Reviews for First Man ( 2018 ) 1080p

Painfully boring movie for such a monumental moment in history

By: Skotsuyama
First off, the shaky cam for the entire movie... It looked like they strapped a go pro to a comfort dog. It felt like nothing was in focus, and my eyes were constantly adjusting and trying to find what I was supposed to be looking at. Like a child stole the camera out his parents hands with no notion of how to operate it.

And the parts of Neil Armstrong's life that they chose to show... I felt like they must have chosen the most mundane and boring parts. Like showing how hard it was for his wife to raise their children while he was working. That should be a touching and thought provoking idea. But it came off as annoying, and a padding for the film so it'd be 2 hours. But the film ends up feeling like a 4 hour film with only 20 - 30 minutes worth of content.

I'm not a film maker, so I know I shouldn't judge, but surely, any other film maker would have made this movie it in a way to at least hold your interest. Any after school special would have at least hit me with some key points to hold my attention. Which brings me to terribly slow pace of the editing. I felt like they cut all the emotional parts out, and left in the silent moments after the emotion had passed. And it's horribly boring to watch. I kept having in inject my own imagination into the movie, to help it along. Like why is Neil acting like that now? Why is he with holding his emotions with his wife? Is he stressed? Nervous? Terrified? I'm missing those moments and only showed the moments where he walks into his house, pours a glass of lemon tea, and then lies and said he forgot something at the office. And what office? We never saw him in an office... I don't understand why 70% of the scenes were left in the movie.

The training aspects were great. Why he was selected would have been interesting to watch. But we only get a slight glimpse. I never really got to see what made Neil Armstrong a better candidate than say, Joe Normal Guy. What drove him to try and fly a plane into outer space in the first shot? This movie didn't explore his motivation at all.

A few of his buddies having drinks in the backyard, also we're good to show the camaraderie. Jason Clarke was great. All the acting was great I'd say. Great casting too I think. They felt like a team. That's why I'm guessing the slow paced and failure to intrigue me is due to the team behind the camera. Director, editing, writing.

Maybe this is the director's first film.. I just skimmed his imdb page. And I read he's a great writer. But he didn't write this. That just seems like a terrible fit for this movie. All directors have to start somewhere I guess. But if you ask me would I think the writer of Lalaland would be a good fit to not write First Man, but only to direct it, I'd say of course not! Why would he even pop into your mind? I'm not in the movie business, so I can't connect these dots. But I'm guessing the dots are more about connections he has in the industry rather than being the right guy for the job. I've seen a lot of bad movies and bad directors before. And after watching First Man, this director is definitely one that I'm going to avoiding in the future. Maybe if he writes and directs his own movie it'd be watchable.. I really hope he can prove me wrong..

Missed Opportunity

By: marco-m-morana
It is biographical movie about the life of Neil Armstrong based on Hansen's book "First Man The Life of Neil Armstrong". Jeffrey Kulger in the Life magazine commemorative edition of Neil Armstrong's life 1930-2012, the Armstrong I was, on what Neil said when asked about Hansen's book: "I do not have the book ! and snapped". I wonder if Neil was asked about this movie in 2018, hypothetically speaking since he died in 2012, he would have snapped as well. In my opinion, this movie fails to focus on one of the main reasons of why Neil was humble about his achievement to be the first man on the moon. Jeff asked this exact question to Neil's first wife Jane: "he feels guilty that he got all the acclaim for an effort of tens of thousand people". This movie fails to focus on this important aspect of Neil's career that should be celebrated along with the people that worked for and with NASA in those years. The producers of this movie should have asked themselves what was the point to do such a movie. The movie focuses on the grief for the loss of his daughter that is certainly important but neglects important aspects of his life and career. The movie could have focus on how he dealt with the celebrity status after he left NASA and his pursuit of teaching engineering at University of Cincinnati and how he remain humble about his achievements for all the years after the moon landing. The movie could have focus on how inspiring his life has been for many young people that choose careers in science and engineering following his foot steps. This movie is really a missed opportunity to emphasise what made Neil Armstrong one of the greatest American heroes of all time!

