First Man (2018) (1 Viewer)

[Tino]

Buzz Aldrin's reputation as kind of a jerk has been known for a while.

Didn’t know that.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Didn’t know that.

Yeah, he's been known to having a big mouth and saying things he should have kept to himself. A real cocky SOB.

 

[Greg.K]

Gemineee?

 

[Tino]

Well there you go.

Still it’s weird pronouncing GeminEYE as GeminEEE

 

[questrider]

And jeez does Buzz Aldrin come off as a jerk portrayed in this film.

Buzz Aldrin's reputation as kind of a jerk has been known for a while.

Didn’t know that.

Yeah, he's been known to having a big mouth and saying things he should have kept to himself. A real cocky SOB.

This is why Neil Armstrong was chosen to be the first man on the moon. NASA thought that Armstrong could provide an ego-less representation of the achievement post-moon landing whereas they feared Aldrin would turn it into a circus of boast. I think they covered this in the From the Earth to the Moon series and I was a little disappointed they didn't address it in First Man especially considering how they portray Armstrong and Aldrin as polar opposites. Like in the scene where Aldrin says, "I'm just saying out loud what we're all thinking," and Armstrong responds, "Maybe you shouldn't."

I found the movie riveting yet at the same time almost uninvolving as if watching it from afar while preoccupied with something else. Perhaps Armstrong wasn't that interesting of a man but at two-thirds of the way into the film it occurred to me that I hadn't really learned anything, either about Armstrong himself or the Gemini or Apollo missions. So it was entertaining at a certain level because I grew up in the 70s so I have deep memories of the moon landings and seeing Apollo spacecraft models everywhere which contributes to my unending interest in space exploration. Yet, as a movie, it didn't have the majesty that most movies about miraculous human achievements do. I'm sure it's difficult to make a movie like this nowadays without recalling The Right Stuff or Apollo 13 but there was something off about it where it didn't hit my sweet spot for stuff like this. Gosling was certainly serviceable and I like his performances in general but as I said earlier maybe Armstrong just isn't an interesting enough character to hang an entire movie on? Perhaps this is why it has taken this long to tell this story because while it's an amazing achievement in human history, maybe underneath it all the story just isn't that interesting to tell? After all, it's difficult to build conflict and suspense when one knows the end result is a resounding success!

I saw it this afternoon on a 70' 1.90:1 IMAX screen so the last 10 minutes or so on the moon were grandiose and the sound was incredible. I guess I'd give it

for the sheer scale and magnitude of the subject matter. I wasn't disappointed as It's well made and all the ingredients are there but overall I was just a bit underwhelmed by it. Perhaps my expectations got the best of me!

 

[Tino]

I’d give it ️️1/2 out of ️️️️

 

[Robert Crawford]

My film rating from 1-4 with 4 being the best is 3.5 on that scale.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

On a scale of 0-4, I went in wanting it to be a 4 star movie, but came out thinking it was a 3 star movie trying very hard to be a 4.

I’d be curious to read Josh Singer’s screenplay to see if it’s as aloof and distancing as the finished film, or if those qualities were brought to the table by Chazelle.

 

[Tino]

On a scale of 0-4, I went in wanting it to be a 4 star movie, but came out thinking it was a 3 star movie trying very hard to be a 4.

I’d be curious to read Josh Singer’s screenplay to see if it’s as aloof and distancing as the finished film, or if those qualities were brought to the table by Chazelle.

Why do you think it was aloof? That’s not a word I would have used to describe the film.

Edit: on second thought I could see why you would call this film aloof. It is a bit cold and distant.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Why do you think it was aloof? That’s not a word I would have used to describe the film.

I felt the movie kept me at a distance rather than inviting me in. I don’t feel that I got a lot of new insight into either the events portrayed or the characters who lived through it. Maybe “remote” is a better word choice.

 

[Tino]

I felt the movie kept me at a distance rather than inviting me in. I don’t feel that I got a lot of new insight into either the events portrayed or the characters who lived through it. Maybe “remote” is a better word choice.

Me too

 

[Robert Crawford]

I felt the movie kept me at a distance rather than inviting me in. I don’t feel that I got a lot of new insight into either the events portrayed or the characters who lived through it. Maybe “remote” is a better word choice.

You didn't get any insight into Neil Armstrong? I sure did.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

You didn't get any insight into Neil Armstrong? I sure did.

Some, but perhaps not as much as I would have liked. Nor a lot into any of the supporting characters. It wasn’t completely bare of insight but like I said, I felt that the film kept me at arm’s length.

 

[Tino]

You didn't get any insight into Neil Armstrong? I sure did.

I did too as I knew virtually nothing about the man.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Just in case some of you didn't know, Janet divorced Neil Armstrong after 38 years of marriage which shouldn't come as a surprise after seeing this film.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Also, another insight that I didn't know or remember until this movie was that Armstrong didn't get along with Yeager out at Edwards. Yeager didn't like his flying ability and just thought of him as an engineer and not a natural pilot. Yeager was wrong.

 

[Doug Wallen]

As someone who grew up watching every mission, I also wanted to really enjoy this film. I liked it, didn't love it. I also felt it was a "distant" film. Not sure if the early family tragedy caused Neil to be detached and cool, but his cool nature in the film dampens my enthusiasm. Not a bad film, but not what I was hoping for.

The final segment recreating the the lunar mission was riveting.

 

[Tino]

Early BO analysis from Deadline.


Universal’s First Man which is looking at a chilly $16.8M opening at 3,640 theaters in 3rd. While Bradley Cooper and Lady Gaga are one factor impacting the pic’s rocket fuel, which Uni is hoping lasts throughout awards season, we cannot ignore the fact that the astronaut movie is 2 hours and 21 minutes. We hear there were conversations between the studio and Damien Chazelle about this, however, in the end, everyone gave into the art versus the practicality of business and squeezing in more showtimes. There’s also a disconnect between critics and audiences, the former who love it with an 88% Certified fresh and the latter who are OK with it, grading it a B+ CinemaScore (below Gravity‘s A-, Apollo 13‘s A and The Martin’s A. It’s also not a sci-fi spectacle in the sense of Gravity or The Martian rather more dramatic. It’s not so much literally about the first man on the moon, rather who Neil Armstrong is, and the steady braveness he maintained as he plowed through trials and witnessed his peers literally die for what leads him to the 1969 Moon landing.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I watched "For All Mankind" on Criterion Blu-ray this morning. A great documentary about the nine Apollo missions between December,1968 to December,1972. Also, this documentary shows real footage of Apollo 11 and 13 missions so you can easily compare some crucial moments between the real events and how they were portrayed in their respective movies, "Apollo 13" and "First Man".

 

[Tino]

I watched "For All Mankind" on Criterion Blu-ray this morning. A great documentary about the nine Apollo missions between December,1968 to December,1972. Also, this documentary shows real footage of Apollo 11 and 13 missions so you can easily compare some crucial moments between the real events and how they were portrayed in their respective movies, "Apollo 13" and "First Man".

Thanks for the heads up. I have this and haven’t watched it yet.