, but failed in practice.
3
My husband and I really enjoyed this movie. The only objection I have is to some of the shaky camera-work at times. Otherwise - beautiful movie, very engaging and well acted.
1
I saw this last night and enjoyed it very much. As an engineer myself (albeit automotive), I would have liked a little more technical content, but then this movie has prompted me to read more about the glorious achievement that was the Apollo program. The film is intimate and engaging, with multiple three dimensional performances from a wonderfully selected cast. I found the two hours to be involving and ultimately moving.
7
We all understand that the movie was about Neil Armstrong. Tough to turn a complex man into just a really smart guy who happen to be the first person to step foot onto the moon. I think it would be nice to have a second movie the beginning of NASA until today. I was lucky enough to have been in middle school and high school during the race to the moon. The second movie could show the heartbreaks and the triump and defeats of the total space program.
2
I was very disappointed but I didn't understand exactly why. Yes it was "underwhelming" - more like a documentary than a movie. I was irritated by the shaking and noise in the capsules. We got it - it was disorienting, but there was too much of it and the noise pretty much drowned out everything they were saying which was very annoying. The actual moon landing and walking was the only part I truly responded to emotionally. After that, I felt the ending was a complete anti-climatic failure. I understood that he was trying to show the private story not the public spectacle but I think the movie tried too hard to do both things. Perhaps some kind of change of emphasis like in the movie ET, where you see everything through the children's eyes, might have done better. And certainly all that silence at the end, and frankly the entire relationship between Armstrong and his wife and children were a complete mystery to me. The scene where the wife forces him to tell the children he might die was a complete puzzle - I couldn't understand the motivation there or why this was (I guess) supposed to be the pivotal scene to explicate the personal relationships. The actual real quotes from the now grown-up children have been much more revealing than the movie was, leading one to believe that this could have been done so much better.
2
I don't understand Mr. Scott's review in movie terms... Maybe it just didn't check off enough boxes on the Times political spectrum...
But the First Man I saw... with no political agenda was a very special film. Damian Chazelle, the director, and Josh Singer, the writer, made a thrilling, mouth-dry, at times emotionally moving me to tears, adventure out of the story of a taciturn hero. The period values were strong in terms of the look and the zeitgeist. The characters came to life. And the acting was very strong. Gosling gives one of his best performances wringing a character out of a quiet, determined man taking us along with him on his incredible journey.
2 things that bother me most were the wife's expletive which yanked me out of the moment - a beautiful scene. And no flag on the Moon. I understand why... he ended the film on a beautiful, tender moment not the historical event. But still he could have had a flag.
2
@marrtyy
The flag was there. It was in a long shot of the lunar lander & surrounds.
3
@Twisk
Thank you. I'll look for it when I see it again.
1
Oh my, I wanted to like this movie, but I can’t.
The characters and action felt unreal, over dramatized, and two dimensional. It felt as if the movie took over two hours to get across that space travel is dangerous, the astronauts were so calm in any situation that they were borderline autistic, and their friends and families were afraid for their safety.
And the scenes from inside the capsules during the launches! I wanted to yell at the screen, “Stop shaking the camera!” For comparison, you can find videos on YouTube taken during launch from the Space Shuttle flight deck that are so much more gripping and realistic. Heck, that’s why the first Star Wars movie is so good: it looks real!
“First Man” ends with a wordless, slow motion reunion of Armstrong and his wife. My wife and I both read her facial expression as “I want a divorce!”. Where was the joy you would expect to see, that he was the first man to walk on the moon, he returned safely to Earth, and they are both happy that he did?
3
We so loved this movie (group of 6 friends who went together). It was a masterful job of portraying the struggles behind One Man’s Great Leap foreword in his own life, and the cost that entailed. The characters were so well-portrayed & acting was superb. The director deserves an Academy Award. He also involved Neil’s sons in the project, one of them acting in the film. It doesn’t get any better than this. Congrats to all involved. Despite nit picker critics, it will be a block buster film, as well it should be.
8
Paid extra for the IMAX version expecting more.