Zzzzzzz

By: jennifermcmanus-66354
2 words... pure boredomLove ryan gosling but , the whole movie is just miserable. As an avid movie lover I was so looking forward to this...the one positive thing about the whole experience is that it's a great way to catch up on some sleep, I was out like a light... sorry.

Aesthetically laudable, emotionally vapid

By: Bertaut
More an intimate character drama than a grandiose examination of man's place in the cosmos, First Man is far more concerned with domesticity than the actual journey to the moon, attempting to demonstrate that behind the great moments of history exist personal demons and private motivations. Nothing wrong with that of course - contextualising small character beats against a larger historical canvas can produce excellent cinema. Terrence Malick's The Thin Red Line (1998), for example, uses the Battle of Guadalcanal as the background against which to engage all manner of personalised existential Heideggerian philosophical conundrums, whilst Michael Mann's Ali (2001) is more interested in Ali's private struggles outside the ring than his public bouts within it. However, for this kind of storytelling to work, one thing is essential - emotional connection. The audience must, in some way, care about the people on screen, otherwise their introspective problems are more than likely to feel like they are just getting in the way of the larger story. And that is exactly what happens in First Man - there is a lifelessness at the film's core, an emotional vapidity that can't be filled by exceptional technical achievements and laudable craft. The film attempts to celebrate Project Gemini and the Apollo Program, whilst also working as a character study of a man known for his emotional taciturnity. And whilst it achieves the former, the film's Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) is so stoic and closed-off as to be virtually disconnected from the rest of humanity.

Based on James R. Hansen's 2005 biography, First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong, the film remains tied almost exclusively to Armstrong's perspective, with the occasional shift to Janet. This sets up something of a problem as the real-life Armstrong was very much a reluctant celebrity/national hero, and despite his extraordinary accomplishments, he was not the most interesting, relatable, or easy-to-empathise-with-individual of all time. Never one for the spotlight, when Hansen's biography was published, Armstrong was living unassumingly in a quiet Cincinnati suburb, whilst in a famous 2001 comment, when asked in an interview for the Johnson Space Center Oral History Project if he had ever gazed at the moon prior to the Apollo 11 mission, he replied, "No, I never did that."

With this in mind, the film sets itself the task of attempting to penetrate this most private of men, explaining why he was so singularly driven, even to the detriment of his family, to the point where not only did he plan not to tell his children he may not return from the Apollo 11 mission, he intended to leave without saying goodbye at all, until Janet changed his mind. And herein lies perhaps the film's most egregious failing. It's almost as if director Damien Chazelle and screenwriter Josh Singer think the Apollo 11 mission isn't interesting enough by itself - there needs to be some kind of deeper "why" behind the whole enterprise. Armstrong can't simply be a driven individual, his heroism isn't enough, there must be some kind of psychological motivating factor.

In any case, the attempts to tease out the inner workings of Armstrong's mind don't really work, as he remains very much in his own world, impenetrable to both the other characters in the film, and the audience - no matter what Gosling, Chazelle, and Singer do to dress him up, Armstrong comes across as aloof and interiorised. Partly at fault here is Gosling's performance, with its fulcrum of emotionless stoic masculinity. This is a performance we've seen him give several times before - The Believer (2001), Drive (2011), and, especially, Blade Runner 2049 (2017) all spring to mind, and this familiarity doesn't help matters. Instead of giving the character hidden depth, the few discernible traits he possesses instead make him something of a cardboard cut-out, a 21st-century screenwriter's idea of what an American man who grew up in the 40s and 50s should be (complete with retconned political correctness).

