First Man (2018)

First Man advertises as the first film to show the iconic astronaut, Neil Armstrong's mission to the moon. Which to be honest, surprised me a little. The amount of space films we have we don't often have ones based on the truth. In fact, bar the recent Hidden Figures (2016) off the top of my head none immediately spring to mind. That's a big part within this film, to show us something we've seen countless times but for real, for the first time.

It's a space film, it's science-non-fiction. There are some things that are always going to be interesting to shoot but that doesn't mean the director can get lazy with his work. Linus Sandgren is the cinematographer as he was for Damien Chazelle's Oscar winning La La Land (2016). There's a strong focus on natural organic shots. With at least 70% of the film taking place on Earth it still has to be natural and first and foremost dated. It's the 60's it needs to looks as such and it does. Hair and costume were good as were the vintage space equipment and vessels.

The editing went well with crisp contracts of locations. The muted almost somewhat warm offices and homes to the cold mechanical insides of the space shuttle. The cinematography was subtle. Used various handheld shots to mimic news reports, then used the same technique just slightly different to replicate home movies. Tying the shots with stationary views or image binded to the shuttle works well with the tranquility of space. The score was obviously beautiful. As expected Justin Hurwitz, who did the original music for La La Land (2016) and Whiplash (2014) delivers again for this. A lot of which is gentle but as the film goes on the score becomes more prominent as the frequency of space and moon shots. The mission itself has its own theme. Beautiful yet somewhat evocative. Manages to embody the journey, the sacrifice mixed with the accomplishments. Also big nod to the sound mixing, can't imagine that won't be recognised as award winning. The stark contracts were poignant and fitting as well as the use of real sample interviews. 

Now the cast sold me. When back when, when we were just told Chazelle, Gosling, Armstrong, I was in. To be fair, there wasn't a great deal to add to that. Gosling was fantastic as expected, he's getting the opportunity to flex his acting chops a little more and he's getting taken more and more seriously. The difficulty he had with the role was that he was playing a real person. It's not a character. And though Armstong is a world wide name he's not a world wide character. I think a lot of people would struggle to pick him out of a line up let alone know what his personality is. So yes Gosling can act, he's tern and quiet but speaks up when needed. He shows intelligences and interest as well as awe. All of which whilst mourning. He doesn't let his feelings overpower him except when he does. I imagine he may get an Oscar nom. 

Claire Foy on the other hand may actually win. She maintains the poise and authority that she's mastered in The Crown. She's herself alongside a wife and mother. She has some real powerful scenes with Gosling and it really makes you think about the pressure this situation would put on any relationship. The final wordless scene between the two of them felt so intimate and strong though it was just a small interaction between them. With no comparison to the real people I personally found Foy to be a more believable person.

It was overall a beautiful film. Well constructed story of a mans life during a period in which he made history. I wanted to like this more. I'm a fan of so many elements but I'm not jump to rewatch this as I did Chazelle's previous filmography. It's long. Towards the end of the film it kinda feels like the end of a long haul flight home, everything up to this point has been nice but you know whats going to happen next so you're just kinda waiting for the landing. 

Meticulously made, and deserves to be appreciated. Just not my favourite thing to come from any of the cast or crew. 7/10 

CINEMATES - A

Kingsman: The Golden Circle

DO YOU KNOW WHO'S A DISH? TARON EGERTON IS A DISH. And we're back for the second installment of Kingsman, Kingsman The Golden Circle. Let's get stuck in. Eggsy is back, running the Kingman's Taylor business, got his girlfriend, his friends and his dog and manages to escape ex Kingsman Charlie. Though turns out he's the only one to escape, as we see in the trailer someone, Julianne Moore, bombs Kingsman and him and Merlin are left with their doomsday plan, The Statesmen. 

The style of the film is very much the same as the first. The dare I say it, iconic, church scene in the first is mimicked multiple times throughout Golden Circle. The following of arms, legs, faces, weapons as the action moves, sometimes in close quarters. Yes it's impressive camerawork and editing but it's a bit overwhelming. Though on the contrary because it's used so frequently it becomes the standard, and almost less effective. One of the things I enjoy about the film, and others of the same suite, is the framing of some shots. I noticed this in the trailer, there are some frames of the film that look straight from a comic strip, because they are. Kingsman's first volume was released in 2012 followed by Kingsman: The Red Diamond next year. I enjoy this and some of the landscapes and fantasy benefit from it.

Again, similar to the first, the sound was in your face. Loud and to the point. Fits the style and scenes well. Though I will admit most are forgettable. There's a beautiful rendition of Take Me Home, Country Roads that you'll remember and of course a song from a flamboyant cameo but that's about it. 

Other than being a babe Taron Egerton is becoming a pretty decent actor. He's endearing and cool and Eggsy, shows a real range of character with everyone he interacts with. Deals with loss, albeit rather briefly and carries himself a little higher than the previous film. He shows growth and kills it with the stunt work. I found there was quite an interesting fighting style, especially for a man. I say that because we don't often see fight scene with the subjects using their entire bodies, I don't just mean kicking I mean uses legs as full force or restraints. Black Widow seems to  swing herself around with her legs all the time but it was great to see some men get in on the gymnastics too. 

There's not a great deal to say about many of the actors because there's so goddamn many of them. Let's reel through, Mark Strong was fantastic, got a decent level of depth to the character that I think strengthens the first films performance. Colin Firth is good but his character is not satisfying, not down to his performance but due to the character just being kind of sad to watch for the most part. Julianne Moore is sickly sweet as the villain Poppy, though the abstract environment and circumstance in which we see her dips in and out of the suspended disbelief of the world. Halle Berry is was good in what felt like 40 seconds of her, same goes for Channing Tatum and Jeff Bridges who were in the film surprisingly little considering the ad campaign.

It felt a lot more American, not just because of Pedro Pascal's Southern drawl and lasso wielding showmanship. There's an arrogant president, with an unnecessarily heavy moral question lining the film regarding drug use and a wholly unnecessary novelty trip to Glastonbury to make sure the culture difference is seen. Trust me, going to Glasto did not need to happen, but hey you'll get a close up of a long bodied woman so there we are. 

It's bloated and long, fun yes, original not so much. Suffered from the ever common sequel trope of seeing what you liked in the first and shoving it down your neck in the second (see Gaurdians of the Galaxy 2) 6/10 


CINEMATES - A

CINEMATES - Ghost in the Shell (2017) First Reactions!

CINEMATES - Beauty and the Beast (2017) Reactions

Kong: Skull Island (2017)