Technically satisfying, but lacking the propulsion and energy I'd expect from a Chazelle movie

Rating: 6/10 (24 February 2019)

First Man doesn't do anything bad, but it takes few risks and feels like an overlong, by-the-numbers slog far more than it should. Chazelle employs slow takes and lots of close up, shaky shots to help put us in the mindset of an astronaut, but I don't think he succeeded in having the audience feel the tension and uncertainty. The launch scenes felt more simple and drawn out than tension raising, and didn't grip me at any point. The visuals, cinematography, and sound were all very good, Gosling was effective if very reserved, and Foy was great and got robbed of a supporting actress nomination. I would contrast First Man with Gravity and The Martian, which combine to form better versions of the elements First Man shoots for; Gravity in the impeccable space shot designs and visual effects, and The Martian in NASA mission proceedings. First Man didn't develop the personal connection either movie did, as while we respect Neil we are never closer than an arm's length to him. It's also much longer, slower moving, and outcomes are rarely ever in doubt and never culminate in exciting climactic sequences. I think the second half was better than the first, and it had some very good individual scenes (especially when Janet gets Neil to talk to the kids), but it felt much too predictable and free of intrigue to be enjoyable, whereas Gravity maintained uncertainty and tension throughout, and The Martian did it despite the outcome being obvious as it was in First Man. I remember watching the trailer months ago and feeling like it was the safest bet of 2018 - Chazelle only makes great movies, Gosling is very good, and it's an interesting topic. Like Vice, it ends up as a 6 star disappointment not because it's bad, but because it has so much potential that it has no business being as forgettable and mediocre as it is.