Ocultos por la luna

Ok, film first.

Pretty decent script, good acting, pacing is a little off at times, but overall a not bad sci-fi.

Ok, now for the good bit.

The film deserves a 10 purely for the fact it has seriously annoyed so called 'patriots' and gun supporters that seem to be happy in ignoring the fact that what this film is about a mass terrorism event.

Yes, terrorist don't have to be a different skin colour or from a different country.

Even though the plot was pretty much clear from the start, the first part of the movie was enjoyable. A certain tension, a certain nostalgia. But then it all starts going downhill until it end in the sewers. The vague ethical elements never rise above kindergarten level, the science is preposterous and the "USA is the world" assumption is tedious. The acting is decent, so is the music and lighting. Too bad, as with nearly every movie these days, the plot didn't get as much attention.

It's refreshing to find a mid range budgeted thriller. The film is unafraid to attempt high concept storytelling and for the better part of the running time it works. There are some strong flaws, but if you can go with the film, you'll enjoy the twists and turns. Nice to see Netflix relying on these high concept to lure audiences, who are trapped by mega studios pumping superheroes at us. Not great, but I thought it was interesting.

Edit: I realized only after submitting this review and getting tons of unhelpful votes that this movie has been heavily politicized and there are floods of people down-voting any positive review not for its content, but for its rating. For what it's worth, I cover the ambiguity of the movie's moral lessons in my review (that many clearly didn't read before down-voting). I happened to like that "is this really for the best?" ambiguity that ending entailed. Not once did I find this movie to be beating the viewer over the head with a political message; if anything, I found it opened one's eyes to the possibility that "for the greater good" is a flawed concept. I hate that this movie has been so politicized; as a centrist myself, I found no political slant to the movie and was surprised to hear of people wanting to boycott it. In this awful "cancel culture" waged by both sides of the political divide, I welcome movies like this that make viewers THINK. After all, if people are calling for a piece of art to be boycotted, you can be sure it has ruffled enough feathers to be a worthwhile discussion piece. So if you're a potential viewer hoping to avoid political bias, I say go into this with an open mind. I didn't find it as cut and dry as others, but then again, I'm not easily offended in the slightest.

"You're crazy," Locke says at one point when speaking to a man on one side of this moral debacle.

"I think we're both beyond the pale," the enemy replies.

THIS quote is apt, neatly laying out what I believe the true intent was for this movie. The murders committed are awful. The crimes they prevented were awful. Both sides are beyond the pale, mirroring the political divide happening around this movie's message that neither extreme can be a hero. How ironic; the controversy surrounding In the Shadow of the Moon matches its outlook. Now, on to the original review.

In the Shadow of the Moon somehow takes multiple genres and mashes them together to come up with a highly unique viewing experience that actually works. Locke is a cop on the job in 1988 when he investigates a series of mysterious murders that all happen at the same time and have multiple ties that baffle detectives and forensic investigators alike. So begins a chase over the decades involving a cop who slowly mentally degrades and a suspect who can't seem to be caught or killed. Another review stated the twist is too expected, yet they also said the movie could've been less convoluted, which sounded conflicted to me. The fact that the storyline was so complex and yet so easily understood worked well in this movie's favor, in my opinion. Because we follow the viewpoint of an investigator throughout the movie, we can slowly unravel the pieces to the puzzle alongside him so that the movie feels complete and satisfying without relying on plot holes or the convenience of confusing its audience by pulling the "because it's sci-fi!" card.

Who is Boyd Holbrook, and why the heck isn't he in more stuff? This was the first time I've seen him in anything. He did a fantastic job playing Locke. His character evolves so greatly throughout the movie, and he played each step believably and was a delight to watch. Cleopatra Coleman served her role as Rya well, but I wasn't as impressed with her usually stone-faced performance. She was believable, but she didn't stand out. Bokeem Woodbine was fantastic as Locke's partner Maddox. The sound design in this movie is outstanding, mixing distortion and music to ideally fit the mysterious but enthralling action pieces (particularly the first set of murders in '88 that are shown within the first ten minutes). The cinematography was fantastic to the point of being noticeable. This movie sucks you into its world and immerses you, its long takes allowing you time to focus on its plotline one decade at a time. In the Shadow of the Moon somehow is able to pull off multiple decades believably without relying on bashing the audience over the head with distracting nostalgia. Finally, while the movie starts out viewing these crimes as murders and ends up explaining the snowball effect leading up to them, it opens the door for philosophical questions regarding morality and time travel. I love, love, love thought-provoking movies like this.

If I have any complaints about In the Shadow of the Moon, it's that once the police thriller dissipates (as Locke becomes more deranged and isolated) and holds hands with the final sci-fi act, it slows down a little in pace. I was still glued to the screen as all story arcs began to merge and close, don't get me wrong, but the gritty city feel from the first half was so well-done I craved more and more. But looking over the movie with a critical lens, I can't see that they could've pulled it off any other way. This slowdown was necessary to the plot, and the development of both the story and the characters (particularly Locke) were handled with delicacy.

Overall, this is one Netflix movie you need to put on your queue and give a shot. Netflix has a lot of misses you have to dig through to find stuff like this. You might not love In the Shadow of the Moon as much as I did because tastes are subjective, but it is undoubtedly a well-directed and put together movie with a unique merge of genres that you owe it to yourself to try. Fantastic work, Jim Mickle. Boyd Holbrook, I'll be keeping my eye out for you in other movies. You caught my attention here.

The good. Original plot twists, a couple which may have never been done in a major movie before. Though the theme and core idea borrows heavily from 12 Monkeys.

The movie does build suspense and a dark brooding atmosphere like 12 monkeys did in the first hour, then unravels as the plot is thrust unwillingly into an otherwise good story. You can almost think of it as 2 movies in 1. The first movie is well acted, directed, with excellent sound and decent action scenes. A little over the top but mild compared to the drivel Hollywood is producing today.

The bad. This film could have seriously benefited from a science adviser. This is what initially kills suspension of belief as the, I cannot call it even pseudo science, it's not even good magic, begins to degrade the story and tug the viewer away. This destroys the suspense and the big reveal is not even a weak anti-climax.

Huge plot holes develop as the writers lose track of what wrote previously. This throws you out, and before you can get lured back into the fantasy they commit another egregious error. The specifics would give away the entire movie, so are omitted, but clearly no one with even a high school physics course, the most rudimentary understandings of sociology, psychology or really any branch of physics, especially biology, all are not even given cartoon like salutes. The story just steamrolls through blunder after blunder.

Now for the really ugly. The political bias just leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. It's scary that even a child could buy into a plot idea so naive, much less destroy what otherwise could have been an excellent film. I strongly suspect the first half of this movie was stolen from another story. It starts too well, flows too well to be hacked by such oafish hands in the last half of the movie. There were a million ways this movie could have developed, but the least plausible and most predictable was chosen.

By yanking the viewer out so violently the one really inspired plot twist is aborted and thrown to the floor to thrash in artistic agony.

In the end it becomes a really pale imitation of 13 monkeys without the hard hitting story. that made 13 monkeys such an incredible movie. My advice, watch the first hour then turn the movie off. Be left with the magic they were able to conjure without the corpse they eventually produce.