First Man 2018

I liked this movie, I really did! But I think I liked it more than I should have so even though I gave it 4/5 stars I think a review is strongly needed for this particular movie.
First we need to talk about the PROs !
The Visual effects were not just effects they were visual feasts, every space scene is absolutely breathtaking and looks very real you can't pin point what is an effect and what is actually and it deserved that Oscar.

The Camerawork and cinematography is insane, it makes you feel the moment and increases the tension, when they are in that tiny spaceship you feel like you have shortness of breath because of how claustrophobic it is! the only time shaky-cam actually works.

The production design of the spaceships was actually something that impressed me very much, the metal plates, the screws, the whole atmosphere and the look of the movie felt real, which is appreciated.

The MUSIC! that was beautiful! the soundtrack of this movie will be gradually become famous and it will be considered a masterpiece in the future! especially the soundtrack (The Landing) which is played during well.. The Landing, do yourself a favor and check it out, it is beautiful! without the music this movie would never work as well as it did!

The Acting was really good, but surprisingly the one that truly shined for me was not Ryan Gosling but it was Claire Foy which as fantastic as Janet Armstrong, I believe every emotion she had, at some points her performance made the movie so much better. Ryan Gosling was good as a stoic guy but isn't he always good at that, so it wasn't anything groundbreaking for him.

Now to the CONs!
This movie is very very long, it is 2 hrs and 20 mins and it shows! the pacing and that long run-time makes it really hard to pass by it without feeling bored, and considering this movie is about a stoic and quiet man that doesn't say much it will be even more painful to go by sometimes.

The Character of Neil is something that I didn't like as much as I thought I will, and that was unexpected because Neil Armstrong is the First Man ! but he was so lifeless, too emotionless and I know they were trying to show his deeper side by the Daughter Karen's death storyline (which made him a bit more human indeed) but he still wasn't interesting enough! He never showed any excitement about going to the freaking Moon! it almost felt like he bored with his job and like he had ZERO excitement about the whole thing and that is a killer!
I don't know if the Real Neil was like that or that was just a direction they went with. This is the point that I think most people are divided on about in this movie whether he really was that stoic or this was just a poor direction they took in the movie.

In the end, despite Neil's character (that I personally didn't like) and the long run-time and slow pacing I had a great time with this movie and that was mainly due to the visuals, the music, the sound and any other Technical area because in that way it was almost perfect!

First Man is a decent foray into the history of space exploration, I guess. There were some bits and bobs that bothered me, though.

During the Gemini VIII malfunction, the increase and subsequent decrease in roll speed were matched by what sounded like a jet turbofan engine spinning up and down. That struck me as very odd—the only active propulsion system was a stuck maneuvering thruster (OAMS number 8), a rocket engine burning hypergolic propellants. In other words, it couldn't make the same noise as a turbofan, even if heard from inside the cockpit. It's doubly odd because the film goes to such great pains in the latter half to keep space scenes silent. Some exterior shots of the spinning Gemini VIII included the anomalous jet-engine sound.

Since watching the film this afternoon, I've done some more fact-checking—or rather, read up on other people's fact-checking. A number of events depicted in the movie were "wrong" somehow. Timings changed (the X-15 flight depicted happened in 1962, but the film states it was 1961); there were no apparent rescue attempts during the fire onboard Gemini I (in reality, ground crew tried to open the hatch, hampered by smoke and flames escaping the sealed capsule); the astronauts had clear views out the capsule windows during the Apollo launch (in the real Saturn V, the launch escape system covered most of the Command Module windows until later in the flight); and Neil Armstrong trained in the three-axis spin device (the Multi-Axis Spin-Test Inertia Facility, or MASTIF; in reality, it was ironic that Armstrong never trained in the device but was the only spacecraft pilot to experience the conditions it simulated on a mission). Numerous other, smaller details are incorrect, as well.

The big one I want to talk about, though, is how much bloody camera shake there is during any flight scene. By astronauts' accounts, riding the Saturn V to space was a very smooth, almost relaxing, experience. But in First Man every space vehicle seems to be trying to shake its occupants (and itself) apart during flight. I can't think of any reason for this, other than "it makes things look more dramatic". Unfortunately, the sheer intensity of the camera shaking makes useless the carefully framed extreme close-up shots of controls being actuated, as the button and switch labels are unreadable due to motion blur. It also makes it extremely difficult to tell who's who on screen, when faces are shown. So, aside from being unrealistic, the violent camera shaking actually hurts the narrative.

But enough nitpicking the technical stuff. I've spent 444 words on this nitpicking section, and I haven't even touched on the script yet!

Again, First Man is a decent foray into the history of America's space program. It definitely focuses on the man, not the machine. Or at least, it tries to focus on the man.

