it's a finely made film. very well directed and shot. they stretched the budget really well. rockwell does a great job.
but the story is a bit dull and very predictable. i sat through it for the craft, but was not really enjoying the tale being told. rockwell plays his character well, but it's the same character he plays in every movie.
Don't you think it's far more original/ thought provoking than practically all Science Fiction films made these days?
The trend tends to be with Sci-Fis to make them action films set in space, with a little bit of science fiction thrown in.
Moon, on the other hand, is more like Solaris or Code 49. It doesn't have any big explosions, aliens or robotic killing machines. It also is obviously not really trying very hard to entertain us (I found parts of it difficult to watch and thought the film in general was extremely depressing).
NSFW:
On top of that there is pretty much only one person on screen for the whole film.
Given all that, the fact that it's even watchable is extraordinary. But personally I thought it was a perfect film in every way.
Rockwell doesn't always play the same character - and his performance in Moon is pretty incredible.
Rockwell did a good job and proved to me that he can be somewhat versatile as an actor. Choke was OK, but you can rarely beat the book so I left unsatisfied with him after that film.
It had Philip K Dick sense to it the whole time, reminded me of Bladerunner in an emotional way.
Yes, this is far better than those kinds of shit. no doubt.
Moon, on the other hand, is more like Solaris or Code 49. It doesn't have any big explosions, aliens or robotic killing machines. It also is obviously not really trying very hard to entertain us (I found parts of it difficult to watch and thought the film in general was extremely depressing).
That might be it. It bangs on this depressing note harder and harder. I commended the making of the film, i can't really flaw it. It's just that i didn't like the time.
Another film which is like this (but far worse in this sense) is "The Assassination of Richard Nixon". Superbly crafted and played by all involved, but it stays on such a damn low monotone throughout as to make me question why i am subjecting myself to it. Not all films need to be completely chirpy, but some kind of (up and down) journey is needed to be experienced. Contrast works better than sheer bombardment.
Rockwell doesn't always play the same character - and his performance in Moon is pretty incredible.
He's not a bad actor, i like him for the most part and in pretty much everything i saw him in (yes, even the lame hitchhikers guide movie), but he seems typecast to me.
i went in to t4 with low (t3 and *gag* charlies angels) expectations, but i got a fair ride for those expectations. it was a brainless, "fun" movie. It served its purpose for that well. I disagree that it was "as brainless as they get". They get far more brainless (see bay or shiyamalan or emmerich for examples).
This, on the other hand, served the well crafted purpose well (hence 3 stars), but i didn't like the time i spent there. Not all films are created equal (obviously), so they can't be judged by the same standards imo. A film made for tv or miniseries is a different kettle of fish to a blockbuster franchise.
i judge t4 with the standard i set for bay, shiyamalan and emmerich films, and by them it is pretty good. the absolute best of this "class" is kurisawa. he made it, after all. i just don't compare it to a kubrick film (for instance).
I thought, regardless of context or comparison, T4 was incredibly bad. Most of Shyamalan's films are much better. At least with him you get somewhat interesting ideas. Whereas T4 was just mindless action. John Conner crashes a helicopter twice and survives both collisions with little or no serious injury. Kyle Reese is captured by the terminators. They recognize him in the crowd of prisoners and scoop him out of the crowd. Supposedly he's number 2 on their kill list, but for some unknown, unspoken reason they don't kill him. They could've won the war right then, these super intelligent robot killing machines. Kill John Conner's father and Conner ceases to exist - right? But that's not the worst thing about the film. The worst thing (aside from Bale's acting) was that fucking hybrid terminator with the human heart played by Sam Worthlesston. Or maybe it was that asian chick, Moonblood whatever-the-fuck who (despite living in a post apocalyptic nuclear wasteland and constantly being pursued by killing machines) always looks like she just got out of hair and make up. More plot holes than I've encountered in a long time. Uninspired and illogical references to the previous films ("I'll be back.", "Come with me if you want to live.") One of the worst endings I've ever seen. "His heart can't take it?" "He can have mine." Seriously?
good critique. when watching it the first time, the only one of those which really bothered me was the silly heart thing. i grant i rated it higher than it probably deserves. it's a very silly movie. i guess sentimentality and a silly mood made it enjoyable at the time.
but i stick to it being better than a (post 6th sense) shiyamalan film. that guy is just shit.
I disagree. I think M. Night Shyamalan is one of the most under-rated directors of our time.
His films aren't perfect, but they're consistently weird and inventive. The only one I haven't liked so far is 'Signs' and that's probably because I can't stand Mel Gibson... (Yes, that means I liked 'Lady in the Water' (more than 90% of films that are made these days anyway)- I see it's flaws, but still it's a daring, bizarre film and is like nothing else I've ever seen)
I'm highly anticipating 'Devil'. I think it's the first Shyamalan script that he hasn't directed himself... and what a lovely off-beat Indie concept. He always reminds me of the 1980s in a really good way.
sorry, i long ago vowed not to give that man any more of my money. he uses his same cheap techniques to artificially create tension in his films (most noteably whispering characters). his films are clearly structured around a hook that everything else is built upon. these hooks are generally really lame, and so everything propping them up is even moreso. i'm not even interesting in his airbender adaptation.
i might give him a go if he finally directs something that he didn't write. his writing is just shit. seriously, i can do better.
