Click here: => tritlesima.fastdownloadcloud.ru/dt?s=YToyOntzOjc6InJlZmVyZXIiO3M6MzA6Imh0dHA6Ly9iYW5kY2FtcC5jb21fZHRfcG9zdGVyLyI7czozOiJrZXkiO3M6MTk6IkZsaXJ0IG1hbiAyMDE4IGltZGIiO30=


The main characters all suffer from superficial once overs. Didn't he just come back from the moon!!! 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. One of us was even sick and I only didn't walk out because of the subject material and the hope that it would improve, which thankfully it did for the short moon sequence.

I'm sure, at least at a few points in his life, Neil Armstrong cracked a smile. The inexplicable controversy about the U.



This is my interepretation of a film I wasn't ready to love. Boy, was I wrong. Hansen, director Damien Chazelle and writer Josh Singer took the chronicle of an American triumph and emphasised on the personal story behind it. Through Armstrong's stance, the film makes a clear point: Determination, struggle, sacrifice and most of all failure are key ingredients to someone's eventual success. But in order to achieve success you've got to risk everything, albeit success is never guaranteed. In one scene, Janet Armstrong excellently played by Claire Foy claims that she only wanted to lead an ordinary life with her husband. On the contrary, Neil has made a clear choice: He will try to accomplish his great mission, knowing that it is quite possible his kids will never see their father again. Whenever signs of arrogance, conceit and complacency are shown, they are an omen of failure. On the other hand, Armstrong's attitude is the epitome of how success is to be achieved. He is quite commited to his mission and never behaves immaturely when it comes to it. He is focused on his goal. Family and social life, well that's another story we often see that Armstrong is incapable of communicating or expressing his feelings to his dearest ones. Portraying such an introvert character, Gosling has a sole major moment to shine, in a very important scene which proves to be pivotal in terms of what the movie tries to communicate: USA went to the moon to win the Cold War, while Armstrong, after being marked by tragedy, went to the moon in order to find peace and by the time his daughter's old memento reappears, we assume he has found some. The film is about him; it doesn't care that much about the US agenda. In fact, I thought that it only showed subtle contempt towards the nationalistic celebrations and the passionate political speeches aimed at boosting the spirit of the American people. Moreover, First Man is one of those biopics where you know what is about to happen, but can't help but get caught up in the rising suspense of its great scenes. At their most exciting, these scenes reach a very satisfying climax, rewarding the audience's patience. Directing and cinematography deserve every accolade they have gotten so far. 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. 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. 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. He is portrayed as a colorless technocrat, who is somewhat cold to his family. The movie focuses mainly on his family relationships, and the landing on the moon is somewhat secondary, therefore the movie lacks a lot of drama. This is unfortunate since Armstrong led a very charmed life as a fighter pilot, test pilot, and astronaut. The movie covers three of his serious incidents while flying, and he had at least three more, that could have been covered in a miniseries. A miniseries would have allowed for more in-depth probing of how Armstrong became the man he was. The main characters all suffer from superficial once overs. The astronauts were all household names but you wouldn't know it from this movie. The movie also had a hard time capturing just how terrifying some of the events were. Apollo 13 did a far better job of recounting the terror of that flight. Claire Foy as the wife was ok but she also had a degree of coldness about her. The movie also glosses over the misplaced disdain military pilots had for their civilian counterparts. The complaint was that civilian pilots by virtue of their engineering training were too mechanical and not true flyers. This was not true of Armstrong who got his pilots license at the age of 17. The movie should have started there. He was considered a brilliant engineer by his peers, and he was rightfully selected to be the commander of Apollo 11. That brilliance is not captured on screen. By the end of his career he had flown over 200 different aircraft. He was a giant. I think the movie should have brought that out. 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. First Man, directed by Damien Chazelle cold opens with that I could only describe as an absolutely terrifying look at what it was like to be a test pilot in the 60's, you hear every little nut and bolt warping and you feel every massive unnerving vibration for what felt like an eternity. This set the tone for the rest of the film and signalled that we were in for one hell of a ride. And yet First Man is not just a bunch of planes and rockets flying around, in fact the entire Film is mostly more focused on Neil Armstrong Ryan Gosling and how all of these event leading up to the Moon Landing affected him, specifically his mental state. This is where the film absolutely excels, by chronicling his journey from test pilot all the way to Apollo, losing friends along the way. Gosling and Claire Foy push out really stellar performances here, the relationship between the two seems very very plausible and there is a lot of very emotionally charged scenes between them throughout. The supporting cast is packed to the brim with recognisable faces too, a standout for me was Jason Clarke's performance as Ed White, the first American to EVA in space who at first I thought I really wasn't going to like the character but by the mid-point of the film I was sold. One of the qualities of First Man that I noticed almost