First Man

The original film is called "the First man", but our distributors released it as the "Man on the moon". I consider this adaptation a big mistake. Domestic name suggests that key this story is the fact that the skyscraper on the moon, but not so. In the center of the story is Neil Armstrong his personal drama, but not the American space program. It is not a story about the conquest of the moon, but the story of the person whom it is easier to risk life in a tin in the hundreds of thousands of kilometers from lands speak with wife experienced loss.

I liked that here is a little text instead of words actions speak louder. Why a long soliloquy about pain and suffering, when all can be expressed, quietly escaping with the funeral. Why question of love when a simple touch of the hand, such subtleties in the picture very much, but the final scene is the real climax of the silent genius. On for most of history, the main character is silent and bad emotions. Sometimes there is a feeling that Armstrong — the robot life in which is maintained artificially. Even the service is not bring him the joy he like use it as an excuse to escape from home. This coldness could me, but already in the beginning of the film, events occur that explain such behavior, I felt sincere sympathy for the Nile. In the ocean, a discreet detachment and an extremely valuable rare moments when under the mask of indifference pulled out a sincere, strong emotions: playing with children, walk on the lawn, dancing with his wife, the bracelet flying into void, I will remember these scenes for a long time. Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy did a great and very fine acting job.

I won cinematography Linus Sandgren has created something amazing. Everything from quiet scenes dinner, ending the launching of rockets shot extremely realistic and with so incredibly beautiful. Separately want to mention the soundtrack, it is brilliant. Music creates the lion's share of the charm of the picture. Justin Hurwitz bound to get an Oscar.

Damien of Sazell in again did it. First he had me a musical Thriller "Obsession" in which emotional tension could be cut with a knife. Then fell in love with a romantic story of "La La lenda". Now hypnotized silent, stingy on the emotions, unequivocally compelling biographical drama. Thus, Shazell for three films were shown all the versatility of his talent..

PS I Sincerely do not understand why this product humbly presented in award season. On my opinion is a true work of art.

10 of 10

I'll be brief.

A strong film about strong people, not afraid of themselves, to dream and to inspire others with his dream.

Actor for the title role is well-matched and tries to the soul, I can not say about the rest of the cast.

Those whom they play the front of the camera held up better than these clumsy.

On the other hand it is clear why he chose this Director, it the shooting style in a lot of distinctive and antagonistic to the same Kubrick, on which was equal to the most of the authors of the cosmic films of its time (and ours).

The design of the ship is rather typical for the interior of the shuttles ' 90s than for pics of the internal layout real "Apollo", but not cause unnecessary questions: "How to...".

Afterword: what the habit to shove a bunch of genres in the description of the film, you have to be quick — a maximum of three: "fiction", "Comedy", "film about film".

"Man on the moon" — it is an artistic film made for film story about how held a training for the legendary flight of Neil Armstrong who first landed on the moon. An act that cost many lives, money, time and effort. The act, which promoted the American space program for the steps ahead. So why in Russia, the film grossed $1 000 000 only the second week of rental. Really the only problem is that "the movie is not about us"?

I divided this movie into 3 parts: historical film, science film, art film. Glad to present a review on each of parts.

PART I. the Historical film

There is not reproach... because it is difficult to find fault with what is almost there. From all the historical events — the flight of Gagarin, the Soviet Union launched the artificial satellite of the Earth, exit Leonov in open space, name, John F. Kennedy, the landing of Armstrong on the Lunar surface. Moreover, the murder of the 35th President of the United States (1963), the death of Gagarin (1968) and awarding Armstrong the presidential medal of Freedom in the feat (1969) — things that could to play the behavior of the main character and the plot, remain unmentioned. All those things are mentioned so superficial and quickly, if cut film, its duration will be reduced not less than 3 minutes — so enough! Although, it would seem that a biographical film...

the Historical part: 7 10

PART II. Scientific film

Though the film and not stated "an ideal textbook for physics", as this unnecessarily happened to the terrible in this regard, "the Interstellar", the however, my astrophysical mind wants to find in this film the scientific blunders. And find! Here at least the astronauts do not get motion sickness, huh each of them is the hardest workout! Lord! After washing off the money from Christopher Nolan, I hard to believe in the movie this can be! Rocket made quite a realistic explanation of the concept of flight is clear and most likely, the behavior of Armstrong on the moon does not violate the laws of physics. Cool!

the Scientific part: 10 10

PART III. Film

What is the difference of the film from a documentary? Before the viewer has no facts — before it story, which all actions are logical and connected. The question "Why?" and"What?" never will be without the response that the "Man on the moon" gives reluctantly. Me it is unclear how after mistakes, done by minorstream in the most crucial moments, he was entrusted with the mission of docking with the rocket; I wonder who of friends killed and what they he had; me it is unclear why Neil so much grieving for his dead daughter, which we saw power 7 minutes; me it is unclear why Armstrong is not wanted to say goodbye to his sons before the flight — nothing this all 2 hours of screen time does not explains. I'm not against artistic improvements, if they will not distort the real story (as it occurred "Move up"), but why these revision no explained not motivated?

the Art part: 2 10

6 from 10