Another issue is that the filmmakers chose to locate Armstrong's primary motivation in the death of his daughter, Karen (Lucy Stafford), which is presented with a mawkish sentimentality that, at best, fails to convince, and, at worst, actively distracts. With the lunar mission presented as much about advancing mankind as it is dealing with personal trauma, Chazelle goes to great lengths to link Karen's death with Armstrong's determination - as she is dying, he holds her and looks wistfully into the sky (indeed, whilst the real-life Armstrong attests to never gazing profoundly at the moon, the film's Armstrong never stops looking at the thing); after her funeral, he slips her bracelet into a drawer; later, he has an hallucinatory vision of her playing with other children; and on the moon's surface, he drops the bracelet into the Lunar East crater and cries a few tears for her. At one point, his wife Janet (Claire Foy) reveals that Armstrong never mentioned Karen after the funeral, and that's a believable, and deeply emotional, detail. The problem lies in the overkill surrounding it, detracting from whatever genuine emotion such details should evoke. Every time we see Gosling stare yearningly into the sky, the potency of the film is diluted just a little bit more.

A big question in all of this, of course, is whether Armstrong really dropped the bracelet into the crater, have a vision of his daughter, and shed a few manly tears, or is this Hollywood romanticising history? The answer is, we don't know. During his interviews with Armstrong and Janet for the biography, Hansen formulated the theory that maybe Neil left something for Karen on the surface. However, when Hansen asked Armstrong if he could see the manifest for the mission, Armstrong told him he had lost it, something which would have been highly out of character for such a fastidious record-keeper. In fact, he hadn't lost it, he had donated it to the Purdue University Archives, but it is under seal until 2020. However, when Hansen asked Armstrong's sister June if it was possible he had left something of Karen's, she said that it was. So, the fact is we don't know what Armstrong did when he wandered over to the crater (his sojourn there was literally the only part of the landing that wasn't by-the-book). However, for me, the whole thing comes across as far too syrupy, an amateur psychological profiling of a man who was intensely private. Personally, I would have much preferred the Lunar East trip to remain a mystery - by showing us what they think might have happened, Hansen, Singer, and Chazelle cheapen the intensely personal nature of the moment, which Armstrong obviously chose to keep secret for a reason.

Aesthetically, Chazelle wastes absolutely no time in letting us know that this is Armstrong's film, with the excellent opening sequence taking place primarily from his POV. However, the scene also introduces the first example of Chazelle's pungent romanticism. As the shaking of Armstrong's X-15 momentarily stops, and the noise dies away, a majestic sense of calm descends. However, rather than trust the audience to extract their own interpretation of the moment, Chazelle can't resist a BCU of Gosling's eyes, with the curvature of the earth reflecting on his visor. On the other hand, a well-handled aspect of this technique is that because the film adheres so rigidly to Armstrong's perspective, very little of what he himself can't see is shown. So, for example, instead of depicting the vast infinite expanses of space, Chazelle keeps the audience tucked tightly inside the Eagle landing module (at least up to the point of the descent to Tranquility Base).

Indeed, make no mistake, the lunar landing itself is beyond spectacular, with Justin Hurwitz's incredible music and Linus Sandgren's superb cinematography coming into their own. The sequence was shot in 70mm IMAX, and it makes extraordinary use of the larger frame, with the first panorama of the lunar surface as awe-inspiring as anything in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) or The Tree of Life (2011). An especially well-directed part of the lunar descent is that rather than lay down a busy foley track, Chazelle pulls out the sound out altogether, creating an eerie, otherworldly moment that literally gave me goosebumps.

Thematically, as with all three of Chazelle's previous films, the clash between the domestic and the professional is front-and-centre. Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench (2009), Whiplash (2014), and La La Land (2016) all focus on artists who sacrifice emotional relationships so as to reach an artistic peak - they all stories of men whose passionate devotion to their work and pursuit of perfection alienates the women in their lives. In this sense, First Man very much fits Chazelle's oeuvre, he seems as obsessed with how men attempt to balance work and home-life as is Michael Mann. Armstrong is not an artist, of course, but he is a perfectionist, and the pursuit of his craft does make the woman who loves him unhappy. To this end, Chazelle utilises various methods, such as having NASA radio chatter play over scenes of Jan at home alone. The film's ending is also extremely low-key and private, stripping away the finery of the Apollo mission, and leaving us instead with two people attempting to re-connect.

However, despite the magisterial last 30 minutes, and some sporadically well-handled moments, First Man is underwhelming, and, for long portions, interminably dull. As good as that final sequence is, it's no compensation for the plodding and lifeless two hours that precede it. And overall, the film isn't a patch on The Right Stuff (1983).

