# Moon (2009)



## AE35Unit (Jun 3, 2009)

Just heard about this on the ACClarke list site.
A new film starring Sam Rockwell centers on a solitary astronaut stationed on the moon to mine the precious gas that holds the key to reversing the Earth's energy crisis.



The Discovery Enterprise: Moon – The New Upcoming Sci-Fi Thriller Film


----------



## Rodders (Jun 4, 2009)

I quite like the sound of this. Need to know more though.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jun 4, 2009)

Rodders said:


> I quite like the sound of this. Need to know more though.



Well i watched the trailer and I just thought it was copying 2001!


----------



## ctg (Jun 4, 2009)

AE35Unit said:


> Well i watched the trailer and I just thought it was copying 2001!



There's not really much in the trailer, but yes I agree there's a distinct 2001 feeling. Then again, I think its good, because after all, 2001 is a hard SF. Most of things 2001 displayed, were carefully chosen to really portray what it is to be inside a spaceship that is going through zero-gravity. So if Moon gets things right, then we're going to see what it is to live in one-sixth gravity.


----------



## Rodders (Jun 4, 2009)

AE, you didn't say whether or not you enjoyed the trailer. Surely the 2001 Hard SF look and feel is a good thing. Perhaps this could signify a new direction for cinematic SF? 

Either way, i'm still quite interested.


----------



## ktabic (Jun 4, 2009)

Looks kind of interesting. Think I'll watch it when it arrives


----------



## AE35Unit (Jun 5, 2009)

Rodders said:


> AE, you didn't say whether or not you enjoyed the trailer. Surely the 2001 Hard SF look and feel is a good thing. Perhaps this could signify a new direction for cinematic SF?
> 
> Either way, i'm still quite interested.



Oh yea I enjoyed it and will watch it when it comes out(probably buy it too as good SF films are a rarity)


----------



## Rodders (Jun 5, 2009)

I'll check out the trailer this weekend.


----------



## Perpetual Man (Jun 5, 2009)

There was a small article in last month's SFX and a trailer dissection in this month's. I have toa dmit it looks very interesting. 

The director is David Bowie's son, Duncan Jones and he says he wanted to make a serious SF movie in the mould of 2001 & Silent Running, using as little CGI as possible, so most of the shots are model work.

Could be very, very interesting


----------



## Rodders (Jun 5, 2009)

Now you mention it, i vaguely remember reading it and liking the sound of it. It's been too long since we've had any hard stuff to look forward to.


----------



## ctg (Jun 5, 2009)

> We sat down with _Moon_ director Duncan Jones and talked evil robots, scientific inspirations behind the film and how scifi needs to catch up to comic book movies. Check out the full video interview and new clips from the film.


 io9 - Duncan Jones Says "Moon" Is Our Real-Life Future - Moon


----------



## AE35Unit (Jun 6, 2009)

Perpetual Man said:


> There was a small article in last month's SFX and a trailer dissection in this month's. I have toa dmit it looks very interesting.
> 
> The director is David Bowie's son, Duncan Jones and he says he wanted to make a serious SF movie in the mould of 2001 & Silent Running, using as little CGI as possible, so most of the shots are model work.
> 
> Could be very, very interesting



Now that DOES sound promising!


----------



## Connavar (Jun 6, 2009)

Seeing the trailer i was surprised how it looked like serious SF movie, a _real SF_ like it was the book.

Was it Kevin Spacey who was the robot ?    Its actually promising and i hope i can gamble on it being good and see it come here on the cinema.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jun 6, 2009)

Connavar said:


> Seeing the trailer i was surprised how it looked like serious SF movie, a _real SF_ like it was the book.
> 
> Was it Kevin Spacey who was the robot ?    Its actually promising and i hope i can gamble on it being good and see it come here on the cinema.



And you know what else I've noticed. How so many good sf films are ones not actually based on existing books. 2001 wasn't based on a book. Silent Running also(i think!) And now this film. Does anyone know its source?


----------



## gully_foyle (Jun 7, 2009)

Just checked out the official trailer. It looks cool. Maybe more like Outlands or Silent Running than 2001.


----------



## Connavar (Jun 7, 2009)

AE35Unit said:


> And you know what else I've noticed. How so many good sf films are ones not actually based on existing books. 2001 wasn't based on a book. Silent Running also(i think!) And now this film. Does anyone know its source?