instantly was the very unique Cinematography which most of the time uses handheld medium to long telephoto shots creating a very intimate and raw look to the images on screen. The other main quality visually is the fact that most of the film was shot with 2-perf Techniscope film which gives a very organic vintage look, usually i'd take issue with a lower resolution stock for a film like this but here it really fits in with the overall aesthetics. In First Man we do get some really ridiculously stellar space sequences, the way these are edited and shot create almost pure dread, in fact the only time I have felt this on edge was when I saw Gravity for the first time, it is that bloody good. Production design is fantastic and of course when we get to the Apollo sequence the images on the screen are graceful and an utterly mesmerising experience. From impeccably shot terrifying spaceflight to absolute gut wrenching heartbreak, First Man is something to be seen on the biggest screen possible with the loudest sound. I highly recommend this film and the moment this comes out in UltraHD you can be sure I'll be there Day 1. Thanks to Universal Pictures Australia for the invite to the Premiere. First Man is a historical biographical drama film based on the life of astronaut Neil Armstrong, directed by Damien Chazelle Whiplash, La La Land. Starring Ryan Gosling in the lead role, it paints a beautifully told and respectable portrait of the famous astronaut's life and the significance of his contribution to human history. In the 1960s, the space race between the USA and the USSR is at its peak, with the latter having a clear lead over the former. In attempt to outdo the Soviets, the United States plans a manned mission to the moon, with astronaut Neil Armstrong Ryan Gosling being the first to set foot on the lunar surface. Despite the deep personal losses he has endured throughout his training and in his home life, Armstrong agrees to the mission, knowing full well that he may not come back alive. Superbly directed and acted, the film is less a story about the space race itself and more about the struggles and perseverance of titular first man. Ryan Gosling gives what could very well be the performance of his career. His nuanced depiction of Neil Armstrong shows the audience how much the astronaut has to lose if he does not survive such a monumental journey. Claire Foy is also worth noting as Armstrong's first wife Janet. Her concern and worry for her husband's safe return from the moon were brilliantly represented during the film's more emotional scenes. Director Damien Chazelle demonstrates his talent for creative cinematography, showing the vastness of space and how small and insignificant Earth is in comparison. Films like this truly emphasise how much mankind has accomplished in the short amount of time we have existed and further highlight how much more is needed to be done. I personally found it bizarre that it started with Karen already gravely ill. There was no emotional attachment at all. There was no mention of Armstrong's fascination with flight, no mention of joining the navy in order to attend Purdue, leading to his near-fatal Korean war flight experience with the missing wingtip. If I was directing I would have started with his childhood fascination with flight, his scrimping and saving to pay for flying lessons, the fact that he obtained his pilot's licence before his car licence and then I would have built an emotional attachment with Janet and Karen. During the lunar descent, when the very dramatic 1202 and 1201 programme alarms occurred, I would have built the dramatic tension instead of drowning out all the drama with loud music. I would have built the drama with the 30 seconds of fuel remaining and showed the relief at Mission Control when the Eagle touched down safely. I would have showed the discussions concerning crew positions in the lunar module, resulting in Commander Armstrong exiting prior to Buzz and thereby becoming the first to put his boots on the lunar surface. I would have showed the aftermath of reaching his childhood dream, where he was required along with Buzz and Mike to tour the world ceaselessly, spotlighted in the limelight and hating every minute of it. It's a good thing I'm not a director because that's probably what everyone expected, whereas this film is a very different treatment. Some great visual effects and good acting and I liked the way Apollo 1 was handled - it was very respectful. However, I felt the film missed a lot of what made Neil tick - it was hard to engage. 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. Veronica Cartwright's performance as Betty Grissom in The Right Stuff effortlessly blows away all the domestic pseudo verite of this movie. I wanted to like this film, but it is disappointingly superfluous, adding nothing to the genre. It goes to prove Ebert's eternal point that remaking good movies usually results in making lesser films, whereas remaking bad movies might produce something better. Do NOT waste your time on this cynical proctologist's view of the NASA space program. The only real distinction of First Man may be that it's the first over-hyped and over-rated film of next year's Oscar crop. It's a film that is dismally defeated by its own subject matter at every turn. First it wants to be an illuminating, insightful study of Neil Armstrong. But on the evidence of everything it offers, Armstrong was simply not that interesting. If the most startling discovery about your hero is that he was sad about his infant daughter's death, then you're already in deep trouble. Nor is it hugely surprising that a guy who is dedicated to preparing for a mission to the moon isn't exactly a well-rounded, socially adept human being. But many a fascinating film has been built around a cerebral, emotionally-distant, socially awkward character, right? True enough, but it takes an actor with a much greater skill set than Ryan Gosling to make such