‘Ad Astra’ Review: Brad Pitt Orbits the Powers of Darkness

No film in this off-Earth genre will work until we, as a species, experience it routinely, with its tragedies. It’s Titanic shipwrecks; invasions of Poland; 9-11s; and whatever else happens between now (2019) and then (3750?). Our languages will be long dead by then, along with ourselves; our cultures not just relics but as incomprehensible as Ptolemaic Egypt or Byzantine Rome are to us. And that’s a two-way street. We, looking at them, will find them, their cultures, values and psychology so alien that they might as well be three-headed Tellurians. 3750? It will take that long to invent the technology to survive off-Earth without the protections and benefits that our home planet provides; assuming we can actually go and stay there indefinitely. Never assume anything — especially that. Our bodies aren’t designed to survive off-Earth any more than they are designed to live atop Mt. Everest or at the bottom of the Mariana Trench. As for a permanent human presence on airless, frigid, toxic dust encrusted, radiation-swept Mars, that’s almost as impossible (and ridiculous) as depicting it on broiling Venus or crushing Jupiter. Martian lifestyles are unimaginable simply because no real-world understanding of that planet’s barren surface exists save for the robotic rovers’. Their data depicts a dismal, desolate, unlivable place. Just some reasons why films in this genre ring so hollow. No “there” there, just screenwriters and directors desperate padding to fill screen-time

“Visually austere and narratively clotted” is an endorsement? I agree with the statement, but not the conclusion. Think “Gravity” with less impressive visuals or a less emotive “Interstellar”, and you have this compilation of isolated scenes that do not form much of anything in aggregate.

I struggle to understand why this is a critics pic when the critic seems wholly ambivalent.

What on Earth, or, more correctly, outer space does "...an adventure tale weighed down by the burdens of masculinity..." mean? That a movie with a male lead is somehow not politically correct? That being a man in today's America is a "burden"; something that must be endured? The shadow of sexual politics and the culture wars has devolved to infect every aspect of the entertainment industry. What a drag. Just for the record, in one viewer's opinion, fortunate enough to have gotten to see AD ASTRA, Brad Pitt is amazing. If he's not nominated for best actor then Hollywood truly is in the thralls of Progressives' Cultural Revolution, ala Mao. Will he be? Probably not, as poor Brad is weighed down by the burden of being a masculine movie star. Sad.

I wish I could trust film reviews these days but I believe the critics are stuck in the politics of filmmaking.

The overall story is interesting and goes beyond masculinity. It touches upon a person's ideal of success. Roy's success and his father' success may at some point overlap, but Roy proves a different person. The movie offers a lot of details of space should look like. This is at times very realistic. Other times, it is not. It is a not overall a pleasant experience, even when you factor in the constant close-ups of Brad Pitt's face. For the most part, the movie is long, dark, and repetitive. The viewer is only partially compensated for that experience. Whatever conflicts you think are driving the story, they are very hastily resolved in the last minutes of the movie. This is surprising ill conceived, because a piece of in the last minutes of the movie allow you to know that he had a couple of hours to deal with that "conflict". The main problem might well be that the conflict is poor defined. Perhaps intentionally with the hopes that vagueness will allow the viewers to choose whatever conflict they prefer. Not describing the conflict story well and its resolution is however a minus particularly after enduring such unpleasant experience.

Meh. A great deal of effort was expended - and considerable critics' ink has been spilled - to create and now promote a movie that is less a piece of speculative fiction and more a moody, not-particularly-insightful-or-novel art film about a man coming to terms with childhood abandonment that occasionally plays out in what we are told is an exotic location in space. Not shown, particularly, just told. The only object explored in detail and crisp focus is Mr. Pitt's face which is gigantic on an IMAX screen. The visuals are indeed soft-focus but I cannot help but think that's to cover their inherent plainess. The science is inconsistent (walking on the moon looks a lot like trudging through a New York subway station, the lag time for communicating between Mars and Neptune is a few seconds, the planets apparently orbit perpetually in alignment, etc.). And, as the reviewer notes, the movie is less of a thematic whole than a series of freestanding scenes stitched together with the thin plot. I walked out disappointed.

"The burdens of masculinity!" I love it - wow, can that explain so many films, television series and podcasts...you made my day with those four little words. I may use them on my husband tonight!!!