6/10

To experience the impossible journey

By: TheLittleSongbird
'First Man' intrigued me from the get go. It was based on one of the most important and fascinating true stories and achievements there's ever been, and a very interesting man. It had talented actors such as Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy, both of whom have done a lot of fine work. And it was directed by Damien Chazelle, responsible for 'Whiplash' and 'La La Land' which for me were both among the best of their respective years.

Seeing 'First Man', there is a lot to admire and it was not a problem for me that it took a different approach and an unconventional way of executing a biopic. Can see why 'First Man' hasn't connected with others though, it is a polarising film where one can see both sides of like and dislike and part of me was a little disappointed. With so much going for it, one expects a great film but 'First Man' for me was only good and not as good as 'Whiplash' and 'La La Land'. Ranking it amongst other 2018 films seen, it's nowhere near among the worst it also falls short of being one of the best.

Starting with the not so good things, 'First Man' runs a little too long, something that would have been solved by trimming a few of the scenes that went on longer than they needed to. Which would have tightened some of the pacing, some of the film drags.

At times structurally it's disjointed, with some of the back and forth not always clear while aspects could have been delved into further. Do have to agree too sadly that the shakiness of the camera work was excessive at times, did feel queasiness on occasions. The ending felt anti-climactic.

However, on the most part 'First Man' is visually stunning. It's immaculately designed and there is a lot of atmosphere and elegance in the way it's shot, an effective claustrophobia in the more tense scenes being evoked. Not everybody has liked the music, personally found it very haunting and like with 'Whiplash' and 'La La Land' Chazelle's utilisation of it is masterly. Chazelle's unique directing style is all over the film.

The script is intelligent and thought-provoking and while the storytelling was not perfect mostly it did engross me and boasts some thrillingly tense moments (like one of my favourite opening scenes of the year), a subtle intimacy and emotional power. The human drama is affecting and the training and flight sequences tight and have a suitable tension and grandeur. The characters are not what one calls likeable but there is a realism to them and 'First Man' is very strongly acted. Ryan Gosling shows a remarkable ability of conveying a lot without having to say a lot in scenes while Claire Foy provides the film's emotional heft magnificently. There is a detachment in their chemistry but that worked considering the situation, coping with grief and loss does drive a wedge and push people away. The rest of the cast do well, with Corey Stoll surprisingly providing one of the more colourful performances.

Summing up, good but could have been better. Not a giant leap in film-making, not a small step either. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Thru the eyes of the first man

By: daniel-dippel
I now laugh when I reread some of the negative reviews - to summarize: it made me have motion sickness so I left, didn't develop the orher characters enough, too somber and brooding, didn't cover all of the events of Niel Armstrongs career, etc. Well, most of these individuals missed the point of the movie or don't understand this genre of storytelling. It is a first person account basically told through the eyes of the first person to walk on the moon. I found this refreshing and not your typical Hollywood approach of trying to fit too much, too thinly for such an epic sweeping story that covers decades and dozen of key figures. It could have been 3-3.5 hours long. Yes, it could have been a TV mini-series or two (or more) movies. I love that it was told through the eyes of one central figure. Told through the eyes of the man that all of the accumulated effort of thousands of people and billions of dollars spent to accomplish one goal before the Soviets and for humankind - having a human step foot on the moon for the first time. I cannot remember a cinematic experience that got me as close to experiencing what it was truly like to be there first hand, in the drivers seat if you will, or better put, insabely strapped into a coffin fixed atop a massive liquid fuel explosion. How any person would be brave enough to face this, be able to perform well while in the thick of it and want to do it again and again is beyond words (or sanity). With death and fear all around no wonder there was a dark cloud hanging over everyone. I am sure all of us have marvelled at what has been accomplished by the NASA space missions especially Apollo. The movie Apollo 13 was a very good story that I thought put me as close to being an Astronaut as i could get. I was wrong. So, go and see First Man. Go and let yourself become THE astronaut. THE first human that was there at the very top of a giant pyramid of people because many before had made the ultimate sacrifice to make possible one giant leap for mankind. i will never look at another manned space vehicle, past or present, or astronaut again the same way,

Very Disappointed

By: igregor
This movie is tedious and melodramatic. The audio quality of the radio chatter is unintelligible. The human relationships are one dimensional. The special effects feel like they were shot inside of a 1950s vintage tilt-a-whirl amusement park ride. And what's with all the dirt and grime on the knobs and bulkheads inside what were supposed to be brand new (at the time) space capsules? The memory of Neil Armstrong deserves better -- way better.