Lots of wonderful interior shots of furniture and morose maudlin midwesterners but IMAX landscapes?
Only at the end.
More claustrophobia than panorama.
2
Maybe that was the point...
5
I can't believe they did that to memory of Neil Armstrong! This movie make it look like Neil was somewhere far on the Autism spectrum. The personal aspects of his life seem as if relayed from the perspective of a bitter family. The same goes for Buzz's portrayal. This movie attempts to give the "Dunkirk" treatment to the Moon Race, focusing on what the participants must have seen and heard. It does a good job of making you terrified and wondering how people fly in those crazy contraptions but the movie seems long, too quiet and boring punctuated by moments of staged terror. It's definitely not the right stuff.
4
I grow weary of movie reviews, by we readers, where we feel compelled to layer onto the production all our personal grievances or our own interpretation of what history is, or should be, important. I am much more in the camp of seeking to take the film on its own terms and see it as a work of very commercial. high end story telling. For me then, it was a great story, told reasonably well that respected its subject in terms that were both hugely grand and intimate.
18
After Whiplash, this is not the career path I expected from Chazelle. I'll reserve judgement on this movie itself, but I want more like Whiplash, less like La La Land.
I saw the movie yesterday and was astounded by the possibility it offered me to live the profound anxiety, discomfort and ultimate thrill of space travel. That first scene when Armstrong is rebounding on the surface of the atmosphere is overwhelming. I also find the wide scope of different cameras used (from 16 mm to IMAX), the contrasts of extreme close-ups on faces and hands and the magnitude of the universe, very effective. One can feel how Chazelle inspired himself from Kubrick and Malick but also how his filming is the fruition of a vision that is very much his own and which demonstrates his extraordinary talent. I also very much appreciated his fine, sensitive manner of portraying Armstrong's family life.
26
I saw the movie today and was very impressed! Exhilarated! I remember the actual events vividly.
The emotional arc of the story helped make a real connection with the characters.
The special effects were realistic, never overdone like most of today’s movies.
Ryan Gosling gave a very convincing portrayal of a man focused on his work, to the detriment of his family.
My only quibble is that the mesmerizing Claire Foy was utterly wasted in a minor role.
9
I am sorry to say but I have no interest in seeing "First Man". Not because of any of the manufactured outrage and controversy coming from all sides. I feel no pull towards it whatsoever.
I had a completely different experience when "The Martian" came out a few years ago.
Instead I watched "A Star Is Born", which I thought was a wonderful movie and a beautifully told story. The music alone is worth everything, especially how it ties the whole film and the arches of its characters. Though the fourth iteration of this story, Lady Gaga and Bradley Cooper (who have magnetic on screen chemistry) as well as the rest of cast, shine in it.
In these times we live in, " A Star Is Born" is what I would call, therapy for the soul...
@loco73
I have never understood why someone comments on a movie that they are choosing not to see.......what's the point? Am I the only one out here thinking that?
12
@loco73 I saw both movies on the same day - A Star is Born was good, I enjoyed it, but not in the same league as First Man. Chazelle is a brilliant director and Cooper is making a good start. Do yourself a favor and see First Man.
9
I just wanted to also add that perhaps some of the lacklustre performance of the movie might have to do with the state of NASA and the space program these days. They can’t even fly their own astronauts to the International Space Station. They have to rely on the Russians. This is the result of years of cuts and hatred for science.
And after the accident last week with the Soyuz capsule, even that is out. Now the astronauts on the Space Station are stuck there indefinitely pending an investigation.
They are trying to rely on the private sector to fill the void, but it is as of yet largely unreliable as a replacement.
Space used to be about risk taking, bold moves and efforts. I think that the only thing that will re-awaken people’s interest and reignite their imagination would be sending a manned flight to Mars and eventual steps for colonization…
No wonder “The Expanse” (novels and TV series) is more exciting than the reality of our current level of space exploration…as well as "First Man"
REPLY
3
Beautifully written review, hits all the marks.
