First Man (2018)

All non-Nolan related film, tv, and streaming discussions.
User avatar
Posts: 19590
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
FYI, there's probably less than 5 minutes of IMAX in the entire movie. As spectacular as it is, I can't recommend folks inconvenience themselves to seek it out in that format.

On the movie itself, Chazelle is too talented not to make something extremely impressive but I'm mixed. Domestic scenes are shot like Super 8 home movies, a bouncing and chaotic camera with rapid cutting and a sense the drama is spontaneous and unorganized----as far from the tight and controlled Chazelle in Whiplash and La La Land. The "planning" scenes, few though they are, are coolly methodical and detached in tone and style from the domestic. And finally the set pieces are, forgive me, unambiguously low budget and lack the necessary scale. Quite frankly, similar scenes have already been executed with far more scale, beauty and terror in Interstellar. These disparate and unfocused aspects never cohere into a fully satisfying film.

It's still poignant and powerful and often very intense but never quite coheres in all it wants to do.


-Vader

User avatar
Posts: 42660
Joined: May 2010
Vader182 wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 12:53 am
FYI, there's probably less than 5 minutes of IMAX in the entire movie. As spectacular as it is, I can't recommend folks inconvenience themselves to seek it out in that format.

On the movie itself, Chazelle is too talented not to make something extremely impressive but I'm mixed. Domestic scenes are shot like Super 8 home movies, a bouncing and chaotic camera with rapid cutting and a sense the drama is spontaneous and unorganized----as far from the tight and controlled Chazelle in Whiplash and La La Land. The "planning" scenes, few though they are, are coolly methodical and detached in tone and style from the domestic. And finally the set pieces are, forgive me, unambiguously low budget and lack the necessary scale. Quite frankly, similar scenes have already been executed with far more scale, beauty and terror in Interstellar. These disparate and unfocused aspects never cohere into a fully satisfying film.

It's still poignant and powerful and often very intense but never quite coheres in all it wants to do.


-Vader
Very surprising reaction from you.

User avatar
Posts: 10533
Joined: March 2012
Location: The Rose City
Some of this does seem familiar although I do think from a filmmaking standpoint it does often impress. The first half is where I think It could use some tuning up. The third act is some of his best work. I found myself in awe of quite a few shots. Perhaps what I enjoyed most was the flashbacks incorporated throughout the finale and most of all the last scene. This feels lesser than his previous two films overall though.

User avatar
Forum Pro
Posts: 3406
Joined: October 2014
Location: Philly
Vader182 wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 12:53 am
FYI, there's probably less than 5 minutes of IMAX in the entire movie. As spectacular as it is, I can't recommend folks inconvenience themselves to seek it out in that format.

On the movie itself, Chazelle is too talented not to make something extremely impressive but I'm mixed. Domestic scenes are shot like Super 8 home movies, a bouncing and chaotic camera with rapid cutting and a sense the drama is spontaneous and unorganized----as far from the tight and controlled Chazelle in Whiplash and La La Land. The "planning" scenes, few though they are, are coolly methodical and detached in tone and style from the domestic. And finally the set pieces are, forgive me, unambiguously low budget and lack the necessary scale. Quite frankly, similar scenes have already been executed with far more scale, beauty and terror in Interstellar. These disparate and unfocused aspects never cohere into a fully satisfying film.

It's still poignant and powerful and often very intense but never quite coheres in all it wants to do.


-Vader
hm

i agree with most or all of this, but i think it worked a lot better for me

felt sorta like Chazelle tried to mash Tree of Life, 2001, and Whiplash all into one movie. it’s not perfect like you said, and Interstellar’s definitely a significantly better film (especially on the effects side), but i was engrossed all the same

ditto in regards to IMAX - the one sequence was great, but not worth the extra cash

User avatar
Posts: 19590
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
I agree with both of you on all points. The final 15-20 minutes (and third act overall) is the strongest section of the film and quite stunning.

I was shocked that this really feels like an arty mood piece wrangling with its duties as a biopic. IE: I went in thinking this would be a nice movie to bring my dad to see and left thinking fuck no, he would hate this.

(Jackie, for example, felt more fully committed to its avant garde leanings.)


-Vader

Posts: 3551
Joined: January 2011
Location: Here?
Vader182 wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 1:54 am
I agree with both of you on all points. The final 15-20 minutes (and third act overall) is the strongest section of the film and quite stunning.

I was shocked that this really feels like an arty mood piece wrangling with its duties as a biopic. IE: I went in thinking this would be a nice movie to bring my dad to see and left thinking fuck no, he would hate this.

(Jackie, for example, felt more fully committed to its avant garde leanings.)


-Vader
Well fuck... I was going to bring my dad to see this, this weekend lol

User avatar
Posts: 42660
Joined: May 2010
Sight unseen should this really be compared to Interstellar? One of Nolan’s messiest films that’s trying to do a million different things.

User avatar
Posts: 19590
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
Allstar wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 2:05 am
Sight unseen should this really be compared to Interstellar? One of Nolan’s messiest films that’s trying to do a million different things.
The space sequences are nearly identical not just in what physically occurs--ships docking, spinning, exploding--but in the style used.

Static camera lodged on wings and fins, handheld shots out of tiny cockpit windows, big models with black backdrops, cutting into close-up of docking machinery before cutting to medium or wide.

And going in for the kill: they both feature Nathan Crowley as P.D.


-Vader

User avatar
Posts: 42660
Joined: May 2010
Vader182 wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 2:14 am
Allstar wrote:
October 12th, 2018, 2:05 am
Sight unseen should this really be compared to Interstellar? One of Nolan’s messiest films that’s trying to do a million different things.
The space sequences are nearly identical not just in what physically occurs--ships docking, spinning, exploding--but in the style used.

Static camera lodged on wings and fins, handheld shots out of tiny cockpit windows, big models with black backdrops, cutting into close-up of docking machinery before cutting to medium or wide.

And going in for the kill: they both feature Nathan Crowley as P.D.


-Vader
I see, fair enough. That said...technical elements aside they seem like radically different movies. Ad Astra might be an even more interesting comparison being fiction and shot by Hoyte.

User avatar
Posts: 19807
Joined: June 2011
Location: The Ashes of Gotham
Not to lower one as to raise the other, but I felt like Chazelle succeeds in shooting his movie more like a documentary than Nolan did with Interstellar.

Post Reply