I decided on the weekend to watch the 2019 science fiction movie with the big star cast (well, mainly Brad Pitt - and a very old looking Tommy Lee Jones) - Ad Adstra.
I had conflicting reports from 2 sets of people who had seen it - one thought it was good, the other: atrocious. But it got 83% on Rottentomatoes, and 80% on Metacritic. So how bad could it be?
Extremely bad! It's truly atrocious.
How on Earth did this movie get any good reviews at all?? It's an appalling script that strives for psychological depth and misses completely; that seems to want a setting with some scientific accuracy, but has all the space physics veracity of trash like Armageddon (quite possibly, less!).
I don't think I'm actually a pedant on science in science fiction: I can forgive bad space physics if it's wrong, but wrong in what I would call a semi-plausible sort of way. And there is the matter of whether it still works on a psychological level - so, for example, I could find some Dr Who episodes (in the David Tennant era, say - the only era worth considering, really) touching, and it didn't matter that it was full of nonsense physics.
But Ad Astra achieves no grounds to be soft on its science and physics, which become increasingly ludicrous as the movie progresses. And nothing is properly explained. It's a kind of Heart of Darkness in space story, with the twist that Colonel Kurtz is Martin Sheen's Dad, but there is nothing self-evident about the answers to the following questions:
what sent Dad nuts; was he deliberately zapping the Earth from his anti-matter device; if it is deliberate, to what end; what was the point of his anti matter device was in the first place; whether anyone foresaw that it could be used a weapon within the solar system; why Neptune; how Earth overcame climate change problems so as to spend its time on solar system exploration and a search for ETI; why there are "pirates" on the Moon (what do they hope to achieve by shooting up others driving across the lunar plains); why anyone would have to travel to Mars to send a "secure laser message"; why there would be a handy guide rope in an underground lake on Mars near a rocket launch site; why another spaceship doing research out in the asteroid belt would have primates and rats on board; why astronauts appear to have to undergo a psychological test to (what I assume is) an AI seemingly every second day. I could probably go on with another 20 questions that screamed out for an answer, or some context, if I had taken notes while watching.
I was surprised at the end to see that Brad Pitt was a producer. He seems to be a bit of a sucker for "troubled Dads" stories, if The Tree of Life is any guide - an infinitely better movie, btw.
Again, though, how did any critic watch it and think it was even decent from a "psychological study" point of view? I just found it continually cringe, as the young people say :).
That is all....
Opinion Dominion's review of the movie "Ad Astra" highlights their disappointment with the film. Despite the positive ratings it received on Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, the reviewer found the script to be appalling, lacking psychological depth and scientific accuracy. They express their willingness to overlook scientific inconsistencies in science fiction if the story works on a psychological level, citing examples from "Doctor Who." However, "Ad Astra" fails to provide satisfactory explanations for several plot elements and leaves numerous unanswered questions. The reviewer also mentions Brad Pitt's involvement as a producer and compares the film to "The Tree of Life," considering the latter to be a superior movie. Overall, they express surprise at the positive reviews the film received and find it cringe-worthy as a psychological study. https://robustlifestyles.com/66/Modern-Interior-Design-Living-Room
ReplyDelete