All good observations and I agree wholeheartedly with both of you. To me this movie was pretty clearly anti-faith in the beyond/what we can't see and very much pro-faith in what's right in from of you.
*** AD ASTRA *** (Brad Pitt, Tommy Lee Jones)
27,980 Views |
188 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by oragator
I saw this yesterday evening and the more I think about it, the less I think I like it.
Same. I definitely appreciate the effort and themes and ideas that went into it, but the more you think about it, the less it all holds together.
Yeah... like it feels like a better movie than it is, if that makes sense.
Like the scene under the rocket, when it's happening you're like 'whoa this is weird/cool' and then now I'm like "wait did he just break into a rocket by swimming underneath it? wtf?"
It's like if you got Christopher Nolan to film your family eating dinner.
Like the scene under the rocket, when it's happening you're like 'whoa this is weird/cool' and then now I'm like "wait did he just break into a rocket by swimming underneath it? wtf?"
It's like if you got Christopher Nolan to film your family eating dinner.
So the top team that was sent to save the solar system, was already minus one thanks to space monkeys, ended up practically killing themselves when faced with the possibility of hand to hand combat?
Did the co-pilot that froze during the landing die of a heart attack when Pitt snuck into the rocket? How could he keep passing those psych tests with all that panic?
Most of the score reminded me of playing my granddad's old electric organ trying to get the windows in the house to start rattling. Now I understand why that would annoy him so much.
Did the co-pilot that froze during the landing die of a heart attack when Pitt snuck into the rocket? How could he keep passing those psych tests with all that panic?
Most of the score reminded me of playing my granddad's old electric organ trying to get the windows in the house to start rattling. Now I understand why that would annoy him so much.
Not gonna lie. Reading this thread has me the most disappointed I can recall in recent memory about a movie. We don't get enough good space/scifi movies, was really hoping this would be good.
Good read
Best review I've read yet that probably most accurately shares my feelings and I think best articulates the "atheism" angle we were discussing earlier...
https://cinemasangha.com/2019/09/26/ad-astra-god-is-dead/
https://cinemasangha.com/2019/09/26/ad-astra-god-is-dead/
Quote:
In Pitt's occasional narrations he talks about how he has a rage in him, how he's been not great in his life, how he treated people badly, but we never see this. The movie never bothers to dramatize this (although the Surge is clearly a metaphor for it), just as it never bothers to dramatize Roy and Cliff's relationship. This is a movie where half the situation is told to you, explicitly, and the other half is your responsibility to fill in. And I don't mean fill in with logic Ad Astra asks you to fill in emotional gaps, to bring your own life and understanding to these characters and provide the mortar that goes between the bricks, that makes them stick together.
Visuals were great. Really everything about it was great.... except for the plot. It was ass
The plot was seriously so low level compared to the rest of the film.
Technically they did pretty solid from a physics perspective. Nothing happened imo that depreciated the quality of the movie in that regard. I doubt they would've flown right by both Jupiter and Saturn (though I'm glad they included them as I liked seeing them), and why did the monkey explode?
The plot was seriously so low level compared to the rest of the film.
Technically they did pretty solid from a physics perspective. Nothing happened imo that depreciated the quality of the movie in that regard. I doubt they would've flown right by both Jupiter and Saturn (though I'm glad they included them as I liked seeing them), and why did the monkey explode?
israeliag said:
I watched this one yesterday, and cam out of it thinking it was good not great. But, the more I sit on it, reflect on it, and even read y'all's comments, the more I'm moving this to the great territory.
I avoided all trailers and previews, but did hear/read that it was more meditative than action, which helped me set into it a bit. If anything, at first I thought - sorta in line with TC - that there was too much action. The action scenes, while profoundly cool given their physics, felt out of place and unrelated to the character growth and plot. But, in the connection to Heart of Darkness, there's a descent in evolution of each existential threat to Pitt's character: first being a technological threat - this sort of apex of evolution with a space antenna (should have been a space-elevator, but minor quibble) failing; then space piracy as a step down in evolution to a more primitive near-anarchistic threat; then a literal primal threat from the space monkeys; to a mindless drone-like threat from the three crew members on the Aephus.
