As a piece of entertainment, Moon is a failed experiment. Yet though it never becomes enjoyable or gets even within hailing distance of fun, it has some interesting ideas.
Yet another pan of a good film because LaSalle is too shallow to understand it. His review obsesses about silly details and misses the point of the entire film.
Jun 19 - 10:52 PM
Oh gee the SF Chronicle gave a bad review....that means it's a good film! Moon is THE BEST sci-fi story put to film in years! It manages to stay with the human element of the story and not abandon it half way through in exchange for explosions and wiz-bang effects. If you like sci-fi, real sci-fi then this is the film for you. If you like action/ adventure then go see Star Trek, that's good too, but it's a whole different type of film than Moon. Sam Rockwell's performance is mind-blowing in Moon.
Jun 20 - 12:52 PM
Have you heard of Tarkovsky?And no he didnt write concertos.
Jun 22 - 09:58 AM
As usual LaSalle completely fails in his review. It's almost astounding how bad he misses in his latest review of the movie, "Moon". The movie has a great story which is supremely acted by the great Sam Rockwell. Rockwell plays Sam Bell, a lone caretaker at a mining station on the far side of the moon working the tail end of a 3 year contract. With only 2 weeks left on that contract he begins to hallucinate ... or does he? I think I've finally gotten to the point of seeing every film for which Mick LaSalle gives a negative review. He's really that bad.
Jun 29 - 02:51 PM
I'm sorry, what seriously annoyed me most was the fact that he went into a meditative, cerebral film, and called it "boring." Seriously? How old are you, and what mind-set did you expect to see this film with?
Jul 3 - 03:37 PM
Wow! Every second of this movie I was excited to see what would come next. I give this review a rotten tomatoe.
Jul 16 - 03:16 PM
Mick LaSalle's view on this film mirrors mine. Rockwell does a great job, deserving of a nod for some kind of award, but the film itself is dull and predictable. I had most of the plot figured out a little more than halfway through - my only error being that I thought some violence would ensue upon arrival of the rescue ship. I think what bothers me the most is that this film lacks a believable vision of the future. For instance, his entertainment on the moon base consists of 70's reruns on TV? Where's the PlayStation? Where's the DVD player? Are we really supposed to believe a company is going to put a guy on the moon for three years without a video game? Without anything resembling current modes of entertainment? Really? Current knowledge of human psychology would suggest otherwise because it's well known that people need distractions and entertainment to stay sane. Do you really think a company whose main source of income is one guy on the moon is going to cut corners on keeping him sane and working? Really? You see, the film tries to explore parts of the human condition but wholly ignores other facets of the human condition at the same time. The dissonance between the two ruins the story of the film. If not for Rockwell's performance, I would have walked out.
Jul 30 - 10:12 AM
Jul 30 - 10:13 AM
Thanks ken c. There is no way I'm seeing this movie if they didn't show him playing a Playstation or watching a DVD. I'm glad you double posted to stress it's importance, otherwise I might not have read past "I had most of the plot figured out a little more than halfway through". Thanks again.
Jan 7 - 02:17 AM
I had to say that was the best response... I'm still laughing!
Jan 21 - 11:21 PM
I agree the film did have some interesting (unexplored) ideas, i think enjoyable or fun are the wrong adjectives, but it didn't make me think enough!it is eas(ish) for figure out where this film is going around the end of act 1, and that really the problem, you get ahead of the movie, and that sort of does make it a failed experiment.I think the acting and set couldn't be faulted, but the script really needed some serious work.
Jan 12 - 10:27 AM