4
This doesn't interest me in the slightest. After seeing hidden figures and all the women who helped space exploration and not a mention...nope not interested. The time for these movies are over.
2
@Calleen The movie's not *about* them. I loved Hidden Figures and have the LEGO Women of NASA set sitting on my desk at home. I totally admire their work.
However, this film is a portrait of a single human being--Neil Armstrong--and his journey to the moon. It does not center around the mission controllers or the programmers developing the software for the Moon Landing. They didn't even show Gene Kranz, the mission's flight director (famously played by Ed Harris in Apollo 13).
Imagine you strapped a GoPro camera to Armstrong. That's this movie's perspective, and he simply would not have physically been in the same room with the software engineers. He would have been training in different locations, with different people. Trying to shoehorn Katherine Johnson and the other ladies into this film would've made zero sense.
Go see it. It's a powerful film.
9
Another critique: The Hidden Figures were hidden again. For being "shrewdly up-to-date" First Man missed the update that there were women mathematicians and engineers, and men and women of colour and diverse nationalities working on the aeronautics and aerospace program. This film had only one person of colour that I noticed - a man wearing headphones in the control room. The female characters were noble, wise, grieving wives, polite secretaries and a dying daughter. That didn't seem very updated to me.
5
A child of the late 50’s, the space program was big news in our house, every mission celebrated. This movie helped me remember those
days and I don’t feel the need to dissect the role of NASA or other social movements of the time.
I found this to be a compelling story, well acted, the use of great special events and sound made for a gripping couple of hours.
That’s entertainment to me.....
9
"First Man" may have been Damien Chazelle's cinematic moonshot, so to speak, but it missed its target and ended up in a seemingly unending, perpetual orbit around a flat, atonal personality, an emotional dark side of the moon.
5
I finally saw "First Man", telling myself Ryan Gosling could be a convincing Neil Armstrong. No such luck. Instead of still waters running deep, it felt more like what you see is what you get, which wasn't much. The early sequences were thrilling, giving the audience a taste of astronaut training, but the emotional scenes were almost embarrassing. The last scene posed a problem for me: he looks down, and his wife has to practically get down on her knees to look up at him. It seemed the director was saying all was right with the world when everybody knew their place.
3
We really blew it. We should have been terraforming Mars the last 40 years. Instead we manufacture, sell, and use weapons all over the globe. What a waste of the big brain evolution gave us, not to mention the blood and treasure. Maybe after humans are gone the rats will eventually pick up the space program again. I wish them good luck!
5
That Kennedy speech is used in every space epic the same way that every 60s doc shows the stupid flower children holding hands and dancing. They should just insert a handwritten sign saying: Speech available on YouTube. Also that flower children clip should be banned forever from any reference to LSD and the 60s.
3
I would seriously recommend that this NOT be seen on the largest screen possible. I've just returned from a full-blown IMAX theatre, and I'm still queasy. And it's not because of the capsule scenes - having a "you are there" aspect to the noise and disorientation was unique and effective. No, it's everything on the ground - the choice of using enormous, grainy "Scenes From A Marriage" closeups on hand-held cameras made the experience, to me, very unpleasant to watch. I do believe I'll have a more positive reaction to the film as a whole when I see it again on video.
10
@David D. For me, seeing this on the big screen allowed me to feel more of a part of the experience, and that aspect I really enjoyed. Then again, I didn't see it on an IMAX. But I agree with you - there were some scenes recorded on a hand-held that were so shaky it was distracting. The shakiness made sense in some scenes to demonstrate the bumpiness/turbulence of the journeys in space, but not so much in a scene where characters are just casually chatting.
3
A story that shows the human side of first astronauts and their flaws. It is a compelling story of individuals living heroic yet humanly flawed lives. it is a very good movie- better than much that is playing.
12
Disappointing, even in IMAX. Unengaging. Not recommended.
4
It was a well directed movie but it glanced over a lot of stuff from the book. Neil Armstrong was a small country farmboy from the midwest that became a pilot for the Navy. Pus Karens death seemed to be just a background thing in the movie.
