Ad Astra - the horror

[Puce Moment]

No, not a horror, the new SF film from that guy who makes films that I really hate. But I am a sucker for hard SF and well-made space visuals.

It's really just Gravity and Interstellar with an unhealthy dollop of 2001, and and an Apocalypse Now VO. And that's the problem here - the allusions to Conrad's Heart of Darkness are depressingly obvious, as are some of the more direct references to Apocalypse Now. You will also get some Tree of Life vibes due to the heavy, earnest, introspective VO that stinks the film right until the final frame. I always felt that 2001 was a perfectly oblique HoD radical adaptation, so the on-the-noseness of this is sigh inducing.

People must love these films because they keep getting made. Sentimental and teenagery SF movies that sell themselves as Hard, intellectual SF cinema. And this one does that by appropriating some heavy-weights but without any of the flair or script quality.

I think some people will like this, and the positives for me are obvious. Some really great visuals of space that are immersive and well-designed, and a third act climax SPOILERS that displays some bravery with its 'we are alone' resolution. But that is just a pre-text for 'we are alone so we should all work together for the greater good, like a family. Like a honest to goodness American family.' And that's my problem. Whilst it seems brave to show the emptiness and lifelessness of space, I think it does so for really rather regressive reasons. If you have sympathy for the pollination theory of how we existed happily for millions of years before cells split and intelligent life exploded then you may find the ending a bit simplistic.

Also, those surges. Was that from a Crichton novel?

This is getting great reviews so if you liked Gravity and Interstellar you should definitely give this a go and ignore my negz.

[Inspector Norse]

What if I liked Gravity but not Interstellar?

I'm probably going to go watch this but I do remain sceptical about Hollywood's ability to deliver genuinely smart sci-fi rather than things that look the part, make a few half-hearted stabs at being deep and complex and thought-provoking, but are ultimately too vacant and too concerned about the mainstream audience to work. So not just Interstellar but Arrival and Annihilation too.

I thought Gravity worked because it was really about the spectacle. Same way that Dunkirk, for example, was way better than Interstellar or indeed all Nolan's other stuff by ditching the sixth-form gubbins and focusing on just being great to watch.

[greenman]

Financed by Auto Trader?

I'd agree though these faux "important" sci fi films are wearing a bit thin, over written and over explain plots combined with very straight forward drama. Blade Runner 2049 was pretty good with the K/Joi plot having a bit more substance but held back from reaching the original partly via having to conform to this.

Annihilation would have been better off as an X-files episode like film, instead to almost seemed like it was parodying the genre at points, Portman and Jason Leigh staring at each other gormlessly.

[Puce Moment]

It did remind me of Gravity from the perspective of how light and sound is carefully and cleverly used so that it really does feel like we are in the deep, empty expanses of space. Unfortunately, the obsession with focusing on humans by shooting around the various Maslow's hierarchy of needs (sometimes it is to be loved, be in a family - the next, it is surviving to get back into a ship to live) to be all too familiar. But I would say that it is infected with the same sentimental virus that dogs Interstellar. Whilst I did not like Dunkirk much, I at least thought there was a human crisis that needed solving. In Interstellar I don't see a good argument for why humans should not just go extinct with dignity.

I know the film I want simply would not get made - the visuals required for these films are expensive, so they need stars, and that means they need a three-act space film with an emotional resolution. The first is contingent on the next two and that means big space operas are going to always fall-back on Hollywood redemptive plots. The days of 2001 and Solaris are gone, and we pretty much have to rely on indie filmmakers to produce mind-bending hard SF - however this is on a much lower budget.

Despite being a Garland film, I rather liked Annhilation although I found the Stalker/Roadside Picnic content annoying. I actually wanted it to be longer, more grand and expansive, but that's not really his thing.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

Some quip about going driving a Vauxhall to Pizza Express.

I, too, like a bit of realistic (ish) sci-fi, although what I've seen and heard about this make it seem a bit more fantastical than I was expecting. There are gunfights on the moon.

The A.V. Club seem to have been bigging it up for months, which has left me quite keen to see it. Lots of talk of "the kind of films that don't get made any more" - even though they clearly do. Then again, they were all over the director's previous film, The Lost City of Z, which I thought was merely okay.

[Inspector Norse]

I know the film I want simply would not get made - the visuals required for these films are expensive, so they need stars, and that means they need a three-act space film with an emotional resolution. The first is contingent on the next two and that means big space operas are going to always fall-back on Hollywood redemptive plots. The days of 2001 and Solaris are gone, and we pretty much have to rely on indie filmmakers to produce mind-bending hard SF - however this is on a much lower budget.

Yeah, I think people do start off wanting to make challenging and groundbreaking sci-fi films but Hollywood suits look at the scripts and make them put in romance or family subplots and soften the freakiest bits.

[Inspector Norse]

the director's previous film, The Lost City of Z, which I thought was merely okay.

I hadn't cottoned on that it was the same director. Mainly because I did see that film due to it getting lots of "overlooked gem" reviews and hype, and don't remember a fucking thing about it. The rainforest scenes in Paddington made more impression.

[Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth]

In Interstellar I don't see a good argument for why humans should not just go extinct with dignity.

Well, Michael Caine kept reciting that poem again and again.

[Puce Moment]

Well, Michael Caine kept reciting that poem again and again.

In that world that Nolan creates I suspect Dignitas would be bigger than Amazon, despite Caine's character forgetting that Dylan Thomas was quite happy to slip into a turgid, alcohol soaked death in New York rater than trying to fight his various ailments.

[greenman]

It did remind me of Gravity from the perspective of how light and sound is carefully and cleverly used so that it really does feel like we are in the deep, empty expanses of space. Unfortunately, the obsession with focusing on humans by shooting around the various Maslow's hierarchy of needs (sometimes it is to be loved, be in a family - the next, it is surviving to get back into a ship to live) to be all too familiar. But I would say that it is infected with the same sentimental virus that dogs Interstellar. Whilst I did not like Dunkirk much, I at least thought there was a human crisis that needed solving. In Interstellar I don't see a good argument for why humans should not just go extinct with dignity.

I know the film I want simply would not get made - the visuals required for these films are expensive, so they need stars, and that means they need a three-act space film with an emotional resolution. The first is contingent on the next two and that means big space operas are going to always fall-back on Hollywood redemptive plots. The days of 2001 and Solaris are gone, and we pretty much have to rely on indie filmmakers to produce mind-bending hard SF - however this is on a much lower budget.

Despite being a Garland film, I rather liked Annhilation although I found the Stalker/Roadside Picnic content annoying. I actually wanted it to be longer, more grand and expansive, but that's not really his thing.

True, you have a much more obvious divide between art and mainstream cinema these days which has resulted in such wrong headed notions from the IMDB set as Nolan being the successor to Kubrick/Tarkovsky when really the likes of Glazer and Lathimos(and hopefully Dennis with  High Life?) are far closer in spirit and content.

I think Annhilation was more over extension than this problem, Garland showed he could make a sci fi of some intelligence with Ex Machina but here he's trying to follow Tarkovsky and didn't have the chops to pull it off, the more straight forward body horror aspects aren't bad though.

[Jerzy Bondov]

Some quip about going driving a Vauxhall to Pizza Express.

Absolutely cannot get the idea out of my head that this film is about a chicken pizza. Just can't do it. Won't.

[Puce Moment]

Two other spoilery thoughts that came to me:

- For quite a while I thought this was about patriarchy and toxic masculinity. Both the Father and Son were just fuck-ups causing massive death due to their pride/hubris/ambition. That part was reinforced for me when Pitt enters the ship and everyone pretty much dies in minutes. But no, like Gravity, Pitt is just fine.

- The animal testing ship could have been great. That could have been the stand-out scene, but it was reduced to one CRAZY looking monkey. I was waiting for David Schneider to start shouting about the 'rage' but then Pitt quickly does that for us instead. Actually the word 'rage'.

[Phil_A]

True, you have a much more obvious divide between art and mainstream cinema these days which has resulted in such wrong headed notions from the IMDB set as Nolan being the successor to Kubrick/Tarkovsky when really the likes of Glazer and Lathimos(and hopefully Dennis with  High Life?) are far closer in spirit and content.

Shane Carruth as well, if only he had the support from the industry to get his more ambitious projects funded.

[Head Gardener]

saw this last night and quite enjoyed it, though it was kinda Event Horizon lite

[Inspector Norse]

So I actually went to see it straight after work and...

yeah it's a bit of a slog.

OP is right on the money with the Apocalypse 2001 comparison: there's really not much other way to describe it.

It's got some really striking moments, the cinematography is splendid and, frustratingly, there are hints and kernels of something deeper in there, but it's let down by being stodgy and turgid where it should be graceful and tense. It's aiming for that 2001 feel, of vastness and import, with some of Tarkovsky's stateliness and serious beauty, but that's an awkward mix with the (impressive) production design, grimy and lived-in, all too real and earthbound. A deliberate step, sure, but curiously at odds with the impression the film wants to make.

A bigger problem, though, is Brad Pitt. I like Brad Pitt, often enough: he has an easy charisma and screen presence and is very good in lighter roles. But he absolutely cannot carry a weighty, ambitious existential drama and his monotonous performance is a real drag. Nobody else bar Tommy Lee Jones gets more to their character than a name. Ruth Negga is the only named woman with a proper speaking part, other than Liv Tyler as Pitt's wife who gets the most clichéd flashback scenes possible. You guessed it, Pitt is thinking better to happier times when they're lying silently but fully-clothed on their bed together smiling, bathed in sunlight. Seriously, almost as ridiculous as that scene in the Solaris remake where George Clooney is lying naked on bed and occasionally picks up a bowl of noodles and eats a mouthful.