_The film pays homage to the films of Jones' youth, such as Silent Running_ (1972), _Alien (1979) and __Outland (1981).[2] Jones described the intent, "[W]e wanted to create something which felt comfortable within that canon of those science fiction films from the sort of late seventies to early eighties.
_ 
Heh no wonder one of the first scenes inside the ship reminded me of Alien with the look of inside the ship.

Also the film is a small independent film that cost only 5 million dollars to make.  The director wanted to make the film for a reason.
If it was Hollywood big money film it would prolly be some stupid looking thriller


----------



## AE35Unit (Jun 7, 2009)

Connavar said:


> Also the film is a small independent film that cost only 5 million dollars to make.  The director wanted to make the film for a reason.
> If it was Hollywood big money film it would prolly be some stupid looking thriller



Dead right there Conn! This is what we need. This is the approach we need for Rendezvous with Rama,Childhood's End,and maybe Ringworld.


----------



## Rodders (Jun 7, 2009)

Connavar said:


> Also the film is a small independent film that cost only 5 million dollars to make. The director wanted to make the film for a reason.
> If it was Hollywood big money film it would prolly be some stupid looking thriller


 
Now this is good news. Hollywood needs to realise that they can't keep throwing money at a bad script. We need a new classic.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jun 7, 2009)

Rodders said:


> . We need a new classic.



And this could be it!


----------



## Rodders (Jun 8, 2009)

I'll be in to watch it at the cinema.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jun 8, 2009)

I'll buy it on DVD


----------



## Rodders (Jun 8, 2009)

Surely seeing it at the cinema was make it more of a commercial success and maybe pave the way for further Hard Sci-Fi films? 

Come on AE, you've got to represent.


----------



## Connavar (Jun 9, 2009)

I just hope it gets over here.   We only get stupid blockbusters like Transmformers usually.

You have to win Oscar like Slumdog Millionaire,The Reader,Milk to get here on the cinema.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jun 9, 2009)

Rodders the reason I'll not see it at the cinema is its over priced and our cinema is rubbish! And by saying I'll buy it on DVD outright well,only a film I feel worthwhile gets that kind of treatment!


----------



## ktabic (Jun 9, 2009)

Rodders said:


> Surely seeing it at the cinema was make it more of a commercial success and maybe pave the way for further Hard Sci-Fi films?



Now I wouldn't want to be quoted on this, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that for most films the major profit making (and commercial success) comes not from box office receipts but from DVD sales.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jun 9, 2009)

Yes,and as my other half works in the DVD rental and trade business I can confirm this!


----------



## Rodders (Jun 9, 2009)

They're showing a few clips on the Sci-Fi now web page. 

New Moon TV spots | SciFiNow


----------



## ctg (Jun 10, 2009)

> Science fiction movies don’t necessarily flourish in deep space. The best ones blossom in the fertile gray matter between your ears, and that’s precisely where Moon takes root. Trafficking in paranoia, isolation and corporate cover-ups, this delicately crafted first feature from director Duncan Jones shines a light toward the awkward shadow dance between science and humanity.
> 
> ...
> 
> That thoughtful approach pays off, making _Moon_ a movie that stands up to repeated viewing. Despite its relatively low budget (Jones says Moon cost $5 million to produce), this indie gem delivers plenty of gorgeous special effects (more than 450 FX shots during the 33-day production, according to the director).


 Review: Masterful Moon Takes Shot at Sci-Fi Greatness | Underwire | Wired.com

top marks from wired, wow


----------



## IronMatt (Jun 23, 2009)

Yeah the trailer looks awesome, hopefully it lives up to it. Potential best of 2009.


----------



## ctg (Jun 25, 2009)

First review is in... 