The father-son themes were particularly poignant to me, and even though they were transparent, there was more below the surface. This idea of trying to be a better version of your father without truly examining his fallacies, but then, when confronted with the truth of his errors, growing not just further than him, but beyond the boundaries of this image of your father. Although nearly impossible to portray a father/son conflict without Christian allegories, the stand in of that relationship to that of Christ and God, and the questions and theories it brought up, was even more touching to me - which was perhaps my biggest surprise of the movie as an agnostic Jew: maybe this is an obvious thinking in Christianity, maybe its heretical, but the concept of the son atoning not for the sins of his peers, but for the sins of his father really opened my eyes to how you can reconcile the god of the Old Testament with the god of the New Testament (not to mention that the father than sacrificed himself to allow for the son to go forth unburdened). Jones' character, like the OG god, was literally causing catastrophes on Earth because some people didn't follow his command, and it was his son which had to speak to him and fix the danger.
Agreed with others about the voice over (and the title card explaining Ad Astra) and that it felt more of a producer's hand rather than the director's original intent, but despite, and given all the layering of themes, this is a movie I want to watch again (at home) to try and unpack more (or see if all my thoughts are just bull****).
Well said
Also - I sat next to @TheEyeGuy and held him while he slept.
I thoroughly enjoyed the film. Didn't think too hard about it or during it. Visuals stunning. Acting good. Yeah plot suffers, but it suffers in a lot of films
It was solid. Period.
It was solid. Period.
Saw this recently and was pretty disappointed. I wasn't expecting a space action movie like some, but I was let down by the movie overall. The cinematic and score was great, but the movie just felt too slow and too disjointed. It just felt like it couldn't find itself. Pitt did a good job, but I felt the voiceovers didn't do anything for the movie.
Still hoping to get to see this soon, despite the multitude of negative and lukewarm reviews on here. I guess my expectations are tempered, so maybe I'll enjoy it more than if I had gotten to see it opening weekend. Dang work keeps getting in the way.
veryfuller
Joined:
Jul 2, 2018
Posts:
677
User Profile
Private Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Staff
AG
I thought this movie was excellent. I get the ways people on here have said it doesn't work for them, but it all worked for me.
To me, voice over implies a certain genre, and implies something about the person doing the voiceover; mostly that they are in internal person who can't make connections with others. We as the audience would not understand that person without the voiceover in the time we have with the character. Is it a crutch? Maybe, but I think it can be a storytelling shorthand, and it did not bother me in this movie. I would be intrigued to see it without it, because unlike some reviews I have read, I DO think Pitt's performance could stand on its own outside of the voiceover. He was good in this.
The action scenes also felt connected to the whole. The one on the moon was a bit world building-y, but also revealed more of Pitt's character, his coolness under fire, his abilities as a soldier, etc. His response to the loss of the driver of his car v. his response to the loss of the captain after the baboon attack (crazy) also show some opening up in him.
And the ending was perfection. It did feel earned to me. Pointed not preachy. It was good, IMO.
To me, voice over implies a certain genre, and implies something about the person doing the voiceover; mostly that they are in internal person who can't make connections with others. We as the audience would not understand that person without the voiceover in the time we have with the character. Is it a crutch? Maybe, but I think it can be a storytelling shorthand, and it did not bother me in this movie. I would be intrigued to see it without it, because unlike some reviews I have read, I DO think Pitt's performance could stand on its own outside of the voiceover. He was good in this.
The action scenes also felt connected to the whole. The one on the moon was a bit world building-y, but also revealed more of Pitt's character, his coolness under fire, his abilities as a soldier, etc. His response to the loss of the driver of his car v. his response to the loss of the captain after the baboon attack (crazy) also show some opening up in him.
And the ending was perfection. It did feel earned to me. Pointed not preachy. It was good, IMO.
I liked it.......a lot.
I finally got to see this today (helps to get to the theater on a day when the Aggies aren't playing).