Like watching a metronome.

By: biggiebaby
Gosling at his one dimensional best. Cluncky and disjointed, the story rides along like a low budget wannabe art film, but, with high budget actors. No character development to speak of just long lonesome staring off to the right of the camera lens. With the possible exception of the ubiquitous wife/mother scene demanding emotions from the husband/father. First Man Joins the ranks of movies you'll watch once and never again.

Excellent Understated Biopic

By: Jared_Andrews
The opening scene will take your breath away. I don't think a single cell in my body flinched for a solid five minutes as I watched Neil Armstrong (Ryan Gosling) fight to keep his craft from floating away into space. The scene is spectacular visually and in every sense of filmmaking execution. It's also a bit misleading.

The rest of the movie, aside from the moon landing, is remarkably tame. It's quiet. There are virtually no loud outbursts or emotional speeches. This story is about people doing their jobs, completing their missions. Gosling understands this and plays to Armstrong's stoicism perfectly. He is often an understated actor, choosing to let his subtle facial movements and glints of the eyes do as much talking as what actually comes out of his mouth. Neil is much the same except even less outwardly expressive. He clearly comes from a generation that did not display emotion. They suffered in silence, which no doubt frustrated many family members, especially spouses.

Armstrong's wife Janet (Claire Foy) is a classic case of a spouse desperate to glimpse beyond his emotional shield. She restrains for the most part, but her building frustration is apparent throughout. When she finally does unleash her emotions, it's startling. Her outbursts stand out in such stark contrast to the silence that we see from the other characters. Foy is smart and measured with every choice she makes, and she never comes across as unhinged or overly supportive to a point of unbelievability. She's strong as a quiet devoted partner and strong when she senses the need to speak up. Look for her to add another award nomination to her resume come that time of year.

For as great as Gosling and Foy are, Damien Chazelle is the star of this movie, just like he has been the star of every one of his movies. I don't mean this as a bad thing. They guy is simply so skilled at what he does that his impact stands out among all the other standouts in his movies. He doesn't take the conventional approach to a space movie, which is to hammer viewers with showy visuals and action sequences. He's careful not to overdo it those areas, instead focusing on Armstrong's psyche and life outside the space shuttle. Chazelle crafts a personal, intimate film and shoots it in a creative way that uses a variety of framing choices so the closeups never feel stale.

This is a giant story told on a deliberately small scale. The choice to focus on Armstrong's objectively less captivating homelife rather than the moon mission is risky. Only the most talented of filmmakers, which Chazelle is, could pull it off. "First Man" is another showcase of Chazelle's mastery. He's one of the best directors currently working. The fact that this film may eventually be considered Chazelle's 6th or 7th best and is still this excellent, is a tribute to his talent.

Fails to deliver

By: generalthought
The movie was generally factually accurate.

However, any good movie should accomplish 3 objectives:1. Educational - achieved in 'First Man'2. Enlightening - failed3. Entertaining - failed

Movie goers are likely to leave the movie feeling quite flat.

Not recommended.

Way too slow and untidy camera work

By: phil-160-338997
Came watching this with high expectations but was kinda bored by it, actually my wife did literally fall asleep in the cinema.

As many have said there were too many facial close ups and too much shakiness, a lot less would have worked.

The story made Buzz Aldrin out to be very dislikable and totally put Mike Collins into the back ground. Whilst this film is about Neil Armstrong these guys also went to the moon (apparently) too, so a little bit more respect with their characters would have been nice.

This film had great potential but it focussed to heavily in many wrong areas and this was it's ultimate let down.

Save your money and wait for hit to hit the internet.

