julian@osu-dbs.UUCP (10/22/83)
This movie is an adaption of the 1979 book by Tom Wolfe. And although they had to leave out a lot, it warn't a bad job. The movie deals briefly with Chuck Yeager (first man to break the sound barrier) and more heavily on the Mercury program, showing the camraderie built up by the original seven. The movie, like the book, shows the astronauts as humans, but with seven main characters, it's hard to do adequately, so a few get singled out. Since this is a movie, it can show us an interpretation of what the astronauts saw and felt so many years ago. If you're at all interested in space, it's fascinating! Kudos to the editors for snappy editing. See it!! (warning: it's three hours and a few minutes long) Julian Gomez Computer Graphics Research Group, Ohio State Univ. ucbvax!cbosg!osu-cgrg!julian
rjnoe@ihlts.UUCP (10/24/83)
"The Right Stuff", while it is a very good movie, was something of a disappointment to me. Perhaps I was expecting too much because of my special fascination with the subject matter but then again I think the movie does not wholeheartedly succeed even for those with lesser expectations. Nothing but the highest praise can be given Phil Kaufman for his direction and (to a much lesser degree) writing. His skill is evident in virtually every scene. These scenes work far better in the movie than they did in Tom Wolfe's book. The failing point of the movie is that it is too much like Wolfe's writing. I perceive this to be the fault of the editors. "The Right Stuff" had FIVE editors, and it looks like they all worked independently, throwing their edited footage together at random. There is no coherence, no fluidity to this movie. Some points are repeated all too often while others (which needed to be made) are all but ignored. I should also mention that Kaufman could have written it better had he not used so many "Wolfe-isms". Wolfe's unique style, while rather interesting to read, just grates on the ears when one hears the words spoken. On the acting level, the movie is excellent considering the difficulties inherent in a story with no main character. They've chosen to emphasize John Glenn, Alan Shepard, and Gordon Cooper at the expense of Wally Schirra and Deke Slayton. If you see the movie, count the number of lines spoken by Schirra (Lance Henriksen) and Slayton (Scott Paulin)--you'll be surprised how small the number really is. But this is all but unavoidable here. The actors themselves are all very good, most notably Ed Harris (as John Glenn), Sam Shepard (as Chuck Yeager), Scott Glenn (as Alan Shepard), and Fred Ward (as Gus Grissom). Dennis Quaid (as Gordon Cooper) and Charles Frank (as Scott Carpenter) should not be forgotten for their more than adequate performances, and as I've said Henriksen and Paulin just weren't given enough opportunity to show how well they can act. Credit for the story has to be given to Wolfe. He has done an incomparable job of presenting a side of the first seven astronauts seldom seen before his book was published. He has also shown how much effect these men had on the direction and philosophy of the manned space program. The movie does a better job than the book does in showing how the similarities and differences in these seven personalities contributed to this end. There is little noteworthy about the special effects. They are more "artsy" than accurate and, while pleasing to look at, detracted from the authenticity of the movie. I do have to give credit for the achievement of depicting aircraft in flight when years have passed since the last of these relics actually flew. There are many inaccuracies and inconsistencies which aviation fans will spot easily. They have also gone too far with the humor in this movie. I disagree with Walter Cronkite that they made LBJ look like a buffoon--while very funny, I think it was probably not too far off target. But they depict government workers and German scientists collectively by caricaturizing them. This time could have been better spent giving the viewer more historical details of the Mercury program. One thing I will say for this movie is that it did not bore me. The three hours (plus!) passed by more quickly than two often do, even faster than another long (but good) movie such as "Gandhi". I do recommend it, particularly to those who read Wolfe's book and didn't hate it. ***% (that's three and one half stars out of four) -- Roger Noe ...ihnp4!ihlts!rjnoe
thomas@utah-gr.UUCP (Spencer W. Thomas) (10/26/83)
Bill Buckley did a "review" of it recently, saw it last week sometime in our local paper. He didn't like it, because he thought it didn't capture the essence of Wolfe's book well enough. He liked the book wholeheartedly, apparently. For example, he points to the Houston Astrodome scene. In the book this is quite humorous and poignant, in the movie it (apparently, I haven't seen it yet) just comes across as sort of bombastic. If you can find the review, read it. =Spencer
swatt@ittvax.UUCP (Alan S. Watt) (11/02/83)
I was quite disappointed in this movie. I hadn't read the book, but had friends recommend it. The photography was *very* hokey, especially the scenes where they wanted you to believe some plane was going very fast. Worse than the photography however was that several major historical figures were grotesquely mis-played. Eisenhower and Lyndon Johnson worst of all. There were moments of pure slapstick protrayed as if historical fact. I read a review in the New Haven Advocate (local "alternate newspaper" rag) which had, amidst lots of discussion mostly irrelevant to either the book or the movie, one gem of a quote from one of the actresses who played the astronauts' wives: "We were quite pleased with the way it turned out; we were able to reconcile what these women [the wives] felt at that time with our own views as feminists." Heaven forbid that historical accuracy should interfere with making a political statement. :-) That view was about par for most of the movie. I have very little idea how accurate some of the parts of the movie are, but based on what I know to be distortions, I have lots of doubts. Perhaps in this respect Kaufman was only following the book; I'll have to read it and see. - Alan S. Watt
rene@umcp-cs.UUCP (11/04/83)
With respect to accuracy: in a newspaper review, one of the people
portrayed in the movie (I forget which one) said, "It was well done.
Not very accurate, but well done. [For instance] I don't remember all
that morality stuff." (That's a quote from memory). I think the
scientists were portrayed as being more unsympathetic and more the
stereotyped 'german scientist' than they should have been. Naturally,
scenes were compressed - it wasn't THAT easy to get a window in the
nose cone of the Apollo.
- rene
--
Arpa: rene.umcp-cs@CSNet-relay
Uucp:...{allegra,seismo}!umcp-cs!renejulian@osu-dbs.UUCP (11/06/83)
"With respect to accuracy:" That was Mercury, not Apollo. Maybe that person was in the wrong place at the right time. Or maybe he wasn't paying attention. Whatever, doesn't mean "all that morality stuff" didn't happen. Remember, this is a movie adaption of the book. Three hours long, and yet they had to leave out a great deal. It's still neat to see that book brought to life.
Pendleton@UTAH-20.ARPA (11/10/83)
From: Bob Pendleton <Pendleton@UTAH-20.ARPA> Having read the book I had to see the movie. I loved it! It was hilarious! It followed the book quite well but, of course, left out a lot that was in the book. I think of the movie as the comic book version of the book. The heros were heroic, the bad guys ( scientists ) were villainous scum, and the politicians acted like politicians are supposed to act. Someone, the director maybe or the editor, was a little confused. They show a Mercury-Redstone taking off, then cut to a shot of an Atlas staging, then back to the Mercury-Redstone. Later after showing a Mercury-Atlas taking off they cut to a shot back from the nose that clearly shows a fin, Redstones have fins, Atlases don't. When talking about the rocket assisted F-104 they mention that it has the BIG ENGINE, in the book the BIG ENGINE was always the follow on engine for the X-15. It was well worth the $5, After seeing it YOU WILL BELIEVE THAT A MAN CAN FLY Bob Pendleton P.S. Please don't flame at me about an Atlas being a one stage vehicle and therefore not capable of staging. It is referred to as a 1.5 stage vehicle and dropping the two outboard engines is considered staging. -------