|
Post by hi224 on Sept 29, 2019 0:05:38 GMT
very somber, melancholic look at how space exploration affects us.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,519
Likes: 557
|
Post by gw on Sept 29, 2019 3:29:14 GMT
I enjoyed it too. I was worried that I was losing interest in sci fi movies but after that I am reassured that it's as much the movies as it is my apathy. I give it a solid 8 out of 10.
|
|
japie
Sophomore
@japie
Posts: 252
Likes: 69
|
Post by japie on Oct 1, 2019 19:11:54 GMT
I fell a sleep. Check out HUSTLERS instead. now there is one vuuuccking good movie
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2019 19:37:13 GMT
I fell a sleep. Check out HUSTLERS instead. now there is one vuuuccking good movie What part did you fall asleep to? I'm really confused by the people calling this boring because it actually had a lot of action in it.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Oct 1, 2019 22:54:25 GMT
I really, really liked it too. It was definitely a little slow, but I was never necessarily bored. Everything on the moon was awesome.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2019 22:59:54 GMT
I really, really liked it too. It was definitely a little slow, but I was never necessarily bored. Everything on the moon was awesome. That was one of the best parts, visually speaking. And that opener, damn.
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Oct 1, 2019 23:31:53 GMT
I really, really liked it too. It was definitely a little slow, but I was never necessarily bored. Everything on the moon was awesome. That was one of the best parts, visually speaking. And that opener, damn. Damn Hoytema. Now I have to buy this on Blu-Ray.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Oct 3, 2019 11:37:54 GMT
I thought for a slow burn of a film, it also came across as a bit too hasty in execution to get to the point too quick. It was also a tad dreary. The message\theme was a bit trite and I was a step ahead of it even before it was narrated to us by Pitt. The science seemed a bit bogus and even far-fetched as well. The moon pirate sequence, while visually splendid, was silly and Roy's underwater swim and climb into the rocket just as it was about to take off from Mars was a generic and forced attempt at suspense and both these sequences seemed to belong in another movie, not to mention his superhero jaunt with his magic shield through the rings of Neptune.... I think it is a missed opportunity and not enough visual awe to tie in with the theme. The substance has to reflect within the style make more impact. In its present state, the film is flawed. The narration also kept reminding me of Cpt. Willard in Apocalypse Now. Yes, I felt that the Apocalypse Now (Francis Ford Coppola, 1979) influence proved clear, not just in the narration but the overall plot idea. Other influences—one way or the other—would include Space Cowboys (Clint Eastwood, 2000) and Interstellar (Christopher Nolan, 2014). One might add Congo (Frank Marshall, 1995) as an influence as well. Regarding Space Cowboys, writer-director James Gray cast two of the four "cowboys" from that film (Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland) in prominent parts and also used Loren Dean in a supporting role (Dean played a supporting part in Space Cowboys, too). Plus, the main plot point involving the Jones character in Ad Astra in some ways represents a variation and continuation of his fate in Space Cowboys. And the idea of searching for one's father is highly reminiscent of Interstellar. Overall, I found Ad Astra to be "pretty good," meaning above-average yet certainly less than a full-fledged "good" film. The special effects and visual portrayals of various space landscapes or planets are spectacular. The shots of (or from) the moon, Mars (although I wish that there had been more shots of that planet), Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune all seem memorable. Unfortunately, Gray's coverage of Brad Pitt is too persistently tight—I believe that I saw enough closeups and extreme closeups of Pitt to last a lifetime. Thus Ad Astra's visual scheme is at once splendid and quite flawed. The narrative glides gracefully and I found the mystery to suspenseful, but in the end, there is not much of an emotional punch or payoff. The problem, as I see it, is that Ad Astra strains for surrealism. Yes, outer space lends itself to surrealism and the dream-like quality is intentional, but movies tend to become problematic when everyone speaks or narrates as if in a dream. Conversely, surrealism is more effective when people tend to talk normally and create an emotional edge or realistic tension. Apocalypse Now constitutes a case in point—it is extremely surreal, but it does not strain for surrealism. The characters speak and act in a relatively naturalistic manner. The same is true of Vertigo (Alfred Hitchcock, 1958), High Plains Drifter (Eastwood, 1973), and some of Quentin Tarantino's most notable films. But when everything seems mediated through some meditative trance, as in Ad Astra and perhaps Interstellar, the surrealism feels forced or overdone, the movie loses the tension that it needs, and the ultimate catharsis is thus minimal instead of powerful. That seems to be what happened with Ad Astra. The movie is thus more than a throwaway yet not exactly a profound venture, either. I appreciate it and will see it once more (I viewed it in IMAX this week), but ironically given its obvious big-budget status, the film feels too intellectual or artistic in its approach. That visceral quality that it needs for balance is lacking. I viewed Interstellar in the theater three times and found it "mediocre" on each occasion. It proved visually spectacular, stirringly scored, and conceptually compelling—ambitious and allegorical—but it suffered from too many plot holes and the miscasting of Anne Hathaway as a brainy astronaut. Ad Astra, conversely, is solid in its casting and firmer in its story, even if there are a couple of misfires within the narrative. (For instance, the idea of a flight from Mars to Neptune ever taking just seventy-nine days, even at some distant point in the future, is a real reach. Also, the way that the Pitt character manages to enter a rocket during takeoff also seems implausible, if not impossible.) In short, Ad Astra is something of a paradox: a visually potent film that nonetheless falls into formulaic closeups and a graceful movie that nevertheless strains in its attempts at surrealism. But at least it is nice to see a big-budget outer space blockbuster that unfolds at a slower tempo and strives to be thoughtful and quietly humanistic, even if some of the thematic elements are indeed trite.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Oct 4, 2019 5:06:31 GMT
I never saw Intersellar, not a Nolan or McConaghy fan, kinda wish I had now seen on the big screen so I don't have this one as a point of reference. I was also thinking of Blade Runner 2049 when watching it, while flawed as well, I preferred its presentation and was more awed by the visuals, even if grounded on Earth. Here, the effects did speak volumes.
My sentiments regarding the close-ups of Pitt, I was deriding this every time one happened and perhaps to amuse myself, as I wasn't quite warming to the film. There are some stunning effects and visuals and the film is intelligent, just not sharp. I would be keen to see a director's cut perhaps that might flesh out the narrative a bit more. It was all too quick meeting up with his father and then his sudden fall and manner of demise.
I think Peter Hyams 2010 - 84' is a better film than Ad Astra.
I concur with the summation in bold. I also agree that Blade Runner 2049 (Denis Villeneuve, 2017), which I viewed twice in the theater, is somewhat similar, both in terms of visual grace and straining for surrealism. (Straining for surrealism could also describe Villeneuve's Oscar-nominated Arrival, which I viewed twice in the theater and deemed "lousy," despite its earnestness.) Blade Runner 2049, as you indicated, is even more impressive visually than Ad Astra, featuring some bold and memorable compositions and contrasts. But I deemed the movie "mediocre/lousy"—I found it way too long, leaden, and convoluted, albeit partially redeemed by Roger Deakins' cinematography and the excellent late scene where the Ryan Gosling character suffocates a female adversary underwater. (My goodness: looking up Blade Runner 2049 just now, I see that the length was two hours and forty-four minutes—way too long for a film of its narrative caliber. No wonder I did not care for it despite the visual excellence.) I have not seen 2010; I will look out for it.
|
|
|
Post by darkpast on Oct 4, 2019 5:27:12 GMT
i liked it too, even if the science made no sense
|
|
Caesium137
Sophomore
I am simply not there
@cobalt
Posts: 654
Likes: 305
|
Post by Caesium137 on Oct 4, 2019 9:31:43 GMT
But when everything seems mediated through some meditative trance, as in Ad Astra and perhaps Interstellar, the surrealism feels forcedr or overdone, the movie loses the tension that it needs, and the ultimate catharsis is thus minimal instead of powerful. I disagree with the Interstellar comparison of losing tension. The scene in Interstellar where the massive tidal wave is approaching at breakneck speed and the scene where Cooper has to dock with an out of control spinning mothership, both to amazing scores, are some of the most gripping, tense moments in recent sci-fi. I can't think of anything in Ad Astra that comes close to the edge-of-the seat reaction as that. I agree with this. I think the over-use of voice narration is what makes Ad Astra seem almost too personal. The world building is nice but it feels we are too locked into Brad Pitts headscape to appreciate the world he actually inhabits. Dont agree that it's firmer in its story. The action scene like the moon chase and baboon gone crazy scene really feel out of place and serve no purpose. It felt like the director was forced to include action scenes so that it would appeal to mainstream audiences. There's no real reason for them to go to the distress signal Norwegian ship, it doesn't add anything at all to the main plot other than to show Brad Pitt being a space cowboy hero. Other silly things like boarding a spacecraft before launch, and killing all its crew without even trying are more farfetched than anything in Interstellar.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Oct 5, 2019 20:49:43 GMT
I need more space operas to touch on the thematic qualities of loneliness and polarization in space.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Oct 5, 2019 21:14:35 GMT
very somber, melancholic look at how space exploration affects us. how was ut about how space exploration affects us? How does it affect us?