First Man (to leave the theater)

By: marconjx
In my opinion First Man fails on multiple levels. From a historical perspective, there is nearly no conveyance to the audience about the political motivation that was behind the entire program to get an American on the Moon before the Soviets. The Soviets' lead in the "space race" prior to the Apollo program had been considered an existential threat in the struggle for the hearts and minds of humanity and the American government considered it essential to win the race to the Moon. While the American flag is seen at a distance next to the lunar module, the actual planting of the flag on the moon was, in a certain sense, the entire raison d'ĂȘtre for the Apollo program and yet this moment was completely ignored by director Chazelle, making such a blatant omission seem an intentional anti-American political statement.From a cinematic perspective, Chazelle seems obsessive in his constant use of closeups for even mundane moments and downright abusive in his use of "shaky shots" during moments of physical trauma. I always feel "cheated" when a director wimps out by an excessive use of shaky-shots as a cheap way to avoid the expense and creative effort otherwise required to depict what is actually happening to cause trauma.From an acting and character development perspective, none of the characters gain our sympathy or empathy in this film. Its as if they are all reading their lines from a script rather than investing themselves with the spirit of the people they are supposed to be portraying. Armstrong, in particular, is portrayed by Gosling as extremely unemotional and cool, even when saying goodbye, perhaps forever, to his wife and children. And while Armstrong may or may not have been that way, it seems overdone in this film. Strangest of all was Claire Foy's depiction of Janet Armstrong who is portrayed as constantly annoyed with her husband and resentful of the sacrifices he had to make as the first human selected to set foot on the moon. I find it hard to believe that Armstrong's wife could have been this way in reality and if she was not then Chazelle and Foy have done her a great disservice.Finally, from a story-arc perspective, the movie's pace is plodding with Chazelle spending way too much time on the familial interactions of the Armstrong clan. While this may stem from the fact the movie was based on a biography of Armstrong rather than upon a depiction of the Apollo mission itself, the fact that this was, as far as I know, the first major cinematic portrayal of mankind's first voyage to the moon really deserved a much more expansive treatment than it receives in this film.I am confident that this film will not be, nor should it be, the definitive telling of America's triumphant landing of man on the moon, a story that is epic and will require a director with an epic vision to tell the tale. It is with regret that I say that this movie and this director were not up to that task.

Glacially-paced, muddled film

By: rac701
"First Man," the highly anticipated (partial) bio-pic about Neil Armstrong, the commander of NASA's Apollo 11 mission and the first man (thus the title) to walk on the moon, is a muddled mess.

Director Damien Chazelle's film-making choices, from shaky, way-too-close cinema verite close-ups and long, long silences (OK, OK, we know Neil Armstrong was a Silent Sam type) to banging, shaking, roaring and rattling blackout shots where the viewer can't understand what's going on, to lack of exposition (about precisely that -- what's going on), to Armstrong's constantly angry wife, are not only disorienting, but unpleasantly distracting.

This film can't hold a candle to superior films like "The Right Stuff," "Apollo 13," or the excellent made-for-cable HBO series "From the Earth to the Moon."

Neil Armstrong deserved much better than this.

It felt genuine but left me bored

By: fallyhag
The attempt to make it all feel dated and real worked well. There were no glossy space scenes. Add some interesting sounds and a lot of shakes can and the overal scene approach works.

But then there is the story. We all know what happens. So it was just about the angle they approached it at. Unfortunately they picked the boring angle.

The struggle with grieving was irritating. The lack of substance in the characters was disappointing. The frame was non existent. The length too long. The outcome underwhelming. The ending an anti climatic relief.

I will remember this film for the dirty toilets, great acting and my repeated checking of my watch. If you want to learn a tiny bit then watch it. But it is sadly no masterpiece. Let down but the story telling...

Recommend? Yes. On a Sunday...

Shake it all about

By: duncl-68438
This is certainly no Apollo 13

Instead of special effects they just keep shaking the camera relentlessly.There again they couldn't even film Janet Armstrong walking down her drive without shaking the camera a bit. Despite all the advances in CGI they could have probably made this on a small budget back in 1975.

