OK, so I was a bit harsh with the title. But there were indeed several plot and story elements straight from the planet Uranus. Did all of this come straight from the novel? I don't know, but they were totally unnecessary and only served to add about 40 additional minutes to the running time. At this point I've just got a list of things that I thought were dumb added filler or otherwise made no sense at all, in no particular order.
1. Why even cast Liv Tyler? She doesn't speak more than 5 words in the entire film. She's only on screen about a total of 2 minutes, max. That was clearly a ploy for selling tickets. That is *not* a role that deserves top billing. The role of Eve could easily have been filled by any random up and coming actress. No acting chops needed. Seriously.
2. You never and I mean NEVER heed a distress call in deep space. C'mon!! Haven't you watched "Alien"? "Event Horizon"? "Supernova"? Anyway, McBride (Brad Pitt's character) was given the choice to override their mandatory distress response but didn't so that he didn't have to divulge the nature of his secret mission, which - given the scenario billions of miles from Earth - one would assume is because he doesn't want to assume any criminal liability for doing so. Simply telling the rest of the crew what was really up wouldn't have had any immediate ramifications on the success or failure of his primary mission. Long-term for him? Maybe, but one doesn't get the impression that anyone on that leg of the trip would have done much more than say "Oh crap, really?!" and then shrug their shoulders. OK, but keep that in the back of your mind. Meanwhile Pitt and his compatriot board the drifting ship and of course they find a disaster. Savvy viewers will recall being told several times prior that the wounded ship was an *animal* research station....cough cough....hint hint...that information was a ba'd boon that they should have heeded as even a casual viewer of Sci-Fi could have told them.
3. McBride previously decided not to risk criminal liability for divulging the nature of his secret mission, but not too long afer, on another (unapproved) leg of his mission, he has no problem dispatching 3 or 4 fellow astronauts...recall that there was no reason - besides the desire not to piss off his superiors and get prosecuted for revealing state secrets - to care whether .... OH never mind!! This is just so stupid.
4. On Mars they use enclosed land roving craft but on the Moon all landgoing vehicles are convertibles? Why?! I thought someone said this was the most realistic space travel movie ever. Does the surface of the Moon count? Besides what was the point - AT ALL - of the pirate attack on the Moon? None. It literally served zero purpose other than to keep Donald Sutherland's character from joining McBride. But let's face it, the character is at least 80 years old. Totally unfit for inter-solar system travel. So was that a bad writing/directing decision or a bad casting decision? Who knows? But anyway, why wouldn't they be using enclosed vehicles on the Moon in a known hotbed of piracy - OR - have MUCH better armed escorts with much better preparation and planning? I suppose the last question could be asked of just about any single aspect of any main story element in the film.
5. Way too many instances of guy-in-spacesuit-escapes-certain-death or guy-in-spacesuit-manages-miraculous-trip back to his craft or Earth - which is to say at least three such instances. Only one was necessary in "Gravity" - so why press the issue?
6. Isn't space VERY cold in Neptune's orbit? Yet this guy is wearing a standard issue 1985-era Space Shuttle Program suit and he's able to function normally in the ultra-cold vacuum for as long as he needs to with no signs of ice appearing in his helmet or otherwise?
7. The backpack he was wearing in the aforementioned scene - I didn't see any jet or pressure nozzles for propulsion on it and there were several clear shots of the bottom. Just general science-y type stuff. How's the guy gonna push through a field of floating ice rocks and end up right back exactly on course for his space ship? LOL
8. The woman who is in charge of the Mars base personnel. What's up with that little room she takes him to in order to tell McBride that she doesn't care what happens to his dad just after she clearly demonstrates otherwise when she tells him the story of how his father killed her own parents? So I guess I have two questions. What's up with her and what's up with the room?
9. What the heck was this underwater lake McBride uses to get to the bottom of the final rocket's launch pad? I mean, we are talking Mars here. Seriously what was that? Is there a big amount of sub-surface water on Mars that I'm not aware of or is this intended to portray some kind of system typical of Earth based rocket launches being duplicated on Mars? Either way, totally unbelievable how he uses it to get to the rocket, which he then climbs, breaks airlock in mid ascent (with massive g-forces in play) and, with a little bit of luck and skill, manages to de-commission the entire crew so that he can take over the entire mission to travel billions of miles to Neptune.
All of the above wouldn't even be things I'd be thinking about if the rest of the movie was engrossing and coherent enough to keep me interested. As it was, I give "Ad Astra" 6 stars for the amazing camera and effects work alone. This film rivaled Gravity in near- and mid-orbit scenery and disaster cinematography. The rest of the space travel stuff was also very nicely shot and rendered. The effect was a seamless integration of CGI and actual camera-shot footage according to the clearest intent of the word "seamless" - there was no point in this film at which I thought that I thought to myself that whatever I was seeing wasn't actually being shot on video rather than being generated by a computer. Perfecto! Soundtrack was also wonderful. Just enough, not too much, never overbearing, very fitting. Good job - Would not be surprised if both cinematography and soundtrack were nominated for Academy Awards.
I've seen some reviews with the ridiculous premise that people don't or won't like this film because it's not some shallow sci-fi effects and popcorn adventure flick. That's not relevant to my take on it. "Ad Astra" is a shallow space-based daddy issue flick with too many close up shots of Brad Pitt's face, too many plot holes, too many overtly stupid decisions by characters who are supposed to be the best and the brightest, and a bunch of other bad decisions by the director. Worth a watch, but in all honesty pushing the lower bounds of a 6.0-star review.
7 out of 12 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tell Your Friends