The biggest complaint I can level at the script is its pacing. Most of the film drags pretty badly. I have to admire Damien Chazelle for making such a pretty film—so many of the shots were breathtaking, both in space and back on Earth. The same cannot be said about Josh Singer's screenplay. Maybe the flaws in the script can be traced back to the book it was based on, which I have not read (nor even heard of before seeing this film).

At any rate, I find that First Man often glosses over the big picture to focus on seemingly insignificant moments. The characters (real people, but fictionalized) seem to remain the same over an eight-year period. That in itself is unrealistic—all people change over time, whether they realize it or not—but it is even more so in the face of such historic achievements.

I contend that the movie spends insufficient time on what happened after Apollo 11. Saying more would require the use of spoiler tags, and I don't want to go down that route—but the story felt somehow incomplete.

My score of 7 is rounded up from the rating I would give First Man if Trakt supported doing so: 6.5/10

The First Man, a film detailing the life of astronaut Neil Armstrong in his quest to become the first man to walk on the moon, is science non-fiction that works.

And if the film works, it's for 3 main reasons : 1) director Damien Chazelle (Whiplash and La La Land) confirms he is one of the most important directors working today, 2) Ryan Gosling is like bacon (he makes everything good), and 3) go back to number 1.

The deftness Chazelle displays, the rich style of his shots, the flourishes he adds to even the most mundane scenes and the lush cinematography (here he works again with his Oscar winning cinematographer from La La Land Linus Sandgre) helps the audience through the slower passages which concentrate on Armstrong's disastrous and boring personal life. Combine the visuals with a terrific use of sound (we are talking about the director of Whiplash, remember) and you have a film that, simply put, looks and sounds cool.

The First Man works best when it focuses on the space aspects of the Armstrong biography of the same title, and suffers when it feels obligated to include the humdrum parts of the book. It's obvious Chazelle (who, in addition to writing La La Land and Whiplash also penned 10 Cloverfield Lane) did not have a hand in the script here.

Another drawback to the story is that there are no surprises because, guess what, spoiler alert, we already know how the movie ends: Armstrong walks on the moon. Which means there are no moments where we wonder, "Will he be chosen for the mission?" or exclaim "Wow, that's dangerous, I hope he survives!"

But none of that is able to tarnish completely the sheen of excellence that surrounds this film. The First Man will launch Damien Chazelle'a career into the stratosphere and beyond, where he will deservedly become one of stars he works with.

On a more personal note, Armstrong's treatment of his family angered me. I don't know why he was so upset about his daughter's death when it seemed to me he didn't give a toss about his children. I'd wager the poor girl might have even been better off, seeing how aggressively he ignored his sons.

Apollo 13 & From the Earth to the Moon this is most definitely not. Both Ron Howard's masterpiece & Tom Hanks' epic miniseries were portrayals of complex humans driving America's space program, while Director Damien Chazelle and writer Josh Singer seem to think that Neil Armstrong and the rest of the men at NASA were all one-dimensional automotons. Somebody forgot to remind these filmmakers that when you are dramatizing well-known historical events where the end result isn't in doubt, the drama & suspense need to come from the characters themselves. Instead, we get Ryan Gosling's Armstrong showing no emotion and never displaying any sense of ambition. After a personal tragedy at the start of the film he is distant and cold to everyone around him, including his wife and children. He drifts through the story, moving from scene to scene without any apparent purpose or emotional drive. He's going through the motions and doesn't seem phased when he's ultimately chosen for the Apollo 11 mission. This emptiness, which is echoed by everyone around him (apparently there was never any laughter or lightheartedness at NASA), creates a void at the center of the film that saps all of the energy and joy from the climactic scenes on the Moon. Why should we care about this momentous occasion when the main character clearly doesn't? It's fitting that we don't see Armstrong's face for almost all of the Moon sequence, since we never see his insides during his journey up to that point. By the end I was so angry with Armstrong as a person - and at NASA for letting someone who appeared to be a borderline sociopath anywhere near a rocket - that this felt like the origin story of a villain instead of an examination of a family at the center of one of humanity's greatest triumphs. But that's not even the worst of it. Chazelle & Gosling's story and performance choices do an incredible disservice to the brilliant VFX and sound editing that give at least a little life to what is otherwise an interminably boring character study of an absurdly uninteresting man. First Man is a tragedy of wasted potential.

“We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard”.

‘First Man’ is a lift off folks. A beautiful, yet melancholic look on a man’s journey to the moon. Focusing on grief and loss that can poison anyone's thoughts. At the end, you get the sad realization it was a suicide mission, not a heroic one. Making you think twice of wanting to be an astronaut.

Also, the stupid controversy surrounding the American flag is one of the most pointless up cries ever. Anywhere...

