Posted on

First Man

Last night I got to see First Man, the biography of Neil Armstrong, in IMAX. I have been excited about this movie ever since it was announced. I will run to see any movie by director Damien Chazelle. The first moon landing? How can you not see that in IMAX?

This movie continues Chazelle’s theme of protagonists relentlessly in pursuit of their goals, particularly at the cost of their personal relationships. His work fleshing out Andrew Neiman’s drumming obsession and the doomed relationship of LA dreamers Sebastian Wilder & Mia Dolan was excellent practice for portraying the real life Neil Armstrong. I have to admit, I don’t know nearly enough about Armstrong to know if the portrayal was accurate.

Another theme Chazelle continued is his excellent use of music. Music was central to Whiplash and La La Land, two movies about musicians. In First Man, there were two striking musical moments. As they fly to the moon, Armstrong plays a tape that brings us back to an earlier scene with his wife. When Armstrong steps out onto the moon everything becomes haltingly silent. 

Again, I don’t know enough about Armstrong to say the portrayal was accurate, but Ryan Gosling’s performance was excellent. His “more fuel” quip harnessed Armstrong’s solemnity for the funniest moment of the movie. The real star of the show was Claire Foy as his wife Janet Shearon. While Neil puts his head down and drives at his goals, Janet brings to life the conflicts around them; the risks he is taking, the never-ending funerals for his colleagues, his refusal to talk about their lost daughter or the chance he may not return. 

First Man is the weakest of Chazelle’s three films, but that’s not intended as a strong criticism. The biggest problem was handling nearly a decade of events, jumping multiple years a few times. I have read some other reviews describing the non-Armstrong characters as flat. There might be some truth to that, but I think those reviewers are missing the point. This isn’t a movie about NASA, it’s about Neil. 

As I watched First Man I was in genuine awe of NASA’s achievements in putting men on the moon. And yet, I found myself agreeing with the hippies. Was it a wise use of resources? Did we gain much more than bragging rights over the Soviets? I’d like to read up on what we have gained from our research on the moon. But I’m skeptical it was worthwhile, even while recognizing the greatness of the achievement.

The gravity of their achievements was really brought home by how, well, 1960s everything was. You really felt like they were shot up to the moon in a bucket full of bolts. Apollo 1 was a fatal disaster before they even left the surface! 

On a personal note, I loved the bits of celestial mechanics. I was never too interested in physics in school, focusing more on social sciences, but I have become more interested in spaceflight because of the video game Kerbal Space Program. Playing that game has taught me a lot about orbital mechanics and lunar theory. I loved the Gemini 8 scene where Armstrong and David Scott docked with another spacecraft for the first time. I’ve done that! On a, uh computer game…

Posted on

Movies I Watched Recently

Over the past two weeks I have been watching a lot of movies. I have attempted to rank them.

Ex Machina. A great take on the risks of artificial intelligence. Amazingly well executed with a slim but phenomenal cast, perfect use of effects, and unexpected yet useful twists. What a debut by director Alex Garland.

Kingdom of Heaven. The theatrical release has a meager 39% score on Rotten Tomatoes, but I watched the Director’s Cut, which has been described as the most substantial Director’s Cut of all time. This meant the movie was over 3 hours long but I did not find that to be a problem. A fictionalized biopic set in the Crusades, this movie was full of rich characters and compelling conflict. Orlando Bloom was surprisingly good, not great, in the lead role but those around him easily pick up the slack. I think this is Ridley Scott’s best movie.

Incendies. Woof. This movie was disturbing. I can’t remember the last time I watched a subtitled movie but this was worth it. Before the big twist is explained, a main character has a very sudden gasp. And that gasp stuck with me for a while. This was a very interesting take on painful forgiveness.

The Elephant Man. David Lynch was born to direct this movie. I was just in awe of John Hurt and Anthony Hopkins in this one. A really powerful and uplifting film. My favorite part was the plot line in which head nurse Mrs. Mothershead gets Dr. Treves doubting whether he is really helping John Merrick or just making him a different sort of circus act.

Blue Ruin. In this movie, the main character attempts to avenge his parents’ murder from many years ago but there are no flashbacks to bog the story down. They very lightly give you the minimum details you need to figure out what happened. If Ex Machina showed what’s possible with 4 actors, Blue Ruin shows what’s possible in 90 minutes. I will say I found this movie very depressing.

Annihilation. The second film directed by Garland (Ex Machina) this was a fine movie but it didn’t quite hit the mark for me. Natalie Portman did a great job in the lead role, but the rest of the cast wasn’t very memorable. The climax scene absolutely nailed being creepy in a unique manner (I loved that music). Worth seeing but watch any of the above first.

Under The Skin. This was easily the strangest movie of the bunch. I enjoyed the ending and I think director Jonathan Glazer largely accomplished what he was going for (an observation of human life from the perspective of an alien). But too many shots went on uncomfortably long with little payoff.

What movies should I add to my future viewing queue?

Posted on

Mr. Smith Goes To Washington

Last night Kelly and I watched the film Mr. Smith Goes To Washington. This is one of those classics you need to watch at least once in your life (94% at Rotten Tomatoes), so I’m glad I can finally check this one off the list. It was overall a fine movie worth watching. Jimmy Stewart was great as expected. I’ve always thought of myself as loving Stewart as an actor, although to be honest this might be the second movie I’ve actually seen him in. I guess he’s just that good in It’s A Wonderful Life and I’ve seen it that many times (holiday movies are like that).

I caught two allusions to Don Quixote. I’m wondering what the significance of these allusions were and if I missed any more of them. The first was straightforward, a character (I can’t remember who unfortunately) referred to Stewart’s character Jeff Smith as Don Quixote when he is first arriving to Washington. The second, which really caught my attention given the first reference, was when another character told Smith he was fighting windmills (like Quixote). I know Don Quixote is one of the most classic stories of all time but I don’t remember it that well because I read it in Spanish, not English (no kidding).

The supporting case alongside Stewart’s outstanding performance was solid throughout, especially Claude Rains as the senior Senator in Smith’s state. Rains played out the various shades of grey in his character well. This was important to the film as his character was one of very few in the film to actually have moral ambiguities to them. Smith is the white knight while Edward Arnold’s Jim Taylor is the evil cronyist industrialist. I enjoyed seeing Thomas Mitchell (who plays Stewart’s uncle Billy Bailey in It’s A Wonderful Life) fill out a comedic role as reporter Diz Moore in the film.

I don’t have many movie chops when it comes to discussing elements such as camerawork and pacing, but again, I really enjoyed the film. It’s a classic good versus evil story, so there’s not much to compel you besides Stewart’s earnestness and Rain’s performance, but there’s a lot to like. I got a chuckle out of the time capsule elements to the movie, such as the Boy Rangers which Smith leads.