a character interesting. First Man is essentially two hours of Gosling mooching around trying to find some way of making Armstrong's interior life compelling. But the second big fail of First Man is that it doesn't offer us anything particularly new or interesting about the moon mission. Chazelle's strategy is to eschew the cliches of space movies - the focus on technology and the astronaut's eye view - and stay close on his heroes through interminable sequences in juddering space capsules. There's nothing new about this, other than it being the main, sometimes sole focus. Unfortunately, it becomes tedious long before we get to Apollo 11's trek to the moon. Even the ultimate moon sequence offers little that we don't already know from the grainy footage of the real event that everyone has seen hundreds of times. I was fortunate to see this fantastic movie at a small film festival in Oregon and it was a wonderful cinematic experience. A Visually stunning story of one of the great achievements of humanity. The science is fascinating and the effort behind that science is paid a wonderful tribute. The journey to the moon is as much a spiritual one as a human achievement. The men who made that trip are portrayed in all their humanness and incredible dedication. This is indeed a patriotic film and despite some controversy regarding not depicting the planting of the flag on the moon, flags are everywhere in the movie and the flag is certainly shown at the landing site. There is no doubt this was an American accomplishment and that is clearly celebrated. The inexplicable controversy about the U. It would be a tragedy to allow such nonsense to savage a film that is so inspiring and emotionally satisfying. This is a spectacular, exciting, stunning film and it should be seen by everyone as a reminder of the beauty of what happened in July, 1969. Gosling and Foy are at the top of their game in this one. Damien Chazelle managed to make a perfect moon landing movie that shows both the positives and negatives of the NASA program. Don't go into this thinking it's a huge patriotic, space adventure. What we get is a masterful character study and a story about the emotional and familial effects being an astronaut can have on somebody. The space and launch sequences are absolutely breath taking as well. Do not let the runtime scare you. Every minutes counts and it's all worth it. Well, this movie is being touted as The Best Movie of the Year! If that is the case, they must be talking about a year before television and movies! I was very unhappy with the movie. I expected a movie that captured the awe of such a monumental accomplishment. It totally failed to deliver. The worst part of the movie and it continued through 80% of the movie was the horrible videography! For whatever effect they were going for, what I saw was the effect of having a 5-year-old holding the camera - scenes moving up and down, side to side continuously - almost enough to make you nauseous. Also, a preoccupation with closeups of faces, eyes, etc. And during the rocket scenes the attempts to show vibration and power were horrible and ridiculous! If anything shook that much they would pour you out into a shake when it was over. On the opposite side, the awe of the Saturn V blasting off was totally lost!!! I was in an IMAX theater and the power of this event seemed like any other scene such as driving a car. No rumbling at all! The bright side of the movie was the VERY LIMITED scenes of the moon's surface and the actual event of him stepping onto the moon. Also looking at the Earth from the moon's surface. The movie also poorly explained how Neil Armstrong got picked. The movie portrayed him as somewhat of a screwup and not impressive AT ALL as an aerospace engineer! Was there no passion in this man?? The personal life side was devoid of any positive emotion! It was all downtrodden and negative. To continue - what the heck was up with Neil Armstrong's character? Did he have a lobotomy? The end scene was horrible - him in isolation after WALKING ON THE MOON and his wife walking in to see him - there were no words spoken! Didn't he just come back from the moon!!! Not even a smile between them. There was nothing but silence! To end: where was the coverage of the family as the news was showing their husband and father stepping onto the moon's surface??!!! Nothing was shown on this. The family dropped out of the picture during the most awe-inspiring parts of what was happening. Terribly done movie in my opinion. I am not a film critic or student of the arts, but I do appreciate a good movie and, in my opinion, this was not one. The movie moves at a snail's pace and Chazelle's decision to shoot the majority of the movie with shaky handhelds and extreme closeups led to some real dizzying feelings for me and my wife. I felt a sense of claustrophobia the entire film due to the extreme close up and jump cuts. Maybe I am a bit dense and this is what the filmmaker was going for, but it made it a very uncomfortable experience. I kept waiting for him to pan out! The actual story was a bit long and tedious and we never felt any real connection with the characters. The most intriguing character in the film was Buzz Aldrin and he was passed by -- I need someone to make Second Man!!! Overall, not a pleasant night at the movies. 