गड्ढा

I am concerned that today's CGI-fed adrenaline crowd is losing appreciation for good story-telling. I find it difficult to believe this film only has a 5.6 average rating as of this posting. Then there's the ever-present attitude-laden 1-star "worst movie ever" ratings, which are nonsense. Fair-notice: In this review I'm gonna de-bunk some of the criticisms. ; )

This is simply good science fiction, not from the standpoint of space battles or giant robots, but from the standpoint of five friends who go through a significant time in their lives.

The characters are diverse and well-acted. The directing is excellent, the script well-written (for the most part), music appropriate. No there aren't any giant space ships or Kaiju here. This is simply a heart warming story about friendship... and the movie has an appropriate ending.

The debunking: We have to remember this story is viewed through the eyes of young teenagers-- not adults-- and the majority of those teens have been raised in an enclosed, very limited environment. Their viewpoint won't be the same as ours. In addition it's a youth movie. It will appeal to many adults as it did to me... but it's still produced as youth entertainment. We shouldn't judge this from a demanding-adult perspective.

"IT'S NOT SCIENCE FICTION". Nonsense. It's about teenagers raised in a mining facility on the Moon, who take a Moon rover across the surface of the Moon, engage in activities that could only occur on the Moon (and would not work on Earth), and face dangers found only on the Moon. That is science fiction. Yes, it is a road-trip coming-of-age film as well, but it is still science fiction. Almost the entire film is set on the MOON, under Moon-specific conditions.

GRAVITY: Many science fiction movies and shows-- whether they mention it or not-- employ the concept of artificial gravity. It was introduced in 1966 with Star Trek (if not earlier) and has continued ever since. So yes... when someone is indoors or in a vehicle, the gravity is different than it is on the surface of the moon. The characters don't need to look at each another and blatantly point out, "Wow, isn't this artificial gravity great?". It's kind of a given. Artificial gravity has become a standard trope of scifi films. So if we see characters exhibiting normal gravity conditions, we just take it for granted artificial gravity is being employed.

"MAGICAL CURE": One user complained about one of the kids with a heart condition "magically cured" when he was in the Rover. No... he was very visibly given his medicine, specifically intended for just that purpose. They did emphasize that same medicine several times during the movie.

"NOT SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE": That is why they call this science fiction... a concept which often stretches and bends science to fit the story. For the purposes of this movie the science was accurate enough. If you're one of those people that absolutely demands 100% scientific accuracy, you might stick to documentaries and avoid science fiction entirely. But a caution: even documentaries probably won't meet your demand of scientific perfection. Science is kind of an ongoing study.

AIRLOCKS: Space vehicles and buildings do not always require airlocks. The Rover was a prime example. Instead of an airlock, the vehicle stores all the internal oxygen in tanks until a vacuum is created, then opens the rear hatch. Once the passengers return, are inside and the hatch closed, the oxygen restoration system is triggered. Same holds true with building entry-ways. Systems of the future aren't all 2001 A Space Odyssey. Even today underwater habitats are entered through an open hole in the floor, and water is kept out by the internal air pressure of the habitat. There's more than one way to enter and exit differing atmospheres and environments than using complex airlock systems.

Etc. Etc.

I give this movie only 7 stars for good reasons: The concept of the kids stealing a rover during a dangerous meteor shower warning, overriding station security during said shutdown, and the destructive display later in the movie (no spoilers)... as if that's all okay. Poor lessons to teach younger viewers. I'm sure they get a kick out of it entertainment-wise, but it would be nice if Disney could figure out less-criminal methods to accomplish their morality plays.

Given the environment those kids were in, they quite likely could have all died and endangered others in the process. Kids do crazy things and do get in trouble, but they also often wind up in confinement afterward for such criminal acts. Teach better lessons, Disney.

Wait, what am I saying? It's Disney; they've been teaching kids bad lessons for years. ; )

It still would be nice to NOT glorify open criminal defiance of essential security measures and willful (and shameful) destruction of property. So only 7 stars.

Despite these drawbacks, the movie was a fun watch, and the overall story well done. I found it entertaining, and the interaction between the characters very-well formed.

I mean i understand that it is not a great movie, but it isn't that bad that it gets only a 5.3 rating. This movie is about a band of friends filled with emotions, have dreams, cares for each other. They really show their bonding all over the movie. And that is what all matters.

The fun little adventure they had, the sudden fear of danger, trying to get out of that danger, all things were written so well. I know it might feel like generic sci-fi movie and it is 100% scientifically accurate. But keep in mind that it wasn't meant for adult viewers. It's a movie for the young ones. Who have dreams and want to have a quality time while watching it.

To anyone reading any bad reviews or wanted to skip this movie because it has a bad rating, don't listen to anyone. Give it a shot. It's worth it.

I was wondering if there is no friends of the people who were involved in this production. Why is it with a low evaluation. Its 4,7 when I write this.

It its a Disney production with a beautifull coming of age story. There are the elements of drama and comedy and a family like story, that can atract a public of young age and adults.

Some picky adults will complain about some sciency inacuracy in some sequences. But it serves the script.

I am not an English native, so, pardon my mispells or another errors. I could use some translation tools, but I chose not to.

Those were a light almost 90 minutes of leisure.

It's not a bad movie for the whole family, but i think my wife and I enjoyed it more then our ten and twelve year olds as they both were not glued to the tv and both lost interst at different times. I think adults would like a bit more backstory and kids would like it to be a little more fast paced. As a previous reviewer has said, stand by me and goonies on the moon is a pretty good comparison.. but is nice to see disney getting back to the basics..

After the death of his father, a boy growing up on a lunar mining colony takes a trip to explore a legendary crater, along with his four best friends, prior to being permanently relocated to another planet.

This film offers a charming, albeit familiar, adventure that's easy to enjoy but hard to love deeply. The story follows a group of kids on a lunar journey, and while it hits the right notes of friendship and discovery, it doesn't push the boundaries of the genre. The visuals are decent, and the lunar landscapes create a sense of wonder, but the plot doesn't break new ground-it's the kind of story you've seen before. The characters are likable, though some lack the depth that would make their journey truly resonate. There's heart here, and the film's intentions are good, but it never quite reaches the emotional highs it aims for. Crater is a pleasant watch, especially for a younger audience, but it's not a film that will stay with you long after the credits roll.