“First Man” (2018)—Neil Armstrong story - from “La La Land” director

I was going to see A Star Is Born this coming weekend, but since First Man opens the following week, I think I’ll wait and make it a double feature.

Funny thing is I’m now looking forward to a freakin’ Lady Gaga movie more than this...

 

I don't even like the "A Star is Born" story that much. No matter which version I've seen. Kinda like I don't like "All About Eve." Not manly enough.

 

FWIW, I love All About Eve, and this will be my first Star Is Born.

 

Who did he get to play Kubrick?

 

Saw this the other night at a sneak showing. Really good. I enjoyed it.

The sound effects were amazing, lot of shaking cameras but the job was kinda shakey a lot of the time.

I only had one (well okay two) nitpics. One was the guy playing Gus Grissom....nope!

The other was linked to a lot of the NASA hardware on show. I won't say what it was right now but will wait to see if any of you notice what I might be niggled about.

Worth a look.

 

I was puzzled by the (over)use of handheld cameras in this film. I don’t mean in the action scenes, either. They opted to use it for things like simple scenes around the house. I liked the film, but Gosling plays Armstrong as just about the coldest fish imaginable, so I walked away with a sort of “clinical” appreciation for it, but it didn’t have much of an emotional connection for me...

 

I hope it's not too bad, as my wife is the the theater right now. Down front. At the Navy Pier IMAX.

That sounds accurate. The man had ice water in his veins. Which made him an astonishing test pilot, but a poor choice as an empathetic lead character. The real Neil Armstrong made Chuck Yeager and Sully Sullenberger seem as emotional as Stuart Smalley by comparison. I get the impression that this is not the first time someone has attempted to write this story, running into the brick wall that was Armstrong.

 

If you want an actor who won't show any emotion onscreen, Gosling is the perfect choice.

 

Saw it tonight and loved it.

 

My wife texted me when she got out of First Man:

Saw First Man at Navy Pier, really good! You'd probably get a lot more out of it because you'd get all the references.
​

Which is very true. She's older than me, and like all of us over 50 remembers the moon landing, but I lived and breathed it. Had huge models of the Saturn V, the Command Module and the LEM. Followed every stage of every trip to the Moon. Ate Space Food Sticks and drank Tang!

 

Boring, dull, way too long. Very inaccurate and/or stereotyped portrayals of several other astronauts. Or barely any portrayal at all. Hate the modern style of film-making where almost every shot is up your nose, no matter what the scene being shown. Armstrong was certainly a very inward person regarding his emotions and what he showed to people, but this film portrays his life and achievements as totally joyless. Despite the flaws of The Right Stuff and Apollo 13, and the inaccuracies in them, those films are far, far superior to this horrible film. I can and have watched those repeatedly. This film I will never have to see again.

 

Could not disagree more. I thought the acting was good, and Gosling as Armstrong was very good. I am not a special effects guy, but they did a superlative job of simulating what it must have been like in the nose of a rocket. It has been a long time since I have seen a movie rated so highly on rotten tomatoes that lived up to the rave reviews. True, it was long, but there was a lot to cover and I did not get restless at all (which is saying something). And this is one movie that needs the big screen.

 

I got to hear Neil Armstrong speak and received a copy of the book First Man (~2007 or so). I’d say based or hearing him and reading the book, the movie was a good rendition and sets the stage for issues that eventually led to their divorce. I think the sets, costumes, and behavior were extremely reflective of the time. I also think they had Buzz pegged. It still amazes me that Aldrin was even chosen.

We will never get the real Armstrong because he never allowed it to be fully revealed. But I also think there’s not much more to be revealed.

The film did well in that moment of silence when they first opened the door. And I think the music at the closing was appropriate to echo the absolute hugeness of the accomplishment. Also the moment in quarantine when they saw each other I think was stark. I literally believe it is impossible to really explain what it was like to be the first one onto the moon. Indescribable.

I too would have liked to have seen the full time on the moon but realize that was too mundane compared to the bigger accomplishment. The landing was spot on and good that they only portrayed the view from the module as that was all there was.

The only criticism was all the shaking and loudness, which I also recognize was an attempt to be authentic.

I also saw it on IMAX. Not sure that was necessary for the shots but oh well.

 

I don’t know, but reflecting on it now I think Apollo is was even worse than represented and the Saturn tractor may have been even larger in real life than depicted. But I was watching for details so much.

 

I think the only part using IMAX cameras in the fullest quality was on the moon. It was very effective in showing a stark difference between the moon and the earth scenes.

 

The moon/space-flight sequences are extraordinary, the earth scenes not so much (though now and then they are powerful, mostly thanks to the actress playing Armstrong’s wife). I have to agree with one critic who says the movie should have centered on Buzz Aldrin and been titled Second Man.

While I remain a Chazelle fan, this movie didn’t wow me like his last two.

 

Nope that wasn't my nitpick. I'm surprised no one has picked up on it yet.

 

Armstrong's daughter died of the same disease as my best friend's daughter died of recently (aged 7 years old). 60 years later and the prognosis is still the same...12 months life expectancy and zero percent change of survival, with no known treatment.

 

Box Office: Why 'First Man' Failed to Blast Off

"Our core audience, adult males, don’t necessarily run out on opening weekend," says Jim Orr, Universal's president of domestic distribution, noting that males made up 56 percent of ticket buyers, while more than half of the audience was over the age of 35. "We'll have a great run for weeks and months to come."

 

My nitpick about the Apollo hardware is that they gave it such a dirty and aged look, when these were essentially "new" spacecraft to only be flown once, then discarded. Granted, the crews did do some training runs in the spacecraft prior to launch, so there would be some light wear here and there. But the amount of grime they put on the controls, switches, and other surfaces was overdone. Keeping the spacecraft clean was a top priority at the time.

 

"Why 'First Man' Failed To Blast Off?" - My take is that the tv commercials/ trailers are perhaps the most dour and depressing for a movie I have ever seen.

 

I did notice that. It registered as odd but I thought it was to show the hours of practice (though probably on a simulator). FWIW:

Looking inside Lunar Module 'Eagle'

 

You may know that the switch to launch off the moon was broken and Buzz fixed it by jamming a pen into the socket (somehow). They had to take a nap on the moon while waiting for nasa to offer a solution. No way I’d be able to sleep unless I was exhausted.

Apollo 11 — One Small Switch, One Giant Problem

 

I hope it was a Fisher Space Pen, at least.

 

IMDb lists First Man as 2 hours and 21 minutes. Actually seems short to me for this kind of movie nowadays.

I may be weird, but for me a movie doesn't qualify as long until it reaches the 3 hour mark.