The thought that went through my head when I left the theater - strange movie. I've been going over it since I got home. Early on, I had a thought along the lines of really liking the "world" that they had built. But then it was mostly downhill in my thinking from there. I don't believe I could agree with all this technological advancement fitting with the opening credit line of "In the near future" but that's a minor point.
As the movie plays out, I do believe it had some difficulty knowing exactly what it wanted to be. The actiony sequence on the moon was neat but didn't really feel right for this kind of movie. Later, the underwater sequence to get into the ship, ascending a ladder next to the engine bell, huh?
This was a cold, emotionless movie for me. The more I think about it, though, I believe that's what they were going for with both the McBride characters. Mission accomplished? But the lack of emotion in this movie hampered my ability to connect with Roy's character. The connection between a son and his dad should resonate but in this case, it did not. Probably a lot to do with the set-up, with the dad having left when Roy was 16 and lost contact altogether by the time Roy was 29. And when we finally get to see Pitt and Jones on the screen together, we see two men who are largely emotionless.
And then the biggest problem I had with the movie - there was no indication of time passing after Roy first encounters his dad, who has just said that he knew his leaving would widow the mom and orphan Roy, and that he essentially needed to leave them as if they were weights holding him down, and how his mission was infinite (the search for ET) ... and then we see Roy helping dear old dad get dressed out for space flight. And then there they are going outside, and dad just wants to freaking die. Typically, I'd expect to see some kind of push back against the son by the dad for the son wanting to dissuade him from pursuing his mission. Nothing of the kind happens. It felt like there were likely a bunch of scenes left on the cutting room floor.
Now on to the things that I liked. The visual effects were fantastic. I loved the sweeping views of both Jupiter (which actually may have been undersized against the ship, but whatever) and Saturn, and from my distant study of astronomy, I think they nailed the look of Neptune. I can see why this movie would have been best viewed in IMAX. The score was effective as well. Space monkeys! Holy crap, that part was awesome. Then followed up by the duct tape silliness. I also liked the religious references, and agree with some of the earlier posts that this may have been more a commentary on what does not exist (as with ET, God - although I very much disagree with that implication) rather than being some faith-based story.
I really wanted to like this movie more than I did. I absolutely did not need an action-packed movie ala Battlestar Galactica or The Black Hole; I was actually hoping for something more akin to Interstellar.
The thought that went through my head when I left the theater - strange movie. I've been going over it since I got home. Early on, I had a thought along the lines of really liking the "world" that they had built. But then it was mostly downhill in my thinking from there. I don't believe I could agree with all this technological advancement fitting with the opening credit line of "In the near future" but that's a minor point.
As the movie plays out, I do believe it had some difficulty knowing exactly what it wanted to be. The actiony sequence on the moon was neat but didn't really feel right for this kind of movie. Later, the underwater sequence to get into the ship, ascending a ladder next to the engine bell, huh?
This was a cold, emotionless movie for me. The more I think about it, though, I believe that's what they were going for with both the McBride characters. Mission accomplished? But the lack of emotion in this movie hampered my ability to connect with Roy's character. The connection between a son and his dad should resonate but in this case, it did not. Probably a lot to do with the set-up, with the dad having left when Roy was 16 and lost contact altogether by the time Roy was 29. And when we finally get to see Pitt and Jones on the screen together, we see two men who are largely emotionless.
And then the biggest problem I had with the movie - there was no indication of time passing after Roy first encounters his dad, who has just said that he knew his leaving would widow the mom and orphan Roy, and that he essentially needed to leave them as if they were weights holding him down, and how his mission was infinite (the search for ET) ... and then we see Roy helping dear old dad get dressed out for space flight. And then there they are going outside, and dad just wants to freaking die. Typically, I'd expect to see some kind of push back against the son by the dad for the son wanting to dissuade him from pursuing his mission. Nothing of the kind happens. It felt like there were likely a bunch of scenes left on the cutting room floor.