Ryan Gosling is great as Neil Armstrong. Now some people have criticized his performance as being “dull” or “stilted”. While not the most exciting or colorful performance of the year, but the same can be said about Armstrong as a person. Gosling performance as a calculated man who is somewhat cold to his family over a personal tragedy - it is more depressing when reflecting back. It makes it more powerful. I got more out of it than some people.

Claire Foy is also great - the relationship between her and Gosling is very believable. You really do feel her concerns, but frustration which was brilliantly represented, especially during the emotional scenes. However, I wish they wrote something better for Foy than play “the wife” at home.

Damien Chazelle, my main man. Back once again to blow my socks off. A complete departure compared to his previous films ‘Whiplash’ and ‘La La Land’, in terms of film making and themes. Visually striking with a 60’s-like archive look which fits the time period. The way Chazelles films space shuttles leaving earth’s atmosphere is terrifying, because it’s all from Neil’s point of view. One minute it’s blue sky, then pitch black. I think any movie that can me feel motion sickness is an achievement in my books. Plus the cinematography being shot on Techniscope cameras gives an organic and raw look. The close ups and tight spaces - it’s a claustrophobic nightmare.

The moon landing sequence is absolutely breathing and some of the best film making in the entire movie. It also contains one of the saddest scenes I've seen in awhile, which got my eyes leaking. I swear, if that didn’t happen and was made up for the movie, then I won’t be happy. Still, makes me wonder if Chazelle and Kubrick faked the moon landing together.

The sound design is incredible and adds to the fear of space travel. Whenever they leave earth’s orbit during the testing scenes with the shuttle rattling and the sound of mental weakening - you literally keep expecting the shuttle to fall into pieces at any moment. Along with thundering engines from the rockets; it increase the tension of each test.

For issues: The movie is too long with the run time hurting the flow. I wasn’t bored or anything, just some scenes felt slow and worn out. Judging from the trailers, I guess there’s a longer cut, because of the scenes that are not in the movie.

The score could’ve been more memorable, in my opinion. I honestly don’t remember it, which is a shame as space films usually have great scores. Again, not bad, just decent.

Overall rating: Not the best Chazelle movie compared to his other work, but still a compelling character study on burying grief, while lost in the stars. Drifting away into that good night. Karen Armstrong, the star child.

A frank, pull-no-punches look at the personal and professional life of the failed test pilot and famed astronaut, Neil Armstrong. His is a tale of grand success and global recognition, of course, but also one of frequent, intense tribulation. From routine near-death experiences at the office to a mortally sick young daughter at home, Neil's life seems like a constant source of tension and immense emotional pressure. A quiet, reserved man, he internalizes most of that pain, but it's still evident. Ryan Gosling does a remarkable job at conveying this inner trauma, roiling behind a stoney poker face and a collected physical presence, and the film backs him up by presenting several situations in which that strict sense of cool personal composition literally saves his life.

First Man spends a lot of time gazing inwardly, but that's balanced by a series of riveting, high-pressure scenes inside the cockpit. These are utterly insane; barely-contained chaos set to the tune of a constant, deafening roar, all kept in check via a series of well-timed switch flips and a whole lot of white-knuckled prayers. Space movies need never want for great action scenes, particularly when they're inspecting this particular age of DIY floundering, and this one provides yet another impressive step forward in that department. An excellent balance of humanity, practical science and death-defying physical risk-taking.

There are a lot of negative reviews of First Man, but you will not find one here.

Taking a story that nearly everyone in the world knows but in fact few really do and then drilling down through the bombast and jingoism that infests these type of stories to bring us into a very personal and small account of a huge event is a breath of fresh Hollywood air and dare I say a stroke of genius. Then strip away as much dramatic artifice as you can, play most character and scenes in an understated and realistic way as you possibly can, and you've got me from the first scenes.

The principal characters are Neil Armstrong and his wife Janet with both playing pivotal roles in the emotional drive of the film, Ryan Gosling is the driven and controlled Armstrong, I seem to recall there was some criticism of the way he played the role, but the truth of the matter, pilots are trained in that way, you can't have panicking, arm-waving histrionics in that profession, take note Ron Howard, and Claire Foy playing his wife Janet is the softer emotional core of the film. How the rest of us normal humans would feel. That's not to say Gosling's Armstrong is a robot and one early scene shows his deep emotions but also says to the audience, this is in private.

Keeping it personal we are surrounded by a supporting cast of characters that were in Armstrong's life at that time, we get to see snatches of their personalities, their lives and what shaped them but only a small amount. Basically, mirroring real life - you don't know the intricate details of a work friends’ life. The once again emphasises the personal world view we are getting.

Then in a further stroke of cinematic genius we get to see the Gemini 8 launch as if you were taking part in it, what you would see were you Armstrong. Like I said personal.

