MOON Movie Review

Moon is a thing of beauty to watch unfold. It’s a simple concept executed so brilliantly that you’d be amazed to find out its director Duncan Jones’ first feature. He’s created one of the most unique films in a good while and maybe the best science fiction film of the year. Unfortunately it’s one of those films that’s tough to discuss without revealing it’s twist. On the same token, the movie doesn’t rely on it’s twist to make or break it as it reveals it’s biggest secret fairly early and becomes a character study.

The technology in Moon isn’t flashy or chic. Instead it sticks to something George Lucas lost with his prequels and creates believable gizmos, gadgets and space stations. Where most might have made GERTY (the on board robot) a giant floating sphere with a flashing eye, Jomoon-posternes chooses to make it a bulky machine that runs on a track. GERTY also is equipped with an on-board camera and keyboard with post it notes stuck on his front and back. The space station itself appears as one that’s seen many years and shows subtle signs of wear and tear. The screens, keyboards and other gear inside the station aren’t tables you tap your fingers on but tactile keyboards and widescreen displays still present. Moon is set in our future yes, but it’s a future that could be very real. In any case, you have to appreciate the level of detail and thinking Jones and his crew went with the production design. Bottom line, Lunar Industries is only one or two steps away from being a very real company thanks in large part to this film crew’s attention to detail and thought.

Of course Moon wouldn’t be anything without an outstanding lead and Sam Rockwell more than answers the call. Granted this phrase gets tossed around a lot, but Rockwell deserves a nomination for Best Actor at the Oscars, more so than a certain clown-clad actor did. It’s a challenging role that demands not only the actor to be several different emotions but the film literally rests on his shoulders. Rockwell makes it seamless as if this is just another day at the office for him. Literally he is the film as he basically interacts with only television screens. Yet there’s emotion in his eyes that most actors would have fumbled if given the chance. Rockwell’s performance and Jones’ direction are accompanied by a brilliant score from Clint Mansell. Mansell engulfs you into this world with a catchy tune that will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. The tunes hit the right beats and are never overused or overblown.

Moon is a film that you’ll need a day or two to think on after you’ve seen it which isn’t a bad thing. Upon reflecting on Jones’ piece, one should discover what a brilliant, unique, and terrific film they were treated to. The film is influenced by many a sci-fi films, even the one everyone takes from 2001: A Space Odyssey. However it is coy about it’s references and doesn’t feel like Jones just watched Kubrick’s masterpiece and said “Let’s make a movie!” Moon is a prime example of what happens when all the great elements of filmmaking stitch together a truly great picture. Moon unfortunately won’t have the wide appeal of a dumber “science fiction” film but those remotely interested should give it a chance and experience it’s greatness.

 ★★★★½ 



  • Peter Baum
    My friend and I caught "Moon" at the Newport Film Festival. I found
    the film beautiful to look at, more than a little thought-provoking, and featuring a terrific performance by Sam Rockwell. I can't say I
    completely "got it" after one viewing, but director Duncan Jones'
    excellent Q and A session provided considerable clarification. I'd now love to see it again! A most auspicious debut.
  • Kathy
    "It's" is a contraction. It is short for "it is" (or occasionally for "it has"). It's not a way to ascribe a property to some "it". Yes, I know that this would make sense given that the general rule for forming a possessive is to tack on "'s": fool's errand, brewer's yeast, horse's ass. "It's" is an exception to this rule, and I honestly apologize on behalf of the infuriating English language. I didn't invent this stupid rule, but it's hardwired into my brain like gender of nouns to French speakers.

    Examples:

    It's a small world, after all. It's a small world, after all. It's a small world, after all. It's a small world, after all.
    You do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself around, that's what it's all about.
    Well, it's been a long, been a long, been a long, been a long day.

    Its
    "Its" is a possessive pronoun. Its interpretation is something like "that which belongs to it", where "it" stands for some previously defined object. In the previous sentence, the object being referred to is the word "its", and the thing that belongs to it is its interpretation.

    Examples:


    He left it dead, and with its head he went galumphing back
    Love rears its ugly head.

    (explained by Craig S. Kaplan)
  • McSnyder
    "It's", a thing of beauty. Ain't it? It's depth, it's shades and shadows as we are slowly led into a deep conundrum, it's doubly nuanced performance, it's pale tracks in the riven regolith of a brutal reality, it's deep question of where the line is drawn by which humanity acquaints it's self with itself, and acquits it's self of itself.
  • McSnyder
    Over the top, huh? Where are the rules?
  • Melinda
    We walked out half way through the movie. Sorry, just didn't get it.
  • Steve
    I saw Moon last night. I liked it, but found myself leaving the theatre wondering, "Did it have a point to make?" Then it occurred to me that the movie wasn't intended to have a monolithic, overarching 'point' - it was intended mostly to examine how one man responds to and overcomes some very trying conditions.

    The movie struck me as a bit old-fashioned, but not in a bad way. If anything, the producers of Moon relied upon tried and true methods of filmmaking instead of using flashy CGI effects to stand in for those three elements.

    It does have a bit of a Kubrickian feel to it, like 2001: A Space Odyssey, but it's not in your face, and GERTY, the robot/computer isn't half as malevolent as HAL was.

    Moon was so well produced on its $5 million budget that it could start a trend in movie-making. Who'd a thunk it? A return to solid cinematography, a solid script and solid acting?
  • L. Watts
    I just watche "Moon" with my husband--It came off as "real" science fiction instead of a soap opera/swasbuckler with rocket ships.

    Sure, it's about a man responding what is happening to him but it is also a comment on the ultimate employee. Not only do you use the employee, you literally use the employee up and then throw him out and THEN just warm up a replacement and plug him in. Totally replaceable, mistakes are self correcting (in three years) and you NEVER have to worry about the guy going home and sueing the company due to all that radiation to which he was exposed. A total company man, owned, operated and replaceable.

    My husband said this is how it is now, but I responded that he gets to live longer. . .
  • Katrina
    This movie was so much better than I expected.

    I read every plot spoiler to see if wanted to see the film - the only it may have been better was if I was told how good it was and not peeked at the storline so it could all have been a surprise.

    The self-sacrifice displayed each of the main characters before the end left me inspired.

    What a great piece. Wish more movies were of this quality. It desrves all the awards it gets.

    Enjoy.
  • EvanEd
    I’m 14 years and I have recently discovered I have a thing for psychological movies. The one thing I really find interesting about Moon is that you can think about it excessively after you have actually watched it. I have to admit that there were a lot of things that didn’t make sense after I had watched it, but hey, that’s what wikipedia is for right? :) (spoilers) the one thing I find very intriguing is the thought- how many Sams preformed their mission and died before the main Sam (the first one in the movie) came into existence? The original Sam departed when Tess was pregnant and left after three years (we will assume that Eve was three when he returned) it is revealed in the movie that in the current time Eve is fifteen, and our Sam (who the movie follows his story) is at the end of hiss three year shift (and in reality his life)…. Judging from this information I’m pretty sure; there was the original Sam (the very first) then there was three other clones (who are not shown in the movie) who preformed their task, THEN there is our Sam and then the other Sam who accompanies him in the movie. Does that make sense to anybody? I’d like to hear a response to see if my theory is correct? :D

    Great movie by the way, defiantly see it- for those who are interested. :)
blog comments powered by Disqus

Follow Atomic Popcorn

          Follow us on Twitter    Follow us via RSS    Follow us via Email