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Oct 6, 2019 1:06:51 GMT
very somber, melancholic look at how space exploration affects us. how was ut about how space exploration affects us? How does it affect us? nevermind.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Oct 6, 2019 1:27:46 GMT
how was ut about how space exploration affects us? How does it affect us? nevermind. no i mean it, i saw No Msg in Ad Astra whatsoever and would like to jnow what ohers saw in it. i think it will be nominated for cinematography and potentially music but i really struggled to stay i the theatre...it felt so empty and almost poser-ish but maybe i missed something bigger?
|
|
Caesium137
Sophomore
I am simply not there
@cobalt
Posts: 654
Likes: 305
|
Post by Caesium137 on Oct 7, 2019 9:46:12 GMT
no i mean it, i saw No Msg in Ad Astra whatsoever and would like to jnow what ohers saw in it. i think it will be nominated for cinematography and potentially music but i really struggled to stay i the theatre...it felt so empty and almost poser-ish but maybe i missed something bigger? After some reflection, I think the biggest problem with this film is it is too self-conscious. It was wanting to strive for something meaningful and existential, but ended up ultimately hollow and even contrived in execution. Were we supposed to even care about Roy, his father and his hazy— like his relationship with his wife liv Tyler, who literally had a hazy and random presence in the movie—epiphany by the end? This is the whole central engine on which the movie is run on and it falls short because there's very little reason for the audience to care about Roy and his father. All we know of him is voice over thoughts of Brad Pitts character narrated throughout the movie and that isn't enough to forge a convincing bond.
Thinking about it, most other sci-fis recently have tried to do this parent-child connection as the backbone of their story to make us care about the hero in peril, with varying degrees of success. In The Martian, Matt Damon has a brief voiceover narration, like Ad Astra, about missing his parents and hoping that he can see them again whilst he's stranded on Mars. Again, its an example that voice overs are not enough imo to audiences care. Same with Gravity where Sandras character laments over her (dead) daughter on earth. Interstellar and Arrival I think do it best. There's a significant visual element into developing the Mother/Father-Daughter bond and that gives audiences a more powerful grip on the relationship.and makes you care more.
For Ad Astra, I would have liked to see some flashnbacks of Brads character as a kid with his dad maybe showing us him tutoring in math like he said. Anything other than straight exposition.
|
|
Caesium137
Sophomore
I am simply not there
@cobalt
Posts: 654
Likes: 305
|
Post by Caesium137 on Oct 7, 2019 13:23:13 GMT
This is the whole central engine on which the movie is run on and it falls short because there's very little reason for the audience to care about Roy and his father. All we know of him is voice over thoughts of Brad Pitts character narrated throughout the movie and that isn't enough to forge a convincing bond.
Thinking about it, most other sci-fis recently have tried to do this parent-child connection as the backbone of their story to make us care about the hero in peril, with varying degrees of success. In The Martian, Matt Damon has a brief voiceover narration, like Ad Astra, about missing his parents and hoping that he can see them again whilst he's stranded on Mars. Again, its an example that voice overs are not enough imo to audiences care. Same with Gravity where Sandras character laments over her (dead) daughter on earth. Interstellar and Arrival I think do it best. There's a significant visual element into developing the Mother/Father-Daughter bond and that gives audiences a more powerful grip on the relationship.and makes you care more.
For Ad Astra, I would have liked to see some flashnbacks of Brads character as a kid with his dad maybe showing us him tutoring in math like he said. Anything other than straight exposition.
The film was cold— 2001 was cold but intentional—yet strived for warmth of character and\or human connection. It was a failure because of its self-importance, and Pitts phony tears and stoic delivery do not really cut it. I haven't seen The Martian, Gravity or Interstellar, so I don't have that point of reference to make an informed comparison. Peter Hyams under-appreciated 2010 had warmth and connection and was so much more successful in this aspect. Phony tears and stoic delivery. Very well put, thats exactly how I felt about the emotional aspects of Ad Astra.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Oct 8, 2019 0:31:31 GMT
I thought for a slow burn of a film, it also came across as a bit too hasty in execution to get to the point too quick. It was also a tad dreary. The message\theme was a bit trite and I was a step ahead of it even before it was narrated to us by Pitt. The science seemed a bit bogus and even far-fetched as well. The moon pirate sequence, while visually splendid, was silly and Roy's underwater swim and climb into the rocket just as it was about to take off from Mars was a generic and forced attempt at suspense and both these sequences seemed to belong in another movie, not to mention his superhero jaunt with his magic shield through the rings of Neptune.... I think it is a missed opportunity and not enough visual awe to tie in with the theme. The substance has to reflect within the style make more impact. In its present state, the film is flawed. The narration also kept reminding me of Cpt. Willard in Apocalypse Now. the constant voiceover was killing me. and i couldnt makemyself care about anybody in the movie.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Oct 14, 2019 8:14:36 GMT
The length of BR2049 didn't bother me in the slightest, because it kept me intrigued throughout. I have seen twice.
I was in and out of Ad Astra and picking it apart while watching it.
2010 I found to be quite a stunner. I saw it twice in 70mm on initial release and it has an awe-inspiring quality to it that made the journey to Jupiter and the monolith memorable. Perhaps a bit dated in the political scenario, due to 2010 now passing and the effects may also be considered a tad dated, but still visually impressive. Used some then enhanced cgi. It also has a great cast and a warm feel to it.
I am intrigued.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Oct 14, 2019 8:37:28 GMT
But when everything seems mediated through some meditative trance, as in Ad Astra and perhaps Interstellar, the surrealism feels forced or overdone, the movie loses the tension that it needs, and the ultimate catharsis is thus minimal instead of powerful. I disagree with the Interstellar comparison of losing tension. The scene in Interstellar where the massive tidal wave is approaching at breakneck speed and the scene where Cooper has to dock with an out of control spinning mothership, both to amazing scores, are some of the most gripping, tense moments in recent sci-fi. I can't think of anything in Ad Astra that comes close to the edge-of-the seat reaction as that. I agree with this. I think the over-use of voice narration is what makes Ad Astra seem almost too personal. The world building is nice but it feels we are too locked into Brad Pitts headscape to appreciate the world he actually inhabits. Dont agree that it's firmer in its story. The action scene like the moon chase and baboon gone crazy scene really feel out of place and serve no purpose. It felt like the director was forced to include action scenes so that it would appeal to mainstream audiences. There's no real reason for them to go to the distress signal Norwegian ship, it doesn't add anything at all to the main plot other than to show Brad Pitt being a space cowboy hero. Other silly things like boarding a spacecraft before launch, and killing all its crew without even trying are more farfetched than anything in Interstellar. I concur that Interstellar does not lack for tension. Although I referenced the film in that sentence, I really mean that that movie, like Ad Astra, arguably strains for surrealism and is overly dream-like. But in tone and tenor, they are quite different—there is certainly greater urgency to Interstellar. Regarding narrative "firmness," I take your point and you offer something worth pondering. By "firmness," I was referring to the plausibility of various plot points, mainly from a scientific perspective. Although there are some scientific or logistical weaknesses in Ad Astra, I thought that there were a lot more in Interstellar (although I would be hard-pressed to describe them now). I would say that Ad Astra is less far-fetched from a conceptual or scientific perspective. In the sense that it may represent more commercial writing and clichéd storytelling, you may be correct. I found the moon chase sequence to be worthwhile, though, both from a visual perspective and by adding suspense and a thoughtful or plausible scenario for what commercialized space travel and colonization could one day mean. The baboon scene is more out-of-the-blue, but again it adds some suspense, places the hero in temporary jeopardy, and enhances the surrealism of the saga and the sense of an epic voyage akin to Odysseus or what have you. But as you indicated, the constant voice-over narration is problematic—it renders the surrealism too self-conscious and too soft-pedaled. In Apocalypse Now, conversely, the narration seems more judicious, and it is certainly not sentimental.
|
|