> Alone with his robot on a remote lunar station, Sam is about to head home after a three year contract. That's when things get weird in _Moon_, which is lucky for you if you like smart, original science fiction stories.  					This is the season when movies are more likely to bash you over the head with giant robotic fists then they are to make you ponder the universe. Nothing against robotic fists, mind you. But what sets _Moon_ apart from other space operas this summer is that it blows you away with original ideas and surprising characters. It's still action packed, violent, and intense, but on an individual scale. Instead of spaceship battles, you have one man in his lunar rover, tiny against the immense moonscape.
> Sam (Sam Rockwell) has begun to realize something is wrong at the lunar mining station. He can't get a live feed from Earth, and the video mails from his wife seem strangely edited. Plus, his robot Gertie (voiced by Kevin Spacey) seems to be trying to tell him something in a very subtle way: When he delivers news from the company ...


io9 - "Moon" Is the Best Scifi Movie of Summer - Moon


----------



## Rippers (Jul 4, 2009)

AE35Unit said:


> Well i watched the trailer and I just thought it was copying 2001!



Me too. Like the idea, from what I saw on the trailer. Does look very familiar in a lot of ways though. 

Still made me sit up and take notice.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 4, 2009)

Rippers said:


> Me too. Like the idea, from what I saw on the trailer. Does look very familiar in a lot of ways though.
> 
> Still made me sit up and take notice.



I'm dying to see it. In fact i'd just buy it. I just have a feeling its gonna be good! I know I said it appeared to copying 2001 but that was based on a short trailer but on the whole this looks a winner!


----------



## Rodders (Jul 21, 2009)

Anyone seen this yet? I'm still in the process of trying to persuade the wife to see it. She's having none of it.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 21, 2009)

Rodders said:


> Anyone seen this yet? I'm still in the process of trying to persuade the wife to see it. She's having none of it.



Not yet,have to wait for it to come out for rental.


----------



## Ursa major (Jul 21, 2009)

Unfortunately, the film is not (yet) in any of my local cinemas.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 21, 2009)

Have not seen it advertised at all either,no trailers on TV or owt. Come one guys,get promoting! Now if it was some big action Hollywood block buster everyone would be talking about it.


----------



## AE35Unit (Jul 23, 2009)

There's an in depth look at the set of this film in the new issue of Deathray magazine! (Also an interview with Stephen Baxter and a new story by Alastair Reynolds!)


----------



## Patrick Mahon (Jul 23, 2009)

I was in central London on Monday, and saw lots of posters advertising this in various underground stations - looks interesting...


----------



## Coops (Aug 1, 2009)

I have seen this movie.  It was well done and did not have a 2001 feel to me.  I will not post spoilers because it might ruin the movie for some, but I did guess the major plot twist a lot sooner than the characters did.  The ending was satisfying but there were a number of technical inconsistencies like the treatment of gravity and instantaneous communication that stretched belief.


----------



## Thadlerian (Aug 1, 2009)

Perpetual Man said:


> ... using as little CGI as possible, so most of the shots are model work.


Now this does indeed sound interesting. We're back to good old movie magic


----------



## williamjm (Aug 10, 2009)

Coops said:


> I have seen this movie.  It was well done and did not have a 2001 feel to me.  I will not post spoilers because it might ruin the movie for some, but I did guess the major plot twist a lot sooner than the characters did.  The ending was satisfying but there were a number of technical inconsistencies like the treatment of gravity and instantaneous communication that stretched belief.



There were a few elements that were reminiscent of 2001 - Kevin Spacey's computer has to be a deliberate reference to HAL, although the computer's role in this is somewhat different to 2001. However, the style of film-making is much more down-to-earth (or down-to-regolith) than 2001, it's a fairly straightforward Science Fiction story. I thought it was a good film, as you say some details aren't quite scientifically plausible but the main plot itself does work well and Sam Rockwell does a terrific job in the lead role.


----------



## HareBrain (Oct 26, 2009)

*Can anyone explain "Moon" to me? (spoilers)*

I saw this on a flight (not to the moon) three weeks ago, and though it passed the time amiably enough, I was bothered by the enormity of some of the plot holes. But maybe they're not holes at all, perhaps I've just misunderstood something.

Actually, there's really only one plot hole, but it's a big one, and it is this.

Why have Lunar Industries bothered with the enormous trouble and expense of the set-up they've created? Why use clones at all? I see nothing about the main character's job that suggests it requires certain inherent attributes - it could be done by a YTS trainee (sorry, showing my age) or a robot a lot less sophisticated than the one they've provided to act as housemaid/companion. If a three-year stint is too long for the average Joe to cope with, why not make it a year, or a month, and rotate the miners? How could shipping a person there and back every so often be more expensive than (a) developing the technology to grow adult clones, (b) developing the technology to _upload memories _(guh, what???), and (c) building a network of heavy, metal-construction signal jamming antennae?