I really hate just about everything Shyamalan has done, I can't see how you can descrie him as underrated! He always does amazingly well at box office despite his absolutely piss poor writing, it's not even like he has an interesting or different directing/visual style or anything to back up his cheap hack twist tales.
I describe him as underrated because it appears to be a popular past-time to shit on him.
He's not one of my favorite directors by a long way, but at least with his films I know that I'm in for something a bit different.. He doesn't make 'easy' films. ie. He doesn't attempt to make films that he knows are going to be commercially viable. In fact everything he's done is a gamble. He's like a weird Indie film maker that became extremely profitable/famous and everyone started judging him by mainstream standards. I don't know. I think both of your comments are a bit harsh, especially considering some of the mindless crap that you endorse (I'm not sure about you Evad and no offense Impacto, but it's kinda true).
Terminator Salvation is a much worse script than Shyamalan has ever penned.
his writing is just shit. seriously, i can do better.
^ i was referring to my writing. that one film i made is completely amateur. what do you expect with a first attempt with no crew and a budget of less than AUD$100.
i do credit shyamalan's intentions, but his execution is consistently very, very poor.
I know you were talking about your writing skills. The crew, budget, and your inexperience behind the camera have no impact on the script as far as I can see... And I've seen a lot (and worked on a lot) of films made on extremely low budgets. I did take into consideration these constraints/limitations as I do with all amateur low budget films. I don't judge amateurs by professional standards. Still some of them are pretty good. Yours, I thought, wasn't all that great. No offense. Shyamalan wrote 'The Sixth Sense' before the age of 29.
A lot of people say, 'I could paint a better painting', or 'I could make a better film', or 'I could write a better song' - but it's easier to talk about it than to do it. Abilities are limitless in our imagination, but when it comes down to writing a 120 page script, I've found that most people (even when they genuinely try) are incapable of doing so... Well, incapable of writing something that actually makes any sense anyway.
Maybe you don't fall into that category.
Send me something you've written. I have a couple of thousand to produce a short lying around, it could be yours.
understood. others i know who are familiar with my writing said that it was one of my weakest stories, but i wrote to my shooting and sfx abilities (as far as I knew them). your skepticism is completely understandable.
i generally refrain from the "i can do better" statement, and i did pause to consider that post as i wrote it.
Really, really liked this film, saw it at an arts cinema really stoned and, in a wierd way, it kind of made me think about my life, and how one needs to take bold steps to really live their time to its fullest. Does that make any sense?
if someone sits you down to watch a movie you've never heard of, and turns it off before credits roll, do you actually need to find out who made it before giving a fair opinion?
if someone sits you down to watch a movie you've never heard of, and turns it off before credits roll, do you actually need to find out who made it before giving a fair opinion?
Do you mean the opening credits or the end credits?
Ideally, any work of art should be judged independently, on its own merits or shortcomings. In practice, I believe it is rather hard to do this, especially if one is an aficionado of the artistic medium in question.
For example, I recently saw Donnie Brasco for the second time, and just like the first time I saw it years and years ago, all I could think was how much better the film would have been in the hands of Martin Scorsese. Whoever directed Donnie Brasco (didn't even bother to check) was obviously trying to mimic Scorsese's directorial style (hyper-real violence, R&B soundtrack, etc.) and failing miserably. 8)
NSFW:
Similarly, while watching Moon, it is almost impossible not to compare it to 2001: A Space Odyssey. I was trying to figure out Gertie's agenda so diligently that I was rather surprised when it came clean to Sam about the fact that he was just one more clone in a chain of "Sams."
I watched this last night and enjoyed it thoroughly. I agree that this film was one of the better sci-fi films released recently, but it's not without its flaws.
My only prior exposure to Sam Rockwell was through his role as Generic Repulsive Southern Dipshit No.1™ in The Green Mile. I was a little surprised to see him in this role, and even more surprised to see that he had been allowed to begin playing the role as an Ice Road Trucker in Space. I understand that the astronauts of the future won't necessarily be NASA's brightest and best test pilots and that the industrialisation of space will require greasemonkeys to make it successful, but the film didn't seem to be set at that point in time.
Rockwell didn't seem to me to have "the right stuff" that was necessary to make some scenes work.
In particular, the early interactions with his clone didn't come across very well and were lacking in depth. However, as the film captured his descent into ill health (what was that - radiation sickness or genetic defects?), there was a certain amount of poignancy that he managed to get across well. Very well.
I also enjoyed some of the comedic interplay between him and his clone: "are you comfy?" I literally lolled throughout that scene.
Yes, the storyline was reasonably predictable but fuck... I don't mind it being predictable if it's entertaining.
I was a little disappointed with the montage ending that briefly described the ramifications of Sam's actions. It all felt a bit rushed in an effort to give the film a definitive ending and, I think, it was the poorer for it. I think they should have left that final montage off for extra sci-fi ambiguity bonus points.
On the up side, the use of miniatures and models instead of overt CGI was a stroke of genius. It gives the film a retro look, somewhat reminiscent of Space 2099, yet the interior shots are clearly inspired by both the original Solaris and Alien films. It works in a hotch-potch kinda way.
GERTY.