“Starting a story is easy. Finishing it is not.” – Me.
“A story goes like this: Have a character. Put him up a tree. Throw rocks at him as he tries to get down. Eventually, he needs a ladder to get down. But if that ladder doesn’t make sense, your story sucks.” – a college screenwriting teacher I had back about ’85.
It’s the future. Close to 2100, to be exact. Sam Bell works for a company that harvests Helium-3, an abundant Moon mineral, because it’s a cheap, easy fuel supply that solves our planet’s energy woes. All Sam has to do is drive big-ass trucks to machines built by Lunar Industries that scoop up the rocks, pack them into rockets, and send them back to Earth. We avoid global warming, people save money, everyone wins, except Sam, who is handsomely paid for signing over three years of his life to play with astronomical Tonka trucks. Three years is significant because it has been determined, by past practice, that someone can only take about that long away from human contact before one starts to fall apart and mentally/emotionally collapse.
His only “real” companion is a computer system called GERTY, voiced by Kevin Spacey but behaving way too similar to HAL3000. GERTY seems to know everything about the station, which is should. Occasionally Sam video chats with his wife, learns how things are just peachy back home, and then just look forward to that return trip home. To keep himself close to sane, Sam slowly builds a model of his home town, complete with houses, streets, and various details to keep his brain sharp and his hopes up for when he will see that home again. For Sam, that homecoming is just around the corner. That’s when things go wrong.
Security measures are breached. Breeched. Messed up. Doors are open that should not be open. Communication with Earth is not as reliable as previously. He is startled by what appears to be a woman in the station and burns his hand on hot water. When GERTY asks (but knows fully well) what happened to his hand, Sam lies and claims to have cut himself. GERTY is suspicious because, while its video sensors know the truth, it can’t see into Sam’s mind. Probably can’t.
While mining, or “harvesting” more Helium-3, Sam again sees the woman and this time crashes his truck, damages some vital equipment, and injures his head. GERTY informs Sam that Lunar Industries is sending a team up to fix the damage but also to bring him home. When Sam overhears a communication between GERTY and Lunar, and the conversation abruptly ends when Sam enters, he gets rather suspicious. Both pride and fear cause him to attempting fixing the harvester himself, but that only leads to more trouble and a startling discovery. Instead of seeing a woman – he now sees a separate version of himself.
To go any further means spoilers, but since I’m not going to recommend this film, I’m going to cough up the spoilers because I was greatly disappointed with the rest of the film. Here’s a picture – and the spoiler will follow:
As previously stated, anyone can start a story, but not anyone can end one logically. Here’s a link to a post I wrote that was Freshly Pressed last year and addresses this exact topic. It’s called A Contract with the Reader.
Sam is hallucinating, or so it seems. GERTY is concerned, or so it seems. Sam explores the station and finds more than he was aware existed. One of the things he eventually finds is a room that contains hundreds of clones of Sam. Turns out that the three-year contract is really about all the performance time that any one clone has within its system. After about three years, when a “Sam” starts breaking down, they roll out a new one and the cycle starts all over again. Same is not hallucinating when he sees himself. He just sees a new version of himself slowly taking over while he is breaking down.
My problem with this is logistics. If each Sam is going to eventually see himself like this, he’s not going to react well. Just as this Sam damaged the harvester, any other Sam could do even greater damage to the station as well as the other “Sams” in waiting. So if Lunar Industries is so technologically advanced as to have these clones, to program them with memories of a hometown, a wife, and a kid to video chat with, then they could just as easily program these clones to just be nothing more than a mindless robot that simply does its job and knows it will eventually be disposed of. Lunar does not have to run the risk of what could go wrong. Just make a better Sam.
The story eventually runs into a third Sam, each having a slightly independent personality but mainly the same person. Then it becomes a game of who can get rid of the other Sam and who can survive when the Lunar Industries team arrives to take the worn-out Sam back and get the mining station back in order.
While the performance of Sam Rockwell (Seven Psychopaths, The Way, Way Back) is fabulous, playing three different versions of himself and allowing us to see them separately. I suppose equal, if not more kudos to director Duncan Jones (Source Code). Sometimes we forget that a great performance is often the work of a great director and not necessarily a great actor. See Robin Williams in Moscow on the Hudson, written and directed by Paul Mazursky, for proof of that.
The ending with the clones seems like a great twist, and for a story – it is a great twist. However, the lack of logic is what ruined it. When that character is up a tree, and some wonderful rocks were being thrown at him, a really good ladder seemed to appear. But it’s a flawed ladder. It’s a wooden ladder in a time when there should be aluminum or carbon-fiber ladders instead because a wooden ladder in this time period is all wrong. Well, not “wrong,” but in the wrong place. I think you know what I mean. If not, well, that’s the best I can do. Above-average performances but a below-average ending.
Teacher gives it a C.
17 thoughts on “Moon – film review”
The really good stories can make you not notice that until you’re lying in bed at three in the morning. Suddenly, you wake up and think, “Wait a minute…” 😉
that’s kind of what happened here. i really didn’t think about that part until i started writing the review.
I admit that I liked this film more than you… I love the way it looks, I love the spare-ness of the story and I love Sam Rockwell’s performance(s). I also love the ‘twist’ – for me it works and makes sense within the world that Jones and Rockwell have created. I agree that it may not be perfect – but then you can pull holes in most storylines if you want to – it’s just whether the storytelling is strong enough for you to believe in that world that the film makers have created. I guess you didn’t believe in it – but still a good write-up! And an excellent blog!
The funny thing is I did not really think about that part Regarding the clones until I started writing the review. A friend recommended the film, and I enjoyed it when I watched it. Did not give it a negative thought. But then, as I started writing about it, I went more deeply into it then maybe wasn’t necessary. Still, once you pull back the curtain, the wizard is exposed and you can’t put it back.
Thanks for stopping by and thanks very much for the kind words. Have a great day.
The ladder for the hero is actually a very subjective concept: some readers/viewers may find it strong enough to support the story, while some won’t. I haven’t watched the movie, but if it’s anything like Armageddon in its complete disregard for the laws of physics, it would be very hard for me to believe in the story.
you’re right about that subjective thing. i haven’t seen armageddon, and i likely never will. i wonder if they disregarded things as bad as “gravity” did.
I can’t really say, I haven’t seen Gravity either.
Judging by your review, it could be on par with Armageddon.
the sad part about “gravity” is that the mistakes were not essential for the story. they were things that could have easily been fixed.
Great review. Plot flaws will ruin a film for me nearly always.
me too. thanks very much for stopping by and a happy new year to you and yours.
Reblogged this on Pen-to-Paper.
Boy, that was generous review. I hated this movie. I do understand what you’re saying about the acting, but it lacked any real suspense and dragged more than a little bit.
Having no real relationship to this post other than the fact that it’s a movie, I really recommend The Great Beauty. I don’t usually do movie review posts, but I think I might for this one because I would hate for anyone to miss it just because they’re feeling lazy one day.
I took a two day trip to New York and saw it at the Angelica. I didn’t even know what I was going to see; I just wanted to take advantage of being in New York to see a movie that might not play here. (We have one art house so we get some foreign and independent films, but we miss a lot too.) So, I walked over there and just got a ticket for the next movie, which was The Great Beauty. It was just so fabulous.
I agree I could have been more harsh about it. But I decided to put a little more weight on the few positives and let the negatives stand as they were. It was a good premise that just ran out of steam and had nowhere to go.
Never heard of the movie you mentioned but I will look it up. Thanks for the recommendation.