I thought the film did some things very well. But my opinion of it overall will be much improved if someone could tell me why there are good reasons for the above.


----------



## williamjm (Oct 26, 2009)

*Re: Can anyone explain "Moon" to me? (spoilers)*

I'm not sure it really makes sense, although I think some of your assumptions may be inaccurate - we have no reason to think that they developed cloning or memory upload technology specifically for this purpose, for all we know in that future cloning is a well-understood and mature science. 

Despite that, I agree that their scheme does seem very elaborate and expensive and it would only make sense if it was extortionately expensive to send replacement crews up to the lunar stations.


----------



## Sparrow (Oct 27, 2009)

*Re: Can anyone explain "Moon" to me? (spoilers)*

I totally agree with you, Hare.

And the sad thing is, otherwise, the movie is excellent.  It's got a great look, wonderful actors, it's quiet and broods along sort of like _2001_.  Except on closer inspection it's completely absurd.  Unlike _2001_ where all the science and technology are coherent and compatible, _Moon_ cherry picks technoscience.


----------



## HareBrain (Oct 27, 2009)

*Re: Can anyone explain "Moon" to me? (spoilers)*



williamjm said:


> I'm not sure it really makes sense, although I think some of your assumptions may be inaccurate - we have no reason to think that they developed cloning or memory upload technology specifically for this purpose, for all we know in that future cloning is a well-understood and mature science.


 
That would be a fair point, except that the very end of the film suggests (I think?) that the people back on Earth think of the escaped Sam as a crank, which then suggests that the technology isn't widely known.


----------



## williamjm (Nov 9, 2009)

*Re: Can anyone explain "Moon" to me? (spoilers)*



HareBrain said:


> That would be a fair point, except that the very end of the film suggests (I think?) that the people back on Earth think of the escaped Sam as a crank, which then suggests that the technology isn't widely known.



I don't remember it really suggesting that, although it has been a few months ago since I saw the film so I may be forgetting something. Also, they may think he's a crank because he's suggesting that there's a vast corporate conspiracy, conspiracy theorists tend to be dismissed as cranks.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Nov 9, 2009)

*Re: Can anyone explain "Moon" to me? (spoilers)*

I suppose it depends how long term you're looking really.
The setup they used in the movie would cost a lot sure but they would save money (how ever heartlessly) on wages, pension plans, regular transportation costs and training in the decades which followed. There was about 40 or so clones there (at least) so you're talking 120 years worth of savings at a minimum. 

They need to fix that robot though, he went against company programming and let the cat out of the bag completely! He could have stopped or alerted them at any time - bad robot!


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Nov 13, 2009)

*Re: Can anyone explain "Moon" to me? (spoilers)*

Ah, Moon! Such a breath of fresh air in the effects-laden franchise-milking scifi flick scenario. Good acting, tight direction but...zilch on story rigour sadly. I figured out the plot twist the moment Sam 2 finds the first Sam, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who did. I kept trying to rationalise that there were things on the mining base only a human could do, but saw no evidence of such things. Also, naughty robot!!! I still enjoyed it, but it's fatally flawed, sadly.


----------



## blacknorth (Nov 21, 2009)

*Re: Can anyone explain "Moon" to me? (spoilers)*

The latest in a line of films presented as the intelligent face of SF on the screen and, sadly, anything but. Children of Men, Sunshine, The Prestige (now you SF, now you don't), District 9, Moon, sheesh... all cop-outs. How bad can it get?

I actually prefer the vacant blockbuster movies - they insult me and pick my pocket, but at least they don't leave me feeling very very angry.

The only genuine surprise I've had from a film made in the past 10 years was Shyamalan's Unbreakable, as much as I hate to admit it.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (May 15, 2011)

I had heard good things about this award-winning low-budget British SF film and also about the director and co-author Duncan Jones, whose debut film this was, so I sat down to watch it with some anticipation.