Now on to the things that I liked. The visual effects were fantastic. I loved the sweeping views of both Jupiter (which actually may have been undersized against the ship, but whatever) and Saturn, and from my distant study of astronomy, I think they nailed the look of Neptune. I can see why this movie would have been best viewed in IMAX. The score was effective as well. Space monkeys! Holy crap, that part was awesome. Then followed up by the duct tape silliness. I also liked the religious references, and agree with some of the earlier posts that this may have been more a commentary on what does not exist (as with ET, God - although I very much disagree with that implication) rather than being some faith-based story.
I really wanted to like this movie more than I did. I absolutely did not need an action-packed movie ala Battlestar Galactica or The Black Hole; I was actually hoping for something more akin to Interstellar.
As far as the duct tape goes, I thought the only reason for that was to hide the face wounds from the crew. Of course, they show his face as soon as he's back, so maybe not.
I'm going to write this before I re-read the thread and look at the spoilers.
Let me begin by saying that I was born in 1949 and grew up watching sci-fi movies in the local theater and reading Ray Bradbury. I love the stuff.
The script of this movie was garbage. Just terrible. It's as if some sophomore film major fresh from a "God is Dead" philosophy seminar wrote it, and I say that as someone who is not especially religious.
Hollywood writers never cease to amaze me by their hubris in trying to write an attack on "religion" when they have nothing but simplistic, stereotyped views of it. The bad guy--Kurtz in Heart of Darkness--is a RELIGIOUS ZEALOT (!?!?!) who has access to some amazing technology which has somehow been able to scrutinize every inch of the universe and determined that there is no other life except us. Apparently that idea also means that there is no God, though I don't follow the logic of that argument.
The religious references in the story are leaden, heavy-handed, and clearly the products of writers who have no sympathy whatsoever for a religious perspective. Tommy Lee Jones can act when he wants to, but his portrayal of the crazed colonel in the first view of him--as he mentions God and puts his hand over his heart--is so over the top as to be impossible to see as sincere.
The characters are all cardboard--I didn't care about any of them, which makes the ending quite a waste.
Contact, which deals with the same theme that "we are alone: all we have is each other," is a MUCH better movie that manages to treat the religious perspective with great respect. Interstellar, which also deals with the cost of leaving family behind, is a MUCH better movie.
And what do the moon pirates have to do with anything? Nothing.
What do the space monkeys have to do with anything? Nothing.
And Roy isn't going to face any legal consequences for killing the three crew members on the official mission?
I agree with those in the thread who said very astutely that the point of the movie was not to devote yourself to some abstract cause and to focus on the here and now. I object to the overly simplistic notion promulgated in the film that religious people are unable to balance relationships with both the divine being and with other humans.
I am very disappointed. I had high expectations.
Let me begin by saying that I was born in 1949 and grew up watching sci-fi movies in the local theater and reading Ray Bradbury. I love the stuff.
The script of this movie was garbage. Just terrible. It's as if some sophomore film major fresh from a "God is Dead" philosophy seminar wrote it, and I say that as someone who is not especially religious.
Hollywood writers never cease to amaze me by their hubris in trying to write an attack on "religion" when they have nothing but simplistic, stereotyped views of it. The bad guy--Kurtz in Heart of Darkness--is a RELIGIOUS ZEALOT (!?!?!) who has access to some amazing technology which has somehow been able to scrutinize every inch of the universe and determined that there is no other life except us. Apparently that idea also means that there is no God, though I don't follow the logic of that argument.
The religious references in the story are leaden, heavy-handed, and clearly the products of writers who have no sympathy whatsoever for a religious perspective. Tommy Lee Jones can act when he wants to, but his portrayal of the crazed colonel in the first view of him--as he mentions God and puts his hand over his heart--is so over the top as to be impossible to see as sincere.
The characters are all cardboard--I didn't care about any of them, which makes the ending quite a waste.
Contact, which deals with the same theme that "we are alone: all we have is each other," is a MUCH better movie that manages to treat the religious perspective with great respect. Interstellar, which also deals with the cost of leaving family behind, is a MUCH better movie.