I'll pass and wait til it comes out in rental if I later decide to watch it at all. Rather spend my money with the latest Rambo that makes no pretense that's it's nothing more than dumb entertainment.

I saw the movie. I like this review's observation of the masculinism angle. The film is interesting and worth watching. However, it left me with the same feeling as the BladeRunner sequel, in that it achieves being *comparable* with its inspirations (in this case 2001, Solaris (remake), Heart of Darkness / Apocalpyse Now and Gravity), but comes off badly in the comparison, and serves to remind how excellent were the originals. Also reminded me of Aronovsky's "Mother" as a lightweight genre vehicle struggling with a heavy thematic payload. If we like space flight as a metaphor, then this movie ploughs its way through a debris field of recycled movie, propelled by occasional squirts of off-axis narrative and poetry on an Odyssey back to where you started.

Finally the summer movies are over! Now for Oscar line up time. Good! Let the movies roll. (“Rocketman” should not have been a summer movie. Taron Egerton, you should be in the pending lineup)

I had been looking forward to this film for weeks. As a big Gravity, Interstellar and 2001 A Space Odyssey fan, I was looking forward to sharp minimalism with heavy undertones. And Ad Astra delivers. Pitt goes from being a walled off Uber Mensch with focus on the mission to becoming an Enlightened Man whispering the need for living a life of love. Despite the contrast between the father's search for life outwardly and Pitt's search inwardly, the movie, at times is a snooze-fest. That doesn't mean, however, that I won't go see it again.

I saw this movie yesterday. Unfortunately, "overwrought" is the term I would use for Pitts performance in an otherwise dull film.

Please explain the criteria for a movie to be a "Critic's Pick" and how this film meets those criteria. All I see in the review are negatives.

"Weighted down by the burdens of masculinity" - "An exploration of masculinity and its discontents". I hope this film is better than this college prep review. Most likely I'll see it on Amazon or Netflix as I rarely go to an actual movie theater any more.

Glad to hear that Pitt turns in a credible performance. I had a very hard time accepting him as a Jewish Nazi hunter with a Southern accent.

Yes, this film is about father-son dynamics and masculine emotions, but there’s a whole other aspect to it that this review doesn’t address. The film is urging us to consider the possibility that there really isn’t any “intelligent life” out there, that maybe we’re all there is, and that this earth is all we have. There is no Planet B, as the current saying goes. And so, the film takes us into uncomfortable, but necessary, territory: despite all our technological advances, we are still humans who need the natural world; quit always looking for the next big thing (like Mars, perhaps?); and let us all stop being “world eaters,” as the lead character says. Oh and don’t let the presence of Brad Pitt dissuade you from seeing this film. It is a beautiful and important film. And he is good.

Havn't seen this movie yet - but will... Congratulations - This is a fabulous review and critique - the Best I've read in years.!! Revealing, compelling, luring ones curiosities into the characters, the screenplay, the script - without giving it all away. Wish to read 'the book' but there isn't one on that fast delivery site - a few "AD Astra' Sci-Fi titles, but not this story.....

"Rated PG-13 for mild space violence." That is probably the funniest thing I've read the last fortnight.

A joy to read such good writing

masculinity. cannot have that. thank you for the warning.

Re: "...The figure of the falling man isn’t new — Adam, Icarus and Don Draper all tumble — though it gained new meaning on Sept. 11 with Richard Drew’s harrowing photograph of an unidentified man plummeting from one of the twin towers..." Um... I believe the 'falling man'...murdered in ice cold blood by M. Atta, 'N, associates on 11.Sept. 01, (along with 418 of my coworkers...), has been identified! I'm sorry to say I'm unable to recall this individual's name at present, but I believe his identity has been established as an employee of the WTC restaurant...

Oh please...Pitt is the worst "actor" in the world.

So, er, was it good?

another movie about boys. yawn

The Odyssey written for our time? Can’t wait to see it!

Ruth Negga "as a longtime, unsettled Mars dweller" -- can't wait to see that. She's one of my favorites, and as her role (Tulip) on Preacher has shown, she is fantastic at portraying "unsettled."

hmmm.... I feel like I want to see this movie alone, in quiet melancholy. I love those moments.

A minor correction, it is not the “dark side” of the moon, it is the “far side” of the moon. The moon does not have a dark side, the moon rotates in its axis. Out of the 31 days of a month, we see the moon for 14 days and for another 14 days we do not see the moon because of its orbital position to the Earth.