*Moon* has a claustrophic little plot, focusing on one man (Sam Bell, played by Sam Rockwell) who is nearing the end of a solitary three-year stint as maintenance man at a mining base on the far side of the Moon.  A faulty satellite means that direct communications with Earth are impossible, with recorded messages sent via Jupiter being the only contact with his wife and young child. His only companion is GERTY the computer (voiced by Kevin Spacey). The beginning of the film, with Sam exercising on a machine and talking to GERTY, is reminiscent of *2001*. At first it seems strange that one man should be left in isolation for so long, but the reason becomes apparent as the plot is gradually revealed.

After an accident while out on the surface trying to service one of the mining machines, Sam wakes up back in the Moon base, very weak, and spends some time recovering.  He decides to ignore GERTY's instruction that he must not leave the base and goes outside to try to correct the problem with  the mining machine. What he discovers there gives him a devastating shock which causes him to completely re-evaluate the nature of his life and precipitates a series of events which lead him to plan to return to Earth in secret. 

I can't reveal more of the plot without spoiling the surprise for new viewers, which I would not want to do. If you haven't seen it yet, then arrange to do so and be careful to avoid reading the Wiki plot summary or any other spoilers, because this film is a little gem, albeit a rather dark one. 

What I like most about the film is the intelligence of the script and the pared-down low-key nature of the plot. There is no showiness here, no hyped-up action, no spelled-out explanations for lazy viewers; we are left to observe and work out what is going on at the same time as Sam does. 

Duncan Jones' style has been likened to that of another acclaimed writer/director, Christopher Nolan (*Prestige*, *Memento*, *Inception* and recent *Batman* movies) and I can see why. Jones has directed another film, *Source Code*, released this year, which is now at the top of my "must see" list. With two intelligent writer/directors producing such thoughtful and thought-provoking movies, the SF film scene is looking healthier than it has for some time.

 (An extract from my SFF blog)


----------



## Starbeast (May 15, 2011)

Hello Mr Williams

*Moon* is a great movie. It's sometimes difficult to find a really good dramatic sci-fi film, because most of the time it's usually a hostile alien or monster movie that goes straight to DVD. But _Moon_ is a good film to recommend, and Sam Rockwell plays the main character fantastically, I've also enjoyed his performances in _The_ _Green Mile_ and in the sci-fi comedy _Galaxy Quest._


----------



## svalbard (May 15, 2011)

A very good movie and I agree that it is very dark. I found Rockwell a compelling lead.


----------



## antiloquax (Jun 26, 2011)

Yes, I loved this film too. I watched it shortly after reading "The Philosopher at the End of the Universe" (a book about philosophy as illustrated by SF films) and I thought it dealt very cleverly with the central issue.
a


----------



## Dave (Dec 30, 2012)

I just saw this (it has premered on UK terrestrial TV tonight.) I thought it would be thought-provoking science-fiction. Why didn't you warn me it was about clones, as usual, all miraculously grown to the same age in adulthood with the same transplanted memories? When will people stop writing this trash? Or else explain how to transplant memories. The mining set-up, communications, the bad robot - all of that was necessary to make the clone story work, so had to be like that.

At one point one of the Sam's says "We're not programmed, we're human!" Actually, that is precisely what they were. Developing that theme would have been slightly better.

I've not yet seen _Source Code_ and was going to. Now I'm not so sure.


----------



## Gary Compton (Dec 31, 2012)

I started to watch this and switched off in 25 miliseconds. I'd rather watch mushrooms grow. The whole thing is  a cliche - sorry!


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Dec 31, 2012)

Dave said:


> Why didn't you warn me it was about clones,


 
Well, that would have been one heck of a spoiler!



> I've not yet seen _Source Code_ and was going to. Now I'm not so sure.


 
Maybe you won't like it. Personally, I really enjoyed both films, but tastes differ. My review of *Source Code* is here: http://sciencefictionfantasy.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/film-source-code-2011.html


----------



## Connavar (Dec 31, 2012)

The clone part of Moon might not be original but the film was rare these days in that it was a very good thought provoking,dramatic SF.  It said much with little by using the character and the setting.  

Frankly i rather see more SF films like Moon than the trashy SF these days like new Total Recal, other PKD failures and blockbuster action SF trying to make money on Alien fame like Prometheus.