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. First Man Joins the ranks of movies you'll watch once and never again. How can you make such a important and dramatic seres of events a bore. It turns out it's quite easy... Spend long lingering moments gazing in very close up shots at the two leads, that way you don't have to bother with any dialogue. Instead of bothering with special effects just jiggle the camera around inside what purports to be a tiny manned capsule, keep jiggling it and add some roaring noises and flashing lights, then keep jiggling it uncontrollably, then yes, that's rights, do it all over again... Whatever you do, don't look out the window or show any external shots. The side benefit is that jiggling a camera is a great way to save money. Use that old shakey handheld camera technique and keep shaking it around to pretend everything is authentic - if you like, you can add lots of out of focus shots because of course, that's how the human eye and our perception works doesn't it? This is an awful film, badly made and badly scripted. Worst thing is it is very uninformative. It is so boring you will want to leave half way through, but feel duty bound by the weighty, humourless, seriousness of it all to stay and see it through to the turgid end..... 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. 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'être 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 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. 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. I really wanted to like this movie. But the up-close camera that is constantly in motion made me nauseous in the first 10 minutes of the movie. I can understand it for the action scenes. But why when people are talking? The camera is so close up that you could count Peoples nose hairs, if only the camera would hold still for even a second. I had a bad headache half an hour in the movie. I finally had to go throw up in my popcorn bucket. Never saw the end. It looked more technically accurate than Apollo 13, but the camera work is just plain awful. Don't go see this if you have a weak stomach. It's like Blair Witch meets The Right Stuff. And not in a good way. Much has been said about how visually stunning this movie is so we chose the biggest screen in the country to view it on. It did not take long before we had regretted this choice. All but the sequence on the moon was unworthy of an IMAX screen while the entire rest of the movie was jittery, shaky, extreme and out of focus close ups, crazy pans and tilts, zooming in and out, etc all made doubly irritating because of the size of the screen. Totally ruined the movie for us with many non-action scenes totally unwatchable. It could have even been a 9 out of 10 but for us was barely watchable. One of us was even sick and I only didn't walk out because of the subject material and the hope that it would improve, which thankfully it did for the short moon sequence. I honestly don't understand the attraction to this type of cinematography. We humans simply do not see the world in this way and so this only reminds us that we are watching a movie, thus taking us out of the moment and putting us back in the seat in the cinema, especially so as we often preferred to look at objects in the cinema than at the screen much of the time! However what do I know, it would not surprise me if it gets an Academy Award for cinematography. 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. 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. Pretty much gets a 'meh' from me. The story has been told well in From the Earth to the Moon and the film Moonshot. The visuals are stunning, and I do like the mostly first person point of view which adds immediacy. Gemini missions never looked so dangerous and claustrophic, which is good. But the film-makers had a choice between covering new ground, and retreading the same ground the other films did, and didn't seem to come down firmly on either side. All the drama of the Apollo 11 landing was pretty much sucked out - yes, it's a foregone conclusion how it will end - but they really dumbed it down, to the film's detriment. Aldrin is reduced to a minor character - and not very sympathetically portrayed, though I'm okay with the latter. No doubt people found him abrasive. But we see none of the clashes that are famously portrayed in the other films who gets out first, what should be said. The one thing I thought this movie did better than the others was the actual first step on the moon. I thought From the Earth to the Moon did a slightly comical job, inadvertently, by panning the camera to Armstrong's midsection just as the music swelled. First Man gets this moment right, with a much different musical approach. The scenery looks absolutely real, and the crater that Armstrong flies over in order to land looks as terrifying as it is supposed to, something the other film's could only hint at through dialogue. We all know Armstrong bit his tongue bailing out of the LLTV, but this is one of the many details left out in order to streamline the film. If you just have to see the Stars and Stripes, there's a very nice shot of Armstrong's kids hoisting the flag on their front lawn during a launch.

The movie Apollo 13 was a very good story that I thought put me as close to being an Astronaut as i could get. And during the rocket scenes the attempts to show vibration and power were horrible and ridiculous. Custodes like this truly emphasise how much mankind has accomplished in the short amount of time we have existed and further highlight how much more is needed to be done. The bright side of the movie was the VERY LIMITED scenes of the moon's surface and the actual event of him stepping onto the moon. The science is fascinating and the effort behind that science is paid a wonderful tribute. Much has been said about how visually stunning this movie is so we chose the biggest screen in the country to flirt man 2018 imdb it on. Gosling at his one servile best. Gosling and Claire Foy push out really stellar performances here, the relationship between the two seems very very plausible and there is a lot of very emotionally charged scenes between them throughout. Did he have a lobotomy. No character development to speak of just long lonesome staring off to the note of the camera lens. Gemini missions never looked so dangerous and claustrophic, which is good. It goes to prove Ebert's eternal point that remaking good movies usually results in making lesser films, whereas remaking bad movies might produce something better.