All the acting is top notch in the film with even the dramatic effect scenes certainly having the brakes put on. Gosling is restrained to the point somnambulance at times but that is the point, Armstrong was this way, certainly in his professional and public life and it would make sense that a great deal of emotional outlet has to come from his partner in all this his wife Janet played by the sublime Claire Foy. In truth, women are not served well in this film with Foy the only major female character throughout which is unfortunate but perhaps also a sign of the period in which the film was set and of course we are seeing this primarily through the eyes of the Armstrong family.

The look of the 1960s seems tight and correct, but I was seven when the film's story ended so I am probably not the best person to comment, but to me it looked good. Being a true story but a dramatic film there are liberties with the truth and certainly if you go digging you can find many bends, stretches, and obfuscation in my mind though the spirit of the Armstrongs, the spirit of the time, the feel of it, or to go back to The Castle as Dennis said 'The vibe of it'.

This is where First Man gets it right, the very vibe of the times. Spot on. The pace, the look, the emotion, fits the story and the actors correctly. Sure, if you looking for screaming, exploding helicopters, flaming rockets at breakneck speeds you are going to be disappointed and without trying to preach not all films have to be like this, some can flow languidly like a wide peaceful river that makes it way slowly to a raging, beautiful waterfall.

I'd say give it a go, adjust your expectations if you love action, sit back and marvel at the millions of people did way back in the sixties, rightly or wrongly, to send humanity into space.

Now, I am glad they didn't made this into an action packed blockbuster movie. At the same time this movie is not easy to watch. And this is not about the technical side or the training. It is about the man Armstrong. Unfortunately those parts I didn't find interesting.

A lot of the movie is done in a kind of documentary style. The shaky, handheld camera is underlining that fact. You see the scenes more from the outside looking in instead of having the feeling of being with the characters. And it is moving very slow during those elements. Than there are the moments inside a vehicle which are very good. No one of us will ever know what it feels like to sit inside those but this gave me a good idea how intense this must have been. But those two sides of the story don't gel with one another. They almost feel like two seperate movies.

The thing I really struggle with is the amount of errors. Small ones mostly but nonetheless errors. A movie that depicts historical events should stay more true to them. But like always things are added and changed to amp up the drama.

The experience of watching a movie is always a personal one and ultimately I ended up being a bit dissapointed. I had hoped for something more along the lines of "The Right Stuff" from 1983.

Damien Chazelle has officially cemented himself as one of the greatest filmmakers working today and just like his last two masterworks First Man is guaranteed some Oscar buzz.

I personally wouldn’t hold First Man to quite the same pedigree as Whiplash and La La Land but it is certainly a great film. Neil Armstrong’s life makes for a very interesting story and Ryan Gosling plays him perfectly. Gosling’s performance has lead to one of the films biggest criticisms and have to say I am inclined to agree with the majority of critics on this one, while I do think that Gosling’s stoic and closed off performance if perfect for the character it does at points make it hard to connect with the film as the protagonist never fully revels their emotions in a meaningful way.

The first two acts as a result of Armstrong’s stoicism can tend to drag at points. I give the film credit for committing to showcasing the real Armstrong instead of over-dramatising this very real person however it really does make it difficult to stay engaged with a handful of the more character driven moments.

The final act is absolutely incredible! Seeing this film in IMAX has officially been added to my bucket list. Chazelle knows how to make a shot feel remarkable and he manages to make it feel like you are really standing on and looking around the moon with the end of this film. I am curious as to whether or not the sequence on the moon is completely accurate, either way it is incredibly moving and helps to put the rest of the film in context. Having seen the end of this film the first two acts feel less of an issue and even become recontextualised to a extent.

First Man is a really great biopic telling a really great story. It’s a solid base hit showing that Chazelle will be around for a long time to come.

Wow, a heartfelt story of one man's mission to deal with great loss and prove to humankind that it was all worth it. 8.5/10

The trailer for this movie almost gives the wrong impression. First Man is not your usual Hollywood offering and is akin to Interstellar or Arrival. Without giving too much away, this is not so much a story about going to the moon, but about dealing with something even more difficult. The attention to detail, the action sequences, the acting, the photography, and the directing are all superb. It blends moments of tender human interaction with the frantic controversy to win the space race.

I never knew the full story of Neil Armstrong but this movie shows it with real passion and I came away after watching it feeling overcome with emotion and very humbled. First Man takes you on a journey of human discovery. The pressure builds to the inevitable famous sequence but it is overshadowed by a moment which the world never saw... until now, and that is what makes First Man so special and will be remembered for. "To the moon and back" is a phrase that it is used to measure unmeasurable things, like love, and this movie is a beautiful example of that.

If you can, see it in IMAX and take a pack of tissues :-)