I did find it interesting that movie was filmed handheld using Super 16mm cameras with telephoto lenses since it was heavy filmgrain with close ups but then the moon scene was crystal clear steadicam with IMAX cameras.
2
An event like this is akin to the challenges of the biopic of any fundamental influencer of our perceived history. Still, I saw the movie last night, and having loved The Right Stuff, this is the first time I felt the raw danger of the endeavour of the mission - even though I knew the failures well - I understood them in a way that meant something to me. That’s an achievement, particularly when you imagine a film been seeking the future by people whose parents were born at a point before they knew what it all meant.
17
The trauma of a young child's death is so beyond the comprehension of those of us fortunate enough to never experience it. For the Armstrong family it's so much more than moving on, though move they do. Scott's review of the film distills Janet's condition, similar to my feeling at the end of the film. Exhausted.
9
I found this film a profound and profoundly moving exposition of the Apollo space programs and the "first" man at its centre. I knew very little about Neil Armstrong before I saw this film but I am frankly awestruck by the bravura of a director and an actor who at every point refuse to make the arc of this astonishing achievement - all politics aside - into something as simple as entertainment for the masses, like other similar space films (The Martian, Gravity, even Apollo 13). It was the noises of the film - the groaning of metal, gears, engines, the terrifying cacophony of out-of-control machinery - that first signals the film's focus on the sheer difficulty and improbability of the moon missions and what they required in terms of intellect, bravery and stoicism, of their participants. The deeply reserved performance by Ryan Gosling further intensifies the feeling that First Man is not interested in the sexier and more audience-friendly narratives of space conquest that we typically see onscreen. I can't help feeling that today the world badly needs a reminder of the power of intelligence, seriousness, personal sacrifice and determination and this film delivers that in spades. For its refusal to endorse simplistic and jingoistic notions of human history and American exceptionalism and in its constant deflection and inversion of epic and heroic narrative tropes, this film deserves far higher praise.
60
Saw the movie and agree with everything you write. Very well stated.
3
I was bored and unengaged, but I have always been captivated by the space program, so the movie was a flop to me. Won't watch again, which is my stamp of approval.
2
Ryan Gosling ..two emotions....one and none. Give that man an Oscar
10
@James Jones Really? I thought he was excellent.
3
Can we please acknowledge once and for all, that Neil Armstrong muffed his first words on the moon. "One small step for A man, one giant leap for mankind." This is what he actually was supposed to say. Why? Because that statement actually makes sense. Just like the Apollo program, his first words on the moon were a mistake.
2
True. But over time the meaning assigned to words is superseded by the meaning given. The lines, even fluffed, remain very powerful because of the achievement.
5
@Richard Mclaughlin
Armstrong actually did say “a small step for a man”. If you listen closely to the audio, there is a dropout and an audible gap between “for” and “man”.
The astronauts were supposed to have a rest period after landing on the moon, but they were too excited to sleep or rest, so NASA gave them permission to exit the LEM.
At that time, NASA’s Deep Space Network was using the Parkes radio telescope in Australia to communicate with the LEM. The telescope almost had to shut down due to high winds, but it managed to capture the video and audio from the first moonwalk. I’m guessing a gust of wind hit the telescope between “for” and “man”.
This story is told in the somewhat fictionalized film “The Dish”, released in 2000. Well worth watching. Wikipedia says it’s indeed true that winds were a problem, gusting to 110 kph (68 mph) at Parkes.
3
Sports metaphors?
It's not sports or science fiction. It's about aspirations of mankind.
11
Underwhelming is the word I'd use to describe the entire premise. We've covered the subject of Apollo in almost exhaustive cinematic detail already. The only thing missing is a Ken Burns documentary. I'm not sure why Chazelle felt compelled to execute what was inevitably a bad idea from the start. You could certainly retell an element of NASA exploration in a new and interesting way. A personal drama about Neil Armstrong is a bad starting point though.
Speaking of Chazelle, I actually had a lengthy discussion about "La La Land" just last night. We both agreed the film was more broadly applauded than the production actually deserved. While a successful modernization of the musical genre is appreciated, the film left us both feeling particularly underwhelmed. I'd have to re-watch the film to pinpoint the exact elements left wanting. However, suffices to say, I don't think the film was best in year or even best in kind.
Saying this aloud in public is near sacrilege in popular culture. People give you weird looks. However, consider the other titles on the modern musical genre playlist. There's the hyperkinetic "Moulin Rouge!" or the more traditionally staged "Chicago." I would even throw "Sing Street" onto the list of more successful modern musicals than "La La Land." A film coincidentally released in the same year as Chazelle's film and, in my opinion, greatly under appreciated.
Basically, Chazelle's films are good but not great. I wouldn't expect anything more than average.
4
@Andy Yeah, what are we doing watching a film about a WHITE man? All he did was sit on a rocket that could have exploded on takeoff, then flew 250,000 miles to another world (where the craft could have been hit with space debris or exploded the way Apollo 13 almost did) and then skillfully avoided a crater / bolder field and then landed with 16 seconds of fuel left. A film about humans overcoming huge challenges to land on another world for the first time? Who would appreciate that?
3
You'll have to excuse me, but I'm failing miserably at locating where Andy referenced race in his comment.
Nope.... still can't find it.
11
I clearly and vividly remember the "Moon Race" what a time to be alive. The Cold War was fought in space and the United States won. There were large swings in public sentiment when for instance Yuri Gargarin became the first man in space, the evening news focused on this as a major failure by US.
Efforts were redoubled, safety became secondary . Chaffee, White and Grissom burned to death in their Apollo capsule. Fabulous highs followed the dreadful lows. Perseverance , sweat, toil and finnally Apollo 11.
NASA aimed high, they hit their mark and then came the shuttle. The biggest waste of time, effort and money. The shuttle program virtually destroyed our manned program singlehandedly. For forty years the US and other space faring people have wasted their time, and our money on low Earth orbit science. Leaving our little blue ball was shelved for doing what they could with the burdensome Shuttle program demands and the confinement of low Earth orbit.
I am happy to see exploration commencing from private enterprise as our space agency seems to have withered.
9
Before graduating from high school in 1967 and on into college, it seemed we all knew the astronauts names, the Wilbur and Orvilles of Space. I chose Purdue because it seemed like it extruded astronauts somewhere on campus. With fellow ROTC middies, we collectively watched the moon landing from the Officer’s Club bar in Virginia, a Purdue Navy pilot of all things. I admit it, I was drinking under age. See, “Bart” - it didn’t even hurt.
Space flight is no less challenging today, but I’m not sure youngsters, much less the public are as aware. Reality TV has replaced reality.
12
I saw First Man and was not disappointed. An immersive, serious experience about a highly intelligent reserved man capable of great courage and focus. Sadly, as I left the theater my lingering thought was "that's the last time we were smart."
45
AdobemanAZ says "..The next 'moon-shot' should have been a complete transformation of our energy system to renewable sources." That incisive comment should THE takeaway from any excitement created by this recollection of the Apollo Mission. And the last thing we ought to be doing is devoting significant resource to space while the Earth's health is in the balance. Fix home first then play in space.
9
At the height of the Apollo program (1967) NASA used 3% of Federal outlays; as a comparison Defense, due to the Viet Nam War, comprised 46%.
As historic as the endeavor was of landing a person on the moon, it basically involved engineering issues with unique project management requirements; at it’s zenith 400,000 individuals were involved.
Poverty, famine, education, health etc are worthwhile social, government projects. But they involve social issues, which are considerably more complex.
If you wait to “fix” these social issues before undertaking other challenges, like the hunan space program, you will wait...forever.
28
@operadog
Solving complicated problems in space ended up adding to our technologies here at home. Both go hand in hand.
