Skip to main content

I am forever driven on this quest.

Ad Astra
(2019)

(SPOILERS) Would Apocalypse Now have finished up as a classic if Captain Willard had been ordered on a mission to exterminate his mad dad with extreme prejudice, rather than a mysterious and off-reservation colonel? Ad Astra features many stunning elements. It’s an undeniably classy piece of filmmaking from James Gray, who establishes his tone from the get-go and keeps it consistent, even through various showy set pieces. But the decision to give its lead character an existential crisis entirely revolving around his absent father is its reductive, fatal flaw, ultimately deflating much of the air from Gray’s space balloon.

So by the end, Ad Astra looks somewhat limp and less than revelatory. Prior to the final leg of astronaut Major Roy McBride’s (Brad Pitt) journey, however, the picture largely succeeds on its own terms. Sure, Roy somehow passing his psych evaluation after equating a crazy baboon with his own inner, father-imbued rage is an early sign this isn’t quite going to be the trenchant meditative mission movie we’d hoped for. But generally, it’s rewarding, and the Malick-esque narration is fairly minimal and more effective for that.

Unfortunately, the prospect of meeting daddy (Tommy Lee Jones’ Clifford McBride) prises the lid off Roy’s supressed psyche, and by the time he’s on his solo voyage, regrets and memories are tumbling out, none of them very stimulating and, frankly, most of them tending to the anodyne (Liv Tyler is in the cast as his estranged wife, but she’s effectively a silent symbol of loss, rather than an actual part). The Neptune passage of the picture isn’t a complete bust, since it carries an austere beauty when Roy isn’t blethering on (notably, it took Voyager 2 twelve years to get there, so it looks like space travel comes on in leaps and bounds very soon). But by this point, it has become clear that Ad Astra’s destination won’t be inspiring anyone, philosophically, emotionally, or otherwise.

As such, meeting Clifford and finding he (a) hasn’t shaved his head and put on a hundred pounds and (b) most stridently has failed to meet up with any unfriendly aliens, isn’t remotely surprising. "I have infinite work to do" is about as unhinged as Clifford gets. The very fact that Gray is making a space picture all about family (he should have cast Vin Diesel) tells us that, at best, he’s going to be on a testosterone-inflected version of Contact, but more than likely that his feet are much too firmly planet on terra firma for any of that alien or cosmic-consciousness nonsense. The most psychedelic Gray gets is the nature images projected on the walls of Roy’s quarters on Mars.

Which isn’t to say there aren’t a number of fairly out-there moments along the way, such as Roy climbing aboard a rocket through the tailpipe moments before lift-off and not getting singed, and managing to bust his way through one of Neptune’s rings back to his ship on a chunk of space station hull, a stupendously unlikely feat (so much so, I initially thought he was going to surf for it, Dark Star style).

I wasn’t let down by Jones being fairly standard-issue Jones, then, or by the emotional crux of the piece being Clifford’s admission that he doesn’t give a hoot about Roy, and Roy’s that he does about his old man (such that, inevitably, he meaningfully makes contact with wifey again at the end, who of course, has been mooning around all this time waiting for her man rather than getting on with her life). Gray had already long-since backed himself into a corner, and suddenly veering off into Sunshine or Event Horizon territory – other lost-mission space movies – just wasn’t going to happen.

The chief problem with Gray’s concept is that, similarly to the way anything veering from the scientifically plausible here undermines the whole due to a presiding emphasis on a feasible future – whereas the same might go unnoticed in, say, Armageddon – the cosmic scale absolutely fails to offer a fitting contrast to Brad’s intimate journey. It might have, but the parameters set render it, well, not twee exactly, but humdrum, mundane and finally slightly trite. Gray’s previous picture The Lost City of Z was similar in some respects – exploration of the unknown, a focus on familial relationships – but more satisfying for its ambiguity. That’s likely a consequence of being an adaptation, and I suspect Gray would be wise to try directing something he hasn’t also written; his perspective as a creator of material is far less interesting than as an executor.

Still, Pitt provides a sterling performance throughout. The swagger of Cliff Booth in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood may be getting all the (early) Oscar talk, but he’s doing more interesting work here. The only problem I had was that the voiceover, particularly with its laboured and somewhat facile wrestling for meaning, smacked more and more of Malick-lite fare as it went on ("I don't know if I hope to find him, or finally be free of him"). Pitt’s in frame throughout the picture, and required to underplay in expressing Roy’s contained nature (as such, it also put me a little in mind of Ryan Gosling interiorised spaceman in last year’s First Man). Donald Sutherland and Ruth Negga are also memorable, while Natasha Lyonne has a mystifyingly brief help-desk cameo.

Mostly, though, you’ll remember the man against the landscape, or starscape, and Pitt’s stoic face juxtaposed against his changing environment, and the sobriety of the limitless as captured by Max The Leftovers Richter’s sombre, contemplative score. Hoyte van Hoytema, Christopher Nolan’s now regular DP, creates a mission of immersive beauty, even when the surroundings are as spartan as those of the Mars colony. And when it comes to the bursts of action – an enervating Moon buggy chase (travel to the Moon comes via Virgin not-quite-Atlantic), the attack by the space baboon, McBride taking command of the Neptune rocket – the standard is as compelling and gripping as any action movie.

