MovieChat Forums > Ad Astra (2019) Discussion > Throwing in my two cents *spoilers*

Throwing in my two cents spoilers

posted 5 years ago by MichaelPacino (179)
23 replies | jump to latest

Welcome to the Sci-fi movie of the year that will either blow you away, you'll be mixed towards, or will plain hate it. Honestly, I could see each side. 'Ad Astra' is probably one of the most expertly crafted movies in the past five years. Their is so much good with this movie! Now i'm not saying it's flawless, but it's an experience that can be admired. Let me talk about what I liked and didn't like about this movie.

PRO:
Brad Pitt's performance- Pitt is on fire in 2019 with two great performances, both very different from the other. As the astronaut Roy McBride, he sells a son looking for his father, while remaining calm. He gets the entire movie to himself to really monologue it up (which is the many things this movie takes from Apocalypse Now), and really settles that this movie isn't a big budget sci-fi movie, this is a character study set in space.

Tommy Lee Jones's performance- As Clifford McBride, Jones gets only really the last 15 minutes to show his acting chops, and goodness, does he! He really sells the mad man slowly decaying, and still passionate about what he has to do. It really is lovely to see.

Cinematography- Thank you Lord for Hoyte Van Hoytema. The cinematography in this movie is simply stunning!!! I feel like if anyone wants to shoot a drama or action film set in space, you really have to make it look like it was shot in space (which we probably are not far from in about 10 years or so). The shots not only show us this stunning world, but the camera feels like a second character telling its own story.

Production design- Kevin Thompson! Props to you good sir! The amount of insane detail within this world is beautiful, and is 'Blade Runner' levels of detailed. I'm pretty sure with multiple viewings I could catch something I didn't see before, which is just one example of how immersive this world is.

Sound Design- Gracie Alexander, Steve Bissinger, and the entire sound team! Massive props! The sound design in this movie is off the charts! There are moments where the movie could have gone for the expected gorgeous sound design, much like in Star Wars, but instead, we get a human sound perspective which can be unsettling, to downright brilliant!

Score- Max Ritcher's score is phenomenal! The sounds of eerie strings, mixed with haunting percussion is just sublime! The score really does capture what's going on in Roy's head, and the atmosphere of the movie.

James Gray's direction & screenplay- Well sir, it takes a strong director to bring this all together, and make it work, with a screenplay that is probably one of the most difficult to shoot, but thank goodness the script is great, given by a strong direction. The movie's theme of letting go of the past set in the future is sublimely shown, and brilliant.

Con:
Pacing- I feel a little hesitant to put this here because I understand the movie is a slow character study, but... I'm not gonna lie, 15-30 minutes could have been cut from this, and not much would have changed. The movie really started dragging in the third act, with a lot of shots I felt weren't necessary, and nothing much that contributed to the flow of the story, or a deeper understanding of Roy. We do get a nicely done sequence of him slowly going crazy, but it goes away by the time we get to the destination. My personal thought is in your third act, if you set up something like hallucinations, that should be throughout the act, or not introduce it at all. This is a pretty big deal because a lot of people I know checked out at the end. (One gentleman even fell asleep next to me in the theater, and started snoring very loudly.)

I'm not gonna argue "The science of Ad Astra" because I don't go to movies to write a thesis on space travel, I go to be entertained, challenged, and/or presented a story and/or characters. If the science of this movie pulled you out, I'm sorry, but it's evident this movie was never meant to be 100% scientifically accurate. If it was, the movie probably wouldn't have even been made. So it does tick me off when people try to say 'Ad Astra' was bad because it wasn't scientifically accurate, because then those people missed the entire point of the movie. If you spent the whole time nit picking a movie over stuff like this, then you're probably finding reasons to hate it. My philosophy is simple; "Liking things is more fun than not liking them." So I don't get bogged down by how stuff wouldn't work, but rather enjoying a world where stuff does work. I personally loved this movie, and I think it's definitely worth seeing.

I really needed this movie after 'IT: Chapter 2', and 'The Goldfinch', so let's hope we have a good streak going! My next movie hopefully is nothing to laugh about...

[–] ILJtheFirst (2104) 5 years ago

I hereby hand the "Schill of the Year" award to MichaelPacino. Ignore this schill's review. You will plain hate this movie, definitely skip this lame fest. The movie tries very hard to convey inspiration or emotion and falls hard on its face. All the acting in the world can't gloss over the glaring failures in all other areas. Not even Tom Cruise could salvage this mess.

[–] MichaelPacino (179) 5 years ago

I’m sorry you didn’t like the movie. I’m curious what you didn’t like about it, and if you were handling this movie, how would you have done it to make it good in your eyes?

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

the space stuff and effects were fantastic. hard to screw that up these days with CGI.