8
I went to watch this with a friend, and we both found ourselves transfixed by its majesty. I therefore find it odd that this is the second review from a major outlet to give it a lukewarm review. While Scott mentions "sci-fi", the genre only came to my mind when comparing First Man to wholly fictional works that lack its power. Also of interest to me was how the director, with his first two movies, took a fringe story idea - jazz drumming, and an unfashionable genre - the musical, and filled them with mainstream bombast to the delight of the masses. Yet now, he has made a biopic which could have lent itself far more easily to the general public, and instead infused it with ethereal shades of Kubrick and Malick.
24
The article says, "Neil, for all his competitive drive, is very much a team player, and the moon shot is a collective effort. “First Man” is more sports movie than science fiction...."
Why would the author call this a work of fiction?
10
@SteveRQA Exactly. Setting a picture in outer space doesn't automatically make it science fiction. The Apollo missions actually happened, and they happened long ago.
"Gravity" wasn't sci fi, either: It depicted an industrial accident with existing technologies, nothing that stretched the technological imagination. The near-earth-orbit equivalent of a mine cave-in.
For that matter, "The Martian" barely pushed the envelope of what NASA is now capable of. A great movie, but not (in my view) science fiction unless any story involving outer space is science fiction by default.
2
Maybe the director’s 15 minutes are over? I was never impressed
@André
They aren't. It's unfortunate you feel that way. He's crazy talented.
7
"the paradox of space travel, a wildly poetic venture undertaken by men whose survival depended on the prose of memos and the music of calculus." This is inspired writing, Mr. Scott. My compliments.
26
@Chitra
I had exactly the same thought. I'm tempted to use the word "gifted" in describing Mr. Scott's writing, his amazing way with words, but that would do a disservice, however true. Mr. Scott's writing shows a plenary grasp of language in all aspects, such as to convey perfectly, and often quite poetically, the most incisive perceptions and observations, suggesting a dedication and love for his craft and subject matter that eclipse what must be quite staggering natural gifts.
If it seems I'm overstating (I know it'll come off as verbose), it's just that I'm just overwhelmed by how much meaning, and nuance Mr. Scott can pack into a few brief sentences, each phrase a distillation of vast insight.
Funnily enough, part of me suspects another commenter is right about Mallick and Kubrick as to Chappelle's approach here, that what Mr. Scott faults are actually deliberate and very admirable stylistic choices, going for a more muted, subdued style to reflect the "prose" and "calculus" message of the story, a biopic of an anti-flashy "egghead" whose heroism/achievement had everything to do with his being so different from the standard Hollywood hero.
6
As someone who remembers watching the moon landing (I was 10) with crystal clarity, and having absorbed the full meaning of the moment and the time period, with my boyhood books on space travel and Apollo and Gemini rocket models, I was transfixed by this film, from start to finish. These guys were heroes in the grandest sense, and I don't expect to experience anything like the first moon landing in my lifetime. Even in a turbulent period of riots, assassinations and Vietnam, NASA and the moon landings offered a tangible optimism for humanity, a faith in technology and our collective focus. And despite all the cynicism of our present time, the 10 year old in me still believes and rejoices in small victories.
54
I saw this last night at a screening and was underwhelmed. Perhaps it was the acoustics of the theater we were in, but we found a good deal of the dialog hard to understand, thus were confused as to what was going on. And while I understand the director/cinematographer's desire to give the audience a view from the astronauts' viewpoint (tight shots of the spacecraft interior; very, very close-ups of shaking faces and instruments) what came across to the audience was a jumbled confusion of flashes of light and sound). I didn't need a special effects extravaganza, but I did need some "context" in the scene to better convey what was going on. It just felt like a bunch of scenes strung together out of thousands by someone who only had a rough idea of the whole story. Yes,"strangely underwhelming."
2
@Elise I also found parts of the dialog hard to follow, even though I was in an IMAX theatre with excellent sound system and acoustics. That dialog problem was actually a reason that I wasn't going to recommend the movie to a friend.