And what do the moon pirates have to do with anything? Nothing.
What do the space monkeys have to do with anything? Nothing.
And Roy isn't going to face any legal consequences for killing the three crew members on the official mission?
I agree with those in the thread who said very astutely that the point of the movie was not to devote yourself to some abstract cause and to focus on the here and now. I object to the overly simplistic notion promulgated in the film that religious people are unable to balance relationships with both the divine being and with other humans.
I am very disappointed. I had high expectations.
As this thread progresses, I become further convinced that not seeing this movie was the correct decision.
I saw this today. The action scenes seemed out of place but the movie was so freaking visually stunning. I never looked at it and thought CGI (except for the shuttle ride to TLJ's ship; that seemed off for some reason, maybe Neptune's glow).
I can see what the writer and director were hoping for but this movie fell short of its goal. Lots of good points already stated here but I have to dive back into the moon buggies in a "war zone" that seemed lacking in functionality. If they could build rockets and bases, why not buggies with armor or vehicle mounted weapons?
I can see what the writer and director were hoping for but this movie fell short of its goal. Lots of good points already stated here but I have to dive back into the moon buggies in a "war zone" that seemed lacking in functionality. If they could build rockets and bases, why not buggies with armor or vehicle mounted weapons?
While watching that, with the knowledge that there were pirates out there as previously mentioned in the movie, I wondered why, with the ability to send people all the way to the far reaches of our solar system, did they not just send these guys via a shuttle craft to the station on the dark side of the moon? Nothing about that sequence made any sense.bearamedic99 said:
I saw this today. The action scenes seemed out of place but the movie was so freaking visually stunning. I never looked at it and thought CGI (except for the shuttle ride to TLJ's ship; that seemed off for some reason, maybe Neptune's glow).
I can see what the writer and director were hoping for but this movie fell short of its goal. Lots of good points already stated here but I have to dive back into the moon buggies in a "war zone" that seemed lacking in functionality. If they could build rockets and bases, why not buggies with armor or vehicle mounted weapons?
and yet it made more sense than a space station taken over by baboons
PS- I think audiences were expecting more action due to the trailer showing the moon buggy battle.
PS- I think audiences were expecting more action due to the trailer showing the moon buggy battle.
I suggest some of you that are questioning why things happened that seemed out of place read (or re-read) Heart of Darkness.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. It's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill
I'm all ears. I would seriously love to hear what you have to say about it.
The space pirates mean that humans have evil within them? The space monkeys mean that we descend from wild beasts?
The space pirates mean that humans have evil within them? The space monkeys mean that we descend from wild beasts?
Saw it this weekend. I wish I had just RedBoxed it.
Here is a link to a good summary.OldArmy71 said:
I'm all ears. I would seriously love to hear what you have to say about it.
The space pirates mean that humans have evil within them? The space monkeys mean that we descend from wild beasts?
Bottom line is that setting Heart of Darkness in space rather than on a river in Vietnam is a much harder thing to do in terms of making it a point by point translation.
Addressing some/most of the themes (good list here) and events in Heart of Darkness is probably the main reason for things like the fight with the space pirates and the "space monkeys". It also explains the use of narration.
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy. It's inherent virtue is the equal sharing of miseries." - Winston Churchill
I have read Heart of Darkness.
I have taught it at several universities.
I doubt that I am going to learn much about it from Shmoop.
I thought maybe YOU had some insights you wanted to share.
I have taught it at several universities.
I doubt that I am going to learn much about it from Shmoop.
I thought maybe YOU had some insights you wanted to share.
Saw it Friday. I really enjoyed it. I thought it was excellent science fiction and visually stunning. It was a little slow at times, but overall it was well done. Very glad I went to see it in the theater, not sure how well this will translate to the small screen.
“Ambition is when you expect yourself to close the gap between what you have and what you want.