It is noticeable that what I believe to be stock NASA footage like the LEM taking off is way smoother and more watchable than other bits of "Spaceflight"

There are too many close ups and not enough story telling. If Neil Armstrong really was so brooding then maybe they should of featured more of other characters like Buzz Aldrin who in his few scenes actually comes across as an enthusiastic guy.

Do not go if you suffer motion sickness!!

By: deeble185
I went to see this movie with my partner, her mother and a 14 year old cousin. While we all appreciated it, that was the strongest recommendation from any of us. My major problem with the film was the "action" camera work. While I understand that hand held shots lead to a greater sense of immediacy, having the camera 10 cm away from the subject and shaking it violently did not draw me in, rather it repulsed me. I literally closed my eyes for any sequence where this effect was used, as it was hurting me to watch it. As far as the story goes, it felt incredibly slow and distanced. In the interpretation of Armstrong as a person, it seemed to drive me away from relating to him or the situation, and I had no sense of the grandeur or the excitement that should have accompanied such a story. I was tempted to see this movie by the 2013 webby award winning site, and I can still say that the actual recordings are much more engaging than this film.

Bore-opic

By: peggynight-24258
Overall, I have to say, I found this pretty boring. Felt like I'd gone to church or something, if you can dig that type of boredom. Kind of a bewildered boredom that you can't put your finger on, but you know you'd have rather been doing something else. Almost anything else.

Yes, it told the story from the human side, from the side of a father and husband. Yes it was nice that the film wasn't over-glamorised with a whole heap of American chest-beating and back-slapping; if anything it showed the petty pride of the space race perhaps for what it was: a dick-swinging contest. And yes, it showed just how primitive 60s tech was, as though they were being strapped into a rocket-tomb. But boy is this film dry. When it ended I felt underwhelmed and wanting more.

Great acting from the two leads, who held the space really well. Certainly didn't find this 'visually stunning' as some reviews have said; I thought the visual treatment of the film was well considered and appropriate in that it felt very mid 60s. In fact, that's how I'd describe the film: considered and appropriate. Except for the music/score, which was c grade. But do we go to films because they're considered and appropriate? I know my father does. Yawn.

Get out of their faces!

By: DosLenyos
Close-up, after close-up, after close-up. The director of photography should be dragged outside and tarred and feathered. As if the capsule scenes weren't claustrophobic enough, did every scene with the actors have to be so tightly cropped? Gosling is not a serious actor - his portrayal of a true American hero was exhausting. Also, why do directors these days cast actors in roles of real historical people that do not even closely resemble them (Buzz Aldrin excluded)? It makes it hard to follow who is who, especially since a lot of the characters are not well developed at all. Skip it at the cineplex and watch it on video.

One of the most momentous events in history, turned into a depressing drag.

By: brianjsmith-86408
If you are thinking this is going to be a fun, great movie like Apollo 13, well, just rent Apollo 13 and watch that one again.

I've been a 'space-nut' and an aficionado of NASA and the space program since I was a kid in the 70's. I'm not sure how they could have made a movie about Neil Armstrong and the first moon landing more sobby-eyed or depressing. It managed to capture none of the majesty, grandeur, or scope of the undertaking- it was just a wet-blanket of constant angst.

The close ups were so close-up that they made you want to back right out of the theater, and were shot in a way to make them resemble shaky-handed home-video footage shot on a hand-held. The camera just refused to hold still for anything in this movie, and it was infuriating.

I'm sure, at least at a few points in his life, Neil Armstrong cracked a smile. You wouldn't think so from watching this. I know he shunned public attention, but I find it impossible to believe Neil Armstrong could possibly have been as lifeless and wooden as he was portrayed in this film. Foy's portrayal of his wife came across even colder and less joyful than her depiction of Queen Elizabeth.

Sorely disappointing. 6/10, and I feel that's being fairly generous.

The gloomiest, saddest, darkest movie in a very long time

By: mkaronis
Something went very wrong with this movie. Apollo 13 - a grandiose movie about a failed mission, while this one is a failed movie about the most outstanding, successful human mission so far. What a wreck!