In the Shadow of the Moon

So people are rating this low because it is alleged that it has a political message of 'wipe out an opposite view'? have they been hiding under a rock since cinema began? Most films before I was even born have been about one enemy wiping out another, morality has not been the premise of most films through cinematic history . This is simply an action film not based on real life, its obviously not a true story , the heart of it is simply the idea that if you were to, for instance, wipe out Hitler or his parents you potentially save millions of people from all different backgrounds. so do you wipe out the few or let the millions die? I suppose these films serve a good purpose in opening up the debate so I'll give it a 7 . Watch the film, enjoy it, its a good story , somewhat predictable at times but a good twist in the end.

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.

The talanted horror/thriller director Jim Mickle (Cold in July; Stake Land) teams up with the rising star Boyd Holbrook & brings to Netflix his newest piece - the exciting and entertaining mystery detective/killer flick "In the Shadow of the Moon".

"In the Shadow of the Moon" starts like any other police thriller, introducing us to a duo of likeable cops, a damp city full of crime & a mystery in the making. Through equal amounts of engaging drama, energetic action and time skipping we steadily move forward to the solution of the mystery, accompanied by the obsessive detective Lockhart who's got some heavy burdens on his shoulders. Boyd Holbrook, whom I first saw on "Narcos" (as I'm sure many people did as well) gives a great lead performance as detective Lockhart & the supporting cast helps him out well, especially Bokeem Woodbine & Cleopatra Coleman. The revelation of the sci-fi twist & the point of the mystery comes a tad bit too slowly & doesn't quite have the impact one would wish for, but, nevertheless, while "In the Shadow of the Moon" left me wanting more, at the same time the ending felt right. The themes of horrors and wonders of humanity & family values are served well. We cannot forget that the movie also looks gorgeous, has a decent original score, well made action sequences & even features a few bloody scenes for the horror fans. In summary, "In the Shadow of the Moon" kinda looks like, feels like and plays out like a big-screen movie.

I think this movie could've been a little less convoluted, with a different, less straight forward mystery building structure, but the result is still engaging, handsome and thoughtful thriller piece. My rating: 7/10.

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.

1988. A police officer investigates a series of murders. The only thing connecting the victims appears to be the murder method. The police manage to piece together an image of the murderer from one of their would-be victims. Now the hunt is on.

Was drawn to this by the trailer, as the movie looked like a good murder-mystery. Unfortunately, it turns out this is much more a sci fi thriller than a murder drama, and I'm generally far more into the latter than the former.

This said, the movie still had potential, but this potential was wasted. It becomes quite dull and derivative. Throw in some twists for twists sake, plot developments that don't make much sense or are just there for empty sentimentality's sake, an irritating, unconvincing performance from Michael C Hall (of Dexter fame) and a tame conclusion and it is all quite unsatisfying.