Entitlement is when you expect others to close the gap between what you have and what you want.”— James Clear
Entitlement is when you expect others to close the gap between what you have and what you want.”— James Clear
Watched this last night. Thought it was good but not great. Visually stunning and I thought Brad Pitt did a great job. As I was watching this, it hit me that this was the first Brad Pitt movie I could recall seeing since WWZ. Is 2019 the first year he's made big movies since that one?
Someone early in the thread mentioned that they wanted/needed more world building here to explain what was happening around Pitt. Competition between countries for resources and glory doesn't end with our atmosphere. So, the reason for the "state of war" mentioned in this film is simply countries and humans extending their natural state of aggression towards one another into space. Thus, I didn't need any explanation as that made sense to me what was happening around Pitt.
However, something I must have missed while watching this (probably because I had been drinking wine most of the afternoon) is what exactly was The Surge and why was it dangerous to Earth? Was it basically an EMP from space that would hit the giant antenna on Earth and wipe out all modern electronics returning Earth to the Stone Age?
Someone early in the thread mentioned that they wanted/needed more world building here to explain what was happening around Pitt. Competition between countries for resources and glory doesn't end with our atmosphere. So, the reason for the "state of war" mentioned in this film is simply countries and humans extending their natural state of aggression towards one another into space. Thus, I didn't need any explanation as that made sense to me what was happening around Pitt.
However, something I must have missed while watching this (probably because I had been drinking wine most of the afternoon) is what exactly was The Surge and why was it dangerous to Earth? Was it basically an EMP from space that would hit the giant antenna on Earth and wipe out all modern electronics returning Earth to the Stone Age?
YouBet said:
Watched this last night. Thought it was good but not great. Visually stunning and I thought Brad Pitt did a great job. As I was watching this, it hit me that this was the first Brad Pitt movie I could recall seeing since WWZ. Is 2019 the first year he's made big movies since that one?
Someone early in the thread mentioned that they wanted/needed more world building here to explain what was happening around Pitt. Competition between countries for resources and glory doesn't end with our atmosphere. So, the reason for the "state of war" mentioned in this film is simply countries and humans extending their natural state of aggression towards one another into space. Thus, I didn't need any explanation as that made sense to me what was happening around Pitt.
However, something I must have missed while watching this (probably because I had been drinking wine most of the afternoon) is what exactly was The Surge and why was it dangerous to Earth? Was it basically an EMP from space that would hit the giant antenna on Earth and wipe out all modern electronics returning Earth to the Stone Age?
And how was TLJ causing the surge?
Rian Johnson f^cked that movie up so badly it has crossed into other film?Counterpoint said:YouBet said:
Watched this last night. Thought it was good but not great. Visually stunning and I thought Brad Pitt did a great job. As I was watching this, it hit me that this was the first Brad Pitt movie I could recall seeing since WWZ. Is 2019 the first year he's made big movies since that one?
Someone early in the thread mentioned that they wanted/needed more world building here to explain what was happening around Pitt. Competition between countries for resources and glory doesn't end with our atmosphere. So, the reason for the "state of war" mentioned in this film is simply countries and humans extending their natural state of aggression towards one another into space. Thus, I didn't need any explanation as that made sense to me what was happening around Pitt.
However, something I must have missed while watching this (probably because I had been drinking wine most of the afternoon) is what exactly was The Surge and why was it dangerous to Earth? Was it basically an EMP from space that would hit the giant antenna on Earth and wipe out all modern electronics returning Earth to the Stone Age?
And how was TLJ causing the surge?
When I read TLJ in this thread I kept thinking of The Last Jedi as well
So is this worth a RedBox?
there were skittles in there!
Watched it on the plane a week ago. Nice visuals, some weird plot devices, pretty slow overall. Worth $2 just to check it off your list if there's nothing else you want to see.
AeroAg2012
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
16
Angry Beaver
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
15
AggieBucksJB
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
14
Aggball2010
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
13
missinAggieland
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
7
Bruce Almighty
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
7
AgEngr12
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
7
Harry Stone
we just won 4 straight series against 4 ranked opponents.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
6
AggieBucksJB
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
5
sealyag
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
5
AggieBucksJB
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
5