While the obvious influence of Stanley Kubrick's “2001” is a worthy subject in relation to the sci-fi flick “Moon,” the film has an unspoken subject that I find much more interesting. In the ways in which the plot machine of “Moon” plays out, without what one might expect, it acts as an anti-thriller.
“Moon” sets up a very particular idea that invites a kind of M. Night Shyamalan style twist and then goes about avoiding it all cost. In doing so the film attempts a cooler than thou attitude toward Shyamalan's populist twisty thrillers and “Moon” comes off pretentious for the effort.
“Moon” stars Sam Rockwell as Sam Bell, the lone worker on a base on the dark side of the moon. Sam is a handy man for a self contained machine that harvests Helium 3 from the moon surface. If something breaks down ol' Sammy runs out and fixes it right up. Sam is near the end of what is supposed to be a three year contract and looks forward to returning to earth and the wife and child he left behind.
Why Sam left a budding family back on earth for an empty shell on the moon for three years is one of the intriguing questions that Director Duncan Jones and writer Nathan Parker pose in setting up what one might quite fairly assume is a major twist to come. Whether that twist arrives or not is honestly debatable.
The storytelling style of “Moon” is muted to the point of whispering. Kevin Spacey gives voice to the Hal-esque computer Gerty, somehow not a cool acronym, and his soothing tone matches the overall tone of “Moon,” a movie that is quiet with a purpose. The quiet is meant as a near silent rebuke to the noise of almost all modern science fiction and while one can appreciate the gesture, “Moon” grows so quiet at points that one longs for Bruce Willis to fly by on asteroid and liven things up.
The thriller aspect of “Moon,” which kicks in with the introduction of a second Sam Bell in the space station, is played as a knock on the twisty thrills of M. Night Shyamalan. The two Sam's begin a simultaneous search for answers and the audience is led to believe a major revelation or twist is in the offing. I don't mind having my expectations upended but what does happen should be better than what I predicted or hoped for.
The ungainly confused ending of “Moon,” some would call it open ended but they are only justifying enjoying it, fails to critique Shyamalan's admittedly stale twist endings and especially fails to top them. For all of Shyamalan's failures his jolty endings to “The Sixth Sense” and “Signs” remain classic shockers. If you want to take them on you'd better damn well have a better idea. “Moon,” sadly, does not.
BYLINE:
Sean Patrick Kernan is a film critic. Check him out at: http://www.myspace.com/number1ramjamfan.
2 comments:
I totally disagree with this review. Firstly it does not take into account the superb performance of Sam Rockwell. Which truly was a tour de force of acting, that deserves an Oscar at least.
Secondly comparing it with the sixth sense and signs is fallacious at best. I hated these two movies. But Moon is in a completely different class.
Saying that the movie needs pepping up with a Bruce Willis style action sequence totally misses the point of the story.
It is a well crafted and highly enjoyable movie.
Disagree. This is apples to oranges to a Shyamalan flick in that, this is an examination of the human condition and what it means to be human, not a would be Hitchcock rip-off masked as Hollywood Blockbuster. If you should compare, it compares to the isolated inner tension of Jack in Fight Club. This movie is so much better than your initial expectations in the 1st 30 min of it. Its storytelling that sadly comes only a few times decade in a sea of awful Bruce Willis movies.
Post a Comment