I managed to stay to the end. Do I get a medal?

Rating: 1/10 (1 February 2019)

"Testament", "Visceral", "Powerful", "Breathtaking". Just some of the words used by the professional critics' reviews.
I obviously saw a different movie. No, I checked the date and cast: it was the same one.
I have debated with myself as to whether this was the worst film I have ever seen, and came to the conclusion that possibly "Four Lions" just edged into that slot - but it is a very close thing.
Let's get the technical aspects out of the way first. The sound is dreadful, and not helped by the appalling diction of many of the cast. Nor by the overwhelming soundtrack, which dominates and destroys the visuals. The constant use of tight closeups combined with the lighting and what appears to be aout of focus effects make following the action not an easy task.
Gosling plays Gosling: he shows several expressions none of which have much relevance to the narrative and left this viewer emotionally detached from the story. Claire Foy as Armstrong's wife made a competent fist of her part but no-one stood out in any way.
Now to the main problem, and it comes down to appalling direction. It is not a well constructed movie in several ways.
Firstly, it is far too long. There are multiple examples of scenes so drawn out they become self parodies, and show self indulgence. One wonders if the shots cost so much to set up every foot just had to be used?
And, oh! the cliches! Just because one film uses hand-held camerawork to put the audience in the middle of a war battle doesn't mean that it is mandatory to use the technique at all times: it detracts from the story and becomes so irritating that the viewer loses the will to live. Then there's the meeting after the return - which was never shown or hinted at despite being arguably the most critical part of the mission - of Neil and wife in the quarantine room, separated by a glass wall: i actually sat there waiting for the inevitable placing of hands on each side of the glass.
Casting is always the most important part of a movie's birth, and especially so when attempting portrayal of current or within living memory events as docu-drama. The only character who had even a fleeting resemblance to his real life alter ego was Mike Collins, who of course stayed in lunar orbit. Compare that with the lead in Vice, where one wonders how they got Dick Cheyney back to play himself!
I don't really follow film directors very much, but on the DVD extras Chazelle comes over as immature and full of self importance: then my wife told me that he also directed La La land (which I haven't seen) and she could only stay watching that for twenty minutes before leaving the cinema. I can see what she meant.
The story of Neil Armstrong, Buss Aldrin and Mike Collins - and the thousands of designers, engineers, technicians, mathematicians etc who made Apollo complete its mission - is etched in everyone's minds who watched the project from Mercury, through Gemini , Apollo, the ISS and shuttle. The mindblowing complexities of making and guiding spacecraft deserve a much much better portrayal than this feeble attempt which makes the whole thing seem little more than strapping in and turning the ignition key. Yes, it is attempting to show the mind of Armstrong as much as the mechanics, but I'm afraid that, for this reviewer, it fails miserably at both.