Moon



Grr! I'm an evil film and I'm boring
and confusing and I'll eat your
babies! Image Via Amazon



Moon, the 2009 Science-fiction movie, won or was nominated for a score of BIFAs and BAFTAs. Empire described star Sam Rockwell's performance as worthy of an Oscar, and the film holds a 90% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, along with 8.0 on IMDB. So, we could say, it is pretty good. Well, some people disagree, of course, and luckily for us, they do it in a stupid fashion. Let's poke fun at them.

Amazon.com:

I seriously can't believe the reviews I'm reading here. (Why? Did you go to the one-star section as well?) I never walk out of a movie (No. You take a run and a jump, spreading your beautiful wings, and you soar out of a movie, don't you?), but when I saw Moon in the theater I came closer than I ever have before (Is this theatre near a busy road? Because I would advocate the walking out. Hell, you should have run out. With no regard for your surroundings.). The plot is tedious and predictable (Yup. Clones on a moon base. Is there a film that doesn't feature clones on the moon?), with several aspects that make absolutely no sense and are never even attempted to be explained (ghostly lady walking around on the surface of the moon? (Memory bleed. When the clones are dying. Explained in the film)) Also, I understand that this was an independent film (How understanding of you!), but the production values and set pieces are laughable (I didn't laugh. I did, however, notice that NASA said the base was very similar to what they were designing though. Which seems to suggest realism. Rather than laughable failure). This movie is so bad that I actually told people to go see it as a practical joke (You must be an absolute wheeze to have at a party_. Anyone with a sense of what makes good sci-fi, or a good story in general, will have nothing but contempt for this steaming pile of excrement (It seems ironic then, that it was so well-received. So, either most people are wrong. Or you're wrong. I wonder who is right...) on celluloid (or blu-ray, in this case) (Yes, we're all impressed that you purchase blu-rays. It makes you a better person.).

A short but... Well, a short review up next:
Amazon.com:

I waited 10 light years (As in, you waited the length of time it would take someone to journey 10 light-years? Because it's a distance, not a time.) for Sam Rockwell to be smacked in the head by Gerty. (Gutted for you then)
Enough said. (No. I want... Nay, demand more insights! Fill me with your knowledge!)

Amazon.com:

I love science fiction movies (Well done. I love my cat.) . My favourites are blade runner, alien and space odysee (Fair enough. I mean, I assume you mean 2001: A Space Odyssey... But decent choices). But this, this is an abomination (No. An abomination would be attaching your head onto the body of a giant mouse, comprised of thousands of normal mice sewn together). OK, here is a sample of the idiocy (Ooh): The initial sequence tells us that in the future the entire energy supply for planet earth will come from the moon (Splendid. You've convinced me. But wait... there's more!). Hence, they bullt a massive site on the moon (With you so far!) and send ... ONE man to harvest the precious resource (Yea. Did you watch the film? They only need one man. And they've got all those clones to replace him. But, fundamentally, the facility is designed to only need one person to operate it. So why would a company pay for more people to man it, when they're not needed?). And it goes on. The protagonist can only communicate with his wife via PRE-RECORDED video messages, unlike the American astronauts in 1969, who sent their feeds back to earth LIVE (Brilliant. You've done your research. Of course, the reason for that was explained in the film. You know, the thing you've watched in enough detail to critique.) . Oh, and he has a robot friend who makes a commodore 64 look futuristic (Fucking hell. It's realistic, robots are crap. That's what real robots, like the ones we have just now, are like. Again, he does the job. So why would anyone pay more for a shiny robot? Perhaps you like your robots to be chrome. But they're not! So there...). Apart from this idiotic set up the movie itself is absolutely painful. The pace is agonizingly slow (Really? I bet they didn't notice it was slow when they were making it. I imagine pacing completely slips by film-makers, editors, directors, cast. I imagine the slow, suspenseful pace of the film was a total accident), the acting by Sam Rockwell is horrible (Actually, it's pretty good. All the critics said so. I thought so. And he was acting against... Well, no-one for most of the time. Ever tried to act against yourself when you're not there?- and the dialogues are is boring as hell. The plot "twist" is super predictable and lame (Super predictable? SUPER predictable? So, I'm assuming, you predicted the twist before you'd even heard of the film then?). To call this "the best sci-fi movie since blade runner" (quote on the poster) is an absolute travesty (No. Genocide is a travesty. This is just a film you didn't like)! The whole production team should be banned from ever making a movie again or worse, sentenced to watch their own work on auto-repeat (Yea. You feel you can criticise other people? You're clearly insane. I hope ferrets eat your poultry).

