Fly Me to the Moon Is a NASA Rom-Com that Fails To Launch
Channing Tatum and Scarlett Johansson star in what may be the first romantic comedy about government funding disputes.

If nothing else, Fly Me to the Moon is probably the first romantic comedy structured around a dispute over federal funding. One hopes it's also the last.
Set during the heyday of NASA's moon missions, the movie tells the story of Cole Davis, a hunky moonshot flight director (Channing Tatum), and Kelly Jones, a Madison Avenue marketing wizard (Scarlett Johansson), who must work together to sell the moon landing to both the public and skeptical members of Congress. And, also, fake the moon landing, Stanley Kubrick-style, just in case anything goes wrong.
It's an inventive setup with real potential, and the leading duo provide plenty of movie-star rocket fuel. But the underwhelming script and scattered story don't deliver on the premise. If Fly Me to the Moon were a mission to space, it would be regarded as a failure to launch.
Although the moon shot is now revered as one of the last moments where Americans proved they could do and build big things, the movie begins by reminding viewers that in its own time, it was perceived quite differently—as a wasteful federal program that deprived ordinary Americans of scarce public resources. It was, in other words, a classic big-government boondoggle, or, perhaps, a moondoggle.
With the program struggling from lack of public support and the threat of yanked funding from Washington, a mysterious White House operative named Moe Berkus (Woody Harrelson) decides to bring in Jones to use modern advertising techniques to improve public perception of NASA's mission.
Jones, we are supposed to understand, is an ad-world superstar who also happens to be a bit of a con artist: When we first encounter her, she's pitching a new muscle car marketing plan to a group of middle-aged male car executives. Her big idea? Highlight the seatbelts, which in the late 1960s were on the precipice of becoming mandatory, and which might make wives feel more comfortable with a sports car. (You always know you're in for a fun night at the movies when the film starts with a scene designed to give you warm tingles about federal transportation regulations.)
To help make her case, Jones fakes being pregnant with an artificial baby bump. The scene is supposed to demonstrate how clever she is—a modern career woman, thinking in ways that male has-beens never could—but mostly it shows how dumb the movie is. It's tendentious and smug, too cute by half, and it relies on the credulity-straining premise that execs at a national auto brand would be totally unaware of the sales implications of safety features they installed before a regulatory requirement went into place.
More potentially interesting is the movie's treatment of President Richard Nixon: Early on, Jones' assistant proclaims herself a card-carrying feminist who could never work for Nixon. But then she proceeds to do just that, and the matter is mostly dropped. Fly Me to the Moon can't decide whether it wants to treat Nixon as a villain or give him some sort of props for being the president who presided over NASA's first successful manned mission to the moon. A better film might have captured some nuance or complication in its portrayal, but Fly Me to the Moon is content to stay simplistic and shallow.
It doesn't help that an hour in, after Kelly and Cole have begun to sell the space program to skeptical members of Congress, the movie introduces another subplot about faking the moon landing just in case anything goes wrong with the real mission. This storyline is handled with broad silliness, which makes for an awkward contrast with the film's insistence on the, er, gravity of the lunar mission, and its repeated nods to a trio of astronauts who died on the launchpad due to safety malfunctions. It's not impossible to mix somberness with silliness, but Fly Me to the Moon never achieves liftoff with either.
What's left is a fun concept with appealing leads that, sadly, has been poorly engineered from the ground up. Johansson and Tatum are charming enough that Fly Me to the Moon doesn't quite crash and burn. But coming, as it does, in a time in which big-screen romances are in decline, and the genre has mostly retreated to smaller-scale streaming affairs, it's enough to make you worry: At least as far as rom-coms go, maybe Hollywood can't do big things.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It's got Scarlet Johansson in it, so I might watch it anyway.
funny I came here to say the two leads are the film equivalent of today's pop music ... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Or Her -- which is way more topical with AI getting more convincing in human interactions now.
It doesn't help that an hour in, after Kelly and Cole have begun to sell the space program to skeptical members of Congress, the movie introduces another subplot about faking the moon landing just in case anything goes wrong with the real mission.
A rom-com involving federal funding disputes with a sprinkling of conspiracy theories involving the moon landing. Sounds like the producers couldn't decide what was to be the main topic of this movie.
This was way better when it was called Capricorn One.
Kind of odd they would tacitly admit in this film that the moon landing might have been faked. Unless they're just making fun of conspiracy theorists, but it seems like they're just taking it for granted that the government could have faked it, if that's what was needed to keep the money flowing.
Hollywood writers. The worst kind of writer. Wholly ignorant of the real world, writing whatever idiot execs tell them, and not having the guts to stand up for themselves out of fear of using their WGA card.
I’m not sure how old Suderman is, or where he gets his info, but in the 1960s, NASA was most definitely NOT considered a wasteful boondoggle, except on the extreme far left (for whom there could never be enough social spending, and who were enthralled with the USSR, our competitors in the space race)
This idiotic assertion wouldnt begin to have much of a grain of truth until a few years AFTER the initial moon landing, as there were no more giant technological leaps readily evident in subsequent missions , and with the general malaise brought about by Watergate and the fall of Saigon
I'm also not sure what Nixon has to do with it, since JFK and LBJ were the ones pushing it. By the time Nixon was inaugurated, the moon landing was only six months away and almost impossible to cancel. I know government moves slowly, but ....
Maybe it's just a bad review summary.
That seemed an odd take to me, too. The movie could have been interesting with the "push the real one but just in case...." scenario. Not my type of movie and I wouldn't see it even if I still went to movie theaters.
Is "Fails To Launch" a euphemism?
the first romantic comedy about government funding disputes
Have you never seen the movie Dave? Given the current situation with the White House, might be worth a go.
Grodin doing the budget was hysterical.
Yep.
It's hard to beat a number two yellow pencil and a legal pad.
Yeah, it was a surprisingly good movie and Grodin saying "who does these books. If I did this I'd be in jail" (sic)
Be fair. History did not start until 2008. Or was it 2016?
2006. That's when the first Taylor Swift album was released.