Now, what I didn't like about it: lack of adequate resolutions, to so many things. Let me count the ways:

he fell from an antenna. was cool looking, didn't seem to affect the plot at all. did it make him a prime candidate for the trip? no, its just a thing that happened and was never referenced again. maybe a vehicle for the flashes - which didn't matter - more on those later.

boy this could take too long, let me sum up:

Moon war: so? didn't affect anything later in the plot, no reason to care

send Message from Mars - silly and farfetched science-y idea there. why not from moon, or earth?

baboons: no explanation, no plot affect, no further references, who cares

the whole antimatter issue sold to us in the trailer? not important at all. Broke, blow it up, done. who cares

too many "what does this affect? oh.... nothing?? who cares" moments ALL the way through

I LOVE "good" sci-fi, and this was pretty, but there was a plot no better than crap on the Hallmark Channel, so I have zero desire to ever watch it again.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MichaelPacino (179) 5 years ago

I like a lot of your insight sir! If you don't mind, I would like to offer some counterpoints
Fall from antenna: I saw it as the set up for our character, and how he remains calm even in the worst situations. This shows us how he has learned to survive without his dad, and why he probably lost his wife. It's a character moment, not really a story moment.

Moon War: "Didn't affect anything in the plot, no reason to care." It killed off Sutherland's character, who was the man who was supposed to go find the father after they made contact with him. Killing him gave McBride the reason he had to be the man who finished the mission.

Send message from Mars: "Silly, and far fetched science-y idea there. Why not from moon, or earth?" You mean it's far fetched to think when we colonize planets, we won't have technology to send messages to far off galaxies from miles away? Seems more far fetched to not think so. Also being that Mars was closer to the ship, it would make sense to send it on the planet closest to the receiver. Also, sending it from Earth, or the airport-like Moon could be intercepted by other people, like maybe the pirates on the moon, who could sell the information on what's happening to the highest bidder. Just a thought.

Baboons: It's all done visually. If you look during McBride's investigation, you see it's an experiment for animals in space, maybe like a zoo. It may not be referenced again, but it puts McBride in a situation where he starts to realize that anything in space can go mad, and kill in rage, much like how his dad was in a similar state.

Animatter issue: With you on that one, but that just seems like poor marketing, and i usually don't hold marketing over a movie's head, otherwise I wouldn't like "Unbreakable"

What does this affect? Oh nothing? Who cares: Yeah, I felt that a lot during the movie, like good ideas that could have been explored better, even with the voiceover.

Thanks for giving some great thoughts to talk about!

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

All the little parts AFFECTING little things didn't feel like they supported the plot. PERSONALLY, I just prefer better setup causality in plots than a bunch of little random things that happen by accident.
Not going to put anymore time into thought about this film as I've seen much, much better written films, and would rather watch them again and again than bother with this one.

[–] Geff (453) 5 years ago

Everyone who disagees with me is a shill. I'm also so low IQ that I cannot spell shill properly.

What race are you?

[–] ILJtheFirst (2104) 5 years ago

Grammar whoring and IQ are 2 separate things. Also, I was using my phone, typed fast, and didn't spell check. Did you think you came upon a revelation or something?

[–] Geff (453) 5 years ago

What race are you?

[–] yatzo376 (7717) 5 years ago

Pros:
Pretty to look at and chimps in space

Cons:
Everything else

[–] maximmm (3335) 5 years ago

you said it had a great screenplay - can you please expand on that?

[–] MichaelPacino (179) 5 years ago

I really liked how the screenplay was much more a character study in space. Every sci-fi movie makes a big deal on the "What we can do in space!" elements, but hasn't really ever tackled "What can space do to a person." It felt very real, and eerie most of the time, and I think the screenplay was detailed enough to give that it was a character study.

[–] Motoko_Kusanagi (60) 5 years ago

Gorgeous cinematography, world building and set design (and dialogue I could actually hear unlike Interstellar). I enjoyed the film but I think it could have been better in the writing and direction. It is a pity, there are many fantastic scenes. The choice to remove tension from several key moments harmed the third act immersion for me. And actually I think Pitt and Jones performances were lacking in places, just slightly off. Now, if Pitt could have done as good a job as Ryan Gosling in Blade Runner 2049.

[–] mikethemartian (6705) 5 years ago

I mostly liked the film. What I didn’t care for were many of the action scenes that didn’t seem plausible and seemed also unnecessary to me.

[–] Information-Police (4889) 5 years ago

I disagree about needing to ignore the science because it's a character study. They chose to make it a serious character study in space, so your got to get that right. Otherwise don't make it in space.

[–] MichaelPacino (179) 5 years ago

"Apocalypse Now" didn't get everything right, but people still praise that character study. Why doesn't this get a pass?

[–] triplea (3577) 5 years ago

Because this is a significantly worse film?

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MichaelPacino (179) 5 years ago

While that's true, as I stated in my review, I don't go to movies to write essays on the science, I go to be entertained and/or challenged. Why can't we just sell a film on it being a film rather than a "Let me show you the science of.."? Wouldn't that make more sense for an entertainment medium.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Information-Police (4889) 5 years ago

What part of Apocalypse Now! contradicted the laws of physics?

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MichaelPacino (179) 5 years ago

I'm kinda laughing at the fact that out of all my reviews this year, for some reason, this is the one that has brought on the most conversations