1
The moon landings symbolized the pinnacle achievement of the Industrial Age and showed what can be achieved when government and its citizens work together to achieve a common goal. I was 10-years old when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon and it had a profound positive impact on my life and led to a career in aerospace engineering. The NASA and the Apollo Space Program influenced and inspired an entire generation. Now the bad news. As a country we dropped the ball. The next 'moon-shot' should have been a complete transformation of our energy system to renewable sources. If we had that commitment starting with Preident Jimmy Carter, and achieved those objectives, we not only would have a clean environment, but a truly transformed economy and national outlook. The technology that could have been exported and changed the course of the world. The achievement of the moon landing had a larger meaning and we need to get that spirit back.
60
Armstrong always considered himself an engineer first and foremost. Pilot and Astronaut come after, and Moonwalker was just an interesting direction the overall mission took him in. Expecting some kind of deep introspection in a film about him is unrealistic, given all the books portray him as a brainiac professor who’s focused purely on hardware and system performance. A very, very focused intelligent individual who, given the scale of Apollo, never understood why so much prominence was given to him. After all, to him the Moonwalk was just a little foray enabled by hundreds of thousands of people. I’m sure he’d have been happy landing and then taking off straight away - anything else was just fluff once the hardware was proven. Fascinating man, I was very sad when he died a few years back as I grew up thrilled by Apollo (even though it happened a good decade before I was born).
15
The US Space program culminating in Armstrong and Aldrin on the Moon was to that point the second greatest and heroic achievement of mankind. The greatest, more costly, just as risky in many ways, more tragic, was D-Day and the campaign to liberate Western Europe from thereon. (I know the survivors in the former USSR will disagree, but their horrific struggle didn't pose the same logistical challenges).
In July, 1969 I was at a division HQ in Vietnam serving as an acting JAG defense counsel. Even before I set foot in that country, I thought it a terrible mistake for the US to have intervened with a huge field army. I was indeed an angry, over-educated lieutenant. When I heard the landing live on AFRVN, saw the picture the next day in Stars and Stripes, I was glad the men had succeeded but I do recall sending a tape back to my parents with impressions of being in Viet and so forth, and at the end I said: oh, and men walked on the moon. The space program seemed a vestige of happier, more confident times. Now, I think of the effort as I said above. Amazingly heroic, brave, ambitious, historic....
14
@Jay65 Despite Mr. Scott's rather stingy review, I saw the film last night and was very affected by it. Mr. Morgenstern of The Wall Street Journal gets it. I would say, the movie is even more interesting, more emotional, and better conceived than either The Right Stuff or Apollo 13.
13
"Gosling, underplaying with every fiber of his being,"
Is there any other aspect of his acting?
11
My wife and I also saw this movie last night. I was glad it didn't fall into the cliche of showing reaction shots in Mission Control and shots of TV announcers proclaiming the events. I saw the stuff on TV when it happened. I was ready for a story I hadn't seen, and "First Man" delivers. It was a story of personal loss and accomplishment played out on a huge canvas but experienced intimately, privately, internally. I don't need another "Apollo 13" or "The Right Stuff". I don't need a docudrama that tries to tell the entire story of the 1960s. I was satisfied with a storyteller who kept it simple. Less is often more.
50
I saw this last night with my wife.
It was wonderful.
The acting was superb, both leads and supporting cast were amazing. The film is shot with an intimacy that makes you feel you were there.
This is not a special effects driven movie, this gets you in the skin of the people who went there, and the people here who made it possible.
To me it is one of the best movies I saw all year, and my wife could not stop talking about it.
We loved it, you will too.
64
Ask any serious pilot what they want to bring on any flight, and the answer is always "more fuel". I'm surprised the writer of this and other articles doesn't know that, or to my surprise they haven't talked to many pilots seriously about flying. Fuel gives you options as nothing else can...from a pilot with 1,400+ hours.
14
@Peter Saxe
Not sure what your point was, since the movie does say that, when asked what he would like to bring up, he said 'more fuel'.
Having flown Hueys into combat i can tell you, what I wanted more of, was rockets.
@AutumLeaff
I think his point is that Tony Scott said he wasn't sure if the answer was illustrating a dry wit *or* a practical answer. The commenter above was stating that unequivocally a serious (or any) pilot would be expected to say, "more fuel." At least that's how I interpreted it.
3