Amazon.com:

This movie didn't really do anything for me (Really? It granted me sexual favours. Dirty sexual favours). It was just a variation of the theme of a person isolated from other people (Yes. Isolated from everyone except himself! Dun dun duuuu....). It didn't even bring anything new about the theme to the table (Dunno. Pretty sure the whole clones on the moon thing was new). This type of situation has been done so many times before (Castaway, Robinson Crusoe, I Am Legend, etc. (That's three times))in ways that I thought were more interesting. Copying HAL from 2001 didn't help in the originality department, either (Well, he wasn't actually a copy, was he? He was just a computer with a voice. The similarity was probably to make the fact GERTY was on Sam's side a bit more surprising. But, different! HAL - fixed in position, mad. Red blinking dot! GERTY - moving. Not mad. Little smiley faces!). I have to admit I couldn't get into the movie from the beginning because I couldn't believe they would send ONE person into space for three years- ONE person (Well, we do that at the moment. Do you shout at the news?)! After that, I just couldn't get into it (so I probably missed/forgot some things). I also think that a clone of someone wouldn't have such a different personality from the original person if that clone had only been in that kind environment (But the clone hadn't - firstly, up until the events of the film, the clones didn't know they were clones. So the new clone had to deal with this, along with interacting with someone almost identical to him. Surely you can see that would affect someone's personality?). If they can clone him, why don't they just have a bunch of clones up there (Well, cloning appears to be illegal in the film, for one thing. Also, having all the clones working would be unnecessary, since the facility only needs one person to work on it, and costly, since the clones would be using oxygen, food, water, and so on, which they don't need in stasis.)? They'd get things done in a lot shorter time than three years (It isn't about getting things done - his job was to check everything was working regularly and fix shit. He was a janitor. On the moon. How did you miss that?). Also, why did it take him almost three years to go nearly insane (Well, because he was sane up until then. Probably fixing on the fact after 3 years, he got to go home to his family? That could have helped. I mean, I'm no psychologist, but people don't always go mad in semi-isolation.)? I probably would have lost it after three days. (You sure you haven't already?)

This movie was directed by David Bowie's son. (Yea. Well done)

And lastly, a man who believes in the infinite power of David Bowie, a power used for great evil.
Amazon.co.uk

This movie has been hyped to the last ,apparently (Apparently? They did. It isn't a conspiracy.) the Daily Mirror said it was the finest movie since blade runner,how can they say that (Finest sci-fi movie since Blade Runner. They don't think Blade Runner is the greatest movie of all time, followed by this. There were lots of good films between Blade Runner and Moon.),, the whole thing stinks of manipulation or mass stupidity due to duncan being Bowie's son (Really? Elaborate on this conspiracy...),, i'm sure that daddy must have pulled plenty of strings (do i see stings wife involved also ,,oh dear). (Yea. I'm pretty certain the world's leading film critics are greatly influenced by David Bowie. Roger Ebert, for example, gave Moon 3&1/2 out of 4. I imagine he only did this out of a great dedication to David Bowie though. Seriously? You think David Bowie can bribe all the critics in the world single-handed?) 

The movie is complete rubbish , its boring , has NO redeeming features at all (Well, shucks. Not even the little smiley faces?). I thought oh its Multiplicity in space , but then i remembered that Multiplicity was funny and quite a good movie! (Ok. I've done my research now, I know what Multiplicity is. Firstly, that's a film where a man gets himself cloned so he can do more shit at home, and walk the dog while wanking on the roof and flying a helicopter. [I made those things up] It is not at all similar to Moon, except for the fact it features cloning. Likewise, is Moon then identical to: 1) Star Wars: Attack of the Clones; 2) A video of Dolly the sheep, or; 3)The Irish town of Clones?). The movie is bleak (Well, a bit. But it was meant to be. Next you'll complain Schindler's List didn't have enough jokes.) ,,the characters are completely one dimensional (What, the robot? Or the man who finds out he's a clone on the moon?). When the first clone pukes blood for about half an hour (I don't remember a solid half-our of non-stop blood puking, but there you go) of the movie it was just unpleasant to see,,which alienated me further (You're alienating yourself now as well.), i felt no empathy and was mostly repulsed. (Ok, the way you've written that implies you feel no empathy for a man throwing up blood, only repulsion. Throwing or coughing up blood is common in many illnesses and deaths, so you feel no empathy for the sick or dying? Wow... Harsh...)

The end scene was so reminiscent of the ending of Dr Strange Love (Yea. The nuclear explosion montage, the appearance of Peter Sellars, it's all there). I actually bought the movie to watch over the Christmas and it was a total let down. I wish i could get my money and my hour and half back , i feel conned (But you haven't been. You're just stupid).

I cant believe that movies like this still get financed (Seriously? You can't believe good movies get funding? No, I don't suppose you can.), when there are so many great books waiting to be turned into brilliant movies. (Name one. I look forward to seeing what you consider a good movie.)

I will look out for Zowie's next movie and avoid it like a clone with accelerated decrepitude !! (Well, ok. But the clones weren't contagious or anything. You could just help them. It's a bad comparison. I'm going to put bees in your car.)