A Cratera

'Crater' works, I enjoyed it.

It's nothing out of this world (...), though what Kyle Patrick Alvarez & Co. Managed to create here does the job, in my eyes anyway. A decent plot is held together well by good acting, solid music and serviceable effects. There are naturally some issues, most notably the arguments between the characters are a bit forced/overly dramatic. Still, it comes together nicely and I found the ending to be rather sweet.

A shame that Disney quickly removed this from their Plus streaming service, seemingly through no fault of the film itself - it merits way more eyes on it.

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.

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.

'Stand By Me' and 'The Goonies' meet on the Moon.

Directed by Kyle Patrick Alvarez, the director of the 2015 movie The Stanford Prison Experiment, this Disney Plus movie is a pleasant spectacle that you can watch with the whole family.

The fact that it takes place on the Moon does not make this movie a Science Fiction movie, so the criticisms made here are very absurd.

A true Coming Of Age/Road movie.

Leading musician/actor Billy Barratt, who has previously met with the audience in 2019's A Christmas Carol and 2019's Responsible Child, has done a good job.

He had already won an Emmy from Haluk Bilginer before.

I have to admit that I was actually harboring some expectations to this 2023 Disney family sci-fi adventure titled "Crater" from writer John Griffin and director Kyle Patrick Alvarez. Sure, I had never heard about the movie prior to sitting down to watch it, but with it being a Disney movie, then I figured chances were good of it being an enjoyable movie.

Talk about a swing and a miss. I managed to endure close to an hour of the 105 minute runtime that "Crater" ran for, and then I gave up out of sheer and utter boredom. The storyline in "Crater", as written by John Griffin, had the appeal of wet cardboard. It was so difficult to get submerged into the storyline and finding anything to enjoy. And it didn't help one bit that the characters in the movie were every bit as bland and irrelevant as the storyline itself. In fact, my 13 year old son, whom I sat down to watch "Crater" with, he gave up on the movie not even 20 minutes into the ordeal.

I wasn't familiar with the cast ensemble in the movie, but it was a shame that the actors and actresses were literally given nothing worthwhile to work with and to bring to the screen. I am sure that there were some good talents among the cast ensemble, they just didn't get to shine on the screen at the hands of director Kyle Patrick Alvarez.

Visually then "Crater" was good. It being a Disney movie does have its perks, and a proper budget for proper effects is one of those things. And it shows, because the CGI effects and special effects in "Crater" were good, realistic and added something good to the movie. Ultimately, the special effects could only do so much to alleviate for the movie's shortcomings in every other department.

"Crater" came and went without leaving as much as a ripple. And believe you me, when I say that I have zero interest in returning to the movie and attempt finish watching it. I just simply cared nothing about the flaccid and nearly non-existing storyline, nor of the one-dimensional character gallery.

This was a big disappointment of a movie, I have to say that much.

My rating of "Crater" lands on a very generous three out of ten stars.