User reviews

I saw this movie at a sneak preview, and I had high expectations given the hype, but sadly, this was no "The Right Stuff." The problem may lie in the main character on which the movie is based, Neil Armstrong. 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.

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...

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.

'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

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,

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 begins in 1961, and hits all the beats you would expect in the lead up to the Apollo 11 mission in 1969; the death of his daughter, Karen (Lucy Stafford) from a brain tumour; his acceptance into Project Gemini; NASA's shock at the Soviet's successes in the Space Race; his selection as commander of Gemini 8; the death of Ed White (Jason Clarke), Gus Grissom (Shea Whigham), and Roger Chaffee (Cory Michael Smith) during a plugs-out test of Apollo 1; Armstrong's selection as commander of Apollo 11; his marriage problems with his first wife, Janet (Claire Foy); the lunar landing alongside Buzz Aldrin (Corey Stoll); and his private sojourn to the Lunar East crater.

With this framework, 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. 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.

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 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 - in The Believer (2001), Drive (2011), and, especially, Blade Runner 2049 (2017) - and this familiarity doesn't help matters. Instead of giving the character hidden depth, the few discernible traits he possesses 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 choose to locate Armstrong's primary motivation in the death of his daughter, 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; 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 a bracelet belonging to her into the Lunar East crater and cries a few tears. At one point, Janet reveals that he 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.

Did he really drop the bracelet into the crater? 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 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 almost 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 altogether, creating an eerie, otherworldly moment that literally gave me goosebumps.

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).

This movie is incredible! Brilliant Acting, intense rocket flights and a unbelievably beautiful Soundtrack. A glimpse into the life of Neil Armstrong. No hero. Never was, never will be. Just a civilian with willpower and a goal. Nothing more to say. For me its a masterpiece and I can not understand the bad review.

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.

Very impactful, truly expressing the vulnerability, commitment, risk, and personal cost to those who braved the journey for humanity.

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). Maybe that's the point of the film, we're not *supposed* to know anyone because Armstrong himself was so private and unengaged with those around him.

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.

For those who have the transcript of the landing memorized, though, it's a bit too bad not to hear "413 is in" and much of the other famous dialogue - "drifting to the right a little", "picking up some dust."

Worth seeing for the visuals and the Gemini 8 portrayal but all in all seemed, to me, to be a bit shallow. 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.

Oh, and the idiotic "where is the flag" controversy is completely unjustified. 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 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.

My son and I both almost fell asleep in this movie.

While the film is technically superb, visually stunning, and artfully portrayed, it's just so SLOW. The tone is very melancholy. At the end everyone just kind of walked out of the theater with their heads down. It was a depressing experience.

I really expected First Man to be something in the realm of Apollo 13 (1995), but I was wrong. Since I am fascinated by history and my favorite types of movies are those based on true stories, I had to see this. But it was a missed opportunity. The director really blew it., since he could have made it an interesting, up-tempo, high-spirited movie. Instead he made it the opposite of all those things.

I love this film.

This isn't sci-fi; this isn't fantasy. This isn't a family movie. This is the experience of being Neil Armstrong over the course of several years and several missions. I found it incredibly interesting.

If you don't have a big TV screen and surround sound then I recommend not watching the movie because the air/space missions in this movie are beautiful and need to be properly experience or they won't be appreciated.

One of the most amazing stories ever told, and one of mankind's greatest ever feats, putting a man on the Moon, this film tells the remarkable story of Neil Armstrong, we learn something about the famous man before his incredible endeavours, the hardship he endured, and some of what drive him.

On the plus side, the story, as we all know it's incredible, I felt this was told in a very respectful, dry style, events weren't sensationalised, it somehow feels informative. Incredibly well acted, Gosling and Foy are both terrific throughout. Best of all, the visuals, it looks incredible, sets, props, effects are somehow in keeping, it always feels earthly, it never ventures into Sci Fi.

On the downside, it's too slow, some of the scenes are endless, it could have been edited to feel a little sharper, it also feels repetitive. The film's length is the major flaw, it's way too long, it's hard not to get a little restless, a little fidgety in your chair, the pacing isn't such that you'll be glued to the edge of your seat. It's hard to engage with Armstrong or any of the characters, you're not given anything to make you warm to them.

It's mildly entertaining, incredibly well made, it feels accurate, I feel it's a film that seems to inform, more so than entertain.

If you're in the right frame of mind, you may just enjoy it, 7/10.

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.

Good biography of Neil Armstrong - First man on the moon But must admit was expecting a lot more - Probably spoiled by "Apollo 13" so expected a comparison but not to be. Thought the 2 main characters were quite flat but the Moon trip was good. OK film but expected a lot more.

First Man is not the film for air-punching relief at the end of tense scenes of danger which have been preceded by tender scenes making us care about the people in those moments; this is not to say that on this basis alone that it is a better film than those that do these things, but it is certainly different. There is an emotional core to the film but mostly it is deliberately distant, cold, and balanced. The Armstrong of the film is all these things, and the film follows him in that way. There are no big moments to speak of - even the moon walk is reflective and silent.

This produces a film that engages by how consistent it is, and the feeling of accuracy and observation. It runs long but if you get the feel/pace early on then it doesn't feel it. Instead it offers more character in Armstrong, as hard as it is at times to like him, it is engaging for how he is. The downside of this approach is that the film can be boring if you aren't going with it or if you wanted it to be more like Apollo 13. While at times I wanted it to have at least some scenes like that, it worked well without them, and the impact of the opening scenes ripples through the final ones because of how restrained it all is.

Chazelle's direction gets this tone right, and produces a convincing performance from Gosling. It is an odd one because it seems so featureless but yet there is a lot there. He is well supported by a host of recognizable but not too recognizable faces, but it is Claire Foy who gives the film its heart, and pulls off the difficult job of having the human, emotional moments but yet not making them feel like they are breaking out into a different film.

First Man is slow and deliberate, but it works for what it sets out to do, and plays like a responsible, balanced, and even-handed bopic which manages to have more of an emotional impact due to how little of it is worn on the sleeve or shouted over the orchestra.