Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
It may be a consequence of how much the film delivers put against expectation and my hopes were high. For the money, they did very well and you're right about the comparison with Transformers. I've not seen the latter and unlikely to where I did go and see "Moon" so in that respect, "Moon" did it's job and Transformers' big budget has failed to impress. However none of the things I mentioned would have adversely affected the budget, indeed probably reduced it. Putting technical stuff aside, the story still had many improbable's in it and the story is the foundation on which you hang everything else. It's an OK movie, just not one you come out of thinking 'that was great'.
Keith, write your text and then highlight the bit you want white with the mouse. To the left of the smiley face is a capital 'A' underlined with a black bar. Click on the little arrowhead just to the right of the 'A' and a colour swatch appears. Select the white (bottom right) and your text will change colour once you un-highlight it.
If you hit the Post Reply button, you get a box open up where you write in your text. On the right are all the emoticons and in the upper part of the frame are various icons for changing the nature of the text (bold, italic, etc.). One of the icons (not the 'underline' icon) is a capital 'A' underlined with a thick black bar. That's your colour control.
OK, thanks to Phil I can now post my comments on the film;
Quite a good film, though as Chris says, I probably won't be getting the DVD. Although the filmamakers did consistently refer to the Far Side of the moon as opposed to the dark side, the lunar surface seemed to be filmed rather darkly and the craters were certainly far too pronounced (although the lunar mountains in the distance seemed quite accurate). The size of the Earth from the surface at the very end was way, way too big (it can be covered by a thumb at arm's length).
Couldn't understand why the company would install a computer which would happily tell Sam anything he wanted to know, but neither Sam seemed interested in asking what he was suffering from! I assume the cloning process was defective, but even at one a year, they couldn't have racked up that many in the time they had been operating (and I think that was Bay 2 they showed).
And why such a huge moonbase?
Have to say it was kind of derivative of 2001 etc, but I suppose it must be difficult nowadays not to see an influence from a previous film.
Interesting to see once, and way better than some I've seen.
Not sure where that came from unless no one is allowed to have a different opinion from yourself. The whole thing about opinions is that they are personal and reviews are a two way street. I'm glad you liked it. I did too for the most part but it's still not a great film in my opinion. Please feel free to own your opinion in the same way.
What on Earth was that about, or should I say what on the Moon was it about?
Personally I thought the film was watchable but I woun't be buying the dvd - well not until it's about £3 in Tesco's cheapo shelf. (Actually I just bought 'Moon 44' for £1 and that wasn't too bad either) The film has several plot/idea flaws, the scene with the clone storage was silly and I still don't understand the basic point of the film. If the base had been set on Neptune/Pluto/edge of the universe then I could understand the cost saving of using clones but on the Moon a very short hope from the Earth. Surely easier, cheaper and safer to use normal staff?
It came from the phrase you used at the end of your comment on the film
which was 'It's an OK movie, just not one you come out of thinking 'that was great'.
Like you said, it's your opinion, so prehaps say, 'Just not one I came out of thinking that was great'
Like I said 'I' thought it was great, I didn't say everybody else would think so also. Hence own your own opinon. Anyway - let us not get all 'Comissioner Simmons' about it - have a large beer, cloned and replicated, as opposed to brewed, obviously.
You see the point? It works in both directions. I no more assume that you are telling people what to think anymore than you should be believing I'm telling others what to think. I'm pretty certain that everyone else reads such comments as just the opinion of the poster in the same way that magazine film reviews are the opinion of the reviewer. How many times have you read a review, then seen the movie and wondered if the reviewer even saw the same film? It's all personal opinion.
"'It's an OK movie, just not one you come out of thinking 'that was great'."
... and that's a phrase that describes for many who've shared that feeling coming out of a film what this film felt for me. I don't believe I'm the only one here who felt that either. In fact I know that because I've discussed the film with a few people here on the phone.
I finally caught up with this at Sheffield. For a first film its an impressive piece of work.And for a budget of £5 million I think its a small miracle it looks as good as it does. That wouldn't even pay for the catering on one studio film (just joking!!!) or one major star, though I think Sam Rockwell deserves a million for the way he carried the story.Its a one act in every sense (or is it !)
It did feel exactly like a film made thirty odd years ago and on that level the story, the sets and the effects worked very well. I did enjoy it alot, as much as any trip down memory lane and that is in part the small problem I had enjoying it totally.It all felt very familar and comfortable and that is because the story itself was not very "fresh".
I can see how the director was "very" influenced by Bladerunner and films of that era and the entire plot of it was built from the bones of several well known sci fi films of that time .But as the story was a homage to them then its not really surprising, though it was slightly disappointing ,especially when it came right down to the basic message, which is there are still evils that corporations and industries can get away with without us knowing even far away into the future.
But then that future was a very eighties future some thirty odd years ago and the concepts are a little redundant now, particularly in this inter connected age . We've moved on a bit in tech and sci fi and I hope his next film will also reflect that.
He evidently has heaps of talent , has an good eye for design and effects AND managed to produce for no money at all, a film that deserves a wider release than it got. If you like a good sci fi film you cannot help but like it.
However, I still suspect District 9 will seriously be the film, along with Avatar, that we will all be talking about by the years end.
Personally I haven't seen MOON yet, I live somewhat in the sticks and can't find it showing anywhere (Bristol/South Glos area anyone?)
Good bad or indifferent I want to see it anyway. It's good to know they are still making films like this and I welcome it to the fold. I have unusual tastes in movies but the common thread is the models/effects. One notable exception to this is Alien, that hit ALL the boxes and I am gagging to see the Prequel movie from Cameron - exciting stuff eh? :thumbup: