Understated with some elements missing from the recipe

Rating: 7/10 (23 October 2018)

This movie was very polarizing, judging from the reviews, both here and on the outside. The reasons are both simple and complicated. Criticism of the movie has become well known. And, it is true, there is no actual scene of planting of the American flag on the lunar surface. The overall tone of the movie, to be fair, is a very understated feel of this American achievement. For the political Left, very, very little social change was displayed in the movie, of the turbulent 60's, with only one brief TV scene of the escalating Vietnam War. But, it could be argued, none of these things were the focus. Rather, our race to the moon and the personal story of Neil Armstrong. Accepting that, these criticisms were well, well overdone. It was a good movie, but fell short of great.
It lacks the emotional and patriotic surge of the failed mission of Apollo 13 (1995), the uplifting cheering moments and humor of The Martian (2015). The cinematography bothered many, it was OK for me. The director's style was a put off to others, it has a feel like Whiplash (2014), in a strange way to me. But, one area I really fault the film was a poor script. Scriptwriter Josh Singer was praised for his work in 'The Post' (Ok by me) and 'Spotlight' (fantastic in my view), so he was capable enough. But, if this was to quietly celebrate the engineers rather than male bravado, where were the science discussions, dialogue and characters ? Sure, vehicles which blew up or failed were reasons it took us a decade to get up there, but give me some of the why. This would have also been a good time to develop characters with the principal players and for some humor. Even in earnest movies, this lacked almost all sense of anything but a very occasional chuckle.
Ryan Gosling under acted and understated Armstrong to the extent it might be seen as the opposite reciprocal to say, what some critics said of Al Pacino's 'over acting' intensity of the 70's and 80's. It fell flat and uncomfortable for some. Corey Stoll's Buzz Aldrin was flippant and unlikable, how true to form it was, I don't know. Claire Foy's Janet Armstrong took a progressively uptight and disagreeable tone. In the last third of the movie pushed it to a bit anti-climatic. Perhaps a wink to modern feminist bravado.
The movie lacks good scoring, both original and period music (outside a radical 60's song, 'Whity going to the moon'). No 'interludes' to walk you through events/ideas and time. While this is a certain style of movie making, the disadvantage is you don't get the economy of storytelling quickly and the movie tends to drag.
It's sad, but the unfounded harsh criticism this movie brought will give those who've never seen it, an impression it is tainted with more anti-American flavor, which Hollywood has cranked out in the previous decade. It is not. It's also not escapist entertainment, which is why it drew the over 40 crowd...not the target of most movie makers and theaters. However, it may not bring the praise from such generations on the high end, who remember the events first hand. This was more than just going out to bring home the milk, 'matter of fact,' which is what younger generations might be left thinking.
It is all together fitting that Neil Armstrong belonged to the so-called 'Silent Generation' (circa 1925-early 1940's). NASA was founded by GI Generation folk (1900-1925), heros of WWII becoming civil left brain leaning problem solving engineers. It was Armstrong and his peers who humanized the Moon Landing ('...giant leap for Mankind'). Much could be said about the social changes back on Earth. Not so much 1960's college students, but Silent Generational leaders such at Dr. King (together with Armstrong, considered great heros of their generation).