And the action set-pieces are either routine and uninspired (seriously, how did they manage to make a car-chase/shootout on the fucking Moon feel so rote?) or plain stupid. In fact, what sinks this film more than anything is that one major scene proceeds like this:

Brad Pitt is stripped of his clearance and removed from the mission, then left completely alone and unguarded on a Martian base, allowing a middle manager to sneak him into a spare spacesuit, into a rover, off the base, into a completely unguarded tunnel leading right to the TOP SECRET MISSION rocket, which he proceeds to board by hanging to a hatch during takeoff, then climbing into the airlock and ACCIDENTALLY KILLING THE ENTIRE CREW WITHIN FIVE MINUTES OF BOARDING.

It's really frustrating because as mentioned, there are some good ideas that pop up at times. There are eternal sci-fi questions of the purpose of life, the existence of aliens, how far a man can go, how future technology affects relationships, and also some comment on how capitalism will surely co-opt space travel. And yes, it ends on a bravely unadventurous note, but then spoils that a little by having the first thing Pitt sees on returning to Earth be a soldier's extended arm. UNCLE SAM!

Nice Max Richter music.

[Dex Sawash]

I'm due a birthday month free ticket from my cinema. This is the first thing of September that even looks viewable. I've skipped the last 3 free birthday tickets.

[Inspector Norse]

I'm due a birthday month free ticket from my cinema. This is the first thing of September that even looks viewable. I've skipped the last 3 free birthday tickets.

It's definitely watchable. There's a crazy monkey after all.

[peanutbutter]

Saw Lost City of Z in the PCC a few months after release in 35mm and it was pretty fucking immense I thought. Feel like that was probably the perfect environment for it (retrospective style viewing, 35mm). Really liked the Immigrant and loved Two Lovers too, so I like James Gray quite a bit.


Pretty skeptical of this one, it seems so far off from what Gray's done before. Part of me can't help but wonder if it's more that Brad Pitt had a project like this in mind and has the sway to get James Gray making another film, meanwhile Gray is now something close to box office poison and seems like he'd be unable to do lower budget efforts, so felt compelled to take the topic on. Have heard there was a fair bit of reshoots after test screenings ages back so that's concerning too...

Anyways, I'll be going to it I'm sure.

[grassbath]

Nice Max Richter music.

Fuck, please, please tell me that stupid Max Richter piece isn't in it.

[phantom_power]

I was really disappointed by this. It was all so sterile and humdrum. That could work if they went with it as an aesthetic, like THX-1138 or something, but they don't commit.

It is true that it is like 2001 meets Interstellar but either those things don't really mix well or they took the wrong bits from each film. And at the end it felt like just one big shrug. Stuff happened, so what.

The opening is fucking amazing though, which makes the drop in quality thereon in even more stark

[Inspector Norse]

Fuck, please, please tell me that stupid Max Richter piece isn't in it.

No it's some different stuff. Subdued and unobtrusive.

[peanutbutter]

I thought Gravity worked because it was really about the spectacle.

I've always found it weird when people either like Gravity and claim it's for reasons beyond that, or criticise on the grounds of everything beyond that. It's a theme park ride and I've no clue how well it has held up but it was pretty fucking immense on a big screen at the time.

Kinda similar being Fury Road where it seemed like loads of critics who liked it felt this need to put all this bullshit about feminist statements within the film... it very clearly wanted to primarily be a big fucking adrenaline rush and you can give it full marks for that alone. I dunno if it's just that they don't have the vocab to meet 500 words on how thrilling it was and need to search for other stuff but jesus.



The more I hear about this one, the more I expect to be bored to fuck tbh. Kinda hope Gray is forced into making a smaller film for once again, Two Lovers was such a distinct dreamy thing

[Alberon]

Gravity is a theme park ride. Something that worked very well on a big screen.

It falls apart if you examine it too closely, but it is one of the few films that almost literally had neon the edge of my seat. And one of the few to be genuinely better in 3D.

As to Ad Astra, I'll catch it on the small screen.

[BlodwynPig]

The only space film i'd be interested in watching would be Stephen Donaldson's The Gap Series

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

This is a fascinating one for me. The visuals are excellent throughout, but much of the plot and the sci-fi bits are bordering on B-Movie nonsensicality. BUT Brad Pitt is really quite terrific in it and because the entire movie is about him it somehow works in the end. I don't think I'm articulating why very well, but the package as a whole is very strange.

[Paaaaul]

Why does he go to Mars? There's no need for him to go to Mars. Stupid.

[Jumblegraws]

Just to add to the OP, I caught a few Solaris/Event Horizon vibes from this as well.

[beanheadmcginty]

There's some quite blatant Branson product placement near the beginning of this, but it was for Virgin Atlantic rather than Virgin Galactic which I found weird.

[Obel]

There's some quite blatant Branson product placement near the beginning of this, but it was for Virgin Atlantic rather than Virgin Galactic which I found weird.

Yeah that baffled me too!

I really enjoyed this film. I found it quite relatable too, as my dad is out somewhere near Neptune shooting solar flares at my mums house.

[MojoJojo]

There's some quite blatant Branson product placement near the beginning of this, but it was for Virgin Atlantic rather than Virgin Galactic which I found weird.

There's not much point in Virgin Galactic advertising to the poor plebs who go to the cinema.