----------



## alchemist (Dec 31, 2012)

I enjoyed it. I mustn't have seen enough films with clones that the idea put me off, but if you have, fair enough. It was very atmospheric and had me interested throughout. Well-acted too.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Jan 1, 2013)

There are very few films or novels based on entirely original plot elements; most just recycle old ideas. What matters is how the ideas are treated and the quality of the story built around them.


----------



## clovis-man (Jan 1, 2013)

Anthony G Williams said:


> There are very few films or novels based on entirely original plot elements; most just recycle old ideas. What matters is how the ideas are treated and the quality of the story built around them.


 
Acting helps too. I thought Sam Rockwell was great in this.


----------



## Charles.Dunphey (Jan 4, 2013)

The movie was really good guys.  It was pretty weird and unsettling at times but Rockwell put on a great performance.  I thought it was oscar worthy.  It has a very interesting twist to it as well.  I'd recommend it.


----------



## Steve Jordan (Jan 23, 2013)

I'd recommend as well.  Rockwell gives a great performance, maybe his best, considering he's pretty much carrying that movie all by himself.  The production had a great feel and atmosphere.  After seeing it, I added it to my DVD collection.


----------



## MontyCircus (Jan 24, 2013)

I thought it was very, very slow.  Also, when the clone shows up I assumed he was just hallucinating.  So I took the rest of the film as if "it was all a dream".  So I was pretty lost and not entertained.


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 16, 2015)

Just watched this for the second time around - definitely holds interest, even if you remember the story from the first time around. Really surprised we've not seen more discussion on this film?


----------



## HareBrain (May 17, 2015)

Did you see this thread?

https://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/50770/

I thought the film did many things well, but was fatally undermined by its nonsensical premise(s).


----------



## Brian G Turner (May 17, 2015)

HareBrain said:


> I thought the film did many things well, but was fatally undermined by its nonsensical premise(s).



The economics of using clones versus a rotating human crew I didn't have a problem with - a human crew might need replacing every 6 months or so, you would need multiple people on the crew, who would each need training up to astronaut standards to deal with space flight and low gravity operations, pay would be huge (clones don't need to be paid). A bank of suitable individuals already prepared might be a valid solution in terms of long-term projected costs against a range of possibilities. 

But, even rejecting that defence, I didn't think that _Moon _did anything particular to stretch suspension of disbelief any more than any other SF film. It's real strength was a focus on the humanity of the situation.

What was especially interesting the second time was that the first time I watched it, I had no idea what was going on - there was a suggestion at the start of the film that Sam might have been hallucinating, and thus the entire experience as psychological. 

Watching the second time, knowing we were watching clones, allowed a greater sense of consistency and comprehension of what exactly was going on.

We've seen a lot of SF turkeys. IMO Moon is one of the better SF films. Not sure I'd call it great, but definitely one of the more interesting ones.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Sep 8, 2019)

Watched it again last weekend and enjoyed it - the music is wonderfully atmospheric, as is the film in general.


----------



## Elckerlyc (Sep 8, 2019)

Brian G Turner said:


> Watched it again last weekend and enjoyed it - the music is wonderfully atmospheric, as is the film in general.



Can't get enough of the moon, can you?
I have seen the movie, about 5 years back I think. Movies with just one character in it are always tricky. So much hangs on the script and the performance of the actor. But here it worked well and I liked it well enough. But watching it for a third time.... I don't know.


----------



## Rodders (Sep 9, 2019)

It’s still on my shelf waiting to Ben watched. Not sure why I haven’t watched it yet? I hear so many good things about it and Sam Rockwell is always watchable.


----------



## AlexH (Sep 10, 2019)

One of my favourite films.


----------



## Narkalui (Sep 12, 2019)

I thought it was a 'little' film. As in small scale. It was a really, really good little film. The kind of film that stays with you for its depth and the thoughts it provokes for days afterwards.


----------



## Venusian Broon (Sep 12, 2019)

I dunno about depth, but I enjoyed it for what it was - a nice PKD-esque head turner, claustrophobic, mysterious - because...why not. 

However, I agree with 2015 @HareBrain that the premise was verging on ridiculous and fundamentally that kicked the legs off the donkey for me. Ignoring that (which unfortunately is a reasonably big part of my response to it) it might have made it a very good SF film.


----------

