Moon [Sundance 09]

[JG]

yo, i can get behind departures, but i thought moon was just okay. it felt like a pastiche of far more subtle and thoughtful sci-fi movies. rockwell was charming, but that was it. also, i don't think i've ever liked a clint mansell score.

[john]

I'm with JG on this one.

Admirable, if not innovative - nothing in it felt like a revelation, nothing reminded me of something I'd forgotten or previously didn't love about cinema or the sci-fi genre itself.

Rockwell's performance is continually engaging and very solid... even Jone's direction is  continually clever without being overly clever.

It's certainly worth your time more than, as Pete noted, the majority of these big summer films. It's also very pretty to look at. But the shit that people are giving Rian Johnson being indebted to his influences seems a more - or at least, an equally worthy accusation on Duncan Jones... there isn't much here that I haven't seen before.

I also want to throw my voice into the chorus of folks recommending Departures. See it, y'all.

[OrHowILearnedTo]

ya, it's not bad but it had the potential to be so much better. It bugged me that the interaction between the characters was more to advance the story than to explore the themes it presents. *spoiler* The idea of talking to a clone of yourself, and you not knowing if you're a clone yourself is very interesting. they should've ran with that more. *end spoiler*

it also didn't as good to look at as i thought it would be. not that the visuals were bad, but for some reason i was expecting more. i blame the poster.

[matt35mm]

I liked it but I keep wanting to describe it as cute.  Maybe because of the robot (Kevin SPACE-y, I GET IT NOW!) and the dorky side of Sam.  I'm glad I went in not really knowing what the story was about, which is why I'm hesitant to discuss it here.  I'll just say that I admired the attempt at a big idea, and that it functions better as a character study than as a philosophical anything--kinda the opposite of the way I felt about Soderbergh's Solaris.  Regarding the main, er, themes of the film, I found it more clever than thoughtful, which isn't exactly a criticism because this probably wouldn't work as well as a film that took too much time to think through all the philosophical blah blah blahs.

And if you're in this thread and haven't seen the movie, get the fuck out.  I say that because I love you and I don't want you to hurt yourself.

[pete]

I actually liked this for how straightforward and plot-driven it is, much like Collateral.  I've been back-stabbed by too many sci-fi movies and short stories that reveal the "mystery" to be some douchey psychological, or worse - philosophical illustration.  fuck that man, I wanted to know why the Moon was so weird and it told me why it was so weird and I was happy with that answer because it made sense in the story and gave the characters satisfaction/ redemption or whatever.  in other words, just your old school regular sci-fi movie, something much more akin to shit I was reading as a kid that pulled me into the genre for a year or two.  I loved 2001, but sometimes we just need something like Moon.

[matt35mm]

Yeah I agree that philosophical/psychological illustration is often lame.  But some themes/ideas are bound to be considered philosophically and this film presents a philosophically/morally difficult problem.  I'm not disagreeing with you, though; I don't think the movie would have benefited from being more philosophical or less straightforward.  And I liked it and I was engaged throughout.

[OrHowILearnedTo]

I actually liked this for how straightforward and plot-driven it is, much like Collateral.  I've been back-stabbed by too many sci-fi movies and short stories that reveal the "mystery" to be some douchey psychological, or worse - philosophical illustration.  fuck that man, I wanted to know why the Moon was so weird and it told me why it was so weird and I was happy with that answer because it made sense in the story and gave the characters satisfaction/ redemption or whatever.  in other words, just your old school regular sci-fi movie, something much more akin to shit I was reading as a kid that pulled me into the genre for a year or two.  I loved 2001, but sometimes we just need something like Moon.

I agree with you in that sometimes i prefer straightforward, plot driven movies as opposed to ones that try to take some lame philosophical statement. The problem i had with moon is that it laid the groundwork for some ideas that i thought were pretty interesting and wanted answers to, then it sorta changed its mind and turned into a thriller.

Still good though, just thought it was going to be great.