Which may be a backhanded compliment, since it’s been suggested that at least two of these, the first two, came by way of enforced reshoots overseen by Dan Bradley. I might have more of problem with such unceremonious interference with a vision – if indeed that’s what happened – if I thought the vision was a refined one in the first place (I see these sequences may have been in the screenplay, and I have to admit, wistfully adding Liv Tyler seems as likely a studio dictate as any of the amped-up action, as does giving Roy a hero’s welcome rather than ending on an ambiguous note).

Because if Ad Astra fails to fulfil its potential, that’s down to Gray’s patchy premise rather than anything in its translation to screen (minus a few generations, and add a splash of the metaphysical, and you aren’t so far from Coco). The shame of it is, this won’t make nearly enough money to justify a $100m price tag, and it’s difficult to see how anyone at Fox ever thought a slow-paced science-fiction yarn aimed at adult audiences would. Perhaps they thought it had Nolan-esque potential, but Nolan’s the only one who can make hits out of material with Nolan-esque potential. Unfortunately, the inevitable lack of an audience for Ad Astra will simply further confirm that all there is left for cinema goers are comic-book franchises and live-action remakes of cartoons. The only surprise should be that Ad Astra wasn’t a Netflix production. Give it time, and Gray will surely find himself heading their way. And they’ll welcome him with open arms.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Other monks will meet their deaths here. And they too will have blackened fingers. And blackened tongues.

The Name of the Rose (1986) (SPOILERS) Umberto Eco wasn’t awfully impressed by Jean Jacques-Annaud’s adaptation of his novel – or “ palimpsest of Umberto Eco’s novel ” as the opening titles announce – to the extent that he nixed further movie versions of his work. Later, he amended that view, calling it “ a nice movie ”. He also, for balance, labelled The Name of the Rose his worst novel – “ I hate this book and I hope you hate it too ”. Essentially, he was begrudging its renown at the expense of his later “ superior ” novels. I didn’t hate the novel, although I do prefer the movie, probably because I saw it first and it was everything I wanted from a medieval Sherlock Holmes movie set in a monastery and devoted to forbidden books, knowledge and opinions.

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

Watership Down (1978) (SPOILERS) I only read Watership Down recently, despite having loved the film from the first, and I was immediately impressed with how faithful, albeit inevitably compacted, Martin Rosen’s adaptation is. It manages to translate the lyrical, mythic and metaphysical qualities of Richard Adams’ novel without succumbing to dumbing down or the urge to cater for a broader or younger audience. It may be true that parents are the ones who get most concerned over the more disturbing elements of the picture but, given the maturity of the content, it remains a surprise that, as with 2001: A Space Odyssey (which may on the face of it seem like an odd bedfellow), this doesn’t garner a PG certificate. As the makers noted, Watership Down is at least in part an Exodus story, but the biblical implications extend beyond Hazel merely leading his fluffle to the titular promised land. There is a prevalent spiritual dimension to this rabbit universe, one very much

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) (SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek , but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan . That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

In a few moments, you will have an experience that will seem completely real. It will be the result of your subconscious fears transformed into your conscious awareness.

Brainstorm (1983) (SPOILERS) Might Brainstorm have been the next big thing – a ground-breaking, game-changing cinematic spectacle that had as far reaching consequences as Star Wars (special effects) or Avatar (3D) – if only Douglas Trumbull had been allowed to persevere with his patented “Showscan” process (70mm film photographed and projected at 60 frames per second)? I suspect not; one only has to look at the not-so-far-removed experiment of Ang Lee with Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk , and how that went down like a bag of cold sick, to doubt that any innovation will necessarily catch on (although Trumbull at least had a narrative hinge on which to turn his “more real than real” imagery, whereas Lee’s pretty much boiled down to “because it was there”). Brainstorm ’s story is, though, like its title, possibly too cerebral, too much concerned with the consciousness and touting too little of the cloyingly affirmative that Bruce Rubin inevitably brings to his screenplays. T

They say if we go with them, we'll live forever. And that's good.

Cocoon (1985) Anyone coming across Cocoon cold might reasonably assume the involvement of Steven Spielberg in some capacity. This is a sugary, well-meaning tale of age triumphing over adversity. All thanks to the power of aliens. Substitute the elderly for children and you pretty much have the manner and Spielberg for Ron Howard and you pretty much have the approach taken to Cocoon . Howard is so damn nice, he ends up pulling his punches even on the few occasions where he attempts to introduce conflict to up the stakes. Pauline Kael began her review by expressing the view that consciously life-affirming movies are to be consciously avoided. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but you’re definitely wise to steel yourself for the worst (which, more often than not, transpires). Cocoon is as dramatically inert as the not wholly dissimilar (but much more disagreeable, which is saying something) segment of Twilight Zone: The Movie directed by Spielberg ( Kick the Can ). There