[Neil]

I didn't notice where it turned into a "thriller" as you call it, there was no build up.  I maintained curiosity, but wasn't on the brink of my seat freaking about what would happen next.  The movie unfolded fine to me, i thought it was very well paced.  And I personally think you guys need to calm down with all the "philosophy" talk, and how it should or shouldn't have had it.  It's in there.  If you think it's lame, fucking write an essay on it.  I don't think there is such thing as "lame philosophy" as you put it.  Maybe someone put a shoddy version of aw philosophical inquiry in a film, and it didn't work.  This is not this film.  If they were trying to be so deep they wouldn't let alot of the sequences that "what the fuck" you, stand alone. I do agree that there were some very interesting themes in the film that were not expanded on, but they didn't trouble me at all.  The study of ones character is very much a philosophical entity.   Is the mysterious part where you're dubbing "thriller?"

[OrHowILearnedTo]

spoilers

I thought they were trying to build up tension during the final act, when the find all the clones and realize what's happening. I though the tone shifted into a race to see if they could get off the ship, especially with the countdown and the intercutting with the arrival of the other crew. That's what i was referring to. I guess thriller was the wrong word because it wasn't edge of your seat intense but i definitely felt a tone shift.

[Neil]

CONT.  SPOIL



I understand that, and agree completely.  The tone it set for me was more eerie, and the time between the countdown wasn't like a syncopated thing or anything like that, I didn't feel like it became a suspenseful countdown until seconds before.  I think it ended perfectly with...Rush Limbaugh, bringing us back to earthly bullshit everyday issues.  Pete is right, the ending doesn't suck.  Personally, the film did three things which I enjoy in a sci-fi film.  Toys, Taking me somewhere i've never been, and tingling Visual spider sense.  and that's just visually, we won't even get into character necessities.  Fucking Rockwell kills, and for those of you calling out philosophy, this movie raises plenty of philosophical questions to me, it just doesn't DWELL on them like most pretentious overindulging narcissistic works you may speak of and  where it didn't focus on SUPER NEAT toys, the equipment was fun to be around for me.  Great desolation for me, and whoever said they "don't like any mansel score" needs to chill the fuck out and watch the shit.  It sounded fucking great to me.  I mean seriously, subtract the name.  The music was never, EVER overbearing, it complemented it well i thought.  Very calm, and organic, with ambience, sounds like space to me.  I'd just be interested to hear where it didn't work for you....I dug this.

[MacGuffin]

Time-travel movie next for Bowie's director son, Duncan Jones?
Source: SciFi Wire

Fresh off his British Independent Film Award wins for Best Film and Best Debut Director this week for his low-budget mini-masterpiece Moon, Duncan Jones (formerly known as Zowie Bowie, son of rocker David Bowie) is gearing up to tackle the SF thriller Source Code. According to a Tweet from Production Weekly, Jones will start pre-production in a few weeks and will film this spring in Montreal.

Variety reports that Source Code is the story of a soldier who finds himself repeatedly placed in the body of another person just before the detonation of a bomb on a commuter train. Prince of Persia's Jake Gyllenhaal, currently starring in the drama Brothers with Natalie Portman and Tobey Maguire, has been in negotiations to play the lead, replacing Topher Grace.

SF fans could say that this premise seems like a cocktail of Quantum Leap Groundhog's Day, and the time-travel show Seven Days. But if Jones showed such chops taking established SF tropes and making them seem fresh in Moon, do you think he can pull off the premise of Source Code?

[Stefen]

Topher Grace >>>>>>>> Jake Gyllenhaal.

[Gamblour.]

This premise sounds lame.

[modage]

F O R   Y O U R   C O N S I D E R A T I O N

2010 Xixax Awards Winner for Best Movie Poster

[Alexandro]

Ok, so yes, it is weird to hear complains about "lame philosophy" around here. I don't really know if I get what that means, but I do like when movies aim to be philosophical rather than plot driven. Or even better, when they are both and get away with it.

I liked Moon specially at the beginning, but i gotta echo other comments about how the interesting aspect of it was just another plot advancement when it was juicier enough to be where the real interest came. Rockwell is great and the visual design is...well, there were times where I was thinking if 2001 had ruined visual design in serious science fiction movies forever, but of course it was a pleasure to look at it. i was expecting to feel more emotional with the whole thing but it never happened.

nice movie but I could sense